G2SS vs. "Be Prepared"

[TI_Lifeguard]

I know that many of you look at the G2SS as the be all and end all for any sort of health and safety arguement, but I believe that it comes up short in that it does not provide any sort of distinction between the use/posession of handguns for "program" and "protection" reasons for the majority of scout leaders.

 

The G2SS bans any use of handguns as part of a program event for non-Venture Scouts. I do not agree with this in every case, but I have no problem following it, nor any real desire to see it changed.

 

My objection is to the blanket ban on scout leaders' carry of legal firearms for defense. Despite the fact that in many states it is very easy for an adult to get a concealed weapons permit, if one is required at all, the sole exception in the G2SS for an armed scouter would be if he or she was a sworn officer of the peace and required to be armed at all times.

 

I understand that there are laws that make lawful concealed carry impossible in certain places (like military bases, national parks (not national forests)etc...) but that could be dealt with by using a guideline like "in accordance with all local state or federal laws".

 

I bring this up because there are parts of the scout reservation where I work in which I am not at all comfortable after dark because of a feral dog habitation. My billet in Aquatics does not require me to stay up there, but my friends in the Scoutcraft and First Year programs have to stage their weekly overnighters within 150-200 yards of a known den of these animals, and my friends in COPE have seen them from their course in broad daylight. If one asks a staffer from the areas that work in the hinterlands of the reservation, one can hear all manner of stories of sightings of these animals.

 

No Ranger that I have met has been able to wipe out these dogs or drive them completely into the backwoods (where no summer camp program at all happens). All they have been able to accomplish is to keep them sufficiently afraid of humans to avoid the main areas of camp.

 

A large dog is a formidable opponent for a knife-armed human, and the only tactic I have found for that scenario acknowledges that the human is gonna get badly hurt... basically it's "slit his throat while he's busy chomping your weak arm". Given this, I do not believe it unreasonable at all for the staffers and adults who have to work near the known habitat of these animals to be given the choice to carry concealed handguns for the protection of themselves or their charges, subject to a safety briefing by the ranger and shooting sports director of course.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

[NJCubScouter]

What are your thoughts on this?

 

My thoughts on this? OK, as long as you asked. My thoughts are that it sounds like you are looking for any excuse you can find to carry a handgun around when you aren't supposed to.

[9muckraker7]

That's easy to say for someone from New Jersy, there being no "feral dogs" in or around New Jersy forests. Sure there are plenty of bears and enraged turkeys and rabid raccoons, but feral dogs certainly are something different. Bears usually only disturb campers when they smell food, and they live a good distance from the camps. "Feral dogs" (i'm guessing that's a euphemism for wolves) travel in packs and they are very defensive.

 

I don't really know what to say about this particular camp, other than to have the camp ranger (who would have access to a firearm) closely situated to the part of the camp where these wolves have been a threat to the wellbeing of the campers.

[OldGreyEagle]

Gee TI, sounds like a problem you have there. How many Campers and/or staff have been attacked so far this year?

[TI_Lifeguard]

Thankfully enough, all we have had are sightings so far, no attacks... but definitely enough sightings to be sure that the dogs are actually there.

 

The Ranger's work area is nowhere near the area in question, although he does keep his shotgun handy for dog control during the off season (when there aren't campers around, these dogs have been spotted in the main camp areas, including right outside my staff area, the better part of 2 miles from where they confine themselves during the "on season").

 

The good thing about "feral dogs" and I use this in the literal sense of dogs that are descended from runaway domestic dogs is that so far they've been more afraid of us than we are of them, and they don't seem to form packs as well as some other kinds of canines.(This message has been edited by TI_Lifeguard)

[Eamonn]

I have a hard time believing that any Scout Council is going to allow anyone to stay or work in an area where there is a known danger.

I think that a group of armed Scouters is defiantly not the answer.

If these animals are endangering humans I feel sure that there is a company or a group that could find some way of dealing with the problem.Much as I would hate to read the headline "Scout Attacked By Wild Dog." I would hate to read the headline "Scoutmaster Kills Scout By Mistake."

Eamonn.

[NJCubScouter]

What Eamonn said is basically what I think about this. (Though I think my wise-guy guess, in my first post, is correct.) I do not know whether the dogs are a problem at this camp, because I don't know the camp. What I do know is that IF the dogs are a problem, one guy (or several guys) in a Scouter's uniform and a handgun isn't going to solve it.

[Fat Old Guy]

" "Feral dogs" (i'm guessing that's a euphemism for wolves)"

 

You guessed wrong. A wolf and a dog are two very different critters. Dogs have smaller brains and less smarts than wolves and, in general, exhibit behavior that is akin to that of wolf cubs. A feral dog is a dog that was born and raised in the wild.

[FScouter]

Has there been any discussion amongst the camp leadership about removing the dogs and eliminating the danger?

[scoutldr]

We had a similar problem with raccoons at our council camp...no fear of humans and ravaging tents and troop supplies at night, even with us adults snoring loudly. This year there were none. Allegedly the ranger had "trapped" them all and removed them to some other property. I suspect they were sent to raccoon heaven...the Ranger doesn't strike me as being a PETA supporter. Either way, we didn't have a coon problem this year...everyone's candy stash was safe.

 

I agree with the others...if things are so dangerous that camp staff must be armed...I would think that the camp would be closed first.

[acco40]

Armed Scouters out looking for feral dogs in the dark of night within 100 - 150 yards of sleeping Scouts. That is one camp where I would NOT be getting up at night to empty my bladder myself.

[SR540Beaver]

As the camp directors of our various camps have always told the boys, "this camp is the home to a lot of wild animals year round, we are only visiting for a short time". They then go on to tell them that the animals are usually afraid of humans, to keep their distance, leave them alone, call for a staff member if it needs to be removed and no food in tents. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Armed Scoutmasters is not the answer. On our last campout a racoon sauntered into the adult area, climbed up on the table and started snooping around with us only 15 feet away. We ran him off and put all the food back inside locked vehicles. Never saw him again. Most feral dogs I've seen won't get within 100 feet of a human and tend to run off if you take a step towards them. If your gogs are acting braver and actually approaching people and acting threatening, then the council and the ranger need to take steps to have them removed when scouts are not present.

[packsaddle]

I have a CCP (CWP). This required enough training to teach safe handling, maintenance, and use. And an FBI background check. It required enough training to inform the carrier of how legally responsible they are for any action they take. Each state has their own carry limits but these usually exclude schools, most government buildings, bars, churches,...you get the idea?

As I see it, BSA can set their own limits and enforce them through removal, if necessary (as in other controversial issues). I think safe scouting requires firearms to be confined to the range and under control of the rangemaster.

 

My interpretation of the spirit of the law is that anytime there are chidren present, or if the venue provides a safety risk, or risk of needless confrontation, carry is not advised, or in many cases not legal.

I don't carry at any scouting event. I don't carry at any time when I am working with children. There is no need and if I did, it would add unnecessary risk.

I don't carry while hiking or backpacking, even if out West. So far, I don't carry if travelling on an airline, it's just too much trouble and there is really no need.

 

A quick note about the bear comment: black bears sometimes associate people with food because of a learned behavior. It can be a sight response. They don't have to smell anything to be attracted to a person or group. However, the best evidence is that they usually go into a tent because food is present. In my experience, a raccoon or skunk is a much greater problem.

 

I agree with the first response by NJ. My advice is to let the Ranger address the problem and save the gun-slinging for some other time and place - preferably never, and away from me, my family, and my troop.

[EagleInKY]

A previous employer of mine had a strict gun policy. They had to amend it for the West Texas/New Mexico area. Seems that the employees there need to carry a gun to defend themselves from rattlesnakes.

 

Scouting could probably have a similar exception for rangers and certain individuals on a localized basis. But, I would never support outright permission given to any and all adults for the purpose.

[FScouter]

... the employees there need to carry a gun to defend themselves from rattlesnakes.

 

Id say rather they need a gun to kill rattlesnakes for personal satisfaction. They dont need a gun for defense. Rattlesnakes are not aggressive, and dont seek out people to attack. The best defense against snakebite is to watch where you step.