The Bureau of Land Management last updated their livestock grazing regulations the year I graduated from high school. I am 49.

Assessing rangeland health can’t be done once and not revisited. This year is a prime example that managers must be able to make decisions not just year by year, but week by week. This summer, we have managed our pastures and our cattle more than ever before because the dry conditions have necessitated it. We’ve rotated pastures more frequently, but if it’s not raining, the grass won’t grow. Livestock grazers are vital players in conservation and management of public and private lands, and they need the flexibility to adjust to conditions. The health of the land is directly and inexplicably tied to the health and productivity of the people working on the land and the communities where they gather their mail.

The grazing regulations penned when I was still overusing the blue mascara and hairspray in my Caboodle case were written largely in response to the campaign to end grazing, the “cattle free by ‘93” movement. The campaign sought to end cattle grazing on public lands and the bumper stickers and signs were passed like baseball cards and friendship bracelets among activist types. The movement to remove cattle from the landscape, which I would argue is still alive and well, is the age-old environmentalist versus rancher fight. The stars aligned for the anti-grazing proponents when then-President Bill Clinton appointed Bruce Babbitt as the Secretary of the Interior and began his Rangeland Reform ’94. Babbitt announced his plan to double grazing fees for public lands ranchers in the name of reshaping land policy in the Western U.S. The increased fees were expected to generate almost $20 million for U.S. coffers, though it was tamped down by Senate Republicans. Babbitt also planned to shorten grazing seasons, decreased the use of pesticides on public lands and determined policies to guide the punishment of ranchers for violating the lease agreements.

The Clinton administration was marked by failures in their “reshaping” efforts, and when Republicans regained their majority in Congress in 1994, even environmentalists harshly criticized the administration for reversing their efforts. Johanna Wald, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called placing the range policies in the hands of a Republican-controlled Congress akin to perpetuating “subsidies for welfare cowboys.” Litigation and history both suggest in this fight, the no-compromise approach makes winners of none.

After what seemed like a stalemate, groups such as the Nature Conservancy purchased ranches and conservation easements to “save” the land from ranchers and many attempts were made to legalize the purchase of grazing rights to end grazing on the allotment. It isn’t unlike the sentiment of the rewilding proponents hoping to save the prairies of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. The “Cows not Condos” movement also came out of the cattle free by ’93 movement and though it, too, has flaws, I can’t help but appreciate hikers would likely rather see cattle grazing than an apartment building on public lands.

Today, the fight over public lands marches on, but the land and those who work upon it all benefit from updated grazing regulations. Over the past 35 years, the principles of grazing management have changed more than my bangs and managers shouldn’t be hamstrung by regulations when range conditions can change in a day.

The rescinding of the Public Lands Rule, too, is consequential. The Biden-era rule would have placed conservation on level with other multiple uses on public lands. Read: it would have allowed the well-funded, anti-ranching types to outbid ranchers for grazing rights, removed cattle, ended wildfire mitigation and bankrupted rural communities.

The Roadless Rule, also targeted for rescission, ensures access to public lands, something that is certainly necessary for management and access alike. Responsible timber production, which requires road access, stimulates local economies and serves as fire mitigation. The same is true of grazing. Colorado is one of two states that will be excluded as part of a 2012 agreement to carve out some backcountry areas that are particularly fragile. Dare I say it, this is an example of local-level management that makes sense in an arena where blanket management decisions seldom do. Just as in livestock grazing, some areas aren’t appropriate for some uses and taking a step back from the contention can allow focus on the importance of sensible stewardship.

Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication.