Why do these discussions never include the admission by stock people that, "yes, stock causes a disproportionate and perhaps unacceptable level of impact relative to the number of people they bring into the wilderness. Here's how we all can work to reduce that impact."
George
In my opinion, this is a political issue.
By not putting it to rest, it can be brought up in each discussion, and used to waste people's time and effort, make the entire official process more expensive to conduct, and generally help to wear people down until their attention moves to other things.
Effectively, it is a tool by which inaction is facilitated.
For example, in a totally different context, one could argue that the Park service cannot issue a legal order, because it is operating under the orders of a President that is not eligible for office, because he is not a citizen.
That sort of thing serves as a distraction from the topic, and is somewhat effective in derailing discussions that are to the point (after the eye-rolling is done)
