fling1

Thanks, all.

The topic of our roundtable was Webelos --> Scout transition, and the notion of a Webelos "patrol" was held up as part of the solution -- acclimating the Webs to the notions of Boy Scouting. It's really an extension of the concepts involved in having tan shirts and den emblems, etc.

The extension went so far as to include the designation of a "patrol leader" rather than a "denner".

This just didn't sound right to me, but I was somewhat alone in my objection. As I said, my perception is that this may do more harm than good in the overall Webelos --> Scout transition over the first several months of Boy Scouting (maybe it helps to get them to a crossover, though?)

The pro/con debate is interesting to me, but I primarily want to make sure my knowledge of the Webelos program is current. Thanks for your help.

At our district roundtable last night, I saw a presentation that talked about the entire spectrum of scouting from Tigers to Eagle. In this presentation, I was very surprised to see Webelos described as a Webelos "patrol."

I know that the look is achieved by using a "den emblem" (patrol emblem) on a tan shirt. But my perspective has been that leading Webelos to believe that they are a functioning patrol may do more harm than good when it comes to re-learning what a patrol is at the Boy Scout level.

I was assured that this is the current language of the Webelos program. My Webelos books and info are a few years old at this point, so I'll ask you guys with the most current information...

Does the current Webelos Leader Guide describe the group as a patrol? Or a den?

Hello, experieced Girl Scouters,

I have a newbie question about the Gold project that I'm sure one of you can answer definitively for me.

The Gold project is supposed to benefit the "community". But I have read at least one opinion that this can include the "Girl Scout community."

I know that, for example, work done at BSA camps is specifically marked out-of-bounds for Eagle projects, and my understanding is that in the BSA context, "for the community" is defined as the "non-BSA community."

Do the Girl Scouts make this same distinction? Can you point me to an official description on what this "benefit the community" requirement means?

Thanks in advance,

-Derek.

ES316 asked a specific question, and is still waiting for an answer:

"If anyone knows of any exact ruling about working in bars while being an Assistant Scoutmaster, please get back to me on this."

Here's mine: It is up your Chartering Organization (CO) to decide who is fit to hold a leadership position in the unit. BSA has some high-level filters on the subjects of religious principles and homosexuality, but you've already cleared those hurdles since you are already installed as an ASM (and we'll take an Eagle scout at his word for your compliance with these requirements). However, your Institution Head (IH) and Chartering Organization Representative (COR), as representative of the CO, are able to apply additional criteria for moral character as they see fit.

For example, the CO may require unit leaders to be church members in some cases. Or they may require leaders to be non-smokers or non-drinkers. They may decide that a leader is unfit after discovering a Playboy magazine subscription (search the archives for a lengthy thread on the question of Playboy reading). They get to define the moral fitness of their leaders in any terms they like, so long as they don't allow leaders that the BSA specifically disallows (gays and atheists).

I'd say chances are at least even that your CO would frown on having a registered leader (particularly in the SM staff) of their unit work at a gay bar. "Frown on" meaning "not allow". You'd have to ask your COR and IH directly to know for sure.

Hope this helps.

I want to make two short points:

1) TheFourGuardians jumped into this fray as a Life scout and wrote a long, logical post the equal of any on three pages. I am stunned that only Rooster managed to notice what he posted enough to respond directly to him. Thanks for your insights, TFG. I particularly liked this one:

"Do not for a minute doubt the power of theories in science. They guide chemestry in atoms, periodic tables, etc. Physics depends on theories such as Quantam, Superstring, and Relatvity. And in turn, Biology is reduced severely without evolution."

which leads me to a second point...

2) Theories are not just things to be learned. They are tools to be used. A theory explains observations (ID does this, btw) and also predicts future observations (ID cannot do this). The very best example I can offer is the theory of quantum electrodynamics. This theory makes absolutely no sense, and is expressed as a weird notation of spinning vectors (like clock hands, I mean), but has so far predicted every observation without fail, down to the limits of our ability to measure results. If you are having trouble getting your arms around what theories are and what they are good for, entertain yourself with this particular theory for a bit. I recommend Feynman's _QED_. Even if you have no interest in physics, the introductory material will illlustrate this important facet of scientific theory.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691024170/103-8454217-0139809?v=glance&n=283155

You may now return to your previously scheduled discussion, already in progress...

Thanks for the replies. I've also been researching spun gun incidents of all sorts, to get a better understanding of the risks. What I was looking for here was specific policy language from BSA that would rule out combustion guns vs. pneumatic guns.

G2SS on fuels and fires - thanks Eagle76 - there is language here for chemical fuels, which is helpful. Clearly the intent is for various fuel types to be used safely, under supervision, for their intended purpose. I think I can meet that standard. The only bold policy here is that liquid fuels are not to be used for starting fires. Again, even supposing that hairspray is a liquid fuel, we would not be using it to start a fire, but rather to operate the device that was made to consume it.

G2SS on firearms and other target weapons - thanks Semper - This language requires certified rangemasters to supervise the operation of archery and firearm equipment. These equipment categories actually have certifications, whereas other target equipment, such as tomohawks, slingshots and trebuchets offer no certifications. The Feds (ATF) have ruled that spud guns are not firearms, so I don't see a substantial difference between them and other dangerous non-certified items like tomohawks, slingshots and catapults.

So I think I still have the flexibility to allow it under BSA policy restrictions. Choosing between combustion guns and pneumatic guns, there are definitely pros and cons:

Combustion gun pros:

easiest to make, fewest potential failures

operates at lower pressures

shorter range

Combustion gun cons:

loud, may generate complaints

potential for experimentation with higher energy (more dangerous) fuels

non-zero potential for untimely hairspray ignition

arguably in violation of G2SS fuels policy

Pneumatic gun pros:

quieter

no fuel means no G2SS fuel policy to worry about

easier to stress test for safety factor

shoots further

operates better in cold weather

easier to monitor pressure and safety factor

Pneumatic gun cons:

more complex contruction, more opportunities for failure

can be operated at higher pressure (more energy)

shoots further (two edged sword)

As for the suggestion to make a trebuchet instead, this is an area where I actually have significant expertise. I can think of at least 5 different ways to get killed (yes, really killed) fooling around with the one I linked to above. These include untimely material failures and operator errors. I have personally witnessed eight potentially serious mishaps with it. I know for a fact that it stores and delivers more energy than a pop gun that shoots a potato 200 yds. The last time my scouts played with it, they actually broke one of the main timbers, which could have been a nasty accident. Just because it is clearly allowed by BSA policy does not make it risk-free, by any stretch.

My research so far indicates that there are zero fatalities attributed to these various spud devices, and that almost every injury can be explained by a breakdown in the common sense area, such as reckless handling, non-standard ammo or fuel experimentation. I do appreciate your comments. Any others?

Have done, OGE :-)

http://www.scouttroop.org/oh/bsa/476/TrebLaunch.jpg

No, ScoutNut. I'm really asking. If you can convince me not to use hairspray, I'll constrain the patrols to a compressed-air design only. They are lobbying for a hairspray design though and I am currently inclined to allow it.(This message has been edited by fling1)

Hi All,

I have an activity in mind to foster patrol unity and build teamwork, but I want to ask your opinions about it...

I want the patrols to build potato guns and compete with them. It will provide plenty of opportunity to plan, execute together, and increase their team spirit.

I am convinced that this is in bounds, although I know there are some who will object both on safety/common sense grounds and also some who will question how this achieves the aims of scouting. While I appreciate these objections, I am after something more specific:

The most common design calls for a combustion chamber into which hair spray is sprayed. The hair spray is ignited with a sparker to fire the cannon. This is your opportunity to convince me that a hair spray-powered cannon is in violation of BSA policy. I have read through the G2SS pretty carefully, and cannot find a prohibition that would apply. Maybe you can?

Semper wonders:

Maybe Derek will volunteer to place the apple on his head"

Of the "dangerous projectile" activities: [bBs, archery, tomahawks], the tomahawks are by far the most challenging target weapon. Many, many people fail to hit any part of the target from 15'. And if the target is a big slice of oak tree (hard stuff!), you need a perfect throw plus some luck to make it stick. At the Expo I mentioned, they stapled a playing card to the middle to serve as the target. Nick the card with a stuck throw to win a prize. Not many prizes get awarded. So I'll pass on the William Tell duties, thanks anyway.

Several have questioned whether it is a good idea for kids <13 (or pick some other number) to try it? My wolf scouts were able to shoot BBs and archery when they were 7. No problems. These same kids can throw a hawk with the same kinds of safety considerations. But they probably won't be very successful.

A hard throw that takes a glancing bounce off the edge of the target can go pretty far in an unexpected direction, though. Greeneagle5 says a 20' circle of rope is their range -- that sounds like a minimum to me, especially if older boys are throwing hard. The danger comes from the stronger throwers, not the weaker ones. If you can trust a 7 year old to point his BB gun and his arrow downrange only, you can trust him to throw his hawk at the target and not at you.

Tomahawk throwing is a blast.

Our council used to put on a "Outdoor Action Expo" (previously known as "Family Jamboree") for the public as a showcase of scouting for the community to enjoy. It was a great event that has unfortunately gone by the wayside :-(

The tomahawk throwing station was always a big hit and available to all comers, any age, any gender, scout or non-scout. (There was also archery and BBs available on a similar basis. Better yet were the monkey bridges, rapelling tower, and 50' caving ladder: each of these was organized and run by a troop and the best ones had their scouts doing most of the work!)

The hawk range was handled in the same way as the BBs and archery -- controlled by adult supervision and a taped-off range. It never struck me as even remotely dangerous, the way it was run.

My advice? Think about the layout of the range, then quit worrying and enjoy the event.

- Derek (keep your wrist stiff and follow through!)

Simple question, in two parts:

What BSA training was the most helpful to you? What did you learn there?

Whose phone number do you have?

Seriously, what ScoutNut says is true - the SM and SPL work together, so calling either one of them should get the ball rolling. As a WDL, I once had better luck reaching a youth leader when I was trying to contact a troop. YMMV.

You are overlooking the obvious "best way to cook 100 Hotdogs". You need:

10 campfires

100 sticks

100 Cub Scouts

Hope this helps!

Great topic. Thanks, BW, for injecting a large dose of clarity on this subject, re: "accident vs. liability" and re: "denial of coverage"

However, I think we are still in the dark concerning our worst nightmares -- the ones where we get sued into the stone age, divorced and destitute because of one bone-headed decision, or even a misunderstanding of policy.

Bob's helpful posts included:

Not all together true FScouter. Unlike the accident insurance, the liability protection is based on the party being covered taking reasonable precautions to avoid causing injury. The insurance carrier (in this case the BSA since the liabilty umbrella is self-insured) could abandon the coverage should the volunteer through irresponsible action cause the injury.

Not taking available training, and certainly violation of the G2SS requirements could meet such conditions. (emphasis mine)

followed up by the even clearer language of:

PROVIDED that the CO and leaders showed reasonable effort to avoid injuries. That means they are trained and followed the related policies and procedures set forth by the BSA. Gross negligence could allow the BSA to abandon the coverage or even seek to subrogate its losses from the negligent parties. (emphasis mine)

I think it is pretty obvious to us all that the drawing of lines around all of the "coulds" and "mights" and "reasonables" and "negligents" will be up to the lawyers, hence the continuing nightmares. I don't think the training issue is a big deal, since the only required training is YPT, in which we first hear the words "G2SS." However, I strongly doubt BSA takes the position that any failure to meet the bold policy of the G2SS is gross negligence that automatically voids their liability protection.

This is a wide and deep forum. Does anyone have any specific knowledge of a single case where a CO or leader suffered the closing, packing, and taking home of their liability umbrella by the BSA, leaving said sad-sack to a sorry soaking as the sole sue-ee? A real-life, specific case would be really helpful for us to gage where that "gross negligence" line has been historically drawn.

I wrote: Yes, the founders had every expectation that God and religion would figure into the governmental process... at the state level.

BW wrote: I am not sure that there is any historial evidence to support that.

I am no scholar on the subject, but here's an example I feel sufficient to base the statement on:

Massachusetts drafted their state constitution in 1777, and eventually ratified their first in 1780. John Adams was its principal author, and clearly qualifies as a "founder" and a key figure in the development of the U.S. Constitution. Massachusetts is proud of the fact that many of its concepts helped shape the federal effort as well as the initial consitutions of many other states. Some background can be found at: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/laws/mass1780/mass_main.htmlhttp://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arccol/colmac.htm#1774http://www.mass.gov/courts/jaceducation/johnadamsmassconst.html

The resulting 1780 constitution includes the following excerpts, which you can look up by following the first link above:

Part of the First, Art III - ...the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Chapter VI, (Oaths etc.) Art I - "I, A. B., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seised and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

There is more in there, if you look, but these two clearly indicate that the legislature would be expected to compell institutional worship and instruction, and that the governor was to be a Christian man.

As a point of reference, the oath was ammended in 1821 and the First Part was ammended in 1833.

If you look into the early documents of the other 12 states, you will no doubt uncover additional examples of Religion being included in the operation of the state and local governments. As the Federal Republic was architected, the primary effort was to protect this kind of power and sovereignty at the state level. The addition of the bill of rights addressed some individual rights and some additional constraints on Federal authority (both, in the case of the 1st Ammendment, with its liberty and establishment clauses).

The ironic result of the 14th Ammendment is a power grab by the feds (with a corresponding power drain at the states -- the intention of the thing, really) that results in more liberty by individuals, since the states are now compelled to maintain all of the tight constraints on authority originally designed to keep the federal govt in check. The feds were clearly excluded from the business of religious instruction from Day One. Now every level of government is likewise constrained.

I know better than to participate in these discussions, but it probably won't hurt to post just one little missive ;-> ...

6 pages so far, and only one mention of the crux of the problem: The 14th Ammendment.

I so enjoy these arguments, because both sides are right.

Yes, the founders had every expectation that God and religion would figure into the governmental process... at the state level. Remember, they founded a federal republic of sovereign states. They went to a lot of trouble to protect the states from abuses of the feds and from being overwhelmed by their fellow states with different interests. Is it OK for Massechussetts to insist that only Christian men hold state offices? Founders say "sure!! -- just don't even think about giving the feds the power to tell them they *have to*. That's up to Massechussetts to decide. If the good folks of Massechussetts don't like it and can't change it, maybe they'll like the way Connecticut operates better."

But the 14th ammendment binds the states to the same limitations as the feds. This is done as a response to the War of Rebellion and severely undercuts the sovereignty of the states to run their own affairs. Now enormous swaths of responsibilities of State governments are subject to review by the feds, making sure they do everything to the specification of the federal govt. The old republic is gone, as of the 14th ammendment. It is a changed world.

By the old rules, no doubt the pledge is no problem. In fact it is no business of the feds at all to meddle in the affairs of the state education systems.

By the new rules, every state has to play the same game with the same umpire, who is duty-bound to prevent the establishment of a religion by any govt entity at any level. So, as Hunt wisely pointed out, if they can't find it to be "ceremonial" (read "completely meaningless"), then "under God" has to go, for public school recitations. Them's the new rules.

[FWIW, I find that almost every "culture war" argument boils down to this same issue regarding the rules being changed 150 years ago. One side longs for the ablility to apply the old rules, while the other side insists we play by the new rules. The fact that there are two sets of rules involved in the discussion rarely seems to surface.]

I can't figure out which side of the fence you guys are on...

It costs so much!

We don't get enough percentage!

Which is it people?? It costs so much because you are keeping 1/3 and your council is keeping 1/3. Compare to what troops make selling Girl Scout cookies, and your eyes will open. Those things are expensive, too. But the troop will collect 10-20 cents (!) per $2.50-$3.00 box.

High priced popcorn is a bit of a tough sell, agreed. But which is easier to sell to get to summer camp? $600 worth of popcorn or $2000 worth of cookies? Which is easier to put in your garage? :-)

As for the low-priced item: Break open those boxes of microwave packets and sell them for a buck each. If you still have the tags on your mattress and feel uneasy about this, copy the nutrition info from the box and include it with the packs.

My troop *hates* the idea of selling popcorn, and few do it. But I make sure the boys have the *opportunity* to sock away some money for expensive outings. I think it is a pretty easy money maker if your goal is actually to hustle up some bucks. (tip: focus your energy on the show-and-sell period -- easier selling and no delivery/payment hassles.) If you just go through the motions and get an order or two to satisfy your leaders, it will be more trouble than it is worth.

Barry, do your existing patrols have any say in how this happens? If not, has this ever caused you any problems?

Ha!! Our boys did this this past weekend at the River Days festival in New Richmond, Ohio. It was our first time and we had a blast. There were 30 boats there, some of which were outstandingly made. In fact some of the boats have competed for several years, believe it or not. Our three entries were rather humble in comparison, but our boys are already thinking of more ambitious projects for next year.

We camped just a couple blocks away from festival central, right on the river, and enjoyed the live band all weekend and the huge fireworks show across the river -- all while relaxing in our campsite in the shade!

New Richmond's event is more strict than others I've seen. Boats are allowed to be made of Cardboard, Tape (within 4" of a seam, only), and plain paint (no two-part paints or urethane). The course is 200 yards down the river. We had some spectacular sinkings, but did not win the "Titanic Award". Maybe next year...

We actually did a Gilligan skit at last year's Blue and Gold, with assorted adults from the Pack. (Our theme was "tall ships" which included various sailing and island touchstones.)

We adapted the script of the first episode of the show. The script was dug on the internet.. here's a link: http://www.gilligansisle.com/scripts/script1.html

We simplified greatly of course... here's what we used:

Started with the radio broadcast, somewhat shortened.

Moved on to Gilligan building the raft (starting with the sign, of course!).

Got the sail from the girls.

Launched the raft with the gang cheering us on.

Then we skipped the rest of the episode and promptly sank!

It was a big hit, believe it or not. Of course, just dressing up in Gilligan garb and singing the theme song cracked them up!

Hope this helps.

I like your question, Ronvo.

I am not a super-naturalist kind of guy, but I encourage my guys to take an interest and be open to learning something.

Whenever I have a chance to pass on something that I know, I try to incorporate a couple of "bonuses":

When and where I first learned about it, especially if it has been recently.

What I did to extend my knowlege a bit.

For example, I recently wondered, "what the heck are those little glowing worms?" when I was up at 2:30, walking off a headache. I had never seen them before! So I googled my way to the answer, then I shared both the answer and the process of discovery with my scouts.

I learned several interesting things about our local trees while a Cub Scout leader, and I always point out that is when I learned it .. I suspect a boy scout might want to be at least as learned as cubs, so it might stick in his brain a bit.

I have been amazed to discover, though, how little these guys really internalize about plant life. Several of mine continue to demonstrate uncertainty about poison ivy, which should be one of the things that gets drilled the hardest. So we aren't doing a great job of it, in any case.

In my view, the *primary* job for the ASPL is to work with the troop's "staff positions," ie: QM, Scribe, etc. (This frees the SPL to plan and run meetings.) He should be aware of each staff member's goals for their position, and help them put together a plan to acheive the goal, identifying resources, etc. Then followup to monitor progress against the plan.

The ASPL has a *secondary* job to back up the SPL for absences.

A large troop might have a large staff. Multiple QMs, Scribe, Webmaster, Publicity Dude, Photographer, Historian, and other specialists. With enough positions like these, adding an ASPL might make a lot of sense.

However, if you find that the ASPL is asked only to serve as the backup SPL, then I agree that one is enough.

I have the same 3-way headlight that OWL62 mentioned (Ray-o-vac?) and I LOVE it. The three way switch goes from off - 1 red LED - 3 white LEDs - 1 white bulb. I bought it for $12 at Mejier. It takes 3 AAAs.

The red (first position) preserves your night vision and is enough light to take care of most chores. I rarely go to the white because it is so nice to keep your eyes well-adjusted. The white LEDs are quite bright, but the bulb is brighter yet. The bulb is definitely more "yellow" than the LEDs, even though it is a pretty bright bulb. I almost never use the bulb, but it is nice to have some extra brightness in reserve.

I also have a little 3-LED white flashlight that takes 1 AA. It has a nifty switch where you screw the back end in (like a mag light, sort-of) until it turns on and stays on. If you back off a bit, you can use a button on the back to get light ony when you press the button -- good for signalling. I have used this one for reading, etc. and never worry about the battery -- I have yet to change it. Just one AA backup battery would be plenty for a long outing, and I'd feel comfortable skipping the backup for a weekend if I knew the battery was fresh.

These lights are so good, I leave my 2-AA mini-mag at home now. It (with its back-up batteries) is just too heavy and bulky!