Jaco’s Random Writings

I’m am really mad. I am a mixture of angry and ashamed. It started when I was watching the Colbert Report. In this segment, poked fun at the BSA (Boy Scouts of America) for allowing logging on their camp grounds. Now, I thought this was a joke until I did some researching. I am aghast. I am livid. I am ashamed.

Hearst Newspapers launched a massive investigation* into the Boy Scouts. The primary subject of the investigation was logging in relation to the Boy Scout Camps. According to this article:

More than 100 Scouting councils have conducted timber harvests — one-third of all Boy Scout councils nationwide.

Now, I myself don’t think there’s a problem with cutting down maybe one or two trees out of every 30. Some trees need to be cut because they are diseased, while others needs to be cut as a means of controlling forest-fires. However, what has been happening is that they have engaged in clear-cut logging. This means rather large areas of land are stripped bare of trees. The specific council that has irked my ire is the Tacoma Council. They cut down 12 acres of 80 year old Douglas Firs. The reason for this was for funding. Since the controversial episode where the Boy Scouts of America made it quite clear that they do not accept gays and atheists as members and adult leaders (that also angers me, but I’ll get to that later), the Boy Scouts have lost quite a large chunk of funding. Many councils claim this as one of the reasons to why they have turned to harvesting timber from the their lands. Beyond the fact that they cleared out 12 acres of land in such a manner, the fact that they broke quite a few laws in the process just adds fuel to the conflagration. What kind of example is this setting for the scouts? Isn’t a scout supposed to be obedient and law-abiding? It’s like telling them: “Hey, you should follow the laws and all. But… laws… they’re more like guidelines, really.”

The Chief Seattle Council’s Camp Parsons clear-cut also drew some suspicions. In the article covering this (also part of the Hearst investigation), the Chief Seattle Council claimed “disease-infested Douglas firs and other trees needed to be removed to make the forest safe.” The critics riled and hired a credited plant pathologist.

“I didn’t see anything warranting … the type of logging they wanted to do, based on diseased trees,” said the plant pathologist, Olaf Ribeiro, an author of two textbooks on tree disease.

I guess there is gold in them far hills. Except the gold happens to be Douglas Firs. I’m sorry, but I’m trying to look at this situation from different angles and it reeks.

In their response** to the Hearst investigation, BSA makes it quite clear that the local councils operate completely autonomously from the national council and are tied to the national level purely by a charter. This means that the BSA as an organization has little to no control over how the local councils conduct their business. Therefore, the actions of one council does not necessary reflect the policy of BSA nor the practices of other councils. I’m not saying the organization as a whole is “evil” or has gone astray. However, I myself am starting to suspect that quite a few of the councils have put BSA’s values on the back burner for more tangible profits to be gained through logging practices that don’t necessarily adhere to laws and regulations related to logging in forested areas.

Actually, let’s look at BSA’s statements from their (very lengthy) response.

“However, it’s important to note that all BSA funds are used to further the BSA’s mission and reach as many American youth as possible.”

Unless you’re gay or an atheist. Again, more on that later.

“The BSA’s conservation program emphasis has been developed to create a positive commitment to improving the environment and conserving natural resources through firsthand experiences and ‘learning by doing.’”

This is fine and dandy. But somewhere in the equation “teach by example” figures into this. It really shouldn’t turn into “Do as I say, not as I do.” I’ve found that this rarely ever instills the values I want to instill in younger folk when the situation trots down that slippery slope.

“The BSA teaches that in wilderness areas, it is crucial to minimize our effect on all ecosystems, such as mountains, lakes, streams, deserts, and seashores.”

Clear-cut logging is definitely the antithesis of this. I remember “Leave No Trace” from my days as a Boy Scout. In fact, my Scoutmaster was pretty strict about this. We marched up and down that campsite make absolutely sure that there was no trash left behind. We weren’t allowed to use live wood for firewood. So no breaking off tree branches. No cutting down trees. None of that. We had to forage for dead wood. Fallen logs were like God’s gift to mankind for us. So, at least at a Troop level, this value is instilled. At a council level, again, I guess this varies from council to council.

“As a general principle, all public charities are bound by their fiduciary obligation to manage their assets for the benefits of their constituents.”

While this is most certainly true, it shouldn’t be at the expense of the values your are trying to pass on to your constituents. Resourcefulness is a trait that is very much encouraged in Scouting. Now, one of the “benefits” that should be passed onto the “constituents” is a good example of how to manage one’s resources in a way that still adheres to the Scout Oath, Scout Law, and the Outdoor Code. Clear-cut logging is not such an example.

Ultimately, I understand that the BSA on a national level can only act on an advisory role towards the individual local councils. However, I would really like to see a bit more pressure placed on the councils. If there is to be logging, it should be in a responsible manner that follows the laws and regulations surrounding logging (especially since many of these councils govern over lands that are protected habitats). If money’s hard to come by, the council members themselves should also be willing to make some personal sacrifices as well. Not just that, but get creative; I’m sure there are other ways to make money that doesn’t involve cutting down a dozen acres of forested land or selling land off to developers (as opposed to private conservation groups or the state as a park?). If the money’s getting tight, then maybe some people may have to take a pay cut.

As far as my own Counsil is concerned, I haven’t come across anything that suggests that the Southern New Jersey Council has been partaking in excessive harvesting of timber. In fact, they got an honorary mention from the NJ DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) in 2004 for their conservation work on the Pine Hill Scout Reservation.

Now onto that other hot topic that’s been bothering me since I first heard about it many years ago: Gays in Scouting. I honestly don’t see a problem with it, but clearly BSA does. In Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council vs James Dale, it was ruled that New Jersey essentially had no right to impose nondiscriminatory laws on BSA as BSA was a private institution. James Dale was an adult leader who had admitted to being gay back in college. Since then he had become an active gay-rights activist. For this reason he was kicked out. The official position of BSA on the matter is:

“The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.”

However…

The New Jersey Supreme Court analyzed the Boy Scouts’ beliefs and found that the “exclusion of members solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is inconsistent with Boy Scouts’ commitment to a diverse and ‘representative’ membership … [and] contradicts Boy Scouts’ overarching objective to reach ‘all eligible youth.’ ”

The ruling was, however, that the court had no jurisdiction to enforce this on a private institution as this would be an infringement of the institution’s First Amendment right of Freedom of Association. So sadly, the loser in this story was Mr. Dale and all gays who wish to join BSA either as scouts or adult leaders (or in any fashion, really). This also applies to atheists. The official position on that matter:

“The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.”

This must be very pleasing for the Religious Right to hear***. This stance is a little surprising, though. Scouting started in Britain. From there it found it’s way to America. However on the matter of religion and atheism, the Scout Association (the UK branch of Scouting) states†:

“To enable young people to grow into independent adults the Scout Method encourages young people to question what they have been taught. Scouts and Venture Scouts who question God’s existence, their own spirituality or the structures and beliefs of any or all religions are simply searching for spiritual understanding. This notion of a search for enlightenment is compatible with belief in most of the world’s faiths.”

Well, that’s refreshing to hear. I kind of wish that mentality was held by BSA.

So why does all of this irk me so? Why should I, who aren’t even an active member of BSA anymore, even be offended by this? It is not a secret that I am an Eagle Scout (even says so on my resumé). I take pride in being that. Achieving that rank meant a lot of hard work, dedication, and standing up to my ideals as well as those of the BSA. I did all of that knowing that achieving the rank of Eagle Scout brought with it prestige; it is a rank to be proud of. That in part has to do with the fact that the Boy Scouts have a strong reputation as an organization that strives to pass on strong morals and ideals. Achieving Eagle Scout means that you are an example of that. Eagle Scouts are supposed to be an example of what the organization teaches to their members. But how can I be proud of that rank when the reputation of the organization that bestows it has been tarnished by hypocrisy? I am proud of the Southern New Jersey Council for not partaking in clear-cut logging (at least I didn’t come across any records of this… yet). However, the continuing discrimination against gays and atheists saddens me. In this day and age, it’s not right for an organization like BSA to partake in discrimination of that magnitude.

---

* This is actually presented as a whole set of articles on the subject matter. The investigation was done by Hearst Newspapers and the articles posted through the Seattle Post Intelligencer (a subsidiary of Hearst Newspapers). Here is the link to the articles. The articles have a definite bias to them, though. So read them with a critical eye.
** This is the full response from BSA to the Hearst investigation. It is a PDF and it is a lengthy read. However, to see another side to this story, it is a very necessary read. And while I don’t claim to be a very good journalist by any measure, it would be completely irresponsible of me not to include this. Also, here is a much shorter response.
*** Music to their ears… *mutter mutter*
† If you want to read more on this, go here. This is an archive, though, so I don’t know if this is still the current view of the Scout Association in the UK.