Last week's report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), Jan Wright, on the environmental impact of tenure review agreed with farmer views that the current policy of ownership and single use of land was not in the best interest of the land or environment.
Observers see this as an opportunity for a more trusting, practical relationship between farmers and conservationists, as well as less financial burden on taxpayers from owning and managing land.
Some have commented privately that it was a shift away from an era of conservationists setting the policy agenda, to farmers having a greater influence.
But, Dr Wright has sounded a warning that greater effort was needed to protect the environment, particularly water quality, and to ensure greater protection for low altitude land, landscapes and public access.
Tenure review has resulted in a land split with fence lines, in some cases creating a visible line between conservation and farmed land.
Farmers have long argued for a middle way, a call apparently heard and adopted by Dr Wright, who recommends the use of land covenants and other conservation mechanisms to land ownership.
The country gets conservation values protected, farmers retain access to restricted grazing and the Department of Conservation (Doc) gets someone who lives on the property and can keep an eye on sites under covenant.
Change was needed to the Crown pastoral Land Act to give greater flexibility.
The Act states that land of conservation value should "preferably" be vested with the Crown.
Removing that word, as Dr Wright suggested, would give greater flexibility.
Another reason farmers would feel vindicated was recognition that tenure review has provided mixed outcomes, that there have been benefits to rural communities, farmers and conservation.
Dr Wright also acknowledged another concern: the financial burden of the growing conservation estate.
She noted that while it was logical that Doc would take the opportunity of tenure review to increase protection for significant inherent values, it also meant acquiring land of little or no conservation value, and that there was a sameness with the land it was acquiring - in this case, high country tussock grassland.
Farmers have complained that Doc was not adequately managing weeds and pests, and Dr Wright appears to agree, calling for an increase in its budget to do so.
She also acknowledged that wilding trees spreading across the high country could beat everyone unless there were concerted efforts to address the issue.
Agriculture Minister David Carter said in response to the report that he supported questions being asked about the expanding conservation estate.
It was interesting that neither Lands Minister Richard Worth nor Conservation Minister Tim Groser responded to the the PCE report.
Reaction to a suggestion that a High Country Commission be created to provide advice and identify desired outcomes has been mixed.
High Country Accord chairman Jonathan Wallis has reserved his decision, but viewed it as another form of bureaucracy.
Other farming leaders have been more positive.
Mr Wallis believed a similar result could be achieved if Land Information New Zealand and the Commissioner of Crown Lands were directed by "rational and effective government policy to take account of the national interest when they negotiate with farmers".
Mr Wallis said the accord welcomed recognition that conservation and environment values could be protected under farmer management and that development was not always negative but could provide benefits and its effects could be mitigated.
Federated Farmers High Country chairman Donald Aubrey was pleased farmers were viewed as part of the solution and that Dr Wright had questioned the merits of the Crown creating 22 high country parks.
Mr Aubrey said the plan "reeked of an agenda".
"The simple fact is that the Government doesn't have to own the high country to control it."