Stosh

Check with your council. I don't know the particulars other than if he started prior to 18 he might be able tocontinue depending on his handicap. I had a 34 year old "man" with a cognizant level of about 12 years of age that was a Life Scout. He was institutionalized living in a group home. He came to scouts and I worked with him on his Eagle rank. This whole process had the blessing of Council and National. I was removed from SM of that troop before I could get very far with his progress, but he was a nice scout and worked hard. We didn't really progress very far, but he seemed to enjoy his time with the troop. This was the troop that had me removed as SM so I have no idea whatever happened to him.

I've never read it per se, it was just the way I was taught as a kid and it always worked well for me except for that trek to Philmont where the SM was being a patoot. I've used the GBB patrol training curriculum, but I don't remember seeing it in there. Unless it's a vague memory from my days in scouts back in the '60's, I have no idea where it came from, just made sense so I pass it along to my boys.

I carry roasted beans.... What's a packet? Seriously people! People who camp should be drinking camp coffee. Man up, boys!

When I went to Philmont in 2000 I trained with a certain load, a certain pace and when I got to Philmont I stayed with it. I was the slowest hiker in the group. The SM made another adult fall back and stay with me. After a couple of days, he told another adult to take a turn at staying with me. The first guy said no, he wanted to stay with me at the slower pace. Before the 9 days were done, there were numerous heated discussions as to who got to stay back with me. It would seem that the boys and SM would bolt out of the stall early in the morning and after about 50 minutes would sit for 10 minutes to rest. My buddy and I poked along and would catch up just about the time their 10 minute break was through and they'd bolt on down the trail, I didn't need a break and neither did my partner so we just kept on going along and sure enough we would eventually catch up to the group just in time to have them bolt on down the trail. The 30 minute breakfast break we got to rest and the 30 minute lunch break was the same. Eventually the conversation in the evenings began to explain the situation as to why everyone was getting upset. At my pace we saw more than just the trail 2' in front of us. My buddy and I talked about the birds we saw, the mule deer sitting along side the trail, the mountain goats off on a far rock wall, etc. The others missed it all. The one boy finally identified it when he said the only time he saw anything but the trail and the guy ahead was when they took breaks. One's gotta remember that backpacking and hiking isn't just to get from one place to another. The journey is the important part. Make the best of it. Maybe it's time for everyone to slow down and enjoy the hike instead of worrying about the pace of the hike. When my boys hike the first person in line is the TrailMaster. He makes sure the route taken stays on a trail and that if the trail splits he is the first to know. Second in line is the navigator. He has the map and compass and knows the route and gives the TrailMaster the heads up if something on the map of importance is coming up. The third person in line is THE SLOWEST SCOUT ON THE HIKE!!!! HE SETS THE PACE... putting it mildly. Then all the other boys all 6' to 8' apart and the last boy in line is the Sweep. NO ONE gets behind him! He is the only one in the group that can see everyone on the hike; see if anyone is having problems; and can see the TraillMaster up front. He should be someone of PL leadership. Blast on his whistle stops the line of march. If the pace is too slow for the group, train your boys to look around and take in nature while they dawdle down the trail. Play games like identify 10 plants and 10 animals with the younger boys. Maybe point out something they see of interest that others might miss, etc. ENJOY YOURSELF! IT'S NOT A RACE!

Oh Man! I thought that statement of mine was ridiculous enough to be construed as sarcasm. Apparently not!

I can understand the rationale being promoted by a mixed bag of Webelos boys coming into the program. But if they are all being oriented to the one Boy Scout program, I don't see what the mixed backgrounds would make. So, we have a mixed bag to start with and we try to organize into one cohesive group. All the boys start from different backgrounds but when all is said and done, they should be on pretty equal footing. Otherwise we have new boys coming in as a mixed bag and they are all sent out to different patrols and the slowly melt into the routine of that patrol. They all end up on equal footing. Same result But what I'm hearing from how others are doing it at the end of the first year after the boys find their equal footing, THE ADULTS STEP IN AND BREAK UP THE PATROL AND PUT THE BOYS IN A HODGEPODGE OF OTHER PATROLS, thus starting them all over again from scratch with a new group. This then is put out there as evidence why New Scout Patrols don't work. Well the reason is because they are set up to fail because people don't know how to use them correctly. The same holds true for the Venture Patrols. If done correctly they both work just fine for what they were designed to do. No where in the BSA literature does it say to periodically disrupt the patrol progress with an apple-cart up-side-down, musical chairs approach to membership. NO PATROL will survive under that tom-foolery. Toss in a few events of ad hoc patrols and by the time the boy puts in his 7 years of scouting he will have been a part of at least 8-9 patrols. That does not build the patrol method. And keep it in mind that EVERY YEAR ALL THE PATROLS have to absorb new scouts that they have to work with, not just one patrol with a TG. EVERY YEAR ALL PATROLS are affected with a change in group dynamics.

I do a lot of watersports so I have shoes, boots and sandals. Two of the problems with sandals are 1) open toes and 2) thin soles. Dropping a kayak on boot or shoe is painful, on an open toe of a sandal is wicked. Tent pegs can cut through thin soled sandals and can also just miss the sole and slice the side of one's foot. Both these examples seem to compensate for those two sandal short-comings. Whenever I do BWCA or any heavy whitewater canoe/kayaking I wear the old military jungle boots. Massively heavy soled with steel plate to ward off pungi stakes or sticks on the portages. Soles that will handle broken glass etc. people toss in the rivers. The leather toes and heels protect them and the high lacing makes for great ankle support. The rest of the boot is nylon mesh which allows the water that runs into the boot to run out just as fast. After 20 years of watersports, they are still my favorites. For a Sunday afternoon paddle, I do wear sandals. For whitewater, I drag out the jungle boots.

One of the reasons the NSP's don't always work is because. 1) TG does not function in a supporting role for welfare of the entire NSP 2) SPL does not function in a supporting role to the NSP PL. 3) New kids are assumed to not be qualified to lead and can't decide on their own. But if used properly NSP's work very well and I haven't had any problem with as many as 2 NSP's in the troop, Never had a troop big enough for 3 NSP's to have to work with. Because they don't have older scouts in them necessarily, they tend to mature quicker than if they are "taken care of" by the older boys in a regular patrol. Older boys can hold back budding leaders just as much as an adult. I have had hot-shot NSP PL's come in and after a year slip very easily into troop POR's without any problems. I have had boys as young as 12-13 running the annual popcorn sale without any big hassles. If one expects and gives the opportunity to mature quickly, the boys do about 3/4ths of the time. The other 1/4 are generally late bloomers who lack the confidence to step out of their comfort zone and take on a challenge. Once they see their buddies doing it, they generally set it up their second year.

Hmmm, my Grandfather grew up and fought in WW I. My great uncle fought in that war as well. Neither of them expressed the kinds of opportunity I had growing up. My grandfather farmed most of his life and after the depression stopped farming, broke up his farm into lots and went into the construction business. My dad grew up on the farm, fought in WW II and worked as a milkman before working his way up in the world. He often commented that the life I grew up in had far more freedoms and opportunities than he could have ever imagined as a kid. Maybe it was just my small town upbringing, but my parents never knew where in the town of 700 people I was at any time. Of course if I didn't make it home for supper, there weren't that many streets to look up and down on. of course that was all before I turned 7 years old. The next town I lived in was 5000 people, and by the time I was 10 years old I knew every nook and cranny of that town and spent more time away from home than I did at home. I got my first gun (.22 caliber) when I was 12 years old and when I turned 16, my dad let me use the 12 gauge semi-auto for hunting. I do remember going small game hunting into the country on my bike because I wasn't old enough to drive a car. Parents had to drive us out into the woods to camp too if we didn't want to ride our bikes, no one was old enough to drive. I worked my way through scouts. My parents bought the uniforms, but everything else was my expense. I raked, shoveled and cleaned to make sure I had the money to go. Besides scouts, I was at the city pool which I had a season pass I paid for, or I was down by the river fishing. So, tell me, what kid today has that kind of freedom? The only thing we feared back then were the Communists and their bomb, but we all decide it was better to go quickly in the big blast than it was to starve to death in a bunker. The Civil Defense sirens weren't put up for tornadoes, they were for the Bomb. Today people fear everything including their shadow. The world appears ugly and there's something dangerous just around the corner. Kids can't be let out of an adult's sight for 2 seconds. I guess the only thing we feared more than the Bomb that we'd never see coming anyway would be the possibility that the candy store would someday close. One of the biggest disappointments in life was when you turned 12 years old and the 10-cent Saturday matinees went up to 15-cents. Nope, I wouldn't trade my childhood for what poses as childhood today...ever. Maybe not knowing what I had as a kid at that age is a good thing. One doesn't miss what one doesn't know.

My brother and his wife used to work in a federal prison system. They had more rules and regs that make the IRS rules look like a brochure. Why not just have every adult in the school system wear a body alarm like the guards in a prison do. That way if any teacher or staff member sees something known to be illegal, like a gun or drugs, they hit the alarm and the police take over and the teacher or staff member goes back to what they were doing. If a kid has a squirt gun? take it away and put it in the desk drawer until the last day of classes like the teachers had been doing for decades previously. If the toy gun looks like a real gun, don't second guess, hit the body alarm, let the authorities figure it out. If a kid wants to bring a treat for his birthday, send notes on the first day of classes that all threats need to be commercially prepared and wrapped. Mom's will be happy they don't need to make anything special and that a bag of Tootsie Rolls works just fine. If an Eagle Scout is driving his dad's car to school, where is the search warrant of probable cause that ferreted out the 1" pocket knife in the glove box? Zero-tolerance rules are political ploys by administrators to convince the people of the community they are "doing something" when in fact the only thing they are doing is taking the existing laws to the extreme and making fools of themselves. Let's just put it this way. If a kid wanted to harm another student all they would need to do is stab them in the neck with a pencil multiple times. What zero-tolerance rule does that protect against? Last time I checked pencils were still allowed in schools......Maybe I ought to check again.

Couple of questions/observations/comments @@Eagle94-A1 1) I am assuming that your troop does not use Troop Guides and instead are going with adults directly involved with each patrol all the way up to what the BSA refers to as Venture Patrols of experienced scouts? Yes, I am sure it's going to be a great challenge to use the Cub Scout organizational structure to keep from turning your Venture Patrols into Webelos IV patrols. 2) I'm sure this also means that the troop will no longer honor functional TG POR's anymore with the adults doing that responsibility? 3) I'm also thinking that if the Patrol Counselors are keeping a hovering eye on the patrols, that the responsibility of the SPL has been relegated down to COH emcee, announcement reader at flag opening ceremonies, and refereeing the PLC? 4) With the removal of the strong troop level POR's (SPL, ASPL, TG, etc.) that basically leaves the PL's in charge of their patrols. This is great if that is really the case. With every boy in the troop fully knowledgeable about the advancement policies, it would be interesting to know what training the PL's are going to need to sign off on advancement. 5) What can a PLC do to screw up? I've never had a PLC so I just figure that if they did nothing, they wouldn't screw up and would have to plan on doing something stupid to fall into that category? 6) Getting rid of the NSP? Like all the boys are going to be kicked out of scouting? The BOR question about what changes do they want to see in the troop and no one answered? Maybe they all realize the change is going to happen and it's not something they have any control over. Why answer a question when the answer they give is already planned on being ignored. Maybe their silence meant they want things to stay the same as they have it now.... well, that ain't gonna happen. When I "get rid" of my NSP it means that after a year and the new batch of Webelos boys comes in, I start referring to these new scouts as the NSP and quit calling the other boys the New Boys. Nothing else changes unless the boys make the change. Time alone causes the name New Scout Patrol to change to Regular Patrol. Interest alone causes the name Regular Patrol to change to Venture Patrol. Nothing really changes, just the names and focus of the patrol's programming. 7) Okay, COH's 100% run by the adults one time, next time, COH's 100% run by the boys. Here's some suggestions, do what you want! WOW! HERE COMES THE BUS!! (and the adults aren't gonna keep you from failing!) A little pokin' fun, a little sarcasm, in my post, yep, but remember, that from where you started to where you are now, there's a lot of pride in seeing what you've done. You have a long ways to go to change the details and herd all the adults back into the coffee corral, but you have mentally made everyone aware of the need for the boys taking over the reins. That, for a lot of troops, is all but impossible. Take your Patrol Counselors and have them mentor/train Troop Guides so that THEY can do the job instead of an adult. Give the PL's a chance to do the job and fail rather than assume they don't know anything and need to be trained. I have turned over responsibilities to POR's "assuming" they knew what they were doing having watched others. Most of them did just fine but occasionally they would ask if they needed guidance and YES, they all did fantastic, This of course saved me a lot of training time I would have wasted and I would garner a lot brownie points for not assuming the boy was "just a kid" and couldn't handle a big boy job without some adult hovering over his shoulder. Kids are a lot more focused on doing it right than many adults give them credit for. I have had boys over the years that simply can't make simple choices in life because they are paralyzed by fear when face with the dilemma. Some of my best leaders have garnered up the most failures. They at least keep trying and pushing ahead. You've got the scent of the trail, that's 90% of the job, now all one has to do is track down the details and I would suggest having the boys TEACH YOU what they want out of the troop! Once you have that, you have it all! Well done!

While at campouts I generally have access to if not wearing a belt ax, depending on what I'm doing. It is never used in an ax yard, it is honed way beyond the edge of any other ax out there, it will slice tomatoes, and it creates mounds and mounds of julienne fries and can create a pile of tinder so fine it will beat out dryer lint for starting fires. The stroke of the ax is anywhere from 2" to 6" and It has been demonstrated to many classes I teach it will easily split a pencil into quarters after it has sharpened it. The BSA snaps on the sheath and matching sheath knife combo, allow me to carry official BSA equipment on BSA property. After demonstrating what the setup can do, everyone wants one. It's going to be difficult for National to ban official BSA equipment from it's own program. And the minute I say that, it'll come true in this day and age. I used to carry a heavy bladed hunting knife and small saw when deer hunting. How I just carry the belt ax. I took a class on tanning hides last fall and the skinning knife the instructor was using had a rather curved blade.... Just about the same curve as the end of an ax. I just may try and skin out my deer next fall with the belt ax.

or 4) Come to this forum seeking a variety of different pieces of advice from knowledgeable people who may have had similar circumstances happen to them and find out what they did to get through the rough spot on the trail. No two situations will ever be the same same, only similar, but how one deals with THEIR particular situation might go a bit smoother by comparing notes and not making the same mistakes others may have made before. I see forums on the internet a bit like Wikipedia. Maybe 90% of the stuff there is pretty reliable, but there's a bunch of stuff there that is more commentary than fact. While most of the forum offers commentary, within the comments are some real good gems of advice that must might make one's life a bit easier.

School Boards and their zero-tolerance policies are a prime example of independent fiefdoms outside our current code of law. Instead of managing the operation and considering the welfare of the community they represent, they legislate, execute and adjudicate their own set of laws. If it's illegal elsewhere, they may or they might not turn jurisdiction over to the proper law enforcement agencies. If the infraction to their rules is NOT illegal outside their fiefdom, then they are judge, jury and executioner of those "laws". What happens is that within their little sphere of power and control they think they are immune from the greater powers of our country and when my son's civil rights were denied within the school's jurisdiction, they were upheld in the real judicial system and the school's principle, superintendent, and police liaison officer were all put in their places. The state's attorney wouldn't prosecute the infraction my son was accused of because there was no evidence was found, nothing illegal about drawing pictures in art class, and a minor being interrogated without parents or lawyers present was illegal and the coerced confession was illegally obtained. All in all, the school system can very close to being majorly sued if they didn't extend a sincere and public apology. Things that don't seem to be able to make it to the real court system somehow find their way into the kangaroo courts of the school system where when challenged, in many cases might show evidence of general abuse of the civil rights of minors. The infraction my son was accused of never made to the local newspaper, but the public apology by the school did.

If a kid has a gun at school where there's a zero-tolerance on guns it should be going to the police. If a kid makes a hand gesture at recess playing cops and robbers, it goes to the school board. The police have more important things to do than play political games around stupid policies.

We aren't talking the obvious infractions here. Obviously cheating is cheating regardless of who does it. If it's the superintendent's kid, he gets the discipline. No problem. Yet, somehow I get the feeling that if it is the superintendent's kid, the zero-tolerant rule would be seriously bent for the kid. There's always some politics going on in the background with these things. Like it is mentioned, heroin sales in the bathroom and Tums in a pocket are not equal infractions of the rule. Little cheating and big cheating involve some common sense judgement, more towards the idea that cheating is cheating and pretty obvious. There is a distinction between illegal drugs and over the counter meds for an upset stomach. A rational person should be able to tell the difference. If not, there's a bigger problem than the zero-tolerance policy.

For these absolute people, they don't want to deal with any fall-out that might arise from negotiating any common and/or rational thought that might apply to unique situations. On the one hand we have an Eagle Scout with a pocket knife in the glove-box of his dad's car he drove because his had a flat that morning and the other hand we have the gang-banger with a gun his backpack. Okay, we can deal rationally with those extremes. But what about the kindergarten kid who uses the school supplied knife in a "stabbing" motion rather than a "slicing" motion? But, alas, why would anyone need a knife in the first place to eat "Schuel Gruel" in the first place. Or what about the high schooler who uses his fingers to imitate a gun to threaten others... or merely scowls threateningly? If one has zero-tolerance policies one doesn't need to deal with any of these issues. Just make the problem go away by expelling the student. End of discussion, problem solved. The rather embarrassing part of the whole thing is when such ridiculous incidents arise, the zero-tolerance policy people are not the least bit embarrassed by their stupidity. That in itself quite scary to say the least. They are so entombed and blinded by their policy they are totally blinded to any rational thought or concepts.

Are you sure about that? I've read where kindergarten kids were expelled for forming their hand into the shape of a gun and were using it to play games during recess. Heck, when I was that age, I walked around wearing a gun and holster all the time, it went well with the boots and cowboy hat. All our money as kids went to buying caps for the cap guns. We have Eagle Scouts expelled from school for a small pocket knife locked in their cars..... When I was in high school I was a member of the Rifle Club. We used the school's rifles, but during hunting season we could bring in our own guns and sight them in to get them ready. We live in a world/society where the once cherished freedoms are now gone. Heroic resolve backed by common sense have now been replaced with blatant mandates backed by cowering fear. We had a first grader who's mom packed a table knife so his teacher could cut his birthday cake treat for the class. He was suspended because his mom was an idiot. Then they went to cupcakes, but now that's taboo as well, who knows that idiot mom didn't bake Magic Cupcakes for the kindergarten class. Everyone gets a participation trophy for fear someone might feel left out. Graded papers cannot be handed out by other students for fear they will know what others got for grades. A pocket knife is banished for fear someone would use it as a weapon in class. Ever notice the common denominator in all this? Zero-tolerance policies are generated out of the fears of society who think that this will insure some sense of safety for everyone. The philosophy is also seen in disarming everyone so the criminals who will always be armed won't have to be afraid of anyone fighting back against their crimes. Someday, these fearful people will wake up and realize that zero-tolerance policies will not stop people who ignore rules in the first place, that's what makes them criminals. Zero-tolerance cannot protect against that, but it can give everyone a huge dosage of false security so they can feel they have done something useful for society's safety.

Ya, but, doesn't zero-tolerance mean they have no intention of dealing with the issue? What would be the reason for doing a review of any situation if whatever it was in their minds, i.e. piece of bread that looks like a gun, is not tolerated. These "rules" are not rules to which judgements of a case by case basis are reviewed, they are non-negotiable mandates that cannot be questioned.

Kinda depends @@LVAllen If the guy was smart and using an aluminum Dutch oven he'd be okay. If the guy was smart and had seasoned his cast iron Dutch oven with bees wax, he'd be okay. If the guy was smart and had dumped the beans to soak in an oil seasoned Dutch oven, he'd have plenty of high protein beans with an extra high iron content to boot. These are kidney beans so the gross color wouldn't be a factor.

That's what I was thinking at first when I mentioned the self-fulfilling prophesy issue. If a person does not think someone is going to succeed they tend to blow them off, but if they think the person will succeed, they bend over backwards helping. I didn't see this SM's record as a good thing.

The scary part of it all was that you totally understood what I said. I must be rubbing off on you.

Light roast coffee has more caffeine than the dark roasted coffees..... Just depends on whether one drinks for the flavor or is going straight for the buzz.....

I'm with Calico on this one. I grew up in a culture that was tolerant of blacks, tolerant of women, tolerant of unruly children, tolerant of a lot of things. People just worked around these situations, negotiated resolutions, and basically compromised and or at least listened out the other side of the story. It was an age of reasoning and people, even if they didn't agree at least went along with certain issues for the welfare of the common peace. Zerio tolerance policies are nothing more than an up-front statement that the party making the rules will not discuss, dialog, debate, try to understand, or even empathize with the situation. It simply announces an arrogance and entrenchment that doesn't care what others may think about the situation. We all cringe when we hear about SM's who dictate my way or the highway to the boys and waaaay out of line with the Scout Laws of common decency yet allow zero tolerant people a pass on it. Sorry, but zero tolerance is bullying and basically I simply avoid any and all contact with such people unless I have leverage in the situation. Teacher: we need you to step up your discipline of your child's unruly behavior in class. Parent: we need you to step up your teaching skills so that my child isn't bored to tears in class. Teacher: Your son is being suspended from my class. Parent: Great, maybe now he can get a teacher that we can work with instead of having to deal with school mandates and stupid classroom rules. Where as there are always two sides to every issue, zero tolerance mandates there is only one. I am glad my children learned from such policies because I think my grandchildren being home-schooled with mega tolerance for others in society is a really good thing. It is definitely what is taught in the Scout Oath and Laws. I would have a difficult time trying to justify zero tolerance under the principles of the Law and Oath.

I don't have a problem with running Boy Scouts 11-18 (all boys) along side Venturing 14-21 (co-ed). I can see both sides of the issue, but why with both operating very well side by side with two different missions, do we have to blend the two into just one? I just don't see the need for it. However, if there be those out there that DO see a need for it. Then by all means, set something up. I run my co-ed church youth organizations quite similarly to scouting mission and dynamics. Obviously helping other people at all times make a smooth transition into youth ministry and mission. But to co-ed Boy Scouts means there will no longer be a boy-only program left. Schools are co-ed, churches are co-ed, community programs like the YMCA which used to be YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION as compared to the YWCA are now co-ed, and Boys and Girls Club are co-ed, etc. So, where's the freedom to choose? Choose all one wants, but they will soon realize there isn't a choice anymore. They're all generically the same program with slight programmatic differences. YMCA is kinda sports/fitness oriented and BSA is more outdoorsy, but YMCA can do outdoor programs and BSA can do sports programming. They now are pretty much the same. With BSA going totally co-ed, then the choice for a boy to manhood transition program disappears completely after 100+ years of developing young men of great character.