johnponz

I agree you should report it. Keep a record of the report, and your part is done.

I agree that an occasional glass of wine, beer or even liquer is an adult's choice...however not at a Scouting event. It makes no sense to me how people cannot have a good time with their children without taking a drink. If a person does not realize that a Scouting event is not a place to drink alcohol, I agree with Beavah, a gentle word and reminder is the first step. If the behavior continues the adult should be asked to leave. it is one thing to make a mistake and another to keep making one after being reminded it is a mistake.

There is plenty of time to drink. A Scouting event is not one of those times, and I would think most thinking adults and parents would realize this.

This is exactly why the SM is in charge of the boys of the troop and not the UC or the other parents. Scouts make mistakes and need to learn from them and move on. This is the heart of what BSA is about...character development.

No one can mess up the program like a lot of self rightous adults. The SM nailed this one on the head.

They cannot because it is against National policy. It would be against the Scout Law if they did. Remember a Scout is obedient. The OA chapter/lodge can work within the system to change things, but they cannot outright go against National policy and stay within the Scout oath. National clearly has the right and authority to make this policy so the individual lodges are obliged to follow it.

As a practical note, if a lodge decided to do this and the Supreme Chief of the Fire (Scout Executive [Council]) did not step in, National could revoke or deny the lodge's charter.

PS-I would like to go back to the "old" way myself, but believe it is a matter of numbers. Scouts in general are losing enrollment so the OA has to figure out ways to make more of those that are left eligible for the OA to keep lodge's numbers up. I believe if you find a way to get more youth interested in Scouting in general, we could go back to the "old" way in OA. I have no inside track to national but understand the thinking of big organizations like this one.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

A couple of points:

1. Internet discussion boards are not a good way to convey emotion (much like e-mail). I was not trying to convey anger because I am not angry. I was just trying to convey my point of view in a concise quick manner.

2. When I was a youth in OA, yes things were different then. My SM (who was one of the best people that I ever met-but that is another story) was an OA member, but did not attend an OA event (not one).

3. It is not and should not be the Adult unit leadership's job to get youth to OA events (they have enough to do with events that they plan). If an adult is an OA member and wants to take youth members to events that is fine, but it should not be their responsibility.

4. To reiterate the point above, the youth member needs to find their own way to the event (where there is a will there is a way). Heck, I think that the youth's parent should take them. I used to hitch a ride from someone from the next town when I was a youth. I was the only participating youth member from my troop. It was much as you described (service center was 45 minutes away camp was over an hour). I only had to hitch a ride for a year because I was inducted at 15 and back then could drive at 16 (parents let me borrow the car for Scouts). If you are a lodge officer like I was there are a lot of meetings and you need to attend them, but again I believe the youth will find a way if he really wants to do it.

5. With regard to 2 deep leadersahip. As long as there are 2 youth in a car with an adult that is fine. The issue is one on one contact.

6. Finally, and this is not anger just a point, I believe that sometimes unit volunteers forget that the people planning OA events and district events are volunteers as well who are giving up their time so that the Scouts in the Units have a better experience. We are in this Scouting thing together and to make it work we need to support each other and each other's program. Today we view too many things in the business context of customer and supplier. That should not be the case in Scouting. We are all part of the same movement with a part to play in a boy's character development. I believe it is unnfair to the youth for an adult within the movement to deny the youth exposure to another part of the movement. I hope this clarified my point a little bit. I guess that the customer thing does tend to annoy me a little.

7. Of course my point of view is shaped by my own experiences, and I really had a good time in both Scouts and OA, and they helped me become the person that I am today. I guess people who did not have such a good experience would feel differently. I am very fortunate that the I had great Unit volunteers and great volunteer advisors in OA to make my experience so good and to shape my views as they did.

Merry Christmas all, and truly thanks for all that you do and all the time that you give to the Scouting movement.

Merry Christmas(This message has been edited by johnponz)

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Hicountry, OA is a group of Scouts that give back to their Councils by providing cheerful service. That is the heart of what the OA does. By saying "no" to the OA, you are denying your Scouts one more opportunity to provide service.

Additionally, when I was a Scout in the OA (about 25 or so years ago) OA provided an opportunity for older Scouts to have "fellowship" in a safe environment with like minded Scouts from other communities. This was one of the highlights of my long Scouting career which I carry on today as a district volunteer. The OA provides some with elements that troops cannot because of their local nature. Additionally, it gives youth the opportunity to lead a large organization.

OA if done right truly is a "brotherhood" of Scouts. Some of my most lasting relationships came because of the OA

I guess this is the "issue" with SMs who are not members of the OA. They really do not know all that the program has to offer. The fellowship and ideas that your Scouts will bring back to your troop as a result of theit interaction with the best that other troops have to offer is more than worth the little bit of time that is required on your part.

In the case of OA no one is adding requirements or asking for money. All that they are trying to do is give your Scouts one more place to better develop themselves. Your troop really has nothing to lose.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Hicountry, OA is a group of Scouts that give back to their Councils by providing cheerful service. That is the heart of what the OA does. By saying "no" to the OA, you are denieing your Scouts one more opportunity to provide service.

Additionally, when I was a Scout in the OA (about 25 or so years ago) OA provided an opportunity for older Scouts to have "fellowship" in a safe environment with like minded Scouts from other communities. This was one of the highlights of my long Scouting career which I carry on today as a district volunteer. The OA provides some with elements that troops cannot because of their local nature. Additionally, it gives youth the oppotrunity to lead a large organization.

OA if done right truly is a "brotherhood" of Scouts. Some of my most lasting relationships came because of the OA.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

In answer to Hicountry, this is part of the problem, the OA should be seen as an opportunity for the Scout to give cheerful service not an opportunity for the Scout to get something.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I will answer vol_scouters question. I grew up in West Central Ohio on the Indiana border (hardly a metropolis). My father was/is a hunter/trapper who actually hunts and traps for money and food, and I have known many hunters from there. Most of them I put in the "yahoo" category irregardless of occupation-they like to party a little bit more than average and will talk about their various escapades more than most. (I really do not believe that what one does for a living makes too much of a difference). I find most of them are a little bit on the crazy side-just my own observations.

I am now living in Eastern PA and beside a couple of Scouter friends (again a little on the non-conformist "yahoo" side I do not know many hunters. There has been a series of interesting articles in the paper about a local attorney who was hunting and shot another person in a supposed hunting accident. He has since been convicted of an unlawful death. I point this out to say occupation does not matter. Back home in Ohio an eye doctor just got convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a senior citizen (I do not know if he hunts).

I probably am a little more sensitive to animal's rights because of the puppy mill survivor that I adopted. She is midssing half of her mouth because the owner of the mill cut it off instead of getting stitches. I am not a fan of puppy mills or buying pets from pet stores either but thast is another story.

In summation, I have known plenty of hunters and they have tended to confirm my thoughts on this issue. I cocede the hunters you know may do the opposite for you-that is the problem with antadotal evidence-we all have different experiences.

PS I did not proofread or spell check this.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I actually agree with Beavah and JimBob regagarding the link I posted. I posted it for one reason only. To show vol_scouter that there are some hunters who do have violent action against humans. IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR ANY OTHER USE.

Really, it was the only site I could find that listed several incidents regarding hunters and violence in one place. I agree that in general the site is biased and I would not take too much further from it beside there are some hunters that commit violent acts. That point in and of itself does not mean much because there are some non-hunters who commit violent acts too.

I am pretty much done commenting on this topic as I am starting to beat a dead horse.

I try not to rely on anecdotal evidence by itself to prove a point. However at least SOME hunters do commit violent crimes. Here is a link with a few examples (I am sure there are many more-I just read one ion our local paper). I realize this link is biased toward my point of view, and am using it it only to show that at least SOME hunters are violent.

It is a flaw of most studies that they are trying to promote one view or another (especially true in the social sciences and even the physical ones in the academic publish or perish environment).

I believe to say that hunters are less vilolent than non-hunters is a real big stretch and I have seen no evidence to support that view.

http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000892

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I took Beavah's implied advice and did a little research. Unfortunately, this is a little researched subject within Psychology (as near as I can tell, and the results of the few studies that I could locate are conflicting) so the scientist in me says that the hypothesis is not proved.

That being said, I still adhere to my philosophical beliefs stated many times previously (summation-killing for fun denigrates society by devaluing life). I just say that they have yet to be proven. I do concede that if you are hunting for food and need to hunt to support your family and yourself, it is a different story. Maybe that is why the studies conflict, they did not control for people who were hunting for other than recreational reasons. My hypothesis would be that people who hunt for recreational purposes are more prone to violence then those who do not. I do not believe that topic has ever formally been studied.

As to the slavery issue, these animals have been bred to work especially "working dogs." I have 2 Siberian Huskies and one of them couldn't be happier (I know that I am putting human feelings on her-but she sure appears to be happy) than when she is pulling a sled. These dogs (huskies in general) appear to like to work, and I do not consider them slaves but rather companions who work just like I do.

The other Husky I would never hook up to a sled because she spent the first 6 or so years of her life as puppy mill breeding stock (we have had her for about 2 years now). I ended up rescuing her through a local husky rescue association. I know not to hook her up to a sled because she is very shy, and is just now accepting being petted. Hooking her up to a sled would probably be very traumatic.

I think the slavery argument vs. the hunting argument is comparing apples to oranges, but none the less I argue that most of the times the animals are doing what they were bred to do, and as was stated earlier sort of coevolved to do.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

To clarify, I never said (like Beavah did) that it made it so. I was just using Linzey's work to show that my way of thinking was legitimate and well thought out. You can argue against my philosophy, but it is legitimate and justifiable.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I am pretty consistent in my thinking.

I believe that abortion is wrong and should not be performed out of convenience. I do make exceptions because of rape, the mother's life being in danger and the like. I will go further to say that I believe that abortions would occur more frequently in a society that encourages hunting (I have no numbers to back this up-it is just an extrapulation based on my thesis that hunting leads to a de-valueing of life).

By the way since you brought it up. I do find it strange that the same political party that talks about the sanctity of "life" also tends to be the one that encourages hunting. This seems a little inconsistent to me.

Finally, I would not make abortion illegal though as I believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. By the way, I would not make hunting illegal either. However that does not stop me from trying to convince others to come over to my way of thinking. These days though people (including me) do not change their minds very often.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I actually have some knowlege on this and have read a couple of scholarly articles. The seminal book on this topic is "The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence" edited by Andrew Linzey. The last Chapter of this compilation explains very well how hunting falls into the general category of "Animal Abuse." That is the philosophical view that I take. He argues and I agree that abuse and hunting for sport are indeed the same thing.

You can say that they are not, but that does not make it so, and certainly arguments can be made the other way and have by smarter people than me.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I do not know if I expressed it properly, but I am more concerned about what happens to the human because of the recreational killing than I am what happens to the animal. I cannot cite them, but I believe studies have shown that recrational killing will desensitize humans to the act of killing, and that is really my concern. I worry that people who do this kind of thing end up losing respect for life in general and eventually human life in particular. As I said it bothers me when I hear about people throwing frogs into campfires and the like as well as hunting for fun. I believe hunting for recreation is close to the same thing as throwing those frogs into the fire. (killing to have fun).

I understand that we have to eat, and I am not prepared to be a vegatarian. However in modern society, there are animals raised for this purpose, and the people killing them are doing it as a job (and I hope not for fun-that is why it is called work). Now if you live in the back woods and do not have money to go to the grocery store, and hunt to survive, this is a whole different story.

It is the act of killing for fun that really bothers me and I believe is not good for the phyche of the individual or for society as a whole. In the end it is about human motivation not the anthropomorphism of the animal.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Philosophically, my view is pretty simple. I believe that life is sacred and no one should make a recreational event out of killing (yes I include fishing in this as well as hunting-although I do not consider fishing as offensive as hunting-I will explain the difference below). I cringe when I hear about people throwing a frog into a fire for no reason. Also, I find it offensive when a person removes an insects wings and let it suffer for no reason.

As far as where I draw the line, I use the classification system, kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, species (I do not believe killing plants or viri is offensive because they are in whole different kingdoms-so pick as many pumpkins as you want). The closer the animal is to a human the more offensive I find the killing. Thus, I find the killing of a mammal more offensive than the killing of a reptile or bird. The killing of another human would be the most offensive. (Again, I emphasize by killing here I am referring to recreational killing).

I believe it is ok if you hunt solely for food, and find no recreation or joy in the killing. I also believe it is ok to kill an animal in defense of another human or yourself (I would include a family pet here as well). Even killing another human in self-defense is justifiable. The real distinction is killing for fun.

My biggest problem with hunting is that most hunters do it for sport or recreation, and I find it extremely offensive to kill fellow mammals for no other reason than because you believe it is fun to do so. The hunters that I have spoken to, mostly share a story about how they cried or were similarly upset upon their first kill. There is a reason for this, and I believe it is wrong to desensitize our children to their natural aversion to killing.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Bottom line...Must of the hunters that I know say that they do it for fun and because they like it.

I really do not see how killing things is a recreational activity, and I definiktely would not take my nine year old out to teach him how to kill things!!

Please see this link. The views in it line up pretty well with my own. http://www.idausa.org/facts/hunting.html

Please, do not say you hunt for food. Very few people hunt for food. Most go to the grocery store and purchase farm grown meat. There is much better thing to do with your time than going out into the woods looking for an animal to kill (these are modern times). There really is no need for this barbaric practice.

I never understood the allure of killing any living thing on purpose (of course I am excluding insects from this).(This message has been edited by johnponz)

I am much happier with this president than the last one, George W., and I believe that he will do a much better job than his competition. Face it times are rough, and he was thrust into tough times with an uncooperative congress. For those of you that believe he was in control the first two years, I remind you that the opposition was misusing the filibuster during this period and was obstructing all that he was trying to change.

Despite this, he has kept many of his promises, e.g. the affordable health care act (he said he would make health reform a top priority and he did-now people are surprised, we would pull back from Iraq, he would finish the job with Bin-Laden, etc.

It seems that this President has been much more effective with protecting the home land as well. All we heard from W. was how there were no terrorist attacks after 9/11. Somehow it escapes him that 9/11 happened on his watch. I am happy to say that there were no homeland terrorist attacks under the current President's watch. He has shown himself to be strong by authorizing the killing of the Somali pirates, Bin Laden and Omar Khadafy also fell during his watch.

The economy is bad but starting to improve, and guess what we still have an auto industry and a banking industry that W. tried to ruin. All in all, without opposition spin this Administration has not done too badly with the deck they were dealt.

(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Obama gets a bum rap. All of this stuff started on George W.s watch and he was a republican. Obama saved the auto industry, but gets no credit for it, and the big banks have repaid all of their bail-out money, but again no credit. Oh yeah, republican sweetheart Dick Cheney keeps talking about how they kept America safe for 7 years. He seems to forget that 9/11 happened on Bush's and his watch. And guess what we are still safe under Obama.

And, Obamas even killed Bin Laden and did a good job with the pirates in Somalia as well. Yes unemployment is stll too high, but that was in the works before he took office. I have not heard a single republican plan to tackle that problem. More big tax cutrs for the richest Americans is not the answer.

Who or what is the alternative to Obama. I really think when you look at the big picture he has done a pretty good job on the policy front but not such a good job on the PR front. He should shout about his successes a lot more.

Let's get the republicans back in the white house, things were much better under W.

How soon we forget.

This is a decision that the PLC should make. If they decide to have inspections the SPL and PL should inspect the tents with an adult leader present but not doing the inspecting. Also, the adult tents should be subject to inspection by the SPL with the Scoutmaster or other adult in charge if the Scoutmaster is not at the particular event.

In scouting what's good for the scout is good for the scouter.(This message has been edited by johnponz)(This message has been edited by johnponz)

Aye