Prairie_Scouter

Sorry to have started a thread and not participated to now. Been out car shopping for a couple of days.

Lots of good thoughts.

I agree that it's a great way to get outdoors and do things with friends and family. I just wonder why animals have to die as a result.

Now I would question the assertion by Torveaux that hunters are doing wildlife some sort of service while, say, "squeamish photographers" are doing nothing. As I hypothesized in my original post, I wonder if hunters are really interested in hunting animals that are starving and freezing to death, as Torveaux seems to be saying. It seems that they're more likely to be looking for the biggest and best for their trophies. Does an atrophied, dying animal make good eating? My guess would be no. So, at least for some, hunting is removing from the population exactly those animals that should remain in the population to strengthen the herd. Are there hunters who's job it is specifically to thin the herd and remove the weakest members? I'm sure there are, and they do provide an extremely necessary service that used to be provided by the natural predators of whatever prey species is being discussed.

At the professional end, photographers document the natural world. They bring to light issues that need to be addressed in a fashion that is difficult to dispute. They serve the natural world by providing some measure of protection by bringing the public images of issues that need addressing, hopefully ending with some sort of protection or correction being provided. Further down the "photography foodchain", photographers of all sorts bring to their family and friends images of wildlife that they might not otherwise see. I don't have many friends who want to join me sitting in a blind for hours on end on a cold and snowy day while I shoot pictures, or track some animal through the woods. I don't think that there's anything particularly "squeamish" about it, just as I don't think that there's anything particularly "manly" about going out and killing animals at long range with high powered rifles. I like to think that my pictures might make someone think twice about the value of going out and shooting that same animal.

Really, it's not a sport like any other, as some would like us to think. Nobody dies (well, hardly ever) watching a football game with friends a family.

DanKroh,

Regards whether I think meat taken in a hunt is somehow "tainted" compared to grocery bought foods....

No, not the way I think. There is a natural circle of life. Our use of beef as a food source is just one part of that circle. Hunters are certainly another. I've eaten bison, and I like it a lot. So, I know how the food chain works. (Although with their high powered weapons, most hunters, and most of us, would be easy picken's for many of the predators out there...). And I don't begrudge any subsistence hunters or those hunters who actually eat what they hunt. It's a perfectly legal activity and the animal is at least being used in what I'd hope is a respectful manner.

My question, I guess, is why there are people who make entertainment out of ending the life of an animal. Yes, there are those who are doing it to provide food for their families and for us, the general public. And yes, there are those who hunt to legitimately cull herds of their weakest members. We as human beings have a responsibility to do this now that we've eliminated that natural predators.

I suppose, like with any activity, there are subgroups. There are hunters who hunt to feed their families. There are those who hunt to cull the herds of their weakest members. And there are those who see killing an animal as just entertainment on a Saturday afternoon. It's this last group that I think make a sad commentary on who we are, most likely the only species, or at least one of very few, that kill just for the sheer fun of it.

We've had some good discussions recently about gun owners rights. Once you get beyond the 2nd Amendment and the idea of personal protection, you can get to the subject of hunting.

I admit, as a city kid, I've never seen the attraction. As a nature photographer, I've developed a lot of the same skills that hunters use, learning tracking, animal behavior, etc. And yet, when I'm done with a day's "shooting", I know that those animals will still be there for someone else to enjoy. The same can't be said for hunters. When a hunter takes home their prize, nobody will ever see that animal again in it's natural habitat.

There are, of course, subsistence hunters, such as Eskimos, who's families depend on their ability to bring home food from the hunt. But how many people in the U.S. are really in that situation?

I've heard the arguments in some areas about the need to cull overpopulated herds, especially near populated areas where the natural predators have been eliminated. And to be sure, the health of the overall herd, let's say of deer, is dependent on some culling. But, how many hunters go out purposely looking for the weakest animals to bring down, as natural predators would. Don't hunters typically go after "trophies", ie, the biggest and best? Doesn't that inherently weaken the herd?

And, really, how much of a hunt is there when a hunter can hide a couple of hundred yards away from their prey with a high powered rifle with a telescopic sight? Where's the "sport" in that, if there is any at all? What's next? Laser guided mini-missiles?

I know people who have been ecstatic to get a permit to hunt in the National Elk Refuge in Jackson, WY, where the hunting consists of walking up to an elk who's feeding on the provided food, and shoot them at short range.

I know people who pay for the privelege of going into a game preserve to shoot at animals that are penned into specific areas. Hunting?

Why is it ok for us to hunt an animal nearly to extinction, spend millions rebuilding the population, only so that hunters can go out and start killing them again? Where's the sense in that?

And why is it, exactly, that whenever you read the "outdoors" column in the newspaper, they never talk about "killing" animals? No, in the newspaper, animals are "harvested", or "taken", or some such thing.

So, we've got lots of outdoorspeople here. What's the attraction?

Hi Michael,

and welcome to the campfire.

I'm in Hoffman Estates, IL, just west of Woodfield Mall. Good to see another Midwesterner on the forum (even if you are a relative neophyte ) Welcome to Winter, Chicago style!

I'm not real familiar with the new Tiger program. My boys finished with Cub Scouts before it went into effect. But, we've done overnight trips to the museums in the city. Most of them have an overnight program, but it can be kind of costly, so you have to consider what you're folks can afford. In particular, we did an overnight at the Adler Planetarium, and it was a blast.

And yeah, you should check with your Council on tour permits. In the NWSC, we need a tour permit for anything that's not Council-run, basically.

Hi Eamonn,

It'd be nice if things were still that way. But, as I'm sure you've seen, land is at a premium near any large city. If Scouting didn't lock up some of that land as a sort of preserve, it'd be gone, and our ability to have things like summer camp would be a lot more limited. Even with that, some Council camps are closing as less and less Scouts and adults are willing to put in the time needed to attend and/or support those camps. And yes, sometimes, there's a certain amount of greed involved; it can get easy to think of reasons to close a camp when someone puts a big bag of money in front of you.

I don't think that summer camp is as much about "roughing it" as it is about being able to get together with lots of like-minded kids to do things that Scouts like to do. We cook outside all year; it's kind of nice to go to a place for a week that lets us concentrate on other things and leave the cooking to someone else. And, these organized camps provide Scouts with opportunities to do things that would be much more difficult at home. Shooting activities are one example. Our Council is in the midst of a building plan to upgrade our facilities, and yes, it's very expensive. A well-managed facility, tho, will be used much more than just for summer camp. It should be busy most of the time. And, by updating the facilities, it becomes more likely that we'll draw more people to camp.

So, yeah, it'd be nice to just make arrangements with some farmer to let us use some of his land to camp on. These days, tho, his lawyer would tell him not to do it because of the potential liability if someone gets hurt.

For the most part, the CO "owns" the unit and all of its assets while the charter is in effect. One contributor on this forum, Kahuna, has commented that they figured out a way to keep the assets of the unit separate. He might interject a thought or two on that.

I don't think that National really gets involved with these kinds of things. The charter "contract" is between the CO and the Council. I think that the ownership of assets is only in effect as long as the charter is. Others may know better, but here's my thought. As far as moving a unit, if it was done when the charter expired, then I don't think that there's really a problem. If it was done mid-year, then you're really supposed to get permission of the CO if you want to keep the assets. I've never heard of a CO trying to take the assets of a unit, but they'd within their rights to do so as long as the charter is in effect. I think.

In this case, was the unit moved while the charter was in effect? Is the CO trying to take possession of the assets of the unit?

In most cases like this, a responsible CO won't have a problem with moving a unit if someone takes the time to explain why the move is being done, ie, keeping them in the loop. Did that happen?

Oak,

You may be right; I'm a couple of years removed from Cubs now. The idea of one parent/Scout usually came up in the area of overnights, and I remember where we did make exceptions in a case or two where another parent stepped up to act as guardian for a Scout who's parents couldn't come, in addition to their own. I think for day outings, the requirement may be different. But, happy to go with your interpretation since I'm not 100% sure.

21 years last June. We've been involved for about 8 years now. In cubs, my wife was Cubmaster, I was CC. Now, I'm SM with both of my boys in Boy Scouts. My daughter is in Girl Scouts but thinks that they're wimps because around here, the Girl Scouts never do any camping or much outdoors stuff at all. She can wait to be old enough to join a Venture crew.

Yeah, BSA, and Girl Scouts, and PTA, are constant sources of conversation.

3

Darn.

In Cub Scouts, a parent has to be in attendance with their Scout for all overnight outings. I wasn't clear if this was an overnighter or just a day outing.

And, yes, one adult per car with multiple Scouts is fine. Each has to have their own seat belt.

Torveaux,

Absolutely correct. I thought when I sent that, "well, I opened that door. I wonder if anyone will walk through.?

I'm sure there's enough "sneaky dealings" to go around for everyone...the Dems and their wars, Nixon with Watergate, Reagan with Iran/Contra. Not trying to open a lot of debate on this; point is, I think, that, every administration has it's share of closed door dealings that someone might not agree with.

It'd be really interesting to do a truly unbiased, objective survey of the BSA membership, Scouts and adults, to see where we all sit on these issues. I honestly don't know what the results would be, but I expect you'd have extreme views on either end with a vast majority in the middle who don't really care much and are more interested in the day to day Scouting "stuff". How the actual results would turn out is anyone's guess.

Hi ljnrsu,

Good point on Johnson. I think, tho, that he didn't come up with the idea of steering event to allow entry into a war. I think that much of same happened in WWII, and probably other wars where the U.S. wasn't directly threatened. It's always difficult, I suppose, to recognize the "real threat" from the "perceived threat" from the "concocted threat", and how to respond to them in an appropriate manner. The history on the Iraq invasion remains to be written, but I suppose it will end up like many others, where, 10 years later, we'll be scratching our heads and wondering "how the heck did we end up there?".

Regards the idea of refusing to divulge Anne Frank's location while at the same time admitting that you know the location, that supposedly being the "morally right" action....I don't think it's that simple. Making such a statement would be akin to suicide, since you'd know the almost certain result. That, then puts you into the realm of "two-fold effect", where-in you weigh the relative "wrongness" of telling a lie vs telling a truth that would result in your death and act accordingly. Whichever one you pick at that point, I think, would be the "morally right" thing to do.

I'd agree with Rooster that if girls were let in, "gayness" became a non-issue, and a belief in a god was no longer required, BSA would certainly be a different organization. Whether it's good or bad is largely in the eye of the beholder.

I suspect that if you polled the average member of BSA, of those 3 changes, adding girls would probably cause the most heartburn. I suspect that if the "gay" and "god" policies were to change, a small number of people would actually leave, the rest would just move on and hardly notice the difference or ignore it. Adding girls to BSA would require quite a bit of change in BSA; changing the other policies would, in reality, probably not require much change at all insofar as how the organization is run.

Hi JM,

Good thoughts. I have always thought that the real "content" of the U.S. uniform is in the shirt. That's where everything of substance really is. The pants are, well, just pants.

Problem is, the rules are the rules, and it's true that if you aren't wearing the whole uniform according to BSA definition, you're not in uniform at all. As it stands right now, this would require a policy change by BSA and I'm not aware of any indication that they would consider a change.

Ah, Rooster, you have such a way with words

So, are you telling me that I should question the validity of things that my district professionals are telling me? What am I supposed to do? Tell them I think they're lying unless they can show me chapter and verse? The Scouting professionals are our source of information for so many things regarding Scouting. You don't think that they're a valid source of information? I find that a little hard to swallow. (Kind of like that last bit of turkey leftover.....)

I don't think that liberals are looking for a "loophole" to allow gays into Scouting. I would think that they believe that the whole concept of disallowing gays from Scouting is misguided and based on misinformation.

You draw your caricature of liberals with a pretty broad brush. Let's provide a bit of reality on what mainstream liberals are more likely to believe....

"We are the world"

Well, no, but liberals might be more atune with the general world view than an administration that thinks it's on some sort of divine mission.

"Can't we all just get along"

Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no, but liberals probably won't contrive reasons to go to war.

"Ban all guns"

Something only extremists believe. Sort of the offset to the "the more guns, the merrier" crowd.

"Let's open the jails"

Nope. On the other hand, not trying to "renovate" people while in prison is a recipe for disaster.

"Kiss the trees"

No, most liberals are in favor of sound management of forest land. That means not having the Forest Service sell lumber from forest lands at huge losses to lumber companies (almost every sale in the past 10 years has been at a loss), and not clearcutting forests without requiring replanting. You wanna kiss a few along the way, you go right ahead.

Elaborate? Sure.

Two years ago, this administration had a discussion, documented, that looked for definitions of torture that would be allowed by international law. Their conclusion, also documented? That unless the amount of pain caused is akin to that that would cause death, it didn't violate their interpretation of international law. They backed away from this when it was disclosed publicly, although the Sec. of Defense now is trying to derail legislation currently before the Congress that would outlaw torture. His second choice right now is to exempt the CIA.

This administration is also on record as using what I would describe as "creative definitions" to label prisoners in order to keep their detention secret and prevent them from having their families contacted or have access to counsel. This, remembering that we don't even know if these prisoners have done anything wrong. And, now, they are in court saying that the president has the sole authority to label such prisoners.

And so, here is where we are, at the hands of an administration that's fighting to keep their right to torture prisoners at their discretion. Something for every American to proud of? I think not.

Boy, Jerry,

I have to agree with that 100%. A great movie, showing a man with true leadership abilities, as well as the stress that can come along with making the hard choices. And, more so, that leadership is not a popularity contest, as many unit elections can be.

The only problem with finding "leader" movies is that they tend to be about flawed leaders. That's what the story is really about. So, using them as an example of leadership carries along some baggage.

Personally, when I look for a movie to unwind with, I want a lot of stuff blowing up

Hi Rooster,

Regards "don't ask, don't tell", my district professional told me that it is the official BSA policy. For what it's worth. And, do you think it's only "liberals" who are looking for loopholes? I remember a certain President who's supporters spend a good deal of time trying to figure out what counts as torture and how to get around the Geneva Conventions.

Hi Torveaux,

I agree on Biblical translations. According to at least some biblical scholars, it goes far beyond whether the commandment says "kill" or "murder". I think that that's why Biblical literalists have a problem; what translation are they saying is the absolutely correct one that they're supposed to take word for word? Regardless, in this example, whether someone was killed or murdered is largely a matter of perspective. In WWII, the Allies were killing their enemies. The Germans were seeing their citizens being murdered.

Hi LongHaul,

Not sure about your request. I didn't say anything about BSA asking leaders to weed out gays. Not sure where you got that from. I was trying to speak of "gray areas" at a more generic level. Regardless, I don't think the world is made up of simple right and wrong, black and white. And, I don't think it's as simple as people looking for loopholes to be able to do things that are clearly "wrong". Are there some absolutes? I suppose there is, but there are people that would even disagree with that.

"Killing in the name of God"? People have been doing that, thinking that they are in the right and doing the bidding of God, for centuries. They absolutely think that they are right. Are they? I suppose it depends on which end of the sword, or machine gun, or bomb, you happen to be on.

Ed, Merlyn.....easy does it, ok? It's the holidays.

I agree with Pack that situational ethics come into play in these areas. I don't agree that most matters of right and wrong are clearly black and white. This is certainly true in some areas, but not all. There's plenty of gray areas, and people sometimes use the gray for their own purposes. As the old joke goes, to quote "God", "I said "Thou shalt not kill". What part of that is so hard to understand?" And yet, people have killed "in the name of God" throughout history.

For example. In my own mind, the BSA stance on gays is, well, let's just say "poor judgement" . And yet, I'm a registered leader. The topic never comes up in our troop meetings, and I pointedly redirect discussions that head that way. I've never had the "opportunity" to have to act on that policy, having never had someone in my troop come up to me and say that they were gay. So, am I violating the policy? I really don't know, but I think that I can do more good from within BSA than outside of it.

But, what would I do in that situation? I've given that a lot of thought, actually, and I've concluded that I can't ignore the policy. If a Scout were to come to me and tell me, say, that they were gay, I would give them a chance to retract that statement as a "mistake" after explaining to them what the repercussions would be according to BSA policy. If they didn't want to retract their statement, I'd feel obligated to report the matter to the troop committee for further possible action. Same with the "God" question.

Thanks for that info, Pack. For a second there, I thought we were going to have to cancel our cruise missile activity. And, right after I got ahold of those laser guidance systems, too. We haven't had this much fun since we worked on the "mini-reactor" that's a part of the new "Chernoble" program feature.

However, as I'm writing this, there's an ad at the top of the response page for the "Potato Guns Online Store". Hmmmm. Really, I would tend to think that you'd have to be really careful about this. An exploding barrel would not be a fun time. I think if I was going to do this (I, who have been noodling around the idea of rocket powered pinewood derby cars ), I'd opt for compressed air. Feels safer, although I don't know that it really is.

I believe that by BSA definition, "winter camping" is anything under 50 Degrees F. So, many of our Scouts have probably been winter camping without really even knowing it So, maybe we should call it "cold weather" camping, for sake of discussion. As most of us know, the game changes when it gets below freezing, or gets wet at slightly higher temps. I'd be really wary about allowing any Scouts, let alone Web Scouts, camp overnight in really cold weather without training. It can be a wonderful experience if you're adequately prepared. If not, tho, you could be toying with an inherently dangerous environment. As far as the Web2's at a Klondike, I'd let 'em come for the day and send them home to a nice toasty bed.

I think that the main safety concern is that the Web2's haven't been through winter camping training. We're in northern Illinois, the same as hotdesk, and so our winters can get pretty, well, interesting. I think at our District Klondikes the policy is that the Web's can visit for the day, but not stay overnight.

A Happy and Bountiful Thanksgiving to all of you.

While we may disagree on many things here, there are even more things that we can agree on....

For all its warts, the Scouting program is still a wonderful way for our youth to learn character, teamwork, outdoor living, and all that other stuff we do.

Regardless of what side of the aisle you happen to be on, and despite it's problems, the U.S. is still WAY ahead of whoever is in 2nd place.

And a few more things I think we can agree on....

There's nothing like dutch oven lasagna.

Mess kit bowls aren't big enough to hold a fair share of cobbler.

Deep fried turkey!

No-stick cookware is a gift directly from the heavens.

As a SM, there's nothing like the feeling you get when you're at the end of an outing, and realize that you really didn't have to do much of anything!

As a SM, the feeling you get when you get to the point that your Scouts tend to congregate around you during quiet moments, and actually look happy to see you

And of course, I think we can all agree that the Cubs will be in the Series in 2006

Wow! Horrible indeed. More than a few adults who need to learn how things are supposed to be done.

I spend a good deal of time mentoring our adults on what's ok, and what's not ok, for questions in a BOR. Used to be we had Scouts tying knots in their BOR. Sounds like the groups you mention need some serious guidance on how a BOR is run.

Regards the MBC who is requiring extra assignments, in ALL seriousness, this person should be reported to your district advancement chair. It is VERY clear that a merit badge counselor cannot add any requirements to a badge. Coercing a young man to do so, and then accusing him of not having intergrity when he's unable to do it because of other activities, says more about this adult than it does about the Scout. Far, far, better to lose that adult than to lose that Scout.

I'm not sure exactly where it says that BSA is a "religious club", if that's what you were inferring. B-P certainly recognized a higher power in his writings, but I don't think he saw that as the driving force behind what he was trying to accomplish. Seems to me that his view was more that he was simply trying to teach character, using the outdoors as the tool.

Now, there are certainly some segments of BSA that have moved their units in the direction of being more of a "religious club". LDS units, for example, vary, it seems, quite a bit from the BSA norm in how they do things. Other units have a significantly less religious element to them. I, for one, didn't get the impression that I was joining a religious club when I got involved in Scouting.

Sounds to me like the problem is that BSA has painted the term "agnostic" with too broad of a brush. Some agnostics do believe in a higher power, but don't believe in a particular god. Some don't believe in either, which I suppose would actually make them athiests. I would think that if someone has an understanding of the broadness of the terminology, they'd avoid using it in conversations with a Scout, should the issue come up. Better to ask whether a Scout believes in a higher power than ask if they're agnostic, since they might not really understand the term.