GernBlansten

Ed, I'd agree if they were concentrated on the shores of Vietnam. Kangaroos can't swim. How did they get to Australia?

Kangaroos Ed. Kangaroos prove that the story of Noah is a fable. Kangaroos can only be found on the Australian land mass. If the story of Noah (best told by Bill Cosby) is true and faithful to the facts, the kangaroo, like all animals, would have been killed in the great flood, save the few that Noah so nobly place in the ark. Then when Noah released the animals after the flood, they would have repopulated the earth including the kangaroo from the ark. But since Australia is an isolated land mass and kangaroo can't swim, they just couldn't get there. Plus, kangaroo are not mentioned in the Bible. Now you have to agree with me that had there been kangaroo bouncing around what is present day Iraq, they would get some mention in the Bible wouldn't they? Funny creatures they are. I did see a picture of kangaroo in a children's Bible story book once. But I doubt it was accurate to the details of the actual animal manifest that Noah had. Now if the story was told that Noah had, shortly after the flood started retreating, disembarked his strange menagerie of animals around the world then settled the ark on Mt. Ararat for the final disembarkment, it might hold water(pun intended). But alas it doesn't.

I didn't find fishing difficult or uncomfortable, I found it boring and not worthy of my precious leasure time. LNT doesn't just cover the visual impacts we have on the environment. For instance, you might just come across a nest of sparrows whilst venturing into the wilds. You might be inclined to pick them up and inspect them. Play with them and place them back in their nest as you found them. Visually, you left no trace. But come back the next day and your impact would be fully appreciated. Besides the possible benefits of license fees for stream remediation, what benefit does catch and release VS. no fishing at all have on the environment?

I'm starting to side with Brent. Repulsive behaviour must be suppresed for the betterment of society. Take fat people for example. Nothing is more repulsive than to go to the buffet line and see some obese kid loading up at the dessert counter. Sure, some would say he's just big boned or has a "fat" gene. But we all know its about lifestyle. He chooses to be fat and he makes me sick. If only he would have better eating habits, my enjoyment of the buffet would be enhanced. But no. He keeps piling on the dessert toppings, extra everything then plops down across the room from me and mashes the fat laden calories into his big fat disgusting face. Thank goodness BSA has a law that a scout must be fit. Otherwise, I might just have to sit across the campfire from him and watch his disgusting comsumption of Smores. And its just not me either. I know of three other people who find that gross. Sure I have a friend who is obese and he's very nice, but I don't support his lifestyle. He has made poor life decisions. And these people just don't stop with their own behavior, they push it on the rest of us too. They want super sized portions. They run ads on TV our kids watch to eat their putrid junk. They lobby our legistlature to strike down any laws that allow us to protect ourselves from their slovenly behaviour. Band with me brothers! We must fight this assault on our children at every buffet line.

Dang Fishsqueezer, I had written perhaps the best post ever, a real pulitzer prize winner. Then I hit Submit and got an error and lost it. Sometimes this software really has it in for me. Any whooo. " Do not touch, get close to, feed or pick up wild animals. " from LNT (Wildlife) How does that not conflict with C & R fishing? If BSA adopted LNT as its outdoor ethics guide, doesn't that conflict with the fishing merit badge? You asked about my fishing background. Been there, done that. Just didn't hook me. Never understood the allure to standing in a freezing cold stream, wearing rubber pants up to my armpits, trying to snag my $20 fly in the brush. I've always followed the old adage that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for the day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend all day in a boat drinking beer.

To me LNT tells us to make no intentional impact on the environment. Be aware of the consiquences of our activities and minimize or eliminate the ones we can. Of course unintentional and accidental incidents will happen, but if we all make an effort to change our behavior to minimize the intentional ones, we are following the spirit of LNT.

My mother has a twin brother. You wouldn't believe how many people ask her if they are identical.

So Brent, is a buffet approach to LNT scout like?

So Brent, is a buffet approach to LNT scout like?

Brent, Are cubs allowed to tent without their parents? Not when my son was a cub. Cubs tented with their parents, not other cubs. Maybe that was just our pack leader's rule. Don't know if he was trained.

If BSA barred blacks from membership, Berkeley would be applauded for denying them free dock-age. Of course BSA can set its own membership standards, but they have to live with the consequences. No free speech infringement here. Nothing to see. Keep moving.

Catch and Release violates LNT. Is it scout like to violate LNT? http://www.lnt.org/programs/lnt7/wildlife.html

At one end of the spectrum you have the blood sports (pit bull fighting, bull fighting, cock fighting) where the animal is intended to be killed or maimed. At the extreme other end is venues such as Dog shows, agility contests and such. In the middle are circuses, rodeos, dog and horse racing. Everyone draws a line somewhere along that spectrum as to what is acceptable and what is disgusting. For me, it is when the animal is either mistreated or forced to do something that makes it want to flee the situation or do something very unnatural. A dog catching a frisbee is not the same as jumping on the back of a bull and trying to keep from falling off when the bull rejects the effort. The dog comes back for more. The bull, must be forced to repeat the activity. So in my mind, dog agility contests = good, rodeo = bad. Rodeo also has a bad history of abusing animals to get the meanest and baddest bulls and broncs possible. They have cleaned up their acts, but the stain is deep. Same goes for circuses. Watching a donkey dive off a high dive into a tub of water is just over the top but watching a bunch of costumed poodles run around the ring is OK. Circuses quit doing the donkey act. They moved the line to the right. They adjusted to changing opinions on what is acceptable and what is disgusting. Now back to catch and release. Its in that fuzzy area in the middle. I think you know which side of the line it falls for me. Where is your line?

Jesus fished for food, not pleasure. Ethics during those days where quite a bit different than now. Back then, you could have slaves. Back then, it was permissable to kill your wife for infidelity. Back then, racism was rampant and the norm. None of which is ethical by todays standards. Kudu, I assumed that since Ed is a follower of Jesus, that he would be distrubed by a child taking pleasure in another creature's suffering. Apparently not.

In the lawful persuit of game fish (not catch and release) and you snag an undersized catch, you are obligated to release it. That is the law and is proper. This differs from engaging in the fishing activity with no intent to take what you catch (catch and release). This activity is purely for your entertainment, not for meat or to remove harmful species from the environment. Man wins, nature is exploited. Ed, look at it this way. Is it ethical to pull the wings off flies? No law says you can't. But aren't you a little troubled when you watch a young child take pleasure in dismembering a living creature for pleasure? Its just a fly isn't it? The net result is the fly dies and you and I have no trouble swatting a few flys in the house right? So why does it trouble you to watch a child take pleasure in torturing an insect?

Whether a fish feels pain or not is inmaterial. Catch and release is for the sole entertainment of humans, plain and simple. It isn't for sustainance, safety or to improve the environment. Its a selfish endeavor to gain short term pleasure at the expense of another living creature. The only byproduct of this activity is the satisfaction of the fisherman. Substutitute any other creature (except bugs) and it is deplorable by most of our society. Here's another example of humans exploiting animals for pleasure. People around the world take great pleasure watching two dogs fight to the death. In this country, we have drawn the line that dog fighting is not acceptable because of the cruelty to the animals. But in many third world countries, its still very acceptable. I just can't see much of a difference between dog fighting and catch and release fishing. Both are engaged in for the pure entertainment of humans at the expense of the animals.

Ed, I'm not placing animals above people. I'm just stating that every position PETA takes is not extreme. I don't agree with granting animals civil rights. I eat meat and wear leather shoes. I think if an animal is threatening you, you have every right to dispatch it. But I think animals should be treated with respect and care. Some of the positions PETA takes, like catch and release, make sense to me. Granted, some of their positions are just silly but it doesn't discount the moderate ones. You seem to want to paint all PETA positions as being extreme and anti-human. That's like painting all Christians as being hateful because some Christian followers are.

My point is that I perceive Christians (not all, but most in my experience) as not being open to exposing their children to alternate religious philosophies in a positive light. The comic book format is just one way to get the message across. If BL is focusing on old testament stories, they are playing to the Christian and Jewish audience. Some could even construe that they are attempting to legitimize or proselytize the Judeo/Christian philosophy, I'm not sure they intend to do this. If you flipped the philosophy to say only stories about Mahumud and Islam were presented in BL, you would come away with the opinion that BL was a Mulsim oriented youth publication. I doubt Christians would stand idle for that, nor should they.

Do you think there would be a controversy if BL published alternative religious philosophies outside of the mainstream? That's the test I would use for appropriateness. Since BSA is a non-denominational, multifaith organization, any article from any faith should be appropriate. I however doubt that an article exploring the teachings of Wickens or Diests would be well accepted.

Ed, You have made my point. The fish is powerless to make the decision whether to "play" with the fisherman. It is being exploited by the fisherman for the sole purpose of entertainment and in the process is being mistreated and tortured. I don't think that is what God had in mind when he put us in charge of the animals. I've already explained my view that PETA uses extreme positions to get folks like us to talk about the issues. Most special interest groups use the same tactics. For that, they have been successful.

SR is right. We always go as a troop to high adventure, at least those scouts who qualify and willing to pay the price. We rotate between SeaBase, Northern Tiers and Philmont. We are sending 3 crews to Northern Tiers this summer. 2007 was our Philmont rotation. This is the first time our troop was wait listed. I'm not surprised except for the fact we are 500th on the list. Philmont said it was slim to none we would go in 2007. I guess we will continue to put our name in the hat each year until we get a slot.

I'm not sure how the algorithm works on the Philmont system, but I know we need to re-apply next year for 2008. Since we were so far down on the wait list, will we get higher priority? Don't know. We are looking into other treking high adventures. We are from Colorado and most of the troop is well equiped to handle our own trek. We are now thinking of arranging our own trek along the Colorado Trail for a week or 10 days.

Ed, I'm sure the fish would rather hang out under rocks eating bugs than piercing its lip with a steel hook dressed up to look like a bug and be yanked out of the water to temporarily suffocate while the ecstatic fisherman squeezes the snot out of it while retrieving his phony bug with a pliers. I'm not giving the fish much credit on whether it has a consciousness to even decide which scenario is better, but I know what I would decide if I was the fish. After all, fish are God's creatures too and to use them expressly for entertainment while torturing them just doesn't seem right. Imagine the uproar if we did the same thing with Labrador puppies.

PETA uses extreme rhetoric to make the news. If they toned it down, nobody would even be discussing these issues. If they can convince the public to come just 10% their way, they have won. However, why is it that it is more exceptable to catch and release, than catch and eat? To me, catch and eat fulfills a basic human need to stay alive (for the human). But catch and release is purely for the entertainment of the fisherman at the expense of the fish. The fish certainly doesn't enjoy it or for that matter gain any benefit whatsoever except to be placed back in the river to be tormented by yet another fisherman. Are these catch and release fisherman really better people than the ones who kill the fish?

Just found out our troop is wait listed at over 500 for the 2007 Philmont season. Wow. Looks like we will have to wait until 2008. Is Philmont just that popular? Our troop has made the trip every 3 years. Maybe this new computerized system thought our troop has gone too many times and gave us a lower priority. Anybody else get such a high number?