No. For multiple reasons. I'm not going to delve real deep into them. I would hope that my answer would spur members, nonmembers thinking of joining, and the average Joe to look into the public land debate.
Public land owned by the people is under multiple use doctrine now. We are the voice of management on those lands. It is federally mandated to be that way. The only way to take that away is with a designation like a national monument, wilderness, etc.... It is written into these designations that they are statutory in law. And, only congress has that management power after designation. Totally erasing the federal laws that ensures we the people have multiple use management control through due process of publishing the plan for comments, arbitration, etc.... On public owned and controlled lands, no management plan can be sent to congress for approval while under arbitration. Under designation of any sort, that guaranteed right goes away with designation status. Because Congress has complete control at that point with no public input required. That is a FACT.
Being that designation of public land requires collaboration of many groups, I am suspect of a future of multiple use management when we the people no longer have guaranteed input of these lands post designation. There are examples of this going awry and, there are current examples of a designated area following predesignation management plans as promised. The problem arises that we the people no longer have an avenue to dispute Congress given management if it ever turns sour. And, as I said earlier, it has numerous times. People can promise and say what they want. But, the groups that BHA plays with on collaborations have pocket books much larger than any hunting organization. they are against hunting. And, in the future when the management plan comes before congress for approval, a lobbied representative is who is going to be deciding what we get. Not us.
My second reason is the organization seems to be slanted politically. When politics define right and wrong for people based on the letter behind a politicians name, I glaze over. Because it reeks of agenda instead of truthfulness. I don't know everyone in the group or, claim to say where the group truly stands. 'i just know I have exchanged many a conversation with some touting members that could not distinguish right or wrong nor, cared to, based on a person's political party. That isn't right. Because any one with half a brain knows these lands are being pursued by agenda's from both sides, have been exploited by both party's, and it will take setting personal politics aside to get it right.
I personally believe the BHA has good intent. I would probably support them if they backed away from collaborations to designate our land away from our control. Until then, no one can promise that the next representative charged with management control of designated land, won't be a PETA or, a Sierra Club lover. As is, we have control of pubically owned land. I'll take that any day over trusting a politician and a federal designation stripping our land from us. God Bless men
