fleetfootedfox

I was part of the pilot before it was renamed to Fast Tracks and got the web site. At that time it was just a CD instead of a web site (and the web site still mentions the CD).

First issue I had with it was they spent all this time convincing us that the program would improve retention and then they made us sign a form saying we wouldn't share the information with anybody.

The other problem I had with the program is that if you follow the meeting schedules they lay out some significant activities are left out. In particularly, I was surprised to find that following the Bear program exactly we would never have done the pocket knife activity.

Yeah, I am reminded of a little story about Jesus who said something like let the person who is without sin throw the first stone. That said, some consequences are in order, but I don't think it's an automatic trip home.

If the boy brought a magazine taped to his leg, that is a lot of effort he went through. It is premeditated, so I might actually view that differently than the phone stuff which may not be planned. On the other hand, as somebody else said, Playboy isn't illegal.

Also, I know that child porn is totally illegal, but IMHO if a girl the same age texts them something, that is different from an adult having child porn even if the police wouldn't think so.

jtswestark: "Ive counseled over the years complaints about why adult nominees werent selected by the lodge. The leaders keep focusing on their nominees Scouting resume and could not believe he wasnt qualified or 'deserved' to be selected. But then they couldnt tell me if that Scouter would ever attend another Ordeal after his own. Or go to a single chapter meeting. Or assist in OTHER units elections. Or commit to making sure Arrowmen would get rides to events. Or what skill he would be willing to assist in advising a youth in that WASNT his son. Think about those questions when considering adult nominations."

Thanks for that great explanation, Jack. Maybe you could also explain why there are so few vigil honors awarded and why such a high percentage of them are adults. Also, it seems like very few unit level leaders get vigil honor even though they talk about our first duty being with the troop. It seems to be mostly reserved for chapter and lodge officers and chapter advisers and district camping directors. Yeah, I know that those are usually the people who've done the most for the lodge, but there are people who do a lot to promote the OA within their troop who don't seem to get any recognition for it.

This is an interesting topic. Weight charts like this do not at all take into account how muscular a person is. Muscle and bone weigh more than fat. Therefore, a thin-boned person who isn't very muscular would have less trouble staying in these ranges than a thicker-boned person who has a considerable amount of muscle (all other things being equal). In fact, many professional athletes could not meet these guidelines despite being in excellent physical condition.

I read recently that the average person spends 3 years of their life sitting on the toilet. So, if we could cut that down then maybe we'd have more time for scouting.

Regarding sports, you are not taking into account that these days boys can play some sports all year round and some teams have multiple practices per week and multiple games with tournaments that require some travel. And some boys play on more than one team at a time in the same sport or different sports with overlapping seasons. And the select teams and school teams expect 100% attendance.

Music, dance, karate and other activities can be very time consuming too depending on how devoted the person is to the activity.

scoutldr, the discussion was not about encouraging Scouts to ignore the rules. I think it is telling that you referred to them as "Scouts" when in fact by 18 they are supposedly now Scouters and not Scouts, which makes me question if at some level you do not consider them to be adults. Anyway, if I expressed the opinion that the speed limit on a particular road is too slow it doesn't follow that I am encouraging people not to observe the posted speed limit. It's a free country. People can have whatever opinions they want, right or wrong.

I pointed out the medical fact of 18 year olds not being fully grown because somebody else said that it is only recent society that has said an 18 year old is not an adult. I pointed out the medical fact, and I pointed out the fact that B-P created the Rovering program for this age group and referred to them as "older boys". I thought B-P's opinion might carry a little more weight than mine, but maybe not with the BSA. Regardless of that, I don't see how anybody could say that medical facts could be irrelevant to a discussion of how we should define who is an adult and who is not. You are free to ignore the medical facts if you choose, but that doesn't mean they are irrelevant to the discussion.

The BSA rule is what we have to follow, but that doesn't mean that it is written in stone and will never change. Presumably people with decision-making powers sometimes monitor these forums and might be influenced by the opinions expressed here.

Personally, I don't think allowing an 18-21 year old to wear an eagle patch would in anyway change his status as a registered adult leader for a boy scout troop. 18-21 year olds are also allowed to vote in OA elections and for OA are considered youth. So, there is already this gray area.

However, I also stated my opinion that if they are registered as an adult leader they should probably follow whatever rules the other adults follow. If the BSA wants to make an exception though, that's fine with me too.

I know that people come back from Wood Badge and NYLT very fired up and excited about Scouting in a way they weren't before. That by itself makes it worth the time and expense and "what goes on" is really not as important as knowing the outcome. However, what goes on is some pretty high quality leadership training which I think is likely to leave a lasting impact on a young man which will hopefully benefit him into his adulthood.

Thanks for the humorous comments and the practical advice.

I have heard that the earth's pole is due for a flip, that this happens every so many 10s of thousands of years. However, one would think then that the other two compasses would also have been pointing wrong.

We can also rule out the Bermuda triangle phenomenon as this was in the Mid-western US.

I think that the compass was manufactured by Silva, but I have no idea if it was defective from the factory or something that happened to it later. The owner did tell me it was a recent purchase from the scout shop.

The trail we were on was well marked and it is not likely we would have actually got lost regardless of the compass, but it was still an eye-opener.

Yesterday I was out on a trail with a fellow scouter doing some preliminary scouting prior to an upcoming backpacking trip. At some point we both took out our compasses to take a reading and were shocked to observe the two compasses pointing at each other. We moved about to make sure we weren't standing over some sort of magnet. It was a rainy day, so couldn't see where the sun was. Fortunately, we had a third compass that my friend happened to have with him (he is "Mr. Be-Prepared"). It turned out that his BSA compass was pointing south instead of north. Both mine and his were the same model. Talk about poor quality control. Anybody else ever have an experience like this? Can you imagine if a group of scouts got lost because their BSA compass was wrong?

> 1. Let us know if you would be in favor of an 18-21 Year old Adult Leader being allowed to wear his Eagle Badge (and only the Eagle Badge).

No. Nobody is telling a boy he has to wait until just before his 18th birthday to finish his eagle. If he registers as an adult after that instead of joining a Venturing crew, then he should follow the same uniform rules as the other adults.

> 2. Are you an Eagle Scout.

No. I was not in Scouting as a youth.

"18 year olds are only NOT considered adults because society has recently gotten warped into a nanny state."

B-P refers to a Rover Scout as an "older boy". Boys had to be at least 17 to join a Rover crew. I think that B-P would have said that different people mature at different rates and that some boys have not grown into manhood by the time they are 18.

I think it also depends upon what your definition of "adult" is. If by "adult" you mean "fully grown", then it would be true to say that adults don't get growth spurts. However, according to Merck Manuals Online Medical Library, "At age 18, almost 2.54 cm of growth remains for boys and slightly less for girls, for whom growth is 99% complete." Notice that this medical reference refers to 18 year olds as "boys" and "girls".

Yeah, ThunderFox, you'd think Boy Scout leaders of all people would not have so much trouble following rules, but there are lots of opinions out there for everything under the sun. The BSA tends to hand out more guidelines then actual rules, and even the rules can be interpreted differently by different people. Then there are those who just don't see any problem with breaking the rules if it suits them, and they have lots of rationalizations for this. So, there have been a lot of discussions about this on these forums. You might want to look at some of the previous related threads if you haven't noticed them before.

"But making a blanket policy is wrong."

Maybe there should be a blanket policy against blanket policies.

Anyway, you are arguing with yourself. First you say blanket policies are wrong then you say "COs can make stricter requirements if they want". So, which is it? Are they wrong for setting stricter requirements or not?

"What I get upset about is people doubting the abilities of 18-21 y.o., especially if they have been in the program."

Yeah, but I'm not sure anybody said that, so I think you're getting upset over an imagined controversy created by you and Beavah reading between the lines. I don't think anybody whose ever watched the Olympics is going to be under the delusion that an 18 year old does not have the same abilities as an older adult. Maturity may be another issue, but abilities are not what's being questioned.

"Any unit that doesn't want that group of leaders are shooting themselves in the foot."

Yeah, I agree.

"... I know how difficult it is to get the respect of older leaders. Heck even after I turned 21, and was recruited to serve on the district committee as OA Chapter Adviser, I still had problems. So these sentiments tick me off."

No need to get ticked off.

"So if national doesn't have a problem with a 16 y.o. driving, why would anyone have problems with a 19 y.o driving?"

So, you agree with everything national says? If you do, you're the only one I've ever met who does. Anyway, your quote also says "...under the leadership of an adult (at least 21 years of age) tour leader..." By the arguments of many of the people here, the line about "at least 21 years of age" is totally out of line. Maybe a 16 year old can drive, but a 20 year old can't be a tour leader.

Somebody else quoted a rule that says "all leaders must be 21 or older, EXCEPT...ASM, ACM, ADL, AWDL". So, again, by national rules, a 20 year old cannot do everything a 21 year old can do.

"Because they spent x number of years in the program, they know how it's supposed to be run, have the knowledge, skills, and experience of working with the youth already."

I think that is a big assumption. Scouts see one side of things. They see how their Scoutmaster and troop does things mainly. They probably don't know if their troop has been doing things the wrong way. Yeah, they know a lot and that's great, and I'm not saying to exclude them.

Yeah, true that theoretically 2-deep leadership is the responsibility of the chapter and lodge, although I think lodge members usually camp with others from their troop.

Hey. I didn't say not to sign them up. Just need to understand the 19 year old has still got some maturing to do.

Actually, I'm generation X, not baby boom, and I'm not too old to remember what my driving was like when I was under 21. I think I was actually a pretty good driver. However, my car insurance was expensive for a reason, and I don't think there's anything wrong with taking such things into account when setting troop policy.

It would be a lot easier to make a rule that applies to all leaders under 21 than to single out one that you think is a bad driver. How are you going to know they are bad driver until something happens?

Here's the thing. The troop and all the decisions of the adults in the troop have to be made with the welfare of the boys in mind. Once a boy becomes an adult, he has to understand that the program is not there for him. It's there for those who are still boys. If he wants to still be part of the program, he has to demonstrate responsibility and be willing to work with the CO and parents.

In the previous thread, I think the poster admitted that he and others refused to cooperate with the COR and with other problems in the past probably being taken into account, the CO decided to eject some leaders and take a very hard stance on who could be an leader in the future. I'm not saying I would support the rule that they came up with, but I am not in that troop either. After they had an adult in the troop arrested, I am sort of amazed the troop even still exists.

If you are 19, I would recommend you join a Venturing crew and stay involved in the OA. This should give you plenty to do for a couple years, and you'll get to see some of your old friends and meet new ones.

Personally, if I was the COR and I was going to allow ASM's under the age of 21, I would definitely want some limitations on what they could do. They could not drive other scouts, for example. There is a reason that car insurance is very expensive for young men under the age of 21. There's no point in arguing with the insurance companies on this. They know their statistics.

Of course, limiting leadership to parents would not have fixed the child abuse problem as that person was a parent. However, as a parent I can totally understand the trust issues that are involved. There are also big security and other issues with myspace, so I can understand people not liking a troop to use it.

Regarding kicking out the Scoutmaster, if he refused to take down this myspace when the CO told him to, that is pretty much gross insubordination, which is certainly grounds for getting canned.

How is it lazy if a boy does something 10 times instead of 1? I'm not sure lazy is the right term.

Also, there are real-world examples of people getting paid for the same work twice. For example, if you write a book, you hopefully get a royalty every time somebody buys another copy.

If you refuse to give a boy credit when the rules allow it, you're making yourself the bad guy and maybe making the kid feel bad. So, what's the point of that?

I would also be careful about treating scout achievements like school assignments. A lot of kids don't like school that much. If you don't want them to like scouting either, make it more like school.

I am thinking what they meant to say is that a scout has to be Star rank to take WFA, not the other way around.

I just had to share this. I got this e-mail from a mom in my Webelos den about something her boy wrote about me. I am sure most of the scouters out there could replace my name with theirs and it would apply equally if some boy they've worked with had happened to write it.

"Hey [name of scouter], you know how the fourth graders had to write an autobiography? Well, [name of boy] wrote about you on his 'Who I Admire' page. I wanted to share with you what he wrote:"

"'I admire the boyscout grownups because they help everyone the best they can. They take us to camp and guide us on trails and lots of other activities. The person who I'm writing about is [name of scouter]. He helps us put up tents and set up camp. He shows us how to do everything when we go camping.... That's who I admire.'"

"Thanks for all that you do! We appreciate it!"

BTW, I hope some of you are taking note of the fact that this boy appreciated being guided, helped and shown how to do things, not having an adult do everything for him.

Unless there is something in the requirement or elsewhere in writing that specifically precludes "double dipping", I don't see a problem. Adding requirements is a no-no, even if it is adding a "double dipping" requirement.

Here is an example of a double-dipping rule spelled out in the requirements for the scholar pin: "While you are a Webelos Scout, and if you have not earned it for another activity badge, earn the Cub Scout Academics belt loop for Mathematics." This requirement is saying the boy is expected to double dip in the sense of counting the activity both for the mathematics belt loop and for the scholar pin, but it spells out some specific restrictions.

So, with the requirements being so specific, why would you want to go beyond them?

I thought this worth spinning off a new thread...

Mister T. wrote:

Wow,

I read through this thread with interest to say the least. My son has had nearly the opposite experience in scouts as your son. I was his Webelos Den Leader and we visited two troops and camped with one of them. His best friend was in one of the troops, so that was the troop my son decided to join. I volunteered to be an Assistant Scoutmaster (ASM) and got the Scoutmaster Training (thinking that at least one leader will be trained!). The Scoutmaster was planning a major camping trip, to Philmont Scout Ranch, in New Mexico. Philmont requires boys to be 14 before they can go to, so my son and 2 other Scouts were not eligible. Since Philemont planning took nearly every Troop Meeting, my son and the other 2 were completely left out. I got permission from the Scoutmaster to train the younger scouts. I said "So they will be a like a new scout patrol?" I get a blank stare from the SM. Then he says, "We don't want the boys to be in 'cliques' so we don't separate the the troop into patrols". I move on and the 3 Scouts form a patrol anyway, the Wandering Wolverine Patrol, they invite a friend and the patrol grows. I try to get patrol badges, SM says, we don't do that. I buy the badges myself. I suggest that the new scout patrol goes camping once a month, so they can advance to First Class, and because camping is what Boy Scouts do. Another Blank Stare from the SM. This is unheard of. Tim being weird again. We camp anyway, I roped in another parent in so that we have 2 leaders with the 4 Wolverines. I plan summer camp. 4 Scouts go, the Wolverines, with me and the roped parent. No one else, not even the SM. We continue to camp and invite the whole troop, no takers. They don't like camping. Troop is off for the summer. Except for the Wolverines. First Troop meeting of the Fall is finally scheduled, except now they have a conflict. Troop meets on Monday and Monday Night Football is on. Troop Meeting is canceled. My son and 2 other Wolverines transfer to a troop that likes camping and I'm now helping a Scoutmaster that I can see eye to eye with. The Scouts who were ready to quit are now active and happy.

It's a big mistake to try to say that Boy Scouts should not camp.

Scouter760 replied:

Mister T., thanks for sharing. It seems like no matter how messed up a troop is there are always others out there that are worse. Of course, a troop with out patrols is arguably not a boy scout troop at all.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Sometimes when I try to do things the way the training recommends other supposedly trained leaders seem to have no clue what I am up to. The boy-led idea is a particularly hard sell. For some reason, the Scoutmaster training does not seem to adequately convey its importance.

I think part of the problem is that the training videos depict the perfect troop and the perfect kids and the perfect Scoutmaster, but when you get to the q&a part of the training all the leaders start asking about the problems they have. That's what they are there for, but the trainers often don't have answers for them.

In the software development world, we call this the "happy path". People write software without giving much thought to what could potentially break. They write requirements and do testing as if we live in a perfect world. Then when murphy's law kicks in, they are shocked.

That is the way the training is setup. They teach you the right way to do things if you happen to be in the ideal circumstances, but they don't teach you how to deal with all the problems that are guaranteed to come up in real life.

They don't teach how to deal with adults or boys who are hard to get along with. They don't teach you what to do if your troop is all younger boys or if your SM doesn't see a need for patrols or doesn't believe in having a boy-led troop. They don't teach you what to do when two of your den leaders have an affair or when the Cubmaster skips town with the popcorn money.

Wood Badge may touch on how to deal with conflict, but most people don't go to Wood Badge.

In addition to the training issue, there is an accountability issue. The Scoutmaster in Mister T's troop was able to do whatever he wanted and completely ignore the way troops have been run since B-P on. How was he able to do that without somebody at the district level noticing? Was he operating this way with their blessing? Is there something the UC or DC could do about it? I am betting they would never dream of interfering, but this sounds like an example where the higher ups should be getting involved.

Mister T., thanks for sharing. It seems like no matter how messed up a troop is there are always others out there that are worse. Of course, a troop with out patrols is arguably not a boy scout troop at all.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Sometimes when I try to do things the way the training recommends other supposedly trained leaders seem to have no clue what I am up to. The boy-led idea is a particularly hard sell. For some reason, the Scoutmaster training does not seem to adequately convey its importance.

I think part of the problem is that the training videos depict the perfect troop and the perfect kids and the perfect Scoutmaster, but when you get to the q&a part of the training all the leaders start asking about the problems they have. That's what they are there for, but the trainers often don't have answers for them.

In the software development world, we call this the "happy path". People write software without giving much thought to what could potentially break. They write requirements and do testing as if we live in a perfect world. Then when murphy's law kicks in, they are shocked.

That is the way the training is setup. They teach you the right way to do things if you happen to be in the ideal circumstances, but they don't teach you how to deal with all the problems that are guaranteed to come up in real life.

They don't teach how to deal with adults or boys who are hard to get along with. They don't teach you what to do if your troop is all younger boys or if your SM doesn't see a need for patrols or doesn't believe in having a boy-led troop. They don't teach you what to do when two of your den leaders have an affair or when the Cubmaster skips town with the popcorn money.

Wood Badge may touch on how to deal with conflict, but most people don't go to Wood Badge.

In addition to the training issue, there is an accountability issue. The Scoutmaster in Mister T's troop was able to do whatever he wanted and completely ignore the way troops have been run since B-P on. How was he able to do that without somebody at the district level noticing? Was he operating this way with their blessing? Is there something the UC or DC could do about it? I am betting they would never dream of interfering, but this sounds like an example where the higher ups should be getting involved.

Lots of tangents to go off on.

I think the lesbian/gay issue and the legal guardian issue are two separate issues, and I don't think NWScouter was implying otherwise. If a single mom who wasn't lesbian had asked the questions this woman asked, I would have responded no different to her. We tried to work with her.

Also, as I said before this was a Council event, not a pack event, and so the pack had no control over how the event was named.

Personally, though, I think that cub scouts tend to be dominated by the moms so it's kinda nice to have a father/son event to get some of the dads involved who otherwise let their wives do all the work.

Maybe Dad & Lad is a bad idea for all the reasons people list or maybe it's not. However, this was a Council sponsored event with an alternative Mom & Me weekend and also a Parent & Pal weekend. We also did not tell the mother that his son could not go with another related male adult. We even offered to check if an unrelated male could go if he was willing to undergo the background check. None of these alternatives were good enough for her.

So, what you people are telling me is that the solution is to get rid of any father/son events? Sounds like throwing out the baby with the bath water to me.

There are two boys in my son's school who have "two moms". One of the moms came to our school night to join scouting. She seemed to be upset by the fact that when the other boys went to Dad and Lad camp, her boys would be left out. She wanted to send some other male with them to Dad and Lad. We didn't know what the rules were on this, but we suggested she take the boys to Mom and Me camp. She didn't like this, because her sons would feel left out.

You see, if these people have their way, we can no longer have father/son activities, because some boys don't have fathers and it's not fair to make them feel left out.

This is a perfect example of how these people want special treatment, not just equality. I have never heard any of the single, divorced, or widowed moms ask if they could send some other male friend to Dad & Lad in place of their sons' father.