Kahuna

I think the answer depends on how good the events were. The last camporee I attended with my troop was so poorly run that we vowed never to return. The kids were unhappy, we were unhappy. The "campfire" was an overcrowded event under a shelter to which chairs were not allowed (sitting on concrete is not for me). So we left and occupied ourselves with other activities. BTW, this was not in the Aloha Council. On the other hand, Makahiki, the oldest Scout Show in America, is a great experience and I never miss it. It accomplishes all the things you list as positives for the kids, plus it gives the general public a chance to see Scouts in action. It's held in the main downtown show venue for Honolulu.

A couple of Lads went to the Buddhist service and said that was different. I'll bet they did find that a different experience! Great story, Eamonn. If the kids had fun and the adults didn't get heat prostration, all obvously ended well.

I have the requirements for those badges and the representation of the badges that appeared in the handbooks. I don't think I have any of the pamphlets. I almost certainly have the actual merit badges for some of those. If you want to send me a private message and tell me exactly what you need, I'll dig thru my stuff and see what I can tell you.

Having been in big troops and small troops, I agree that either can be good. Some kids left the big troops because they didn't feel connected with everybody and went to smaller troops. I would observe that, all things being equal, a good troop will grow to be a large troop. You can cut off membership and create a waiting list. Meeting facilities and camping equipment may not be adequate. A lot of things other than bad program can keep a troop small. In the biggest troop I was associated with, we were able to offer program that smaller troops couldn't. Most of our kids came from well-off families and we had a sizeable operating budget. We did a European trip, went to summer camp in a northern camp and mountain camps in nearby states. That doesn't substitute for quality program of course. You still have to have the basics. We turned out 4-5 Eagles per year.

tj: What a fascinating and revealing story. Also one which, even within the anonimity of the forum takes some courage on your part. Not to mention insight. When I was younger, I studied psychology and sociology. I have never worked in either area professionally and haven't kept up with professional literature. My anecdotal evidence and things told to me by gay friends (of whom I admit I haven't had all that many - not that I knew of, anyway) pretty much follow what you have said. In my many years as a Scout leader I have encountered a few boys who were obviously gay when they were young and went on to be gay adults. I know in my heart that they were created that way for whatever reason, or at least became that way at an age so early that it would be hard to conceive that they did it willfully or willingly. Common sense tells us that, especially in past years, the life of a homosexual was a very difficult one. It still is, certainly for teenagers. It has never made sense to me that any number of people would knowingly choose such a life, if they had any real options. Unfortunately, the religious point of view of many Christians will prevent them from looking at this in any other light, and I say this not in condemnation of their religion, but just as an observation. I think one of the reasons Hawai'i is so tolerant of the gay lifestyle (my next door neighbors are an openly gay couple and no one thinks anything of it) is the prevalance of Eastern religion and the openness of Hawaiian religious tradition. Of course, I've said before that I think the BSA is weighing the advantages and disadvantages and when the time comes that they lose more membership by continuing their policy than not, they will change the policy. I think we are some years away from that time, but not as many years as some may think. In any case, I appreciate your sharing your story.

Greeneagle: While I agree that the BSA should be developing alternate jambo sites (and would bet they already are), any military base would be under the same ruling as A.P. Hill. While closed military installations would work, almost any publicly owned venue is likely to be barred by some subsequent ACLU work. FScouter: The risk at AP Hill is what has just happened. The BSA put a lot of money into one site, which is now not going to be available. The assumption is (although I'm not sure it's a correct one) that the BSA put all it's eggs in one basket and has no contingency plan for the loss of facilities at Hill. I am still betting that the higher courts will overrule this judge on the issue. The cases that have made it to the Supreme Court indicate to me, especially if Roberts is on the Court, that they will not see a problem. Still, if I was in the National Office, I would be making phone calls with an atlas open on my desk.

The overweight Scouters theory is supported by the newsclips I saw of the treatment area. Looked like most of the patients were adults. Some of the kids in the clip looked a little on the heavy side, too. I'm betting not too many Florida or Texas Scouts were among the victims. They deal with that kind of weather at summer camp all the time. The fact is, no mass activity like a jamoboree can prepare for every eventuality and have everything they need on hand. You know when you go to something of that size, whether its a jambo or a rock concert, you just have to be prepared to take care of yourself (and your kids). I think it's a little soon to dump it all on the jambo staff. I have a couple of friends on staff there and will wait to hear what they have to say about it. I'm sure that President Bush's cancellation was due to the Secret Service, but I think he probably should have overridden them and gone anyway. It didn't make him look very good, I'm afraid. The BSA just can't seem to get a break these days.

Sounds like the Scoutmaster and/or the Council is wrong on this one. The simple answer is to call your DE and ask the question. If the DE says no patrol camping, ask what the authority is that overrides the info in the handbook. You can't very well get a tour permit for a patrol campout without adults, because the form requires stating who the adults are and requires one be trained, etc, etc. I would take the position that, if the activity is Scoutmaster approved, that satisfies the tour permit requirement. Sadly, this is the kind of gotcha that results from all our G2SS CYA stuff.

CNYScouter: The main reason the camps don't offer late-summer camps is the crazy school schedule that sends most of them back by the end of July, rather than the heat. The locals are more or less used to the heat. I haven't had experience with their Adventure programs, but they seem to do a good business and the camp generally is pretty well run. BTW, they have an air conditioned dining hall at LaNoChe, so that at least helps you not have to eat while you swelter. And of course they have a huge pool and a hugher lake. I haven't been to Flaming Arrow in many years, so really can't comment much on that. I do remember it seemed much hotter than LaNoChe, probably because it is just in pine scrub land, where LaNoChe is in deep forest. The Florida Sea Base is, hands down, the one of the great Scouting adventures. When I was in Florida, some of our troop went with a group of Scottish Venturers on two of their treks and everybody was wild about it. Hard to get a slot in there, though. Good luck whatever you decide. If I can help don't hesitate to ask.

CNYScouter: Try the Central Florida Council camp, LaNoChe. It's closer to Disney and they cater to out of council groups for that reason. They don't offer canoe treks, as far as I know, but they can direct you to some in the area. Major Warning: It is very, very HOT at those central Florida camps. Be prepared for high humidity and high temps. Beautiful camps, though.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I conclude from this discussion that most councils are having bigger financial problems than they care to admit. Back when I was a DE, we always tried to build in a little "profit" margin on our district and council activities, but nobody thought of trying to "catch" units camping together and having joint activities or charge for tour permits to gouge out a few more bucks. This sort of goes along with my thinking when I learned South Florida Council had sold off their only summer camp. Their problem is UW cuts.

Yes, I saw the same articles you mention. I was also struck by lack of information on the council website. The place is full of archeological sites, some probably accidentally obliterated during construction. There was a major trail made by Seminoles and later used by settlers that crossed the property to get across the Withlacoochie River there. It was a great camp. It also had a canoe base on it. I was just blown away that they sold it.

Farragut would be a great site, except for one thing: There's about 1/2 inch of soil on top of rock there. 35,000 pairs of feet running over it for 10 days or so created a dust cloud that could be seen miles away. You could blow your nose and your handkerchief turned brownish grey. I was sick with a sort of walking pneumonia after the 1969 Jambo. Asmatic kids would never make it. Beautiful location, though.

I just learned, to my shock and surprise, that the Scout Reservation in Central Florida operated by the South Florida Council, was sold to a Florida water management agency. From what I could learn, the sale was prompted by loss of funding from the South Florida United Way. I was an original Senior Staff member when the Scout Camp, Camp Lone Oak, was opened in 1972. Helped to carve the thing out of the swamp and shot rattlesnakes who were upset about being kicked out of their living quarters. I thought it would be around a long, long time. Anybody know anything about the "rest of the story" here? Anybody know where kids from South Florida Council are going to camp these days? The council has other camps, but none large enough to have summer camp.

I think it's likely that the next Jambo will be at A.P. Hill. However, they moved it around for many years prior to settling there, I don't see why they couldn't do that again. State-owned facilities aren't necessarily out. Not all states are under the influence of the ACLU. I'm sure there are some private lands that could be used someplace in the U.S. They had one on a ranch in California in, I think, the sixties. There are a lot of closed military installations and more to be closed. Some of those could be developed as a site. The World Jamboree in Thailand was at an old air force base built by the U.S. during the Viet Nam war.

I don't know much about insurance, but I suppose the theory is that if you have a bunch of Scouts in one place, the risk is higher than normal that something will happen to one or more of them (which was just shown at the Jamboree, sadly). Still, it seems like a bit of a rip off and when it gets to the point where it prevents activities, it's time to really look at it. Think I'll bring this up at the next Council Venture meeting. We're talking about the Council liability insurance coverage. The $1.00 a head fee is your medical insurance. Normally included in your registration fees, but added on in case of Council and other events. I gather that Councils can decide what policy they want to follow on this.(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

Rooster7: Thank you on both accounts. I need all the prayers I can get, whether they are from those of my faith or not. I agree with you in your arguments on this issue as well. Of course, I've said before that, IMHO, one cannot deny the Judeo-Christian heritage of this country and how it impacts us all for the better.

Latest word is 4 killed, 2 hospitalized and expected to be ok. They were putting up a big tent and contacted a power line. Looks like jamboree staff. One was a contractor. BSA has no names or locations yet.

For the record, I never suggested that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, just between Iraq and Al Queda. If there were no connection, I don't believe we would be seeing the influx of Al Queda terrorists into Iraq now. Wouldn't they be more likely to be fighting in Afghanistan? BTW, it is a fact that virtually all legitimate intelligence agencies believed Saddam had WMDs. So did the Clinton administration and most members of Congress. I won't slander Jimmy Carter, but, although he has done a lot of good in his retirement (I mean his philanthropic efforts such as Habit for Humanity), his continual carping about his successors and his insinuation of himself into virtually every international situation (usually not to the benefit of the U.S.) do not give me the feeling that he is a truly good man.

Sorry, Prairie Scouter! Didn't mean to mis-address you. I'm sorry, but hasn't pretty much EVERY legitimate intelligence source said that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda before the war started? No, they haven't. The intelligence agencies are well aware that there was an ongoing relationship between Hussein's government and Al Queda. The link below is not from intelligence sources, but I believe it reflects what the agencies believe. http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/al-queda-iraq-connection.html

I understand the differences in liability of the two programs and referring to joint activities, I am not thinking in terms of inviting young Boy Scouts to participate in high adventure activites. Boy Scouts are allowed to swim, sail, boat and do all the same things that Venture units can. Sea Scout units frequently use teaching skills to Boy Scouts as a service and a recruiting device. Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts are covered by the same liability insurance as Ventures, to the best of my knowledge. There are just some differences in requirements, for example, in aquatic activities. They must wear PFDs at all times and Sea Scouts don't have to. I suppose it makes some sense for council to ensure that all the requirements are being met, but one would think that would be covered by the tour permit.

Backpacker: Both major parties are, at this point, more interested in taking political potshots at each other. They're like a bunch of little kids. We can at least agree on that statement. I don't like either one of them very much. I would vote Libertarian, but that just deprives me of a vote, because they aren't in danger of winning or even influencing elections. I don't know what military officers you have heard saying they want to follow the Geneva Convention. Possibly Wes Clark? My impression as a retired USAF officer, is that the vast majority of military officers want to do whatever we can to get these guys off the battlefield and find out what they know that can help us find more of them. I also don't understand why you and many others feel that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or that the war in Afghanistan is somehow being put on the back burner. It's obvious to me that the Iraq government had many ties to Al Queda and that a lot of the fighting being done there is against Al Queda members or sympathizers. In short, we are killing them there so we don't have to kill them here. It strikes me that we have made a lot of progress in Afghanistan and, not coincidentally, with the Pakistanis. Our relations with the Pakistani government has led to their taking measures against the more extreme elements and particulary the extremist madrassas. OGE is correct, as far as I know, in saying that all those at Gitmo are men who were taken on the "battlefield," wherever that may be. IMHO, they are being treated far better than they have any right to be. Those who were released were not, as far as I know, released because they hadn't done anything wrong, but because they could be turned over to their own governments.

A Sea Scout unit is a part of Venturing, but I don't really see what difference it makes, if all the units are in the same council and have or don't need tour permits. Our council doesn't seem to have a position on this either way. As a Skipper, I would clear it with council before having a couple of packs of Cubs out for a sail, but just to invite some Scouts for an outing doesn't seem to me to require a permit.

Backpacker: The Patriot Act was enacted by Congress, not put into force by executive order. Congress will decide on the continuation or form the continuation will take. It looks like it's up to the Senate to modify or continue it at this point, since the House has passed on it's version. I would point out that this isn't the action of the administration, although it certainly is the administration's desire. While I agree that we have to watch the government closely, lest we end up with a police state, my concerns apply equally to Republicans and Democrats. In any case, it's your representatives and senators who will decide the issue, not the Bush administration. It is wartime. Whether you like it or not, we are war with forces of evil in the world. We aren't fighting it on the scale of WWII, but the results can be equally disastrous to us. During WWII, citizens of the U.S. were willing to put up with a lot to fight the war: curfews, lighting restrictions, rationing, limitations on travel, a draft for the military and a lot of secrecy about what was going on. Enemy combatants and suspected spies and saboteurs could be picked up and held for the duration of the war. And yes, the government interned Americans of Japanese ancestry and confiscated their property. We are nowhere near that kind of restrictions today. The Geneva Convention does not and never has applied to combatants not in uniform, fighting for an entity that is not a signatory to the Convention. Although during WWII, we treated our enemies, including the Japanese, who were not signers, according to the Convention, we were not obligated to, nor did it help our POW's in Japanese hands. As to how the enemy treats captured Americans, how much worse could it get? They behead them on TV, they burn them alive and hang them from bridges. They blow up women and children. The Geneva Convention has no meaning for them and treating our captives according to it makes no sense. Neither does providing with lawyers and judicial hearings. Our POWs in Viet Nam were held for up to eight years and not treated according to the Geneva Convention. We can hold these guys as long as we want. They are being housed properly, fed properly, allowed their religious rites, given copies of the Quran. What more could we do? We could let them go and they will show up in Iraq with weapons. I do agree on the education issue. And I certainly can't find anything in the Constitution that puts the federal government into education. We would all be better off if that were left to the states, IMHO. On the other hand, the Democrats ideas for education just involve throwing a lot of money and denying us any choices in education, so we wouldn't be any better off with them in charge. As to the trust issue, there's and Air Force agency who has as it's motto, "In God We Trust. All Others We Verify." So much for a rant from the other side. BTW, Barry, OT means off topic.

The inter-council thing does have an insurance issue. Permission was granted to the Tampa ship to hold the event, but they had to charge a council insurance premium of $4 a head for it. However, I don't see how that would apply to inter-unit events from the same council. I know sometimes they charge a council insurance premium for camporees or whatever, but I'm not sure why the units aren't covered as they would be for any regular activity. BTW, neither the Southeast Region Commodore nor any of the Skippers in the region heard about either of these rules before. The regatta had been going on for about 16 years before Gulf Ridge discovered the discrepancy. Could this be a fund raising thing?