First, the sheriff cited outside agitators as his concern while locals were straight out asked if they would participated, laughed and said no. This tells me the local people that will be effected are concerned but also reasonable and sane. Second, the only threats to the area mentioned did not include grazing. This could be a really good thing because it appears to be the main concern for the local people.

If the grazing isn't a threat to area, it wasn't cited as one in the article, it seems to me that we can find a way not to negatively impact the ranchers who have been using this land for an unknown amount of time. I know that grazing can be beneficial to an area also if managed properly and that may be the case here, too. Ranchers and farmers have a large self interest in good land stewardship and most take it seriously.

My main point really is our government has an opportunity to show that it works for the people in an even handed and open way. By finding a way to both preserve the land and allow grazing access as close to what is currently being enjoyed would go a long way to defusing the whole situation. At the very least, we need both sides to feel like it was a fair process.

From what little farming and outdoorsy type living I've experienced in my life, I feel pretty certain that with an honest and good faith effort, we can find a solution that's a win/win. These ranchers can be willing participants in caring for this land while being allowed to graze in a responsible manner.

Again, thank you for the article.