It is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is backed by the kind of force that will make the other side consider the penalties too heavy to break the agreement.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Unless both sides win, no agreement can be permanent.
It takes two sides to make a deal, two sides to negotiate and two sides to make it go bad.
I have long believed these types of collaborative agreements are a far better approach to federal land management than the contentious battles that too often sidetrack proper resource management.
Sanctions and negotiations can be very ineffective, and indeed foolish, unless the people you are talking with and negotiating with and trying to reach agreements with are people who can be trusted to keep their word.
Fair play doesn't pertain in bargaining. What matters there is leverage.
The stiffer the penalty, the greater the message is sent.
I think most conflicts do end with negotiated settlements; some don't, but most do.
Clearly there are always unintended consequences of any legislative or regulatory act that's taken in the heat of battle.
I don't think there's anything in the compromise that means that there's a clash of ethics.