Fishsqueezer

I think the big problem here is one of perception. Two people can see the same thing yet interpret differently based on their personal backgrounds and feelings. If you have two people watch someone catch and release a fish, one may see a fish instinctively strike a bait, then as it senses the pull of the line it resists the pull and tries to get away. It continues to try to get away while the hook is removed, then successfully swims away as the angler releases the fish. The other may see a hungry fish trying to feed itself that is cruelly impaled on a hook. The fish then tries to flee in fear and pain as it is cruelly drug out of the water to temporarily suffocate only to be released to experience the pain and fear again. Both are the same event and both are valid for the particular viewer so what makes them different? The difference comes from the viewers knowledge and perspective. Those that see the fish in pain are placing their own responses and reactions to the event. If it was me, thats how I would feel is the typical explanation. The purely biological explanation is a stimulus and response analysis. The fish has no cognitive function to think, plan, or know fear or pain. It feels a negative stimulus and responds according to instinct to that stimulus. It doesnt think whew, I got away when it is released. It will swim to a secure area where it can recover from the struggle. Most people are somewhere in between, probably a bit more on the side of the science. The problem with PETA is that they are using feelings and faulty logic to dictate to others. Their logic is as follows: I am alive and animals are alive; I communicate and animals communicate; I respond to stimulus and animals respond to stimulus; therefore animals and I are equal. If animals and humans are equal, each should be protected the same. In their argument, since animals are alive, communicate, and respond to stimulus they should not be killed or used. Their answer to this is veganism or not eating any type of meat or dairy products. The problem comes in on where to draw the line. Are animals the only things that are alive no, there are plants but what do we do about viruses? Are they alive? Are antibiotics and antiviral medications OK? Are animals the only things that communicate well no. There is a growing body of evidence that plants also communicate. As one tree is attacked by bugs it releases a chemical that results in other area plants releasing chemicals to resist attacks on them. Sounds like communication to me. Message sent message received reaction to message. So are animals the only things to respond to stimulus again we would have to say no. As with the previous example, trees are responding to the chemical stimulus. But plants can go beyond that and respond very quickly. There is some research that indicates a tree will temporarily halt transpiration if you beat it with a bat. That sounds like response to stimulus to me. Beyond that, what about the microorganisms related to plant roots? It is a symbiotic relationship. Kill the plant = kill the symbiont. Is that kind of killing OK? So to fill out their logic: I am alive and animals and plants are alive; I communicate and animals and plants communicate; I respond to stimulus and animals and plants respond to stimulus; therefore animals, plants and I are equal. Nothing should be killed lets all die. They can go first:-) If animals have equal rights, then they should have equal protection from seizure of property. No more logging, farming, building or damming. We must pay restitution by returning all the land to its original state. No more plastics or metals because we have to take their property to mine and drill. We also kill animals by driving, paving, walking, and bathing. No more chemicals that might limit their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is this really the conclusion or do we just go until PETA feels comfortable? What gives their viewpoint any more credibility than anyone elses? What gives them the right to decide the limits moral or intellectual superiority? Not so you would notice based on their actions! For a logical and biological explanation about whether fish feel pain you might check out. http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm While there has been some recent work in the UK about fish feeling pain, I think there is more info that contradicts that conclusion. If you would like to review the Royal school of Vet studies in the UK analysis based on info from both sides you can check out: http://www.vet.ed.ac.uk/animalwelfare/Fish%20pain/Pain.htm If you want to see how your lifestyle impacts the world, you might check out this site. http://www.earthday.org/footprint/

Nothing says we can't teach alchemy in chemistry class either, but why would we want to waste their time. The US already lags way behind in math and science compared to other countries. I guess once we are at the bottom we don't have to worry about going down any more.

Rooster7 Posted: Tuesday, 12/20/2005: 9:03:27 PM Intelligent design does not directly support a specific religion. It simply purports that there was/is a designer. There is empirical evidence to support this claim. I guess I passed this one over. OK, where is the empirical evidence? You have asked others to provide proof of their stance, now it is your turn. After all this discussion I would think you would have pulled it out. Empirical evidence of a designer would answer all questions. Kittle Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 9:06:46 AM Evolution is a theory, not proven fact, but it is taught as fact. Let's just stick to teaching what can be proven in our classrooms. Evolution is a fact proven by thousands of scientifically reviewed studies over a hundred years. Show me the empirical studies by ID that has actual data supporting ID. Until you can do that you will have to accept evolution. It is not a he said she said. It has been he said she said no it isnt so there. Rooster7 Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 10:53:36 AM It's a convenient out every time someone punches a hole in the theory of evolution. Ironically, few secular scientists would afford Christians that out in regard to the theory of creationism. In short, there is plenty of evidence of ID - the existence of God (a.k.a. a superior being) as an intelligent designer - if one is merely willing to open his eyes. Again, where is this evidence? Youve said it twice now but presented nothing. Facts man. That is what will prove your point. Evmori Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 12:53:37 PM So teaching evolution as fact without also teaching all the possible theory gives a one sided and inaccurate view of evolution. You are now supporting that all possible theories of creation and change should be taught or just your other theory? Rooster7 Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 2:22:02 PM Ironically, many of the same folks who attack people of faith for not being more open minded, defend the conclusions made by secular scientists as if the possibly of misinterpretation of the data is inconceivable. I have seen nothing in these posts that attack you for not having an open mind. What I see are many reasoned scientific arguments backed by research that call to question your information. You then present nothing as a rebuttal except to accuse us of having closed minds. Again, data my friend. Where is the data you speak of? Rooster7 Posted: Wednesday, 12/21/2005: 9:31:38 PM As I mentioned earlier, empirical data exists which suggests there is an intelligent design to our world and its inhabitants. No matter what the numbers are, pro and con, I've always thought that scientists were supposed to be open to all theories that could not be disproved. Could someone show me the evidence that disproves the possibility of ID? Pages of discussion have shown that ID is not science and is not the most logical explanation for the evidence of evolution. You state again that empirical data exists but present none. You call on us to present data but will not do the same yourself? Again, data my friend. Where is the data you speak of? Until you present some you have made no convincing argument. Rooster7 also posted on that day If the scientific community is truly interested in finding truth, then it should use the same approach to ID as it does with evolution. Assume that it may be valid until evidence can be produced that says otherwise. Actually, the argument should be that until ID provides some physical actual data that proves their point it is not science and not even a scientific theory. Science does not assume something to be true until proven false. The evidence has to prove it true until new evidence proves it false. Show me your evidence. Your arguments stating that because scientific conclusions change with new evidence means that all science is wrong is a false argument. No theory is written in stone (oops I didnt mean to gig you with that one I guess yours is). Rooster7 Posted: Tuesday, 12/27/2005: 10:20:21 AM Many have chosen to close their minds to the possibility that proof of ID exists, and consequently they will never find such proof achieving a self fulfilling prophecy which is entirely contrary to the goals of science. Show me the proof!! Third time youve said this yet still no proof. Rooster7 Posted: Wednesday, 12/28/2005: 3:14:47 PM I agree that we should not attempt to put God in a box. However, I think those who embrace evolution tend to do so because they have done exactly that. They cannot comprehend a God so omnipotent that He could create the Heavens and the Earth in seven days. Yet, they can easily imagine a fish crawling out of a pond and growing legs. Go figure. Your argument is absurd. You make a ridiculous straw man of a fish sprouting legs that no evolutionist would ever make then shoot it down. Show me the evolution article that says a fish sprouted legs and began walking around. If you are going to debate you need to present more than imaginary arguments. Rooster7 Posted: Thursday, 12/29/2005: 5:49:39 PM I can understand how certain characteristics have become dominant via survival of the fittest, but I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for evolution (i.e. organisms adapting to new environments and changing their physical appearance over time, through future generations). How do new permutations of a species develop? What innate mechanism recognizes the need to change? And how does it transpire and initiate the change? Your argument again demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution. There is no innate mechanism that recognizes a need to change. That idea went out 100 years ago with Lamarck. Again, the individual does not change it is born with a genetic difference that may or may not provide an advantage. If it provides an advantage then the individual can pass that gene on to offspring who again may survive better. Here are some sources of information that will show you how a new species can develop if you dare to take the time to educate yourself. http://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/ http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622882/description http://hbes.com/HBES/journal2.htm Rooster7 Posted: Thursday, 12/29/2005: 5:49:39 PM Arent you being just a little hypocritical? If the Big Bang can be taught as science without recognizing a cause, why not ID? Because the big bang is based on sound scientific theories and ID is not. Rooster7 Posted: Thursday, 12/29/2005: 5:49:39 PM I do doubt that you will be able to demonstrate that it was a widely held viewpoint by those in the general public and in particular in most churches. And this manure about how I will never bend to any view other than mine is a poor substitute for reason. I could just as easily throw the same stuff on top of your posts (or should I say composts). How about mainstream science, magazines (plural), newspapers (plural), church publications (plural), universities (even church universities again plural). As I suspected, you will never see proof as long as you deny the credibility of history. You argue that I have shown nothing, yet I have produced pages of evidence and lists of books and journals. What have you provided? Personal attacks? That is the first sign of a lost argument. Scoutndad you may want to elucidate on the stem cell scandal that shook the scientific community.

Sorry Rooster, I guess you didn't notice the bold blue text in the paragraph under 1865 that said: "Some prominent scientists continue to reject the idea of evolution, but only a few years after On the Origin of Species is published, evolution is mainstream science. Magazines and newspapers -- even religious publications -- promote evolution. On exam papers at church-run Cambridge University, students are told to assume "the truth ... that the existing species of plants and animals have been derived by generation from others widely different." This is not one persons opinion and the indication is that the opinion is widely held. It is the text written by the fact checkers and writers for the series based on factual history. As I suspected, if it doesn't agree with your view of the world, then it is just opinion or biased. Are you now going to say that the writers for the series are all biased even though they clearly present both sides of the issue? Would you question the Creation Science Institute publications so doggedly? Methinks not.

Here you go Rooster http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1860.html c. 1865: Evolution Accepted (Rise of Evolution) (Reconciliation) Evolution accepted. Some prominent scientists continue to reject the idea of evolution, but only a few years after On the Origin of Species is published, evolution is mainstream science. Magazines and newspapers -- even religious publications -- promote evolution. On exam papers at church-run Cambridge University, students are told to assume "the truth ... that the existing species of plants and animals have been derived by generation from others widely different." Still, Darwin's theory for how evolution happens (via the process he calls "natural selection") continues to be doubted. c. 1876: Warfare (Evolution Challenged) Warfare between science and Christianity? Andrew Dickson White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom is a popular but slanted account. It is published in an era when there is little hostility between scientists and theologians, and it overemphasizes conflicts of the past. White, the first president of Cornell University, is a passionate advocate of teaching science without reference to religion, and he stresses points of controversy rather than reconciliation. His work, first published as a slim pamphlet and later as an expanded book, may fuel strife between evolutionists and fundamentalist Christians in the early 20th century. Project Spokespersons Science Spokespeople Dr. Kenneth Miller (evolutionary biologist) Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist and evolutionary biologist) Religious Spokespeople Reverend Canon Dr. Arthur Peacocke (physical biochemist and Anglican priest) Reverend Dr. Arnold Thomas (minister) From another page on the same web site entitled Science and Faith http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html For many people of various faiths, support for the scientific theory of evolution has not supplanted their religious belief. And throughout the modern Judeo-Christian tradition, leaders have asserted that evolutionary science offers a valid perspective on the natural world. They say that evolution is consistent with religious doctrine and complements, rather than conflicts with, religion. There are, however, some Christians -- in particular, fundamentalists and some evangelicals -- who perceive a conflict between evolution and their literal interpretation of the Bible. In this panel, we hear personal perspectives from scientists and a historian of science -- religious people who represent a range of faiths.

Again there is a lack of understanding of evolution. Man did not evolve FROM apes. Man and apes share a COMMON ANCESTOR. How many times have we heard from creationists that scientists just won't look into the possibility of creation? I daresay that more scientists are open to the idea of God than creationists open to the idea of evolution. How many of you have read evolution articles or books from scientists recognized as experts on evolution? I've read the bible many times. I've read ID and creation science articles. I've discussed creation many times with people in my church and other churches. How much effort have you put into understanding evolution?

Rooster Here are some sites you might peruse. I suppose the key word in your request is "trustworthy" since it is not likely you will trust anything that disagrees. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/index.html http://home.earthlink.net/~jjkeggi/SOSc/ (Society of Ordained Scientists) http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/bowler.htm http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Darwin/DarwinSem-S95.html http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm You might also read Evolution: The History of an Idea by Peter Bowler and Darwin in America: The Intillectual Response 1865-1912 by Cynthia Russett.

ScoutnDad Your quote "I guess my ultimate question would be how do Scoutmasters/adult leaders in BSA that do not believe in God/a Divine entity, provide a well rounded perspective for leadership to the boys within their Troops?" I believe you are approaching this issue with a false dichotomy - either you believe in God or you believe in evolution. There are a lot of people in this world that are much more comfortable with black and white, either/or choices. It makes the world much simpler. Believing in evolution does not automatically negate belief in God. In fact, most major denominations have accepted evolution as an indisputable fact including 2 popes. Evolution, while greatly argued right after Origin of Species, was accepted as mainstream by science, the public, and most religious publications by around 1865. Even strongly Christian scholars like Asa Gray emphasized that evolution was very important to the science of biology. It was not until around 1920 that evolution was strongly portrayed as an enemy of religion. This is not an either/or - but I guess the church is full of either/or things - dunked or sprinkled, baptise children or not, King James or NIV, musical instruments or not, the book of mormon or not, dancing, cards, alcohol, etc or not. That is why we have so many denominations. You are right from your perspective, but your perspective is not the world. I believe God gave us our minds to probe, to think, and to seek. He gave us logic to use and faith to maintain direction. I do not limit how God created.

Rooster7 I am not sure that you can say that science totally disregards ID out of hand with nary a look to see if it is possible. Remember that ID or creationism was THE explanation for everything for hundreds of years prior to Darwin. Even Darwin was a creationist. It took him years after his voyage to finally convince himself that the data was overwhelming and he only published then after he heard another guy (I don't remember his name but he did butterflies in Asia) was going to publish the same idea. Two guys on opposite sides of the world came to the same conclusion looking at totally different data sets. Evolution was debated with creationism for many years in science and evolution was clearly the most robust explanation. Has ID come up with any new data since Darwin? I have read ID literature and everything they present is an attempt to debunk evolution instead of presenting their case with research. Even the more reasonable ID proponents admit there is no robust proof of their case. A quote from an ID web page: In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone. For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test. However, this will not always be the case. The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. If they ever come up with their statistical model, then people will be more willing to listen. Until that time evolution is still the most robust explanation of the biotic community

From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Theory: The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another; the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art; a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Other theories that are taught as fact Wave Theory Gravitational Theory Quantum Theory Electromagnetic Theory Theory of Relativity Acoustic Theory Antenna Theory Cell Theory Continental Drift is a theory as is plate tectonics In science something is only considered a theory AFTER is has developed a firm empirical basis.

Your own quote Rooster7 "Just because one cannot explain the existence of something using their limited knowledge that does not mean a valid explanation does not existence. Until all truth is revealed, no one is qualified to say what is consistent with the true laws of nature or physics and what is not - especially given Fishsqueezer's list of rules pertaining to legitimate scientific theories, most notably rule #6. The bottom line is, while science deserves credit for seeking truth, all of science is still just a house of cards. " Yet ID says that God created it if we can't explain it. Let me guess where you get your "real truth" that is "revealed." Science says how do we prove something did, can or will happen. ID says this happened so what can we find to prove it. Science says a valid explanation exists - then it presents its explanation - then it challenges others to disprove the explanation. If it can be disproved the explanation is scrapped. If it cannot be disproved (at this time) then it is accepted as a valid explanation until further information can challenge it. That is science in action.

Rooster7 You seem to think that #6 is a weakness of science. Have you had a science class since high school? #6 is the very strength of science. Science is seeking a provable explanation of some question. To question itself is proof that the field is dynamic. Remember your history - the world was flat, the planets revolved around the earth, all things were made up of the 4 elements (earth, fire, water, and air). Any scientist would tell you that mere fact that we can question and that it is dynamic is its strength. What can you question with ID? To question the conclusion is to question God - therefore it is not allowed. What hypotheses and theories have ID proponents presented? Show me an experiment to test how God created something - anything! Science is approaching things with an open mind. You allude that I am in a fish tank and need to come out - I at least have a view of the world. You, on the other hand, appear to be in a brick box of your own design and can see nothing but what is in your mind.

Are Christian views really attacked or do those that hold those views feel defensive when their mistakes are pointed out? I am a Christian yet I do not see that evolution directly conflicts with my belief. Most major denominations also do not have a problem with evolution. The problem comes when people try to force ID or creation science into the definition of science. Scientific theories or hypotheses, by definition, are falsifiable. That means that you cannot prove them correct, you can only prove them false. If every bison you have ever seen is brown does that prove that all bison are brown? No - it only proves that is what you have observed. What about blonde or albino bison? Until you see an albino bison your theory of brown bison stands to explain bison color. Once you see an albino you must change your theory to explain the new information. The original theory wasn't "wrong" since it explained bison color correctly more than 99% of the time, it just means it needs adjusting to account for new information. ID does not have falsifiable theories. Everything ID has presented are attempts to show evolutionary theory wrong instead of trying to prove or present their own theories. You need to remember that a scientific theory is not a guess or fuzzy estimation. It is a logical and testable explanation for things that are observed. A scientific theory consists of the following - it is: 1.Consistent (internally and externally) 2.Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) 3.Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena) 4.Empirically Testable & Falsifiable 5.Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments 6.Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered) 7.Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) 8.Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) If you object to evolutionary theory because it is just a theory then I guess we will also have to quit teaching gravitational theory and quantum theory too. Nobody has proven gravity yet nor can they even explain how it works yet. Sorry Newton, even though we've worked on it for hundreds of years we can't present your information in school until the students are old enough to decide whether they believe in gravity for themselves. Don't put a box around God through the limitations of the human mind.

As a practicing fisheries biologist and a trained wildlife biologist I have read this thread with great interest. From what I read, those that do not hunt cannot understand why someone would want to kill an animal while those that do hunt(me included) find it very difficult to explain why it is such an important part of the experience. I will try to explain some of my thoughts. I have noted a lot of discussion about "modern weapons" and how they take the fair chase out of the hunt. The assumption is that with these new weapons the animals don't have a chance. If you review success rates for most species that are hunted (at least for those in the mountain states) you will see success rates of about 20%. Essentially an elk hunter will get an animal, on average, in one of every 5 years. If this was just for the kill then hunting livestock would be a much more practical act. The mere act of owning a modern firearm does not make one a successful hunter any more than owning a computer makes me a programmer. It is a skill that must be learned and developed and even then there are factors that can challenge you in the field - temperature changes, elevation changes, wind, branches, movement, fatigue, etc. There is no magic bullet you can fire into the woods that will hit your deer every time (though I am sure there are those who would buy it if it was ever invented). There is also the fact that states do hire professionals to ensure that only a safe proportion of the population is allowed to be taken. As was mentioned earlier, every habitat has a carrying capacity. The allowable harvest is designed to keep the population near that capacity. As an analogy the harvestable population is like the interest on a trust fund. You can spend the interest without damaging the fund, but unlike a trust fund where kept interest makes things better, kept animals does not. I don't remember who said it, but somebody mentioned just letting nature take its course and let the animals starve - that is natures way. You are right that nature is a cruel master and will use death to its fullest, but what cost are you willing to pay to allow nature to take its course? In prehuman days (or at least when the population was insignificant) nature operated in a intricate balance of population swings often referred to as an arms race between predators and prey. Neither population had the upper hand for long so there were very few dramatic population swings. If we are honest with ourselves we can no longer say that nature functions as it did before man. Like it or not, we have impacted the environment and there is no going back. We have what we have and we will have to do the best we can to keep from losing more. If we allow deer to overpopulate and starve we would lose the deer, but what else would we lose? We would permanently alter existing habitats through severe long-term, overgrazing. This would not just impact the deer. Our environment also includes many non-game animals, songbirds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, flowers, shrubs, trees, etc. All would be impacted in a long negative cascade. Even the physical environment would change with altered erosion rates, water infiltration, changes in river and spring flows, fire regimes - all of which can impact far from the area where those starving animals are dying. I personally believe the loss of a few animals is small cost to pay when weighed against the risk of an entire ecosystem. If you doubt the potential impact you need only to delve into the scientific literature. If you have a profound knowledge of nature that has somehow been hidden from all those people that study nature for a living, I congratulate you and pray you will share your special knowledge with us. Science is based on fact. While you may personally disagree with the conclusions, I can promise that there has never been nor likely will ever be a biologist that wants to preside over the loss of a species or an environment. I have never had as a goal to have the worst fishing lakes in the state even though there are anglers that accuse me of such. As far as the kill itself, I believe that the kill is neccesary because hunting is a whole package that involves much more than just the squeeze of the trigger. Hunting is a year-round activity. Most hunters don't just wake up one day and say "I'm going hunting today." Most plan and think about hunting throughout the year with much more thought the closer the season is. Hunting involves preparation, comraderie and teamwork, outdoor skills, weapons skills, patience, understanding of anatomy to gut the animal, etc. Each is intricately related to the other. Without the kill, have you really hunted? Were your woods skills good enough? Did you plan well enough? Are you a good enough marksman? You do not know until you pull the trigger or release the arrow. You can shoot a picture and get the shot of the animal, but did you really succeed? You got a fantastic picture, maybe one that can never be replicated, but it is still just a facsimile. The hunter knows instantly whether he was successful. It is not with joy that you pull the trigger - it is a recognized part of the whole that defines the activity itself. It is difficult to explain to someone who has not been there. If you have read Platos analogy of the people in the cave you may understand the difficulty. The activity is one thing, but the desire comes from deeper within even though the need is no longer there. I believe hunting is based on an innate desire in many humans just as the well fed cat will still hunt songbirds in the yard. For the most part we are long separated from the need to hunt to obtain food, but we are not so far separated from that historic need. The human mind has taken him from the forest and helped him develop weapons and materials to improve his life. We are only hundreds of years removed from the forest while we have spent millenia with the need to obtain food. Even farming has been around only a small fraction of the time humans have been alive. The longer and farther humans are removed from nature, the weaker the innate need will be and hunting will gradually fade away or become some type of novelty for the rich. - that is unless we have some catastrophic change in the world that would suddenly make hunting a need again. Hopefully the latent genetic ability will still be there if that time ever comes. (I thought a doomsday ending would be a nice touch).

I will be conducting the Troop Leadership Training in January. I'm glad to hear it went well. This will be the first time my troop has done any training. I like the idea of a Powerpoint to help explain ideas. I plan on breaking the training into 3 1-hour sessions. Since our council hasn't conducted youth leader training for over 3 years, I've also developed a number of mini training courses from the NYLT curriculum. They are designed to last 30 minutes or less, have an activity, and emphasize specific leadership topics like leading a meeting, using a duty roster, problem solving, etc. I plan on conducting them about 40 minutes before the meeting starts and will be testing them out on my troop this spring. We'll see how it goes.

We do not require that they use Mr. or Mrs. but my ASMs and I do try to set the tone by referring to each other as Mr. ___ when talking about each other with the kids. We also address each scout as Mr. when addressing them or introducing them within the group. While we do have a few die-hard first namers in the scout ranks, most catch on pretty quick and begin using the Mr. tag.

Our troop owns a cargo trailer that is essentially a big empty box with wheels. We would like to modify it with racks to stack chuck boxes, tents, and other gear to make it more accessible and easier to organize. We are concerned about balance side-to-side and weight distribution front to back. Are there any plans available to modify a cargo trailer to these purposes? Would we be better off with the strength of steel or aluminum racks or the ease and adjustability of wood? I would appreciate any thoughts or experiences.

I am new to this board and relatively new as a Scoutmaster, so I guess I am a little impressionable. I have had a couple questions concerning the District Advancement folks that I am not sure how to address. 1) I had a discussion with one of the District Advancement people about recieving the rank of scout. He insisted that over his 30+ years of scouting that as soon as the boy joins he is at scout rank. I hold that as soon as he fills out his paperwork and pays dues he is a Boy Scout but he is not scout rank until he can recite the Law and Oath, etc and has a Scoutmaster Conference. 2) All the literature I find states that the Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmasters cannot serve on the Eagle BOR. The District guy says that isn't true and they have ASMs serving all the time. Do I need to be concerned with this conflicting info and way of doing things? Should I try to address it or just work around it and try to follow the book? I've discussed it with the District guy and all I get is "I've been doing scouting over 30 years and I know what I am doing." (Implied is "so shut up and do it my way" Scoutmaster for