KoreaScouter

Bob White:

No disrespect intended, but you have no idea what level of training any of us have -- there's members here whose ink isn't dry on their leader app and others with Wood Badge beads, an Eagle knot, and an OA flap, and everything in between...not that one needs to be an MIT graduate to decipher BSA literature anyway. There's actually ONE official uniform, not two, according to the SM Handbook. Interestingly, the same SM Handbook also says the one official uniform is good for all occasions...which of course, it's not, and that's why there's so much discussion on these threads. The terms Class A & Class B are not official terms, but their very mention in BSA literature and widespread standardized use by Scouts and Scouters everywhere abbreviates the uniform discussions.

While I agree with most of your points, including the argument for full uniforming, I think your reply sidesteps some of the questions. In other words, no matter how many official uniforms there are, no matter what they're called, even if there's only one, why isn't every Scout and Scouter wearing it?

I'm fully aware, as are all Scouters, that The Uniform is one of the eight methods. What about the other seven: Ideals, Patrol Method, Outdoors, Advancement, Personal Growth, Adult Association, and Leadership Development? Collectively, we're unbending on the use of these methods...except the uniform one? Why is that? Why isn't a complete uniform a joining requirement? We'd never give a Scout a pass on the Ideals, or let them completely eschew campouts in favor of lock-ins, etc. But, we normally and routinely let Scouts wear whatever they want as a "uniform". Doesn't make sense in context with the other methods, and again I ask why we do this?

There are a tremendous number of legitimate questions about national uniform policy, uniform durability/fit/cost, and uniform suitability for the various activities inherent in Scouting. If all was right with this we wouldn't be discussing it.

Others have said it: this isn't an issue we Scouters can fix in an online discussion group...

DD;

Thanks for the kind words; it means a lot to know we're appreciated!

I wasn't implying the Reformation and and founding of the Church of England were unrelated. I'm only cautioning against confusing correlation with causation. I think Henry would have done what he did regardless of anything Martin Luther did. If anything, I think Martin Luther may have given Henry some impetus, but that's all...my opinion, I could be wrong.

I can't begin to guess what Parliament would have voted for absent a Reformation movement. However, I would guess that with Henry's power and his predisposition toward beheading people who crossed him, they would have given him anything he wanted.

John Wyckliffe translated the Bible into English in 1382, well before Henry and Martin Luther came along.

The seizure of monasteries and church land was a power consolidation move, plain and simple. Henry took them himself, and redistributed these assets to people who supported him and his policies...very altruistic, huh? I love England and British culture; I even like British food (which is seen as an oxymoron by many). Having said that, one visit to the Tower of London or the British Museum, and you'll see that the Brits loved to loot and plunder in the heyday of the Empire; that's what filled those places with their treasures...although it is convenient to be able to see great examples of the world's antiquities in just one place...and no admission fee! Point is, Henry's conduct toward the Church's assets was right in line with British thought at the time..."If I can make off with it, it's mine."

I'm not trying to trivialize Martin Luther's role in the Reformation, but I stand by my earlier post: the Rennaissance had as much if not more influence on the Reformation than did any one individual, even one as well known as Martin Luther.

I don't mean to get too cerebral here, but I'd like to make an observation. Although I'm sure it wasn't Merlyn's intent to Balkanize this thread, that's exactly what seems to have happened and we're getting involved in a serious exercise in fractal analysis. Fractal analysis is the offshoot of chaos theory that, among other things, focuses in on minute details, hoping to find definite differences, limits, and boundaries. A snowflake's a perfect example -- one is the same as another to the naked eye. Apply fractal analysis to a finite enough level, and the differences will emerge. To (over)simplify this, we're all snowflakes, but we're too busy analyzing the fractals to see it.

While it's certainly true that the Reformation was caused in part by Church corruption, I'd also assert that it should be of no relative importance in our lives now, except for historical purposes, as much fun as that is.

As far as the history of the Church of England, it's hardly urban legend, DD. I think you may be either confusing the events surrounding the formation of the Church of England with Martin Luther's leadership of the German reformation, or mistakenly equating correlation with causation. The first references to the reformation I'm aware of were John Wyckliffe's declarations in the 14th century that resulted in the Bible being translated into English in 1382. While it's true that Martin Luther's activities in Germany predated the formation of the Church of England, and may have given it (and all other European reformation movements in that period) some impetus, they are really two independent events that you seemed to slap together when you replied to OGE's post -- the German reformation did not cause the formation of the Church of England. There are many historians who believe the reformation was as much a result of the Rennaissance as it was of Church corruption. In other words, it would have happened anyway, just taken longer. For particulars, here's Compton's Encyclopedia: "By 1527 Henry had made up his mind to get rid of his wife (Catherine of Aragon). The only one of Catherine's six chileren who survived infancy was a sickly girl, the Princess Mary, and it was doubtful whether a woman could succeed to the English throne. Then too, Henry had fallen in love with a lady of the court, Anne Boleyn. When Pope Clement VII would not annul his marriage, Henry turned against Cardinal Wolsey, deprived him of his office of chancellor, and had him arrested on a charge of treason. He then obtained a divorce through Thomas Cranmer, whom he had made archbishop of Canterbury, and it was soon announced that he had married Anne Boleyn. The pope was thus defied. All ties that bound the English church to Rome were broken. Appeals to the pope's court were forbidden, all payments to Rome were stopped, and the pope's authority in England was abolished. In 1534 the Act of Supremacy declared Henry himself to be Supreme Head of the Church of England." Compton's goes on to say: "Before his divorce he had opposed the teachings of Martin Luther in a book that had gained for him from the pope the title Defender of the Faith -- a title the monarch of England still bears." A little irony, too; you gotta love it!

It also happened centuries ago, and that fact shouldn't be used to castigate Anglicans now, or argue that Anglicans are Anglicans only so the can get easy divorces. That would be preposterous. Yet, we seem to be collectively zeroing in on bad behavior from 600 years ago to throw stones at each other. Two words: who cares?

I had the opportunity (although I didn't necessarily see it that way at the time) to visit the Dachau concentration camp outside Munich and the Catechombs in Rome within a couple of weeks of each other. Those two places were a stark reminder of what a terrible and real thing persecution can be. And, it wasn't just Jews who were imprisoned, although they were of course the overwhelming majority. It was just about anybody who didn't "fit the mold". Look in BSA literature and see how many different denominations can earn a religious medal. Beyond "duty to God" and "A Scout is Reverent", what's the mold?

Maybe it's time to take a step back and just watch the Super Bowl...

Gents;

Thanks for the quick comeback. LV, does the Sierra Club book deal with celestial, or just map/compass? I'm actually pretty squared away at map/compass; it's when I have to tip my head back and look up that I come up a little short...

I'm at Osan, fourth time...

Le Voyageur;

I envy your knowledge level in this subject; I'm an amateur. And, we have problems over here with washout from lights (very crowded urbanized country) and obscuration from pollution, etc.

We had a leader who moved last year who was an Air Force navigator -- knew all those stars as well as you seem to. He told a story of his B-52 crew over the Atlantic years ago, lost all their inertial navigation systems. He had to break out his sextant and shoot celestial through the porthole...got back to base right on the money and impressed the heck out of his crew mates.

Do you know of a concise, easy to use field guide on this, or is the Fieldbook the best thing out there?

How many times on camps/outings have leaders been split up by necessity due to bus parking, split activities, bathrooms, stragglers, what have you? For us, I'm almost never within voice range of the other leader on an outing. What we've started doing to save shoe leather and sanity is carrying those little FRS 2-way radios for instant leader communication. They've saved our bacon more than once, and more hours than I can count...and, they work in the middle of nowhere where there's no cell phone towers, too.

I know, I know, some of you guys are purists who wear campaign hats and absolutely detest using anything B-P didn't have himself on Brownsea Island (just teasing!). But I'm telling you, one camporee and you won't know how you lived without 'em. They're also handy for troop emergency drills when you're working on E-Prep...

They're not expensive either, I got a pair of Motorolas for $40 including shipping.

Mom;

The GS don't have COs like we do. Their troops are "chartered" directly to their councils. In other words, they don't depend directly on community ties in the way of COs like we do. Someone with a lot more experience in the respective programs would have to explain why that's so.

Ed Mori's right: there's language in the Pack and Troop Committee guidebooks that explains that money earning projects are to be undertaken at the Pack and Troop levels, not dens and patrols -- the Unit Money Earning Application has the little check boxes on it for the type of unit, and there aren't boxes for dens or patrols -- only Packs and Troops. National can best explain why, but I suppose it has to do with the notion that a Pack or Troop project will have the oversight of the Committee and CO, and will be more likely to comply with BSA rules on these projects than if a den or patrol went off on their own.

I think the best way to apportion funds from projects is to spell it out in Pack/Troop by-laws so there's no misunderstandings. Each unit can make it as simple or as complicated as they want to and their Treasurer is capable to handle. But, as long as it's logical, fair, and everybody understands it, there's way more than one way to skin this cat. If your unit doesn't have apportion language in their by-laws, or doesn't have by-laws at all, you have to determine each time you do a project whether you will apportion and how you will apportion. Not optimal in my opinion, but it works.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with the "funds revert to the Troop" argument. Your demographics are probably different from ours. In stable troops in the US, when a Scout leaves the Troop, he's more likely to be leaving Scouting altogether than moving to a new Troop (please correct me if I'm wrong). Here, when a Scout leaves the troop, it's because he's transferring with his family, and is staying in Scouting. And, our turnover is guaranteed and frequent, and sometimes short notice, too. So, a Scout could participate in Summer Camp projects, build up a healthy account, then get transferred before summer camp. Now what? I think there are other options, to include Scout Stuff, or sending a check to the next troop's treasurer for his Scout account there, or giving his Scout account funds to his parents with the proviso it should be used for Scouting activities. Moreover, especially for us, if the funds revert to the troop, there's less incentive to participate for the Scouts within six months or so of moving. Realize that's our reality, may not be yours, so different solutions work for different units...

I pasted this q/a list in from another string about camouflage that everyone apparently got tired of following. My questions (largely rhetorical) are not about camo in particular but uniforms in general...

Q. If the BSA is a uniformed organization, and the handbook, the catalog, et. al., all depict Scouts in complete BSA uniforms, how could this discussion even be taking place?

A. Although the complete uniform is depicted in Scouting literature, there is no requirement, either joining or rank advancement, that calls for a Scout to possess or wear any part of the uniform. Therefore, it's considered "optional" by many Scouts and Scouters.

Q. Why is it that BSA depicts complete uniforms in its literature, but apparently doesn't actually require members to wear a complete uniform?

A. One possibility: expense, considering that Scout families of modest means may not be able to afford them, and BSA does not want to exclude Scouts from the program because of the cost of the uniform. Another possibility: a perceived "dork" factor by kids who aren't Scouts, and a reluctance by potential Scouts to endure the peer "attention" if forced to wear what's perceived as a "dorky" uniform.

Q. Expense? Is the uniform that expensive?

A. Obviously, yes, the official BSA uniform is expensive, especially when compared with comparable commercial youth and adult activewear clothing. In the latest catalog, the youth short sleeve shirt is $23.05, the trousers $36.30. Adult uniforms are even more expensive. An acknowledgement of the expense is that many troops operate uniform exchanges, buy uniforms for volunteers with troop funds, or are officially "waist-up" and/or don't require leaders to have uniforms. Look at the trade in uniform items, some brand new, at online auction sites such as Ebay and you'll see what people consider the fair market value for these items vs. the catalog cost. Also, many families are reluctant to pay that much money for clothing, especially trousers, that their sons will rapidly outgrow before it wears out.

Q. What can be done about this expense?

A. Some of the "band-aid" measures above help. However, if BSA wants to end the debate and get all Scouts and Scouters uniformed, here's a couple possibilities. Stop considering new uniform sales as a profit center. Price new clothing items so they're more affordable, and a better value than wearing jeans or camouflage pants -- lower prices, get more customers; basic retail marketing theory. Also, to account for growing boys, adopt a "trade-in" policy at district/council Scout Stores/Trading Posts that would allow families to get a trade-in allowance for serviceable shirts/trousers if buying new like items in larger sizes. The district/council Scout Store could then offer these used items for sale and recover the trade-in allowance. Everybody wins; expenses for families are down, more traffic in the stores, and the trade-in policy psychologically "locks in" the families to purchase BSA official items.

Q. What about the "dorky" perception?

A. The BSA uniform hasn't changed much since 1910. Sure, materials are different, new accessories, patches and insignia are all different, but if you look at a picture of a fully uniformed Scout in 1914 and one today, you know immediately that they're both Scouts. There's nothing wrong with that. I like the constancy, the tradition, the link with the past, knowing my son is wearing the same stuff (basically) I wore as a Scout. And, I don't think we should get rid of it. However, for options, look at what the Girl Scouts are doing to maintain relevance and attract/"keep from losing" their membership. They've revamped many of their uniforms to bring them more up to date and make their members more likely to wear them. BSA could retain the traditional Class A uniform, and explore/authorize other "outfitter" or "extreme activity" options.

Q. Hey, wait a second. Are you saying the BSA Class A uniform is becoming irrelevant or impractical for everyday wear?

A. Answer that yourselves. Do all your registered leaders possess/wear the uniform to troop functions? Do all your registered Scouts possess/wear the uniform (even the shirt, properly configured) to troop meetings? How about on outings? How about on campouts, camporees, summer camp? If not, why not. Too expensive, not suitable for hiking, tough to clean at summer camp. In other words, all the reasons we already know. In short, the Class A uniform has become the "dress uniform" for ceremonies, BORs, etc. For outings, where Scouting is supposed to take place, we mostly wear something else.

Q. So what's your bottom line here?

A. If BSA wants to end the debate (we can't do it ourselves), they can:

- Require the uniform as a joining requirement or rank advancement at some point

- Make uniform clothing items more affordable through pricing and trade-in allowances

- Acknowledge that troops are "doing their own thing" when outdoors, and offer activity uniform options that are affordable, look good, make sense, and that Scouts will actually wear. This is better than the "vigilante" approach troops take now because there's a vacuum at National.

Again, let me say that I like the uniform very much, I get a tear in my eye when I see my son in it, and do not want to get rid of it. I'm an old-fashioned, tradiitonal kind of guy. But, I'm also tired of seeing summer camp look a "contra" convention because nobody wants to wear Class A's in the dirt and there's no viable alternative (activity polo's and t-shirts don't cut the mustard either).

This shouldn't be too difficult to fix -- there's a lot of smart people in Irving, Texas (Dallas Cowboys headquarters excepted).

C'mon, whaddya say?

sctmom;

I realize it may be seem to be a stretch of logic to equate faithlessness with neglect. But, don't take my word for it. If you're interested, check out the book "The Educated Child" by William J. Bennett (former Secretary of Education and the author of The Book of Virtues, The Children's Book of Virtues, The Children's Book of Heroes, and The Death of Outrage, among others).

Bennett argues that a solid foundation in morals, right/wrong, manners, civilized behavior, etc., are all prerequisites for success in school, and success in life. Parents are the first teachers, of course, and one of the essential elements of this moral foundation is faith-based.

Leave that essential part out of your child's life, and it's akin to withholding any other "brick in the foundation" that builds responsible adults. BTW, I don't teach my kids that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as we do is a bad person, or everyone must believe the same thing. I simply find, as Bennett argues, that raising my kids in a faith-based family makes everything easier, including how they relate to other people (for one thing, we don't sue everybody we don't agree with). I find that a firm grounding in faith allows one to weather adversity and challenges better, since nothing external can shake your foundation.

That's my opinion; I could be wrong...

On letting atheists in Scouts, it's certainly fraught with controversy among Scouters; we're a perfect example. But, trying to step outside my Catholic skin, I only ask what is the best thing for the movement: spend our time and resources fighting BS (and I don't mean "Boy Scout")lawsuits, or allow atheists membership and remove the grounds for the lawsuits in the first place? I disagree strongly with the moral vacuum and self-centeredness inherent in it, but a young boy doesn't get to pick his parents; he needs us more than some other kids do, regardless of other external variables.

This is a provocative and emotional issue, because it goes to the very foundation of what we INDIVIDUALLY believe, Scouting aside. But let's face it, we live, work, play, study, shop, etc., next to athiests and others who don't share our value systems. The fact that we're able to maintain these value systems in our own lives and our own families is a testament to their strength. Honestly, would the presence of a boy in our Scout troops who doesn't profess a belief in God (for now, anyway) destroy our troops, our faith, the Scouting movement? I'm not going to answer my own question; you can answer for yourselves.

I could be completely out in left field here, but I'm only trying to do a little look-in-the-mirror self-assessment here. I'm still the old-fashioned Catholic boy...

Laura;

I'm going to e-mail the page as a link to our Girl Scout LTC. We're (I say "we're" 'cuz my daughter's in GS here in Korea) in what GSUSA calls a "Lone Troop Overseas" although we fall under West Pacific Girl Scouts in Japan, also known as WestPac. Anyway, I'm sure they'll be happy to send a recipe...good luck

It's certainly easy to dismiss an argument you disagree with as arrogant; I guess it depends on how open-minded and lucid you are. Webster's defines arrogant as "Over convinced of one's own importance". This has nothing to do with whether I think I'm important or not, especially to you or the parties to the case we're talking about. In fact, using Webster's definition, I've never met a Scouter who considered himself more important than the boys he/she serves. Wish I could say the same thing for everyone I've encountered in other circles.

Your point about Jews or any other religious group is invalid since it's based on a faulty premise; BSA doesn't exclude members of any religious group.

To all the Scouters out there, maybe we're locked onto the wrong issue, that is, whether or not we should be excluded from public school recruiting because we're considered "discriminatory" by some. What do you all think of removing the grounds for the complaint by allowing youth members who do not profess a belief in God? Before you think I've gone nuts, let me assure you I'm a lifelong Catholic, believer, raising my kids in the Church, etc. All I'm saying is this: if you let the lad join a pack/troop, and he actually does (which may or may not happen), he'll get what will be in all likelihood his first exposure to Scouting's values-based program, and see our leaders and other Scouts for the role models they are. That, as opposed to exclusion, may actually be the profound event that enlightens the young man (and then Merlyn could go do something worthwhile, too -- everybody wins!).

You'd have to find a way to work through the Scout Oath and Law as currently written, or leave them intact which means no advancement (here comes Merlyn again!) But, I think there's precedent for this in a way. We've all known Scouts who strayed from other points of the Law (i.e., Trustworthy, Obedient), and gave them second chances. What's wrong with giving a first chance to a lad who could really use the experience and can't help his upbringing?

I don't claim to have a monopoly on brains, just asking a question...

Bottom line: What would Jesus do?

Folks,

You might as well stop trying to win a debate over this...neither side is going to convince the other that they're right.

If nothing else, it's just further evidence that a fringe group has had yet another success making the majority appear to be "deviant" and undesirable. Welcome to the age of relative morals and "anything goes".

If the athiests prevail and Scouters in Oregon are not permitted to recruit on school property, it will be the challenge of those Scouters to reach those boys in other ways...ways that may not be as easy or efficient as in-school recruiting.

A couple of points to ponder.

I can't belong to the Daughters of the American Revolution, because I'm not a woman (even though I have an ancestor who fought in the Revolution...yes, on our side). Is it gender discrimination? Yeah, maybe, but you know what: I'm okay with it, even though I can't change my gender (easy, there, Ed and Rooster, I know what you're thinking!). Some day, the lad might become enlightened (or maybe his mom will get a clue) and develop a belief in a higher being (which nobody is trying to define for him or rank order by desirability), at which time he's welcome to join Scouting.

To me, teaching a child there's no God constitutes neglect the same as deliberately failing to feed, clothe, educate, inoculate, etc. In other words, parental laziness, indifference, apathy, pick your own word. Doing the right thing has always been more difficult, and something many so-called adults have lost sight of is that choices have consequences, or they're supposed to, anyway.

Wonder if Oregon schools say the Pledge of Allegiance..."One nation, under God..."

I repeat what I said at the top of my post; nobody's going to change each others' minds here...we believe what we believe...

I'm personally reluctant to have Scouts do a lot of advance academic work for MBs, whether for a roundup (or whatever you call it), ot for summer camp, UNLESS their attendance at the classes is a lock-in. We've done advance work before, only to find that the class was oversubscribed (and one of our Scouts was moved to another badge), or undersubscribed (so the badge was cancelled and substituted with another that we didn't do advance work for). Either way, time and effort wasted, or at least not used optimally for that setting.

One man's opinion: the most suitable badges for summer camp are those that don't require a lot of academic work in the field, and can be honestly completed in a week-long camp. Most summer camp schedules are so full there's no daylight left when the Scouts have time to do the bookwork (or they're too worn out to do it). Also, I don't think the camp environment lends itself to paperwork...lighting, work surfaces, access to references, distractions, etc. You can come up with your own lists of suitable and not-so-suitable badges based on your district/council camp facilities.

Any SM with concerns about how camp MB counselors are signing off the requirements must get involved in the camp planning, to ensure standards are maintained. Shouldn't we all be involved as counselors or assistants anyway? During times when one isn't committed to a MB class, simple "wandering about" to the various classes will give an accurate picture of how the classes are being taught.

Finally, participation in these single day events is not required, and, I have seen SMs exclude their Scouts from certain MB classes at summer camps where they knew from history that certain elements likely wouldn't meet requirements.

For what it's worth, I took our troop to a district MB roundup recently, sat in on several of the classes, and thought the whole thing was very well done...

I just put a fairly long post on the "To Camo or Not to Camo", that tries to cut through the camo symptom and talk to the underlying cause...the whole uniform price/options/design issue; similar to what's here. Check it out and let me know what you think...

Despite pleas to end this discussion, it continues. If there's 100 members on the string, you'll see 100 different opinions. Rather than focus on the relative merits of camouflage pattern clothing vs. official BSA clothing, allow me to ask a couple more fundamental questions (with possible answers)...

Q. If the BSA is a uniformed organization, and the handbook, the catalog, et. al., all depict Scouts in complete BSA uniforms, how could this discussion even be taking place?

A. Although the complete uniform is depicted in Scouting literature, there is no requirement, either joining or rank advancement, that calls for a Scout to possess or wear any part of the uniform. Therefore, it's considered "optional" by many Scouts and Scouters.

Q. Why is it that BSA depicts complete uniforms in its literature, but apparently doesn't actually require members to wear a complete uniform?

A. One possibility: expense, considering that Scout families of modest means may not be able to afford them, and BSA does not want to exclude Scouts from the program because of the cost of the uniform. Another possibility: a perceived "dork" factor by kids who aren't Scouts, and a reluctance by potential Scouts to endure the peer "attention" if forced to wear what's perceived as a "dorky" uniform.

Q. Expense? Is the uniform that expensive?

A. Obviously, yes, the official BSA uniform is expensive, especially when compared with comparable commercial youth and adult activewear clothing. In the latest catalog, the youth short sleeve shirt is $23.05, the trousers $36.30. Adult uniforms are even more expensive. An acknowledgement of the expense is that many troops operate uniform exchanges, buy uniforms for volunteers with troop funds, or are officially "waist-up" and/or don't require leaders to have uniforms. Look at the trade in uniform items, some brand new, at online auction sites such as Ebay and you'll see what people consider the fair market value for these items vs. the catalog cost. Also, many families are reluctant to pay that much money for clothing, especially trousers, that their sons will rapidly outgrow before it wears out.

Q. What can be done about this expense?

A. Some of the "band-aid" measures above help. However, if BSA wants to end the debate and get all Scouts and Scouters uniformed, here's a couple possibilities. Stop considering new uniform sales as a profit center. Price new clothing items so they're more affordable, and a better value than wearing jeans or camouflage pants -- lower prices, get more customers; basic retail marketing theory. Also, to account for growing boys, adopt a "trade-in" policy at district/council Scout Stores/Trading Posts that would allow families to get a trade-in allowance for serviceable shirts/trousers if buying new like items in larger sizes. The district/council Scout Store could then offer these used items for sale and recover the trade-in allowance. Everybody wins; expenses for families are down, more traffic in the stores, and the trade-in policy psychologically "locks in" the families to purchase BSA official items.

Q. What about the "dorky" perception?

A. The BSA uniform hasn't changed much since 1910. Sure, materials are different, new accessories, patches and insignia are all different, but if you look at a picture of a fully uniformed Scout in 1914 and one today, you know immediately that they're both Scouts. There's nothing wrong with that. I like the constancy, the tradition, the link with the past, knowing my son is wearing the same stuff (basically) I wore as a Scout. And, I don't think we should get rid of it. However, for options, look at what the Girl Scouts are doing to maintain relevance and attract/"keep from losing" their membership. They've revamped many of their uniforms to bring them more up to date and make their members more likely to wear them. BSA could retain the traditional Class A uniform, and explore/authorize other "outfitter" or "extreme activity" options.

Q. Hey, wait a second. Are you saying the BSA Class A uniform is becoming irrelevant or impractical for everyday wear?

A. Answer that yourselves. Do all your registered leaders possess/wear the uniform to troop functions? Do all your registered Scouts possess/wear the uniform (even the shirt, properly configured) to troop meetings? How about on outings? How about on campouts, camporees, summer camp? If not, why not. Too expensive, not suitable for hiking, tough to clean at summer camp. In other words, all the reasons we already know. In short, the Class A uniform has become the "dress uniform" for ceremonies, BORs, etc. For outings, where Scouting is supposed to take place, we mostly wear something else.

Q. So what's your bottom line here?

A. If BSA wants to end the debate (we can't do it ourselves), they can:

- Require the uniform as a joining requirement or rank advancement at some point

- Make uniform clothing items more affordable through pricing and trade-in allowances

- Acknowledge that troops are "doing their own thing" when outdoors, and offer activity uniform options that are affordable, look good, make sense, and that Scouts will actually wear. This is better than the "vigilante" approach troops take now because there's a vacuum at National.

Again, let me say that I like the uniform very much, I get a tear in my eye when I see my son in it, and do not want to get rid of it. I'm an old-fashioned, tradiitonal kind of guy. But, I'm also tired of seeing summer camp look a "contra" convention because nobody wants to wear Class A's in the dirt and there's no viable alternative (activity polo's and t-shirts don't cut the mustard either).

This shouldn't be too difficult to fix -- there's a lot of smart people in Irving, Texas (Dallas Cowboys headquarters excepted).

C'mon, whaddya say?

I'm a requirements kinda guy, which has made me a little unpopular in some other threads. But, I gotta tell you, we're in a unique situation in the overseas BSA Councils which may make the requirements "hard-liners" rethink their positions. The requirements, the handbook language, the MB pamphlets, are all written with the presumption that the Scout lives in the United States. Especially with us, that's not true. Then, as leaders, we have to find ways to make the local environment, wildlife population, night skies, flora, etc., fit the requirements so our Scouts meet the intent of what the requirements call for.

How do we do that? In some cases, using the wildlife/nature stuff as an example, by visiting botanical gardens, arboretums, or wildlife sancutaries because of diminished populations of these native animals (big problem in Korea where we live), language barriers, access problems, etc. Is it the same as taking the troop to a council campground or a state park staffed with friendly, English-speaking rangers who were probably Scouts themselves and love telling the boys about what they do? No, and I wish we could do that. But we can't, so we have to improvise...

Caught onto this one late, so my thunder has been somewhat stolen; oh well, gotta pay attention I guess.

The number of Scouts who earn each merit badge each year and since the badges were first offered are in a fact sheet you can download from the BSA national web page; sorry I don't have a URL you can hit, but if you visit the page you'll find it.

I like the Trained strip, it shows you who's been trained in a second, and maybe just as important, if it went away, we'd also lose the "Untrainable" parody strip you see from time to time -- everybody needs a laugh now and then, right?

Flag on the uniform? I don't think you'll win the logic battle by arguing it gets dirty. I've had the flag patch on my military uniform (usually in combined or coalition settings), and I can assure you it, as well as the rest of the uniform, gets absolutely trashed doing what I do when I'm wearing it. I'll tell you something though, the ability to glance down at the shoulder and see it there, however soiled, was a real inspiration at times. Here's a couple other data points: The flag hoisted by the NYC firemen at Ground Zero probably got trashed by smoke particles, dust, dirt, etc. Should it have not been flown there? The flag that flew over Ft McHenry in Baltimore during the War of 1812 that inspired Francis Scott Key to write our National Anthem got tore up during that battle (rumor has it the British Navy gun crews were actually aiming for it). You can see how horrendous it was by visiting the Smithsonian in D.C. where it's being restored. Should it have been taken down for fear it might get dirty? Now, I'm not asserting that a Boy Scout soiling his flag patch at a camporee is on the same level as the siege of Ft. McHenry, but the point's the same...

I thought the definition of Scout Spirit was living the Scout Oath and Scout Law "in your daily life". To me, that means your entire daily life, not just when participating in Scout-related activities.

I've used that leverage more than once when dealing with my son the Scout. Ancecdotal examples abound, but here's one: Mom tells son to take a shower before bed and after a day of vigorous activity that has left his skin feeling like the back side of a Post-it note. Son protests that he can take one in the morning. Dad, overhearing, simply says: "A Scout is clean; a Scout is obedient". Next sound you hear is water running in the bathroom...absolutely fabulous!

OGE;

Take another look at my Dec 27th posting. The legal issue isn't with camo pattern clothing per se, but with military uniform items that haven't been de-milled (insignia, etc., removed).

As you can see by my username, I'm in an overseas council. Because most of the Scouts overseas are affiliated with military families, AND because of the Presidential Executive Order directing the Department of Defense to provide specific (and generous) support to Scouting programs overseas, our council (and I presume Transatlantic does too) is intertwined with a Military Oversight Committee; it meets regularly, and the books are wide open. It's a lot more expensive to provide a program overseas than in the U.S., and from what I've seen, the books reflect that.

By and large, It's my belief that there's no scandals in our councils and how they manage the money. Rather, I think that collectively, the average Scouter has no idea what the council's expenses are and bases his impression on one or two anecdotal data points. They're all human and make their share of mistakes I'm sure, but a committed crook isn't going to hang around a non-profit BSA outfit; he's going to Wall Street!

Gotta be careful here. If you actually read the back of the unit money earning application, it does say that packs and troops can do this, not dens and patrols. Having said that, all the other posts have great references to individual den and patrol fund-raising requirements that are unique and wouldn't be appropriate to tap the pack or troop budget for.

In my experience, and I've never been criticized for this, we've always required dens/patrols with these unique fund-raising requirements to spell them out to the committee, who then reviews it for appropriateness (again, based on a review of the Guide to Safe Scouting, committee guide book, troop/pack by-laws, and the all-important back side of the money earning application), then if it's okay, prepares the paperwork for council review. In that way, the den/patrol with the unique requirement isn't asking a Scout who isn't participating in their event to underwrite it from pack/troop funds, and the committee has oversight on the fund-raiser to ensure it's in compliance with national, council, and troop/pack policies. It's been a win-win situation.

I used to be one of the "screw the uniform, it's too expensive, they outgrow it too fast" guys, but I've changed, especially as it relates to camo (or BDU) items. Here's why:

- expensive? Yeah, if you get your stuff from the catalog or council trading post. I got a good pair of pants for my son, fit him pefectly, for $9 including shipping, from an EBay auction. At $9, I don't care what he does in them or how fast he outgrows them.

- Perception? That's like trying to define a bad attitude -- you can't, except to say it's any attitude you don't agree with! We've got enough image problems when our Scouts look like a catalog page -- why make it worse with "in your face" camo clothing? I'm on active duty in the military, and I'm here to tell you, we have a lot of restrictions on where and when we can wear BDU uniforms off the base. Why? It's an image/perception thing! BDUs are a work utility uniform that are supposed to look like h#$l; Uncle Sam doesn't want us running around shopping malls, restaurants, or other public areas in mangy BDUs. And guess what? He doesn't want you doing it, either! Let's face it, most of the Scouts who want to wear camo pattern clothing don't order it new from Cabela's; they get it used from military surplus joints, in many cases with the insignia still sewn on. And that's another problem -- there are federal laws concerning civilians wearing military clothing items that haven't been de-mil'd. Since September 11th, we've been chasing our tails trying to track down every lost ID card or every uniform stolen from the back of some guy's car... do you really want one of your Scouts getting caught up in a misunderstanding or case of mistaken identity like this? Hunting? We're not supposed to be hunting as a BSA activity, either -- why create the impression that we are, even if we aren't...I wouldn't want to be the Scoutmaster having to explain to the committee why my troop was on what looked like a hunting trip.

- Safety: I already mentioned I'm on active duty. I'm stationed in Korea, and believe me, I do not want our Scouts being mistaken for combatants over here. It's a little more difficult conducting an outdoor program here than it is in the U.S.A., but we get out and about quite a bit. Our Scouts get respect and admiration from the local populace when they're in their Scout uniforms...I've gotten things thrown at me in my military BDUs.

- Perspective: When I hear a parent complain about the cost of the uniform (and they do), I ask them what they spent on Junior's soccer cleats, basketball shoes, or last couple Game Boy cartridges or DVDs? We'll gladly shell out money for that because Madison Avenue tells us we have to. As a full-uniform convert, all I can tell you is that when my son put the whole uniform on for the first time, he looked, acted, and felt differently than he did before, and I kick myself for not doing it sooner.

It's true that you don't need a uniform to become a Scout, and if I were the parent of a new Scout, I'd probably want to wait a while to see if he sticks with it. But, once you know he's in it for the long haul, get him the whole uniform.

An etiquette merit badge? I don't mean to be contrary, but it seems to me that many of the social skills you're referring to are simply a byproduct and consequence of upbringing. Are we being surrogate parents? I'm grateful for the engineer who taught my son the finer points of surveying for his merit badge, because I certainly wouldn't have been able to. But, I can and should teach him manners (and we have, by the way).

With all the activities competing for our Scouts' time, shouldn't we spend the scarce Scouting time on outings and activities they can't do at home?

Perhaps we're blessed being overseas in the military; our kids don't need ethnic and cultural diversity or tolerance shoved down their throats -- they live it every day. My kids' school classrooms, troops, soccer teams, and playgroud gatherings all look like Benetton ads. It's all they've ever known, and it's perfectly normal to them.

With over 120 badges, is there any Scout who can't find 10 electives he'd be interested in earning? Do we need more badges, or can we make some of the existing ones more relevant? I agree with other writers who argue that the Swimming badge is geared more toward competition than survival, that Personal Management is more financial than personal. How about Auto Mechanics requiring an explanation of the difference between bias-belted and radial-belted tires -- when's the last time anyone bought a bias-belted tire?

One man's opinion: if an etiquette merit badge were approved today, and it wasn't Eagle-required, it would be very undersubscribed (and what the heck would the thing look like? An upraised pinky?)