KC9DDI

I guess my question is who is responsible for assigning labels and categories to people based on their religious/faith beliefs? And, as a followup, am I expected or obligated to care about the labels that others have tried to apply to me?

The steel wool and a 6V or 9V battery is pretty safe. Roll some steel wool into the size and shape of a hot dog and hook some standard electrical wiring to each end. Using a lot of good tinder and kindling, build the fire around the steel wool. Run the electrical wiring to a hidden area with a battery, and when you're ready to start the fire just touch the wires to the battery terminal for a few seconds. Basically it will work like a car cigarette lighter - the steel wool will glow red, and the heat should ignite your kindling and get the fire going. You shouldn't have a problem with the battery getting hot or anything, and any sparks will be small (only fly a few inches from the steel wool). I've done this a couple of times with a car battery even, and never had a problem. You might want to do a few practice runs to get an idea for how much steel wool you'll need. Be sure to run the electrical wire in a direction that people won't trip over it during or after the fire. I'll be honest and admit that I've "blessed" the campfires with some tiki torch fuel prior to using this method.

As far as pinesol and chlorine.... not so sure about that, and I personally wouldn't feel comfortable trying that. Obviously some liquid accelerants are safer than others. Tiki torch fuel, or citronella oil, I think is one of the safer ones - it will help get a fire going pretty good, but doesn't really explode the same way that gasoline or kerosene will. Still, if you do feel the need to help the fire along a bit, make sure that you personally oversee what is used, and how the fire is lit.

I agree with most of the conventional wisdom here. To those who compare the "offense" with jaywalking or speeding, I'd add that violating a web site's "terms of service" is even less serious. The TOS's generally aren't legally binding. Jaywalking and speeding a few MPH over the posted limit aren't generally considered to be that serious, but they technically are illegal. Violating a TOS isn't even necessarily illegal.

Its actually fairly common even for adults to "lie" about some of their personal information when putting it online. In fact, given some sites' poor security track records, it would almost be irresponsible to provide truthful identifying information in many cases. Personally, only sites that have a legitimate need to have accurate information about me (online banking, online retailers, etc) get accurate information from me. Any other site that wants to know my personal information (including this site, given how frequently it seems to hosts malicious code) gets mostly phoney information. Am I violating the Scout Oath and Law by chosing to protect my identity and my privacy in this way?

Think through the Scout Oath for a second. It talks about having a duty to God and to country, to others, and to oneself. Nothing in there about being truthful with computer programs. Suggesting that you might delay rank advancement because you perceive a scout to be "lieing" to a computer is, honestly, one of the more rediculous ideas I've seen floated here.

I guess I'm wondering what the "real" issue is? Unless you happen to read through the Terms of Service, privacy policy, license agreeements, etc, of every web site you visit and every program you run, I doubt that violating a TOS is really what you're worried about. So what is the real problem then?

If the scout is using the social media or communication tool to engage in bullying, harassment, or some illegal activity, that would be a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed. But it's a separate issue from a web site's TOS.

If you personally are uncomfortable communicating with a younger scout via Facebook or social media, then just don't use that method of communication yourself or for your troop. But don't try to make it the scout's problem for chosing to use that mode of communication in other settings - that's up to the scout and his parents, not you or the troop. Unless the scout is clearly being irresponsible, that's outside of your sphere of influence.

Maybe a better use of time and resources would be to invite a speaker knowledgable about online safety and security to speak with your troop to help them develop safe habits online?(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

There appears to be some sort of malicious JavaScript on this forum's web pages - maybe if someone could get in touch with the owner or an admin to get that looked at? This seems to happen fairly regularly on this forum, maybe its time to upgrade to newer, more secure, forum software?

Out of curiosity, if there is an issue in your council at the council level, why can't the council professional staff and volunteers work their own channels through the area, region and national to resolve the issue? Surely your SE, for example, must be able to get in contact with higher-ups when necessary.

UCEagle72 - Can any references to amateur radio's essential-ness in those disasters be found in any media other than those produced by ham radio groups?

With no offense intended towards the hams who do volunteer their time and services during crisis situations, I think that a lot of misinformation about the overall usefulness and "essential-ness" of ham radio gets spread...

Had it not been for the amateur radio operators in 2004 in Florida and again in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast during Katrina, little to no communication would have been received.

As a ham myself, I have to wonder what you're basing this claim on?

One thing to keep in mind is that you as a counselor do not really need to work directly from the MB Pamphlet. As long as you do not add, remove or change requirements, you can direct Scouts to other books, internet sites, videos, etc, if you think that those other resources would be more effective than the MB Book provided by the BSA.

I have to wonder what the motivation for this really is. Various pet theories have been brought up on these forums, generally without much substance. But has National ever really stated what their goals are here, and why they've chosen to get there via this route?

Does it strike anyone else as odd that we never hear these complicated debates over the other 11 points in the Law? I'm sure specific situations might present a gray area here and there, but its pretty easy to tell whether a Scout is generally trustworthy, obediant, cheerful or thrify, right?

I got to wonder, what is so different about "reverent" that causes all this grief? Is it because the BSA is using too vague of a term to convey the actual quality they mean? Or because us unit-level Scouters don't take the time to fully think through what reverence really is, relying on what we would like it to mean, rather than what it really does mean? Is the BSA contradicting itself by trying to be non-sectarian, but still having the Oath refer to "God" in the western, monotheistic, Judeo-Christian sense of the idea? Is the BSA in the wrong for asking Scouters to take on the responsibility of evaluating this trait at all?

Food for thought. As I've said before, I really don't see why Scouting needs to include the whole religion/spirituality/God/higher-power thing at all. But, given that they do, it would be nice if they would help us define it in more of a black-and-white sense, in the same way that "trustworthy" is defined, to some extent.

dennis - You're right, there's never a time when we can conduct an activity closed to parental observation. But, consider when a recently crossed-over parent observes their son struggling to start a fire on a camping trip. If the adult decides to go down to his son's patrol site and start the fire for him, do we, as more experienced Scouters, not discourage the parent from doing so? Even though we have no legal standing for requesting that the parent stay away? Again, we're not trying to prohibit anything - that would be against the law, and I would think it would be illegal in many situations. But, clearly there's nothing wrong with explaining why we believe the program works best under certain conditions, and asking that the parent voluntarily choose to act a certain way.

There's a huge difference between explaining a situation and making requests of parents, and prohibiting parents from having access to their children. There is no BSA rule or law that prevents a Scouter from having a conversation with a parent to explain the goals of a given program, and to request that the parent take a certain course of action. The parent can choose to listen to your explanation for as long as they want, and can choose whether or not to agree to do what you've asked them to do. Its only a problem when the parent makes their decision, and you continue to prevent them from going to their child. That's why I would strongly advocate having these discussions well in advance of the actual ceremony whenever possible.

The rules don't need to make a special allowance for explanations and conversations. It would be pretty silly if the BSA rules needed to specifically allow each and every conversation that would be permitted in a Scouting context. Rules in general restrict behavior, and there is no restriction on explaining why we ask that a ceremony occur a certain way. We are, however, restricted from closing any Scouting event to parental observation. There's a clear and obvious distinction here.

Seattle - Try looking at it this way: do we discourage parents from involving themselves in their sons' patrol functions? Do we discourage parents from permitting their scouts to miss meetings and camping trips? Do we discourage scouts from tenting with their parents? But, if push comes to shove, will we allow a parent to do any of these things if they insist on it? Yep, we have to.

Same train of thought for the OA ceremonies. If a parent arrives and says, "I'd like to go to my son's ordeal ceremony," and an OAer says, "I'm not sure that's a good idea, and here's why...." -- how is that a problem? It's just a case of a Scouter sharing information about a particular program with a parent. Then, if the parent agrees he or she doesn't need to attend the ceremony, its no problem. Or, if the parent still insists on attending the ceremony, its still no problem. No one is keeping secrets, or preventing a parent from having access to their child in either case.

Now, I'd say that these types of conversations should NOT be occuring with only a few minutes clearance before the start of the ceremony. I'd say that when this happens the lodge needs to do a better job of communicating the schedule and expectations with the parents well before the ceremony starts, but that's another issue.

dennis - There's a bit of a difference though. Denying a parent access to their child is a legal issue. There is, however, no harm in asking that the parents voluntarily agree to give their kid some space in certain situations, and there's nothing wrong with an Arrowman explaining why they would prefer that the parent not attend a ceremony. It only becomes an issue if the explaining of a reason turns into a refusal. I'm not a lawyer, but at that point I'd imaging you're talking about kidnapping or something along those lines.

Rules typically don't explicitly state things that one is allowed to do. Instead, they restrict behavior. In this case, we are restricted from excluding parents from Scouting functions. That doesn't mean that we can't explain why we would prefer that they cannot attend - it just means that we cannot prevent them from doing so.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

TAHAWK - Again, I have no problem with inviting Venturers to NYLT. I guess ideally I would have set it up where they were guests at a Boy Scout-specific training course, and have a separate Venturing-specific training course to meet their unique needs. For me, its not about the color of the uniform shirt, the gender of the participants, or any other superficial issue.

In my opinion, up until now the goal of NYLT was to train Boy Scout youth leaders (specifically) by immersing them in a model Boy Scout troop for a week. They were getting what were essential generic leadership skills, but were also learning how an effective youth-led, patrol-method Boy Scout troop works.

As far as labels go, you try to make the same point that the syllabus makes - that the label isn't important, but the underlying leadership content is. The syllabus is pretty light on the rationale for this assertion. And, clearly, the labels do have some importance, or they would not have been changed ;-) Let me ask you what is more intuitive and easy to understand for a 13 year old Boy Scout: Option A - Observing a Senior Patrol Leader, Asst Senior Patrol Leader, Quartermaster, Patrol Leader, Troop Guide, etc at NYLT, and then going back to his troop and associating the leadership roles he saw at camp with the leadership roles of the same name in his troop. Or, Option B - Being told that a particular camp staffer is the "Assistant Course Director of Youth Operations," and that his or her role will be somewhat similar to that of an SPL (or crew president). And so on for each youth and adult leadership position.

The fact is, in both Boy Scouting and Venturing, the different positions of responsibility entail different roles and responsibilities. NYLT had previously done a very good job of modeling several of the more "important" Boy Scouting POR's, and now no longer does. Even though the underlying leadership content is unchanged and valuable, it is clear that an entire piece of the NYLT program has been removed. In other words, NYLT is now a weaker program because it removed a crucial component of Boy Scout leadership training.

I think that if the BSA felt that additional leadership training was needed for Venturing, they should have developed a new or refined an existing Venturing-specific training program. That probably would have involved more overhead from National in producing the program, and from local councils in actually doing the program, but I feel it would have been much more beneficial to both Boy Scouts and Venturers. I'd much rather have two strong, specifically-targetted leadership training programs, than a single, weak one-size-fits-all program.

I guess the real test will come during and after our course this summer, when we evaluate the response from the participants and from their unit leaders. If we get a stronger response than we've gotten from the specifically-targetted program, I'll be pleasantly surprised and retract my criticism. But, just thinking this through at a theoretical level, I'm still skeptical.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

TAHAWK - I guess all I can say is that I envy the situation you're in - our council has not afforded us any flexibility, or room to compromise on some of these issues. I'll try to withhold judgement until I see how the course goes this summer, but at this point I'm uneasy, to say the least.

Seattle - That's almost exactly my position as well.

Eagle69 - That's a possibility, and I don't know the specifics about that exact area. One thing to keep in mind is that the capability of a radio's signal to penetrate through terrain and obstacles is dependent on the radio's frequency and power output. Ham radio offers a variety of combinations of these pieces, and maybe there would be one that works in that area. Another thing to consider is that if the unit's trip plan had included a list of ham radio frequencies that they would use to attempt to communicate with the outside world, the search parties could have monitored those frequencies as they were searching.

Not saying this would be a solution to every single problem that can occur in the back country, but it is one more potential tool that can be considered, and used where it might be helpful.

Mostly a case of those who were not familiar with the group to know what they were capable of, or a helicoptor parent.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. I thought one of the reasons we asked groups to file trip plans was so that appropriate action could be taken should the group not arrive at expected destinations around the expected times. In this case, the Scouts handled the situation the way they should have, and deserve some kudus for putting the motto into practice. But, the other parents and leaders had no way of knowing that, and I think its responsible to escalate the issue when no one's heard from their children for a few days longer than they expected to.

I agree that communication is key. As my username here suggests, I have an amateur radio license, and this seems like a good opportunity to plug the hobby a little bit ;-) A handheld amateur radio is comparable in price to a cell phone, though perhaps a little heavier on average. The range of a typical handheld can be measured in the tens of miles, and chances are this group could have contacted somebody to at least convey that all was well despite their being delayed. If getting a ham radio license is not a viable option, there are other comparable radio setups that don't require a license.

In this particular case a simple "all is well" message would have put the families of the missing scouts at ease, and avoided initiating an expensive S&R operation. But if there had been an injury, or if the weather situation had not subsided to the point where the group could have left the area in a reasonable amount of time, the situation could have changed drastically.

Forunately in this particular case all went well, and the scouts and scouters involved deserve a commendation for their ability to "Be Prepared" and handle the impromptu change in plans. But, another part of "Be Prepared" is to have a plan to get out of a situation when you're in over your head.

TAHAWK - According to the new syllabus, all Boy Scout-specific terminology is being phased out. I'm guessing any references you are currently finding to Boy Scout specific terminology have just not yet been updated. The syllabus is very clear that the terms "Scoutmaster," "Troop," "Senior Patrol Leader," etc are to be phased out. Some of the new terms they are proposing are pretty hilarious, in my opinion. The SPL, for example, will now be the "Assistant Course Director of Youth Operations." The syllabus makes some fairly bold assertions about how this will actually strengthen Boy Scout training, but seems to lack any evidence or rationale for this.

BTW, the link posted to the NYLT syllabus seems to be kosher. I've never been asked for any Facebook credentials when accessing documents on scribd, but YMMV.

I think that while your course last year started to include some elements of the new syllabus, I think that you may be required to adopt some more official changes within the next couple years. Of course, your council may or may not "enforce" these changes as much as other councils, but the new syllabus is pretty clear about the new expectations.

(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

shortridge made a very good point, but I'd like to point out that one's reverence is something that can be very difficult to evaluate. Its fairly easy to tell when a Scout is or is not being courteous, or obediant, or thrifty. Reverence is much more difficult to directly observe. Its more of a mindset, rather than a character trait, if that makes any sense. So, given that adult leaders are asked, from time to time, to evaluate whether a Scout is living by the Oath and Law, what is the most effective way to evaluate reverence? Or should we try to evaluate it all?

Maybe SMT224 could just ask the boy, "what do you believe in, then?" Maybe there is some spirituality, some higher power, something.

I asked him how he could be so sure, and he said he just knew it

A common response when someone is asked how they know for sure that God does exist.... Based on his age, and that fact that his parents are church-goers, I'd also assume that there is some more background here, but I'm not certain that its any business of a Scouter to probe for the deeper causes.

I certainly hope that there's no serious possibility of removing a 10 year old from the program over this. I'm sure that he could gain a lot from being in the program, and surely he has a lot that he can offer his troop.

I personally wish that we could do away with looking at "reverence" in the religious sense, and just focus on delivering a quality program based on strong values, without worrying about what, if anything, motivates us to have those values. But the BSA has indicated that that's not going to happen, so here we are...

I realize that I mostly just rattled off some random ideas, but I guess I'm mainly interested in my first couple questions: how can we evaluate reverence in a logical and fair way when these questions come up? And, if we can't, should we be trying to?

Fair enough Renax, but maybe a couple ideas for consideration: This being a Scouting-related message board, its common for Scouting-related abbreviations and jargon to be used, as most of the audience here is familiar with those terms. Maybe that's what caused some confusion initially - people were trying to decipher "PSa" in a Scouting context, and came up with nothing. And, when asked to clarify the abbreviations or jargon being used, that typically is done. :-) Also, Scouting is BIG - millions of members, hundreds of thousands of adult leaders, thousands of individual requirements for different awards, hundreds of unique program literature, training courses, program materials, etc. Its not always obvious WHICH particular requirement, book, training, pack- or council-specific program you're talking about. All I know if that you're looking for something about Tiger Cubs and PSa's, which in fact mean Public Service Announcements. Still don't know what/why exactly you're looking for.

Some of it might be context... Not entirely sure what you're asking for when you say "I need some ideas on a PSa for my boys", even knowing that "PSa" means Public Service Announcement...

TAHAWK - This discussion might be better continued in that other thread, but...

I've been involved with my council's NYLT course for several years. In my council anyway, we did not get the 2011 syllabus until after our staff development program started, so we're in a "transition" year where we will be adopting some of the new practices, with the target at this point to be fully transitioned by next year's course. So we too are still using the Boy Scouting-centric terminology, but will theoretically be transitioning off of that as well. Whether or not our council or the BSA will make a fuss about it is unclear, though there has already been some "fussing" within our council, if that's any indication.

And I am curious about exactly what is is in the 2011 syllabus would be harmful in terms of development of a Scout as a leader in his Patrol and Troop?

This was brought up in the other thread, but my position is that "not harmful" and "most beneficial" are not equivalent. I don't think there's anything in this new syllabus that will be harmful for leadership development, but I think it is certainly not the most beneficial or effective way to teach advanced leadership to Boy Scouts or Venturers. I think that advanced training courses need to be a little more specifically targetted, and I feel like both Boy Scouting and Venturing deserve to have their own program-specific training courses. NYLT used to be a very strong Boy Scout-specific training course that immersed the participants in a model of how the Patrol System should work - it killed two birds with one stone, by teaching some fairly "generic" leadership skills, but doing so in the context of a quality troop program.

I'm actually in agreement with you on the co-ed issue. I think there will be some logistical challenges, but nothing insurmountable. I have no problem inviting young ladies to attend the course. My concern is just more on deliverying quality program-specific training - something that NYLT used to do, but no longer does, in my opinion.

I know that it has been established that the BSA can discriminate based on belief in God when selecting adult leaders, but is there any basis for removing an 11 year old youth from the program for claiming to be an athiest?

There's a fairly recent discussion on the 2011 changes to the NYLT program here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=311697 . In short, the program has now been opened up to Venturers, and most of the Boy Scout-specific terminology has been removed. The actual course content is, for the most part, unchanged.

My personal preference is actually to conduct a flag retirement ceremony with as few active participants as possible. I think that having the opportunity to just watch, listen and reflect is more important than going through the motions of throwing pieces of the flag on the fire. At a camporee, it may be best to mainly rely on the event staff, and older scouts and adults. I also don't think a large flag necessarily requires a different or unique ceremony. But it will certainly requirement some unique logistics to pull it off.

I'm thinking you really will need a pretty large fire to pull this off. And probably also a pretty large seating area, so that the audience can be kept back a ways from the fire when the flag is put on it. I think that the flag will have to be folded to some extent before putting it on the fire. You might want to have a "fire marshal" discretely lay some large logs or even a pallet across the flag while it is on the fire to help reduce the amount of flying burning flag pieces. (Also try to position your audience upwind). You may find that your facility isn't adequate to handle these logistics - maybe it would be best to retire the large flag at a different venue if that's the case?

Sometimes simpler is better. You don't always need an elaborate ceremony. Some of the most moving ceremonies I've attended consisted of a single speaker offering some brief insight or reflection, then instructing the colorguard to retire the flags. Asking the audience to stand in silence, salute the flags, and then observe in silence as they are retired can itself be a powerful experience.

As far as the enormous flag goes, that does pose a bit of a logistical challenge. I'm personally not really a fan of cutting the flag into pieces - that, in my opinion, involves too many complications and "moving parts" that can detract from the solmenity of the ceremony. Since this is a camporee, maybe you could invite one adult and one youth from each unit present to help carry, present, and retire the flag? Maybe supplement that number with some of the district and council personnel present?

A big flag may require a bigger fire, so keep that in mind. If you're worried about flaming pieces flying into the air, I'd recommend keeping the flag folded somewhat when placing it on the fire, and maybe have someone discretely place a few heavy logs on top of it. Being a cotton flag, it will definitely brighten your campfire ring as it burns - there's a lot of symbolism there for the Scouts in the audience to reflect on...