The present change is more one of emphasis than radical change. Earlier policies relied more on coercive regulation to conserve the environment rather than the current policy, termed "cooperative conservation," where they rely more on willing cooperation among the various stakeholders.

The more virulent of the environmentalists have excoriated the new emphasis as being everything from a "conservation con game" to a "campaign ploy" to dismissing it: "just another name for voluntary partnership — it's not enough."

Which raises the question: If voluntary is not enough, will only coercion do?

Having just read Thomas Sowell's recent and fascinating article "Them or Us," I felt that some of this criticism had a familiar ring to it. Sowell says that "true believers don't think in terms of trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis." It is not about "which policy would produce what results. It was about personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls."

For example, no one ever suggested that Ronald Reagan get a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing the Soviet Union to its economic knees — even though that ended the Cold War. To be lauded by the peace lobby requires that one show a dovish approach to the subject — regardless of results.

Scarlett says results are what counts — getting the best environmental bang for the available government buck. If ranchers discover endangered plant species on their properties, it should be in their best financial interests to conserve them, rather than plough them under, in order to retain full rights over their land.

One of the ways of dealing with such situations is the development of Safe Harbor Agreements. The Environmental Defense organization says, "The basic idea ... is that people who do good deeds shouldn't be punished for doing them. And so, in a Safe Harbor agreement, a landowner commits to doing a "good deed" for endangered wildlife — usually by restoring or enhancing habitats for endangered species — and the government pledges not to "punish" the landowner for doing that good deed."

Scarlett points out that voluntary private efforts, alone or in conjunction with federal and state assistance, have been largely overlooked. For example, in the year 2000, non-regulatory efforts preserved nearly 2 million acres of wetlands.

For those with the mindset that the only way to deal with private individuals and companies is through coercive legislation and regulation, this change of emphasis is going to be unsatisfactory. It would seem they would prefer to do battle with what they see as the "enemy" rather than seek reasonable or even preferable solutions.

However, the only satisfactory and sustainable resolution to any dispute is when it is win-win rather than win-lose. The win-lose resolution invariably results in an outcome that leaves bitterness with the loser and a desire for revenge. Thus, often win-lose turns into lose-lose.

The win-win aspect of "cooperative conservation" may well turn out to be one of those extremely rare government policies that not only works, but has nearly all the participants satisfied with it.

Cliff Slater is a regular columnist whose footnoted columns are available at: www.cliffslater.com.