I've spent a little time on the other side (farming, ranching, agencies), so I've got some inkling of the ilk of which the authors speak.
There are incurable yahoos out there who probably can't be reached, but asserting any sort of superiority won't get the job done, even with the most reasonable "stakeholders." If you're a researcher/scientist/academic, the wall seems impossibly high, but I firmly believe that it can. Somehow, we have to let them have their cake and eat it too, and I'm not above suggesting some kind of bribe, like subsidizing owners/lessors of "rangeland" to pull their cattle off the areas that are ecologically the most important and/or the most damaged such as the 50 or 500 acres per cow kind of "range." In some places, say the five cow (or so) per acre places, those who want to indulge in the cowboy fantasy could get their jollies. Finding the money is the big problem, but if they acted like the corn corps they could form a strong lobby and get paid for limiting their livestock in much the same way the former farmers get paid to not raise crops. Agency types should not have to fear for their jobs either.
I hope somebody can come up with a better idea than this (and of course this is the tip of the iceberg), but I feel the authors' pain and understand the "local knowledge" angle--I just don't have much faith in bs-ing the locals. They have acute bs detectors.