Monday, April 26, 2010

I Don't Believe in Atheists - Two

.

The Folly of Relying on Science to Disprove, or to Prove, the Existence of God


.

Many atheists claim that there is not scientific evidence of the existence of God, that man’s comprehension of the vastness of the universe has made him capable of discounting the existence of an entity beyond his comprehension.

.

To bolster this position of non-belief, some even present as evidence the claim that scientists do not believe in God, that the most intelligent of men are non-believers. This assertion can be proven false by “scientific” observation. A quick search of the internet produced a sea of empirical evidence to refute the claim. One Google link led to a list of “12 famous scientists who believed in God”: Nicolas Copernicus (a Catholic Priest who uncovered the model of the world envisioned by the pre-Aristotelian Greeks), Sir Francis Bacon (often credited with developing the “Scientific Method”), Johannes Kepler (who discovered the Laws of Planetary Motion), Galileo Galilei (who presented empirical evidence of the Heliocentric world Copernicus had rediscovered), Rene Descartes (the father of modern philosophy), Isaac Newton (whose observations on gravity and mathematics stood until Einstein), Robert Boyle (who explained matter), Michael Faraday (who explained electricity and magnetism), Gregor Mendel (a monk who laid the foundation for the science of genetics), William Thomson Kelvin (who explained heat), Max Planck (whose quantum theory challenged man’s concepts of physics), and Albert Einstein (who gave us theories of time, gravity, energy, and matter that challenged Newton’s truths). Another list also caught my attention, 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believed in God. I went down the list looking for any still alive and was pleased to find Arno Penzias who received the Physics Prize in 1978. His research into Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation supports the Big Bang. Sharking up lists of scientists who believe in God does not prove His existence, but it does prove that those who claim scientists don’t or cannot believe in God are wrong. My favorite quote in this vein comes from Charles Darwin: “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator. . .” (The Origin of Species, pg 242)

.

It is amusing to listen to the waffling of the many who seek to find in science evidence against the existence of God. Michael Ende’s The Never Ending Story, parodies the idea that every book ever written can be produced by random accident. By this logic, one could take all the individual letters in the Iliad, throw them up in the air, and have them land in a perfect text of Homer’s masterpiece. Scientific atheists would make the same claim for the chemicals in human DNA. They seem to miss the contradiction in asserting that random chance can produce anything while denying the existence of something called God.

.

A final ploy of those who would employ science to assert atheism is concocting definitions of God that they then insist God must meet in order to exist. Admittedly, atheists are aided in this by the assertions of many believers. No supernatural beings appear to live on Mount Olympus; Jehovah is not in the whirlwind. Disproving myths simply reveals their failure to explain the truth. It is equally irrelevant to point out atrocities done by men in the name of God. Mohammad’s murders may expose his fraudulence, but they do not impeach God.

.

Science examines a small domain within the universe of knowledge, demonstrable and empirically comprehensible truths from only a sliver of what we “know”. Scientific theory is, by definition, in flux. Einstein tells us that, “No fairer destiny could be allotted to any physical theory, than that it could of itself point out the way to the introduction of a more comprehensive theory, in which it lives on as a limiting cause.” (Relativity, pg 86) Yet atheists, who pretend to some mastery of science, are erroneously willing to insist that using the present incarnation of Science, they can comprehend the sum total of truth. Like the prisoners in Plato’s Cave, they insist that the shadows they see are the universe as it is; that their transitory and concocted explanations are the immutable truths.

.

Science illuminates only a small part of what must be discerned for man to come to the knowledge of anything. It is quite unlikely that we are using all our reasoning capabilities. Consider: mathematics before the principals of calculus were revealed, man’s ignorance of the solar system before the first telescope, the value of radio waves before the first receiver, the death that stalked the earth before we found the germs. Good scientists should be more skeptical about good science.

.

Most of what there is to know in the world is not manifested in a way that can be measured by the senses. It is foolish to claim that all beyond one’s physical comprehension is non-existent. Just because 21st century science cannot grasp some being's existance does not mean He dose not exist. It is folly to discount so many truths which are self-evident because they are not physically demonstrable.

.

In summary: a student report from the Chronicles of Narnia in my Great Books class gave some points to ponder from an atheist turned believer, C. S. Lewis.

.

“Oh, Adam’s sons, how cleverly you defend yourselves against all that might do you good!” Aslan from (The Magician’s Nephew)

.

“‘You see,’ said Aslan, ‘they will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.’” (The Last Battle, pg 148)

Saturday, April 17, 2010

I Don’t Believe in Atheists – One

God Is Not


Some who claim there is no God argue against religions, superstitions, or human constructs and then assert that, since they have proven some point about their “straw man” of choice, they have disproved God.

God is not a book.

The Iliad, the Torah, the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the Qur’an are all man made. The Book of Mormon admits this up front – on its title page. Quote, “And now, if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” Close quote

The error of equating God with stories about him is illustrated in a PBS film, God on Trial. The premise of the film, which I understand is based on Elie Wiesel’s play The Trial of God, is a group of Jews, awaiting death in Auschwitz, who put God on Trial. The charge is that God, called the Lord, Adoni, has broken His covenant with the Jews. I have transcribed the dialogue from the final inquisition into God’s behavior through the questions asked by Zamkevitz, a mystical rabbi, to a young scholar, Idek.

Zamkevitz: “Who led the Children of Israel out of Egypt?”

Idek: “God.”

Zamkevitz: “Why were they in Egypt?

Idek: “The famine.”

Zamkevitz: “Who sent the famine?”

Idek: “God?”

Zamkevitz: “So God sent the Children of Israel to Egypt and God took them out of Egypt.”

“How did God bring the Children of Israel out of Egypt?”

Idek: “Moses asked Pharaoh.”

Zamkevitz: “And when Pharaoh said no?”

Idek: “The plague.”

Zamkevitz: “First Moses turned the Egyptian's water to blood, then God sent a plague of frogs, next mosquitoes, then flies, then He slew their live stock, next a plague of boils. Next, came hail that battered down the crops, trees, and structures everywhere.”

Idek: “Except Goshen, where the Israelites lived.”

Zamkevitz: “And then a plague of locust and then the days of darkness, and finally what?

Idek: “God slew the first born of Egypt.”

Zamkevitz: “He struck down the first born, from the first born of Pharaoh to the first born of the slave at the mill. He slew them all.”

“Did He slay Pharaoh?”

Idek: “No.”

Zamkevitz: “It was Pharaoh that said no, but God let him live and slew his children instead; all the children.”

“And then the Children of Israel made their escape taking with them the gold and silver and jewels and garments of the Egyptians. And then God drowned the soldiers who pursued them. He did not close the waters up so the soldiers could not follow; He waited till they were following, then He closed the waters.”

“Then what?”

Idek: “Well, the desert and then the Promised Land.”

Zamkevitz: “Now, the Promised Land, was it empty?”

“‘As Israel, when you come into the land you shall cast out many nations, nations much greater and mightier than you are. You shall smite them and utterly destroy them, and you shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.’ ”

“And He gave them a king in Saul. Now, when the people of Amalek met Saul’s people what did the Lord God command?”

Idek: “Crush Amalek, put him under the curse.”

Zamkevitz: “Was Saul to show mercy, to spare anyone?”

“Do not spare him but kill, kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox, sheep, camels, and donkeys. So Saul set out to do this, and on the way he met the Canaanites (merchants). They were not Amalek’s people; he had no quarrel with them. He told them to flee.”

“And the Lord our God, was He pleased by the mercy of Saul, by the justice of Saul?”

Idek: “No, He wasn’t.”

Zamkevitz: “And when Saul decided not to destroy all the livestock, but to take them to feed his people, was God pleased by his prudence, his charity?”

Idek: “No, no He was not.”

Zamkevitz: “He said, 'you have rejected the word of Adoni, therefore He has rejected you as king.'”

“So, seeking to please the Lord our God, Samuel brought forth King Agag and hacked him to pieces before the Lord at Gilgal.”

“After Saul there came David; who took Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite by arranging to have Uriah killed. – Against the wishes of God.”

“Did God strike David for this? Did He strike Bathsheba? Adoni said that since you have sinned against me, the child will die.”

“You asked earlier, ‘Who punishes a child?’ God does.”

“Did the child die suddenly, mercifully, without pain? Seven days, seven days, that child spent suffering and died in pain; while David wrapped himself in sack and ashes and sought to show his sorrow to God. Did God listen?”

Idek: “The child died.”

Zamkevitz: “Did that child find that God was just?”

“Did the Amalekites find that God was just? Did the mothers of Egypt, the mothers, did they think that Adoni was just?”

Idek: “He was our God.”

Zamkevitz: “What, did God not make the Egyptians, their rivers, and make their crops grow? If not Him then who? Some other God?”

“And what did He make them for; to punish them, to starve, to frighten, to slaughter them?”

“The people of Amalek, the people of Egypt – what was it like for them, when Adoni turned against them? It was like this.” [He gestures to the death camp barracks.] Today there was a selection. When David defeated the Moabites, what did he do?”

Idek: “He made them lie on the ground in lines, and he chose one to live and two to die.”

Zamkevitz: “We are to become the Moabites. We are learning how it was for the Amalekites. They faced extinction at the hand of Adoni, they died at His purpose. They fell as we fall, they were afraid as we are afraid. And what did they learn? They learned that the Lord our God, our God is not good, is not good, He was not ever good. He was only on our side. God is not good! In the beginning, when He repented that He had made human beings and drowned them, why? What had they done to deserve annihilation? What could they have done to deserve such wholesale slaughter? What could they have done? God is not good. When He asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham should have said no. He should have taught our God the justice that was in our hearts. We should have stood up to Him. He is not good. He has simply been strong and on our side. Who is to say God is not with the Nazis?”

Before the Judges can render their verdict, the Nazis come and march half the inmates to the gas chamber. The audience is left to judge.

This “trial of God” is typical of the attacks on God by some who claim to be atheists. The reasonable response to the foolishness attributed to Adoni is that the Torah was written to justify the actions of the Israelites and excuse their crimes. A reasonable answer to such a charge is that these unreasonable parts of the text have nothing to do with God. God is not unjust, and any scriptures that claim otherwise have nothing to do with God; and cannot prove anything about Him. One may as well talk about the chariot of the sun, the palaces on Mt. Olympus, the Spanish Inquisition, the mass human sacrifices of pre-Colombian Mesoamerica, or the terror bombers of 9/11. To justify evil in God's name is to lie, it does not indict God.

Reason explains the atrocities committed in the name of God to this day. Logic easily dispels all such similar attacks against His existence. This is so absolute a Law that it, in fact, reveals which religions can pretend to any claim to truth at all.

God is not unreasonable.

In his lecture, Faith, Reason and the University, given on September 12th 2006, Pope Benedict XVI also discusses this point. He quotes “. . . the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. . . . The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man . . . the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. . . he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. . . “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably . . . is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. . . To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death. . .”

The Pope goes on to explain that, “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion [I would argue against injustice of any kind in the name of God.] is that: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to Gods’ nature.” He sums up the emperor Manuel II’s arguments with this powerful quote: “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God. . ."

God is not a religion.

Sunday, April 04, 2010

The N.E.P.

Always Hungry or Forever Fat

I’m always hungry. It’s by choice; a necessary discomfort I endure to get something I want more than feeling full.

Some years ago, at my annual Boy Scout physical, my doctor got me thinking. As we talked about the joys of grandchildren, he asked how my parents had died. Both died from heart disease. He told me I needed to get my weight and cholesterol down if I wanted to enjoy my grandchildren for long. “It would be sad,” he added, “to lose all that learning.” His warning still echoes in my mind.

Some days later, I took a look at my chubby reflection in the mirror. I had avoided looking in the mirror for a long time. I wore baggy clothes, sweaters, and suspenders, so I wouldn’t have to think about my tummy. I never posed for photographs. Rather discouraged, I got on the new digital scale in our bathroom. I weighed over a ton; the scale read 2030. Frantic, I burst out of the bathroom crying, “I weigh two thousand and thirty pounds.” My daughter comforted me, and pointed out that there was a decimal point in there. In fact I weighed 203.0 lbs., still a wake up call.

It was then I invented the N.E.P. (New Eating Program). We were studying Lenin in World History, and the New Economic Program was in my head. It took me one and a half years to reach a target weight (TW). I have weighed 130 lbs for a year and a half (my preferred weight (PW) is 128 lbs.) and I have decided that the N.E.P. really does work. Here it is:

1. Eat only three meals a day and take only ONE reasonable portion of food at each. Never eat until full; always stop still wanting more.
2. Never eat desserts.
3. Never eat snacks: no ice cream, no candy, no cookies, no donuts, no sugared pop, no fruit juice – nothing eaten solely to please the taste buds.
4. Take nutritional supplements. I take the following: a daily multi-vitamin, (Centrum Silver – I am an old man), a vitamin E capsule, 4000 milligrams of fish oil (four pills a day), one baby aspirin, 10 mg of Crestor, and 500 mg of Niaspan Er. (These prescription medications were prescribed by my doctor). I also take one red wine extract gell-cap (Resveratra) every day, and for my brain, I eat 22.5 grams of Ghirardelli’s intense dark 86% Cacao chocolate every Thursday at lunch.
5. Do moderate exercise. I do 200 pushups, 100 in the morning – 100 each afternoon, and 25 pull-ups each night. (I did not start out at these levels.) I also walk for at least 20 minuets every day.
6. Drink a liter of water a day.
7. Satisfy cravings with diet soda or calorie free flavored water.
8. Weigh every day. At first I weighed myself three times a week; this was a better way to see declines in weight. Now that I am in “holding” mode, I weigh myself every morning just before my shower. It is my goal to always be below 130 lbs.
9. Write goals down – I place my 130 lb goal in my New Year’s Resolution list in my journal every year. That pledge is always there to motivate my efforts.
10. Eat something you like every day. I eat a two cup bowl of Post Selects Great Grains, Raisin, Dates, and Pecans every morning.

By strict observance of this plan, I lost 75 lbs in just over a year. I started the NEP at Camp the summer of 2007 and by the end of camp 2008, I weighed 130 lbs or less. I had lost far more weight than I originally planned. I must admit that at first I didn’t know what weight was right for me. I just started losing weight and was surprised, and pleased at how much I did. Getting to and maintaining this weight for almost two years now was not easy; it is not easy. My experience has been that nothing of real value comes easy. There are advantages:

1. I feel better. I am free of the burden of carrying 75 pounds everywhere. I used to get winded walking to the campfire bowl at Loll. Now, I’m not concerned at walking any distance or climbing any hill. In the fall of 2008, our family took a trip to Zion’s National Park; I climbed to the top of Angle's Landing and didn’t even get my heart pounding –except from the fear of falling.
2. I enjoy my food a lot more. Before the N.E.P., I was full all the time, eating out of boredom or habit. Now, I have a sharp edged appetite and enjoy eating more.
3. I save money. There was a time when a trip anywhere necessitated a stop at the gas station; costing a $3+ treat expense –pop, cookies, and such. I no longer consume much expensive meat, cheese, or ice cream. There is a Diet Mountain Dew charge – but it is small by comparison.
4. I’m not ashamed to look in the mirror or see pictures of myself.
5. I have much more confidence. I may not be handsome, but at least I’m not fat.
6. My cholesterol is normal, my blood pressure excellent.
7. I (knock on wood) never get sick.
8. My clothes fit. I had to get a new wardrobe, new pants, belt, shirts, underwear, even sweaters. I bagged up all my old cloths and took them back to DI. The clothes I wear feel comfortable, never tight, never stretched.

Challenges:

1. People ask me and especially ask my wife, if I am dying of cancer.
2. There has been a rumor going around the scout council for two years that I was dying and that “this” will be my last year at Loll.
3. I look older than I did forty pounds ago. My skin got lose and baggy, it is getting to fit better, slowly.

Dangers that must be faced:

1. It’s hard to eat out. Avoid all-you-can-eat restaurants of any kind. They are a bane and an embarrassment to our culture; such public gluttony in shocking. I must attend such a restaurant twice a year with my father-in-law’s family. I take one small plate of salad and fish. I strengthen my resolve by looking at all the fat people in the room, and reminding myself that I want to live long enough to take my grandsons to General Priesthood meeting.
2. Be strong when you’re out with friends, or visiting with people who are hoping to entertain you. Here in Utah, one never serves liquor, but hosts make up for this by providing food at every meeting. Learn to say no and move quickly on to other things. People do not get offended if you are nice – and someone is always around to eat up your portion.
3. I’m hungry all the time. I tell myself that, “hungry is good”. In the days that I was trying to loose weight, I reminded myself that the hunger meant I was burning fat. Now I remind myself that I, not my appetite, am the master – and look forward to my bowl of cereal. I think of my grandkids.
4. Most of the folks I know who have lost weight by diet or surgery have gained it all back in a rather short time. It is so hard to lose weight, and so easy to gain it! So I remind myself that I cannot fail. I am even writing this post as a sort of commitment – a dare to myself to “keep it off”.

Some things I do for support:

1. I look at fat people and think to myself – there but for the grace of God and the N.E. P. go me. Wal-Mart is an especially good place to do this.
2. I look at the healthy and beautiful people that are all around me and seek inspiration in their strength and success.
3. I chew sugar free gum. It is like candy to me.
4. I play with my grandsons and enjoy watching them grow. I dream of seeing their sons as well. My father-in-law is a great source of inspiration to me.
5. I look forward to a long retirement; taking some satisfaction in realizing that my students will work many years to pay for my adventures yet to be. I know I could die at any moment, but it won’t be of being fat; over that I have, and have, taken control.
6. I fill my time with other activities so I don’t have to eat for entertainment. I draw, read, and write. I set goals for camp and school and work on them whenever I have free time.

The NEP was not entirely original to me nor is it without support in the medical world. I have been reading about it for years with my Greek and Roman History Class. In Xenophon’s ­­Laws and Customs of the Spartans, he recounts how Lycurgus guided the Spartans:

“As to food, he ordained that they should exhort the boys to take only such a quantity as never to be oppressed with overeating, and not to be strangers to living somewhat frugally; supposing that, being thus brought up, they would be the better able, if they should be required, to support toil under a scarcity of supplies, would be the more likely to persevere in exertion, should it be imposed on them, on the same quantity of provisions, and would be less desirous of sauces, more easily satisfied with any kind of food, and pass their lives in greater health. He also considered that the fare which rendered the body slender would be more conductive to increasing its stature that that which expanded it with nutriment.”

“Lycurgus, then, having found the Spartans, like other Greeks, taking their meals at home, and knowing that most were guilty of excess at them, caused their meals to be taken in public, thinking that his regulations would thus be less likely to be transgressed. He appointed them such a quantity of food, that they should neither be overfed nor feel stinted.”

"As Lycurgus observed, too, that those who , after taking food, exercised themselves, become well-complexioned, plump, and robust, while those who are inactive are puffy, unhealthy-looking, and feeble, he did not neglect to give attention to that point; . . . he ordered that the oldest in each place of exercise should take care that those belonging to it should never be overcome by taking too much food."

"With regard to this matter, he appears to me to have been by no means mistaken; for no one would easily find men more healthy, or more able-bodied, than the Spartans; for they exercise themselves alike in their legs, in their hands, and in their shoulders."

The N.E.P. has support in today’s scientific community. In a recent “Time Magazine”, (Feb 22, 2010), article by Bryan Walsh, the virtues of Lycurgus pronouncements are reinforced by modern research. The article titled, “Eat Less, Live Longer?” contains the following supportive commentary:

“Jon Apollos is losing weight the old-fashioned way – by eating less. . . Apollos has lowered his daily caloric intake 25% over the past eight months. The fat, not surprisingly, has melted away; the 52-year-old physical trainer has lost more than 25 lb. (11 kg) since the study began and is down to his high school weight. . . The researchers running the multi-center CALERIE study are trying to determine whether restricting food intake can slow the aging process and extend our life span. “I feel better and lighter and healthier,” says Apollos. “But if it could help you live longer, that would be pretty amazing. . ."

“. . . decades of calorie-restriction studies involving organisms ranging from microscopic yeast to rats have shown just that, extending the life spans of the semi-starved as much as 50% . . . finding that calorie restriction seemed to extend the lives of human like rhesus monkeys as well . . . any time you go on a diet, after all, you stand a good chance of lowering your blood pressure, cholesterol level and risk of diabetes and other health woes. All that can translate into extra years. With calorie restriction – usually defined as a diet with 25% to 30% fewer calories than normal but still containing essential nutrients – something else appears to be at work to extend longevity. . .”

“Scientists have suspected that calorie restriction could extent the life span of animals since at least 1935, when researchers at Cornell University noticed that severely food-restricted lab rats lived twice as long as normal ones and were healthier. Other investigators began exploring the idea and learned that the secret is not merely a matter of body weight: lab mice that ate normally but became skinny by exercising a lot showed no longevity improvements. Only the ones that didn’t eat many calories to begin with benefited. . .”

“Calorie restriction is pretty much the only thing out there that we know will not just prevent disease but also extend maximal life span,” says Dr. Marc Hellerstein, a nutritionist at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies the biological effects of fasting.”

“The dieters lose weight almost immediately, usually reducing their body mass about 15% in the first year before plateauing. And they reap the expected health benefits: cholesterol and blood pressure drop precipitously. . .”

There are challenges mentioned in the “Time” article, and hope as well:

“In contemporary America, where calories are cheap and plentiful, cutting back 25% means almost constantly saying no. Alcohol is largely out, and dining with friends who aren’t denying themselves would become a chore. . . As for Apollos, who has 16 months to go on the CALERIE study, he has grown fond of abstention and says he wants to continue the diet even after the experiment is over. His improved health is, by itself, a form of renewed youth. But getting some extra years would be an even better one.”

So there it is – The N.E.P. Give it a try. For those who are interested, I hope to keep you posted on my efforts for a long, long time. As for grandchildren; I’m at five grandsons and counting!

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

We Don’t Need Insurance – We Need a Warrantee

We just bought a new truck, well, new to us. It’s a Toyota. Perhaps this is why I’m thinking of automotive metaphors.

As we finished up our negotiations and prepared to sign up for a loan, the finance fellow asked if we wanted an extended warrantee.

“How much?”

“$980 for three years.”

“What does it cover?”

He laid out the advantages. As he talked, I recalled my daughter’s adventure. A year ago she bought a used Japanese car. I encouraged her to buy Japanese. It was the salesman who convinced her to buy a comprehensive warrantee. It cost her $1,000. I thought she’d been snookered. But, come this past December, her transmission went out. The repair cost $2,300; covered in full by the warrantee. She had thrown the dice and won $1,300.

I considered her luck, and my own, and we added the warrantee into the financing. Here’s my gamble: within the next three years, my truck’s transmission fails at a cost of $3,000. Bam – I win two thousand bucks.

You know what would have been really nice? If I could have told the guy, “I’ll buy the warrantee if and when the transmission goes out. Wouldn’t it be great to wait until I was betting on a sure thing? Now you might think that the car man would laugh in my face –such a suggestion is ridiculous. But isn’t this what requiring Health Insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions is. How can any car company survive while accepting a $2,000 loss on every warrantee they sell, how can any insurance company? Of course you could charge $3,000 for the warrantee up front, but what would be the point. No one would pay – unless there was a law requiring everyone to buy a warrantee. Wouldn’t that be a good idea?

I have wanted a Toyota for a long time. My Uncle Thayer had one clear back in the sixties. It looked like a jeep, but he told me it was better. He was a Marine – he knew. I went to Japan on an LDS mission and fell in love with all things Japanese and I have a friend who has had a Toyota truck “forever”. Now we have one. I dream that it will last long into my retirement – decades after the last payment.

I think that everyone needs quality transportation. Americans should really see quality transportation as a right, and shouldn’t the government be providing rights to the people?

One might argue that the government is already providing trains and busses, not to mention highways and traffic cops, but here’s an idea. What if the government required each of us to buy a car? They could claim that public transportation is ineffective and costly, and while 270,000 000 Americans already have access to cars, 30,000,000 do not. Is that fair? Think of all the suffering these people must endure!!!!

We need a law that every person must buy a car. If you don’t buy a car you will be fined. What if you don’t want a car? Too bad, sooner or later you’ll need to go somewhere and then it will be too expensive to provide you with one in such an emergency. So, if you don’t buy a car, there will be a fine and if you don’t pay the fine – jail.

What about people who can’t afford cars? That’s easy; those who can afford cars will be taxed to pay for the cars of people who can’t.

Look at all the benefits. Think of all the money our country will save on bus and rail transportation they won’t have to provide. Of course the government will have to deal with people who want nicer cars than those purchased by taxes for those who can’t afford them – but that too will prove a boon to the economy. Just tax them for having a nicer car. I bet we’ll have the budget balanced by the end of the decade.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Sagwitch 71


Sagwitch was a great Indian Chief. At the end of the 19th century he fought against overwhelming forces in order to save his people. In 1971 his great-grandson, Jon Trent Warner, was born – proof of Sagwitch's victory.

My reference for this drawing was a photo I took of Trent when he was performing in the Fellowship of the Moose Ceremony at Camp Loll back in 1989.


I do my drawings for my own study. It is my goal to master tools and techniques; to remember all the rules. Here are some of the tools I am attempting to master. Lots of pencils; Guptill recommends one mark different harnesses with colors to make it possible to quickly identify them. I sharpen them with a pocket knife, polishing them with sandpaper, and wipe the points clean with tissue. I use several different erasers: kneaded, white, and the ones at the ends of my Ticonderoga #2’s. I recently bought an electric eraser. It is very nice for removing unwanted construction lines. The brush and the feather are from removing eraser dust. Once the drawing is done, I fix it with a spray.


There are advantages in sketching from a photo rather than from three dimensional objects, although there are draw backs as well. With a clear ruler I can exactly place landmark points. As R. B. Hale says, to draw lines one needs to know the points at which they begin and end. The templates are especially helpful in drawing eyes. Another important tool I learned about from Guptill is the eraser shield. I’ve seen is referred to a dental floss for one's drawings. It enables the removal of unwanted marks and lines without damaging those one wants to keep.


.
The Drawing begins with a very carefully measured sketch. Guptill advises that one block out the drawing very lightly with the pencil barley touching the paper.


.
Once the “edges” are established, Guptill advises that the figure be subdivided and small details be expresses, while retaining the larger characteristics. Once this is done the construction lines can be erased.

With the line drawing complete, it is time to add value.

Guptill suggests that the values be applied and practiced on a piece of tracing paper placed over the line drawing. I've found this to be a great way to build confidence without risking my drawing. It allows the retention of construction lines from which to measure and allows for the placing of contours without locking the construction lines in place. It also allows for contour lines to be sketched in without having to place them on the actual surface of the artwork. Mistakes can be made – and fixed – without consequence.

Look through the tracing paper pictured below and you can see the values of the face.

.
Here the tracing paper is “in place” over the drawing, allowing experimentation and practice while protecting the drawing.

.
Once I have tried the values out on the tracing paper, I remove the construction lines and re-apply the shading directly on the drawing. In this case I found the feathers even more challenging than the face. It took a lot of careful measurement to get the feather patterns expressed. I did them very lightly at first, making them more intense by degrees as I became satisfied with the effects. The white feathers have been slightly grayed by placing lines in rhythm with the “veins” of the feathers. The red fluffs are in gray, the black dyed tips developed with darker and darker parallel lines. The red felt wrappings are a chance to express the form of the feathers by shading them as cylinders.

I developed the white fluff by concentrating on the edges and keeping everything else as white as possible. It was the same with the ermine dangles.


Tracing paper also allows the careful placement of detail contours.


.
Guptill suggests three stages for making a line drawing into a value sketch.

Stage #1 - Think of the exact. Consider degrees of light and shade (dark). Translate the value of color into values of light and dark.

Stage #2 – Make the outline drawing. Add (lightly) contours of areas of light or shade. [This can be done either on the paper, on a printed copy of the line drawing, or on tracing paper placed over the line drawing.] Determine the lightest light and the darkest dark and make comparison to other values. Sharpen a medium soft pencil to a fairly sharp point. Work for darkest to lightest; building up all tones gradually. Finally, set the drawing back often – get away from it once in a while.

Stage #3 – Compare – do you have the exact degrees of light and dark in the drawing as in the object, [reference]. Compare – the exact degrees of sharpness and softness in the edges. Ask questions: Is there is too much dark at one side or at the bottom? Does the whole hold together nicely? Are the shadows clear and transparent, or heavy and dead? Has one succeeded in expressing space, depth, weight, texture? Has one expressed economy in tone or is the drawing confused by to many different values? Has the outline been lost, as it should be? Do the nearer parts come forward properly? Do the farther parts go back? (If not force the nearer – sacrifice the distant!) Is there complexity of highlight? (If so, tone down all but one. Have one lightest light and one darkest dark.)


Next – Anatomy! I always have my anatomy books available. Among the many books I checked while drawing this picture were Joseph Sheppard’s Anatomy and Very Basic Art Lessons by me. On the tracing paper I sketched in the muscles of the stomach, side, and beneath the arm.



At this point I realized I had not clearly established the ribcage under the muscle groups so I add it onto the tracing paper then transferred it to the drawing.





Once the anatomy was ruffed out I consulted art works I admire to help fine tune the forms.



With the line of the ribcage as reference I put in the muscles and then almost entirely removed the construction lines, the lines that indicate what I know but cannot see.



Now it is was matter of placing the values over the form. The reference indicates where the lights and darks go. As R. B. Hale explains, one must draw with the mind and the rules as well as with the eyes and tools. "One must draw what one knows not just what one sees."

I try to apply all the pencil to the drawing in a uniform right to left 45 degree angle series of lines. Kamille Cory taught this to me when I was lucky enough to be her student. Guptill demands the same. I change between flat and very pointed pencils, depending on the size of the area I seek to cover. I sharpen my pencil often to maintain the crispness of the outlines.



Next, I follow Guptill's injunction. I look and check, ajust and check again.



Shading creates the illusion of form. I shaded for a cylinder for the upper arm, and squared up the lower arm by shading its block like shape. I also used my oval drawing tool to establish the "perfect" circle of the iris.



I put in cast shadows – very carefully. R. B. Hale insists one remain the master of the cast shadows; they must not over power the drawing. I tried to ignore those that confused the shapes I was seeking to portray. I tried to make my shadows as “transparent” as possible and applied coats of fixative once I had them were I wanted them. Any slight change now would take on significance.



I put in the darkest darks; trying to reserve one darkest focus – his hair – and one lightest highlight – the fluffs of feathers and fur. I selectively clarified lines that divide shapes, especially those that indicate overlapping of forms. I tried to make gradual light shift between merging plans.



I add my last dark emphasis lines to indicate color and shading differences, signed my name, and add the date. Finally I covered the drawing with a coat of fixative. There was not turning back.

Sunday, March 07, 2010

In Pocatello

Yellowstone and Loll

On March 3rd 2010 a meeting was held to develop a relationship between Camp Loll and Yellowstone National Park that would best serve the needs of those who hike into Union Falls, Scout Pool, Terrace Falls, and other park destinations. The result of the interaction was more than compromise; it was collaboration.

I traveled to Pocatello with the Trapper Trails Council BSA Director of Camping, Bill Wangsgard, and the Council Director of Support Services, Phillip Eborn. We arrived at the Forest Service offices about twenty minutes early and were directed to a conference room. I had brought an arm load of materials. The scrap book I have built on our Hike Day campaign, containing the blog posts below, a CX Debate style case on the issue, the protocol developed by our nature Director, Lafe Conner, Bechler Ranger, Dave Ross, and his assistant Todd Selega. There were also numerous copies of supportive letters to the Park and various congressional representatives, and their replies, as well as my replies to any letters which raised concerns. It was very encouraging to know that we brought with us evidence of the support of our elected representatives, business and professional leaders, parents, and many of the youth Loll has served over the years.

We set up a computer to show pictures of Camp Loll, its staff and campers, and of the various hike destinations and routes. I had prepared a packet of information for each participant – including the “debate case”, Lafe’s history of Loll’s interactions with Yellowstone, a copy of the post, “What We Do at Loll”, and a selection of letters. I had one of our High Adventure prep packets, produced by Kim Bott, as well. I also had several years’ worth of hike day records, including the sheets from 2007 and 2008 keeping track of the number of times scouts defecated in the backcountry. I had a copy of our Hike Plan, and check-out lecture. From the National Inspection book, I had brought the Wilderness First Aid Cards and CPR cards of our Camp Rangers, the certification of training given to our staff by the Forest Service, and photo copies of the frequent user cards issued by the park to our Camp Loll Rangers last summer.

The Park Rangers arrived: Bechler Ranger, Dave Ross, West District Ranger, Michael Keator, and the Chief Ranger of Yellowstone National Park, Tim Reid. Hand shakes all-round and, ten minutes early, the conversation began. Ranger Keator had prepared an excellent agenda: introductions, a briefing from each organization on their management policies and philosophies, a review of Camp Loll’s Operating Plan., and finally, a review of existing “proposed” use permit. Ranger Keator had even planned for actions if agreement could not be achieved.

Ranger Keator presented the Park’s policies and philosophy. He discussed the Bechler District with its resources and challenges. He reminded us of the uniqueness of the area and how increasing numbers of visitors make the difficult journey to reach popular destinations, and bring with them an expectation free from unacceptable impacts that diminish wilderness values. Bechler now receives from 100 to 200 visitors a day.

Ranger Keator reviewed the foundational policies that unite the Park and the BSA in the preservation of the wilderness ethic. He touched on the Organic Act of 1916 and the Management Policies established in 2006, tasked to preserve the natural and cultural resources of the park and to provide for their enjoyment without impairing their value to future generations. He talked about the BSA’s Outdoor Code and the principles of “Leave No Trace”.

He explained that there are two balanced goals held by Yellowstone and the BSA, and hence Camp Loll, which must be managed. These are first, resources, by which he meant the opportunity visitors have to see the wonders, and second, value, which he interpreted as a justifiable expectation of peace and tranquility. He made clear that the Superintendent’s responsibility was to set limits on some in order to preserve the experience for others, that no one has exclusive rights to these treasures, and that the permitting process was a tool to affect these dual goals. He called for a holistic approach, seeking a way in which everyone can benefit. This is indeed a difficult task for the Park. To meet it they follow a process of Laws, Policies, and Guidelines. The Rangers stressed that limitations are not about Boy Scouts or about Camp Loll specifically.

I must admit that, as I listened, I saw many parallels between the Superintendent’s goals for Yellowstone and the Trapper Trails Council aims for Camp Loll. It came forcefully to me, that I do not want Camp Loll to be any larger. Indeed, Loll is one of the smallest camps in the council; it could easily be otherwise. Realize that Loll has been full for this summer since the 4th of January. Were we to open more campsites we could surely double our attendance, yet we do not. Part of the reason for this is that our agreement with the Forest Service limits our numbers to present levels – but equally as important to me is the aesthetic and practical qualities we are able to maintain by limiting use. How could I justly deny Yellowstone the same prerogative?

There were some misconceptions about Camp Loll and its use of the park that had to be cleared up. The Park Service Briefing Statement held three claims that could be justly challenged:

1. That peak numbers of 200-300 individuals from Camp Loll have been documented at Union Falls in a single day. If this was so twenty years ago; it has not been the case this century.

2. That extensive resource impacts have occurred at Terraced Falls. There were impacts years ago, but these have been reversed and repaired by much hard work, and our present protocol has prevented our campers from causing damage for years.

3. There is no permit to manage 350 individuals from Camp Loll from going to a single destination in YNP on any given day. Since the entire attendance of Camp Loll does not reach 350 campers, and they never all go to any single, or even multiple destinations in Yellowstone, this concern is moot.

Other points in the Current Status Review related to Loll’s agreement with the Forest Service; these were correct, and the POTENTIAL private use of Union Falls on any given day; numbers which are, in actually, not yet reached in our experience.

It was then our turn to speak. As I tend to be the most talkative in any group, Phillip gave me the opportunity to present Camp Loll’s position and procedures. However, Bill and Phillip did have important points to add especially relevant to many aspects of Council and National policy. I could not address such issues as insurance policies and financial obligations. We spoke for over an hour, the Rangers listened attentively, read through the “brief” I gave them, and sought clarification. As the discussion progressed, Dave Ross supported our claims and expanded upon my description of our efforts to serve and protect the Park. As Camp Loll’s program was presented, it became obvious that everyone in the room had the same goals.

I began by reading our “mission statement” from “What We Do at Loll” posted below, and then related our daily procedures as outlined there. I did not directly read from, or refer to, the “Brief”, but Tim Reid read it carefully and responded to several points. I will post this brief below. Ranger Reid referred directly to three of the CX questions:

#2. Referencing a “Sierra Club” lawsuit; he explained that the permit process had nothing to do with any lawsuit. Rather it was a necessary step in defending the resources and values of the Park.

#3. As to the CUA – this procedure had been a mistake. The BSA is not a “for profit” group and should therefore be properly directed by a Special Use Permit, although admittedly, the difference here is most semantic.

#4. On what drives the limitations; it is not complaints or pressure for any source, or animosity toward Boy Scouts in the park, but rather the “global reckoning” of the over all use increase of the park. Camp Loll is one of many users, and all must do their part to properly utilize the resource while preserving its value.

These explanations were more than adequate. The other questions were all answered in the process of our two hour discussion.

Ranger Reid did put the “observations” I placed in the “Brief” in his perspective. His views on these and his answers to the “spike” did not necessarily match my feeling, but I could see his point of view, even as he listened to mine. The important thing was it was becoming obvious, that with effort, both our positions could be accommodated.

Then we took a break.

When we returned we sought, and soon found ourselves in agreement. The Rangers set out their needs; those of us from the BSA put forward ours as well. There was not much conflict. I had come to realize that some changes would be necessary. I am not one to readily accept change; however, I saw that fulfilling the Parks needs could actually allow us to set up a system that will improve the entire camp experience for our scouts. I did point out that such changes could not come this summer.

I explained:

1. That our largest weekly attendance at Loll in the summer of 2009 (some were much smaller), was 224 scouts. We average, about 70 adults leaders in camp as well. On Hike Day, the largest numbers of troops to go to Terraced Falls, was perhaps as many as 100 hikers. Many others go to destinations outside Yellowstone: Survey Peak, the Heritage Hike to Grassy Lake, or the Beulah Lake Hike. We rarely have as many as a hundred Loll Campers hiking to Union Falls on any given Wednesday. I then added up an average week of hikers from one of our hike day record sheets – it showed 89 hikers had gone to Union Falls. This is probably close to average.

2. I explained that I have also thought long and hard about setting specific group sizes for our hike groups. Many of our troops are smaller than 12 boys; the average troop size is about 8, while some are larger. I believe there are advantages to allowing the troop to hike together. I feel that the fellowship, opportunities for service and leadership, and the acquisition of a life-long shared experience for the troop or crew are extremely valuable assets gained by maintaining unit integrity. I have thought of hiking as patrols rather than troops – but staffing becomes a problem. It is our determination that, for safety and ecological reasons, it is necessary to have a staff member accompany each hike group. We just cannot afford enough staff members to accommodate more than the 23 groups we already provide with camp friends.

3. In the same way – I have tried to figure out ways to allow troops to hike on different days while maintaining a meaningful and safe in-camp program for the young people who stay. The truth is that our hike guides are also our merit badge instructors, life guards, and climbing and range personnel. Further, it would be impossible to have adult staff members on duty at Terraced and Union Falls and on duty at the climbing rocks, archery range, and other facilities requiring constant supervision at Loll.

4. It is our goal to always have two adult unit leaders accompany all groups hiking in the park. This is in compliance with the “two deep leadership policy” of the Youth Protection guidelines of the BSA. Setting the number of hikers at 15 would thus effectively limit the number of scouts hiking to 12 per group.

5. Finally, it has occurred to me that for those who are not happy at meeting anyone else in the back country, spreading the hikers over five rather than two days, (We do send one in-camp high adventure group to Union Falls on Tuesday.) could well make even more folks angry. To this point the Rangers explained that it was not complaints by others – indeed Ranger Ross explained that there were very few complaints about Loll hikers – but rather the need to protect the value of the experience for all, including our hikers, that drove the Park’s goal.

In spite of my reservations about making changes in our program this summer, I did begin to see a way that by the summer of 2011, we could actually come close to the Park’s goals and at the same time improve the experience for our campers. The “fix” would not be easy, requiring Loll to accommodate hike days on both Wednesday and Thursday, however these advantages would accrue in 2011.

1. We could reduce our hikers into the park by half by simply dividing the group. By developing other good alternative hikes we could actually reduce the number even more, while not depriving anyone who desires the opportunity to visit Union Falls/Scout Pool or Terrace Falls.

2. The hikers who did go to Union Falls and Scout Pool would have fewer Loll hikers to coordinate their activities with – thus having longer at the pool and the falls and less time waiting at the “hitching post”. Also, in fulfillment of the Park’s view, they would actually have a more valuable wilderness experience while insuring that same value to other visitors as well.

3. Those who remain in Camp on the “other” day would find the program areas less crowded – thus making it easier to participate in shooting, climbing, and waterfront activities.

4. Those who chose from among the many wonderful, shorter hikes available at Loll will find all the programs areas up and running when they return to camp. They will thus be able to participate in free time activities and advancement opportunities.

The Rangers saw the challenges we faced and addressed them. For this summer (2010), we will continue to utilize the Wednesday only Hike Day format. To accommodate that, a temporary Special Use Permit will be issued for this summer only. By 2011 the numbers on any given day will be further reduced to limits which are, however, less restrictive than the 15 originally called for in the originally proposed CUA. Utilization over two days will allow close to the average number of hikers who have hither to used the trails to Union and Terrace Falls.

I have not provided all the details of the Special Use Permit. They are still only available in “draft” form and there are some small technicalities to be worked out. However, I know there are many who are anxious to know how things look for this summer and to understand why and how decisions affecting so much we all value were made.

I will post the brief I prepared for the meeting below. Ranger Reid said his daughter is in the debate program at her high school, so he was familiar with the format.

A Brief

The Case for continuing the present protocol for Camp Loll’s hikes to Union Falls, Scout Pool (Ouzel Pool), and Terrace Falls in Yellowstone:

Resolution:

Access by the youth, trained and supervised by the Camp Loll BSA staff, into Yellowstone areas adjacent to the camp; including, Union Falls, Scout Pool, and Terraced Falls is of benefit to the Park, to conservation of the environment, to youth, and to America; therefore, it is vital to maintain the Hike Day Protocol as developed by the National Park and Camp Loll over the past twenty years.

The Challenge:

After years of cooperation and successful backcountry utilization under a system which allowed small supervised groups to be guided into Union Falls and Scout Pool on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and Terrace Falls on Wednesdays, throughout the summer, a proposed Commercial Use Authorization (CUA) will greatly restrict such access.

Note:

1. Neither Camp Loll, nor the Trapper Trails Council BSA was consulted in the development of the CUA. Under the Administrative Procedures Act a Notice of Proposed Rule Making should have been provided. No attempt was or has been made to reach out to these stakeholders about any notice on the Federal Registry.

2. The stated parameters of the measures and activities implemented along the trails and at the destination points of the hikes minimize impact. Park representatives have informed the Camp that, “if impact was reduced participation could be maintained.” Impact has been reduced, indeed reversed, by efforts from Camp Loll.

3. The only impact not greatly reduced or eliminated by the present program is the, so-called, “visual impact” on other hikers who meet a Camp Loll hiking group on the trail or at one of the destinations. It should be noted that very few, most weeks no, non-Loll hikers are encountered on the trail to, or at the viewing point of Terrace Falls. As this is often the hike taken by the larger portion of Loll’s hikers, “visual impact” is less than overall numbers could imply to those looking for offence.

4. Specifics and the challenges they present. From the CUA:

a. Point #7. “All day use groups shall be no larger than 15 visitors (one guide and 14 clients) and shall be spaced at least ½ mile apart at all times.” (Proposed CUA Attachment B: p 1) Scout Troops and Venture Crews already come divided into groups. Many are smaller than 14 – our average troop size is closer to 8 – but others are larger. Groups already have a guide and hike separately. The trail to Union Falls/Scout Pool is over eight miles long and groups are naturally spread out, often by far more than a ½ mile interval. At destination points there is some time together, however, this has been dealt with under the present protocol by restricting the hike groups to the hitching post area where they eat meals, practice bear precautions, change into their swimming clothes, and wait to be sent either to the falls or the pool, one group at a time. Present protocol allows very small groups to be combined and requires groups over 20 to be divided.

b. Point #8. “Permittee is allowed to guide one group of 15 to Union Falls, one group of 15 to Ouzel Pool [Scout Pool] and two groups of 15 each to Terrace Falls on any given day. Other areas may be identified and approved by the District Ranger as use and resource impacts dictate.”(Emphasis is in the document.) Since the groups who hike the eight miles one way to Union Falls will desire to also visit Scout Pool, this proscription necessarily limits the utilization to one group of 15. As one member of the group will be Camp Loll Staff, and two members will be accompanying unit adult leaders, the suggested policy will limit the number of Scouts or Ventures able to visit this recourse to 12. As guides also serve as on the program staff it is impossible to utilize more than one hike day per week and still safely and effectively maintain “in camp” operations. Thus the scouts cannot take advantage of other days for hiking. (Under the present program a small group of older hikers already travels to Union Falls on Tuesday, further preempting use of that day.)

The Harms:

Restricting access to Union Falls/Ouzel (Scout Pool) and Terrace Falls will reduce their value as an important American natural resource. These restrictions actually damage the resource.

Note:

America’s youth are its greatest resource – they are indeed its future. The experience of visiting these locations in the park greatly enhances their lives. Restricting such opportunity to the many, so a few can monopolize it, will rob our nation of the treasure of experience presently provided and take from the Park the life long support of thousands deprived of wonderful lessons and memories.

The wilderness must be experienced to be loved. By locking out hundreds, who do no harm in their passing, at the demand of those, who like the aristocrats of the past, demand exclusive use of such riches, this policy will dim the passion of a multitude of could-have-been supporters of Yellowstone and of wilderness in general. Consider how the disenfranchised and ignorant mobs of the past destroyed their national treasures because they had never had the chance to own or love them.

Values above and beyond awareness and love of nature are also provided by these hikes. The values of Scouting, as presented in the Oath and Law, are the reason for the program at Loll. These values are inseparably linked to nature, conservation, and environmentalism. One learns of God by observing His creations in the wilderness. A scout recognizes the greatness of our country by experiencing the natural treasures they hold in trust with their fellow citizens. Once such treasures were the purview of Kings, but in this nation they are the pleasure of all. As a young person experiences the wonder of nature they learn the responsibility that comes with so great a birthright. It is in nature that a boy or girl will test their limits developing their body, wit, and character. As they work together on the trail, defending and improving the environment, through which they pass without a trace; they learn the joy of service to others which is the foundation of happiness and success in life. What better use can we extract from the wilderness? In a day when all but the last child is driven from the woods, the positive effects of this uniquely powerful wilderness will be stolen from America’s future. At the very time when we struggle to keep our children free from drugs, gangs, mind numbing computer games and video with their soul killing violence, pornography, bigotry, and ignorance, it would be a great harm indeed to drive them from Union Falls, and deprive them, by the hundreds, of the life enriching joy of swimming in Scout Pool; real life activities they cannot find elsewhere.

Advantages:

The present system minimizes impact from visitors by training, supervision, and example.

The present system provides maximum exposure with a minimum of impact.

The present system reduces “Wilde Cat” groups, scout groups not supervised or guided by the Camp Loll Staff, by ensuring a much better alternative will continue to be available.

The level and quality of the long-term relationship between Camp Loll and Yellowstone Park, and the support of the Forest Service in training and interacting with leaders and boys greatly increases hikers’ awareness of the role of the Park and Forest Service in preserving and protecting the treasures they enjoy. This will greatly enhance the effectiveness of these agencies in their ongoing efforts to defend and improve wilderness.

Spikes against claimed disadvantages:

Some may claim that allowing continued utilization at past levels will ruin the wilderness experience of others who come to this area seeking solitude and escape from other human influence: the so-called “visual impact”.

1. Since the Tuesday use is only by a small number of hikers, this “visual” impact is limited to one day a week (Wednesday day, hike day) – thus leaving six other days, including weekends, open to other backcountry users. The use is measured and predictable allowing those thus offended to be alerted and enabled to work around possible encounters.

2. It is not reasonable to argue that damaging one or a few persons’ experience justifies destroying the experience of many. Since the groups from Loll, although ostensibly numerous, actually do less harm and more good than unsupervised groups, there is no reasonable excuse for singling them out for restriction.

CX Questions

1. What are the purpose and values for which these sites, indeed the entire Yellowstone Park was set aside? Was it not for the enjoyment of all Americans?

2. What was involved in the original “Sierra Club” lawsuit that forced CUA’s on nonprofit organizations?

3. Who made the decisions reflected in Camp Loll’s proposed CUA?

4. What drives these limitations? Were they arbitrarily set or in response to some mandate?

5. What were the statistics and where is the logic that drives this decision?

6. Did those who set the limits do anything to understand the good that is done by Camp Loll through its utilization of this resource?

7. Have there been specific complaints lodged against groups from Camp Loll? If so, what were they?

8. How does the impact caused by trained and supervised Camp Loll groups compare with that of horse packing or unsupervised (wild cat) visiting groups or individuals? Since it is admittedly less, shouldn’t this mitigation be considered in developing any restrictions?

9. Can’t reasonable lines be drawn relating to impact? Are these restrictions related to impact? Shouldn’t such impacts be balanced by the benefit they accrue?

10. What restrictions are being placed on other “commercial” and noncommercial users? Are the restrictions placed on them related to impact? Have the consequences of the effects of their uses been weighed against the benefits they provide?

11. Since it is demonstrably evident that the present Camp Loll Hike Day Protocol has had positive effect on the area around Terraced Falls and Union Falls, why not continue these practices as they now operate?

12. If present numbers of the hikers can enjoy the benefit of these resources by visiting, viewing, and utilizing them, without harming them, how can such use be denied without violating the mission of Yellowstone Park, in the “protection of park resources and to ensure that all visitors can enjoy a quality experience”? (Emphasis added)?

Observations:

1. There is a net benefit accrued by allowing Camp Loll’s present use pattern. It is a quality experience. Hikers benefit throughout their lives from the positive nature of the experience, Yellowstone is enhanced by these hikers’ lifelong support, and the environment defended by the knowledge and the commitment established in all trained by this experience.

2. If Camp Loll groups were harming the site they could be chastened, corrected, perhaps even excluded, but they do not harm the resource.

3. Consider an American who has journeyed across the nation to visit the Lincoln Memorial or gaze at the founding documents. Would it be just and reasonable to exclude hundreds of such pilgrims in order to allow a few to sit undisturbed at Lincoln’s marble feet or caress, in private, the hallowed parchments? Even I might dream of such privileges, but they could not justly come at the expense of my fellow Americans.

4. If the Louver set a quota on the number who could view the Mona Lisa at 15 a day or the Pope forbad the multitude admittance to the Sistine to allow a few priests to contemplate in silence; the world would cry tyranny.

5. In America, our national treasures are our common heritage; not the property of aristocrats by blood, fortune, or cause. Those tasked with facilitating the use of these assets must find ways which best protect and share them with all. Over decades of care and effort, in the Bechler Ranger District - southwest corner of Yellowstone, such a protocol has been developed by Camp Loll BSA and the NPS. This partnership, which allows carefully supervised and trained groups of hikers to enjoy these resources, this American treasure, is worth preserving.

6. Many of the young people who have fought or who now fight on distant battle fields for the freedom and safety of America find inspiration in the wonder of Union Falls and the joy of swimming in Scout Pool. Future generations of heroes need and deserve similar inspiration and support.


Protocol for Camp Loll Hike Day

By giving boys and leaders the opportunity to visit the wilderness and participate in various activities, the hike day adds depth to the overall camp experience, and strengthens the unity of the group. Participating together in a shared experience offers scouts a chance to build friendships. Those who have more knowledge and skill can help the younger boys to accomplish the hike.Hike day serves as an opportunity to reach toward the three aims of scouting: Citizenship, Character, and Fitness. Camp Loll offers a variety of hiking opportunities in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park, through Grand Targee National Forest, and through the Jedediah Smith Wilderness Area. Each hike is discussed here including specific concerns to ensure safety to hikers and to the wilderness.


Hike Day General Outline of Safety and Consideration

1. The most important rule is STAY TOGETHER AS A GROUP! By staying together we prevent most bad things that might happen to a hiker. (Getting lost, animal encounters, injury, etc.)

2. Protect yourself from the elements
a. WEAR SUNSCREEN! Hats, shirts and sunscreen to prevent sunburns.
b. Carry enough water to prevent dehydration. (Learn how to drink your water.)
c. Water from streams and rivers should be purified before drinking.
d. Be prepared for rain.
e. Water shoes while crossing rivers and swimming in lakes and pools.
f. Use the SAFE SWIM DEFENCE PLAN, have a lifeguard, lookout, and buddy whenever you swim.
g. Take a first aid kit. (The camp-friend and the camp-rangers have kits)

3. Be respectful of wildlife. Allow animals to move on, or pass around them at a safe distance. Do not harass smaller animals. Never feed the wildlife.

4. Be Courteous and friendly to others you pass along the trail. For horses or other livestock stand still several feet off the trail and let them pass. Do not make sudden movements that could frighten horses.

5. NEVER LITTER and ALWAYS PICK UP LITTER YOU FIND! Litter includes pieces of your sandwich, apple, sunflower seeds, or other bits of food.

6. Sanitation. Always 200 feet from trail or water. Number one should be broadcast, and number two buried in a cat hole 6-8 inches deep. (In Yellowstone we carry toilet paper out.) Go to the KYBO before you leave Camp.

7. Leave the wilderness as you find it, or cleaner if possible. Avoid disturbing the scenery. Never take any natural artifact out of the parks.

8. Report any observed violations or suspicious activates to the appropriate land agency. If in Yellowstone, please contact Bechler Ranger Station at 406-581-7704 and leave a detailed message if there is no answer.

9. It is the visitor’s responsibility to know and obey all park regulations (posted or not). Yellowstone National Park Fishing Licenses are required to fish within Yellowstone National Park and obey all specific fishing regulations.

10. Report ALL injuries (even when no assistance is needed) as soon as possible to the Bechler Ranger Station (406-581-7074). Emergencies needing assistance must be reported to the Bechler Ranger Station at the above number Yellowstone National Park Dispatch or call 911 and state you are in Yellowstone NP and provide a specific location

Other items specific to each hike are listed below.

Beulah Lake
1. Try to limit impact areas to the designated campsites when you stop to change and have lunch.
2. Swim in the safe swim area and have those who are fishing, fish away from this area.
3. All those who fish need to have a Yellowstone license, and obey all fishing regulations.
4. Follow proper food storage by bear bagging unattended food.


Survey Peak
1. Do not make a trail. Spread out horizontally and do not follow in a single line. However, use the trails where they already exist.
2. Wherever possible, travel on durable surfaces.


Terrace Falls
1. View the falls only from approved viewpoints and under the direction of the Commissioner (Camp Ranger) in charge that day.
2. When stopping for lunch try to minimize impact, stop at Tillery Lake, the Cascade Creek Trailhead, or somewhere along the trail that you can get out of the way of other hikers.


Union Falls
1. Leave early. Be on the trail no later than 7:30 AM; leaving between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM is ideal. The Commissary will open at 5:30 AM.
2. Minimize impact when changing shoes and clothes at every crossings and the hitching post.
3. Use the bear poles to store lunches when you are not at the hitching post. The commissioner and the first few camp friends can carry them (bear bags) in; those returning last will carry them home.
4. Follow the direction of the commissioners and limit the number of individuals at Scout Pool or Union Falls to manageable group sizes. (10-15 is ideal, larger groups should split when accompanied by more than one camp friend).
5. Yield to horses, move away from livestock at the hitching post.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Thank You

A Thank You

The challenge to Camp Loll’s Hike Day has been positively resolved. Camp Loll, and the generations of young people who will visit there, owe great gratitude to many people.

First, I thank all of you who wrote to Yellowstone National Park, your congressmen, and to others who have came to our support. I especially want to thank all who contacted me personally, sustaining this effort by your strength. Without rancor or recrimination, all of you let those who needed to know, know.

Second, we all owe our thanks to our congressional representatives. I am aware of direct involvement in support of Camp Loll from Senators Bennett and Hatch and from Representative Rob Bishop. In the midst of their extremely busy schedules and a multitude of worthy causes, they expended personal time and dedicated their personal staff support to directing attention to our needs and bolstering Camp Loll’s position. I am confident that Representatives Chaffetz and Matheson also reached out to help us. As a teacher of US Government, I have always taught, that the two-fold role of Congress is to make laws and to be the voice of the people. These great men have been our voice, the voice of thousands of young people who otherwise might not have been heard.

Finally, I would like to thank Yellowstone National Park: Superintendent Lewis, and especially Ranger Dave Ross from the Bechler area, West District Ranger, Michael P. Keator, and Chief Ranger, Tim Reid. Today, these three gentlemen spent hours explaining the challenges facing Yellowstone, especially the Bechler area, and listening to our appeals and explanations. I am grateful that Yellowstone is in such strong and wise hands. I will give details of the meeting once the Special Use Permit is finalized. For now let me assure everyone that, for this summer, our campers will notice very little change in Hike Day and by the summer of 2011 they will see some very substantial improvements.

Working with the direction of the Park Service we have been able to work out a protocol which will allow Yellowstone to better fulfill its duel obligations to provide access to the Park’s resources while maintaining the values provided by the unique experience of “wilderness”. At the same time, the values of Scouting – always the primary goal of Camp Loll’s program - will be even more effectively delivered to our campers.

Let me summarize. In the summer of 2010, Wednesday Hike Day will continue much as it has in the past, over the summer new processes and opportunities will be developed under the direction of the Bechler Ranger and the Camp Loll Staff. In the summer of 2011 two hike days, Wednesday and Thursday, will provide a more valuable wilderness experience to those who venture into Yellowstone while providing in camp opportunities which have not been available in the past. The Park will accommodate Camp Loll’s numbers; Camp Loll will redistribute those numbers in ways that will fit with the Park’s management policy to optimize the use of Yellowstone’s resources and defend its values.