Kudu

> excluding godless heathens - while still allowing "god" to be defined so

> broadly as to be able to include everyone except those who baldly use

> the word "atheist" in conjunction with their belief system.

Trevorum: It is the Scouts who baldly use the word "atheist" in conjunction with their belief system, who come back years later as priests, ministers, rabbis, etc., if their assertions are greeted with interest and they are required "to do their best" to define their terms. "What is this 'God' that you don't believe in?"

Fuzzy: The BSA is a religious vampire organization. An agnostic is just an atheist who hasn't yet been bitten by a religious fundamentalist :-/

Kahuna: I understand, but lawyers usually come in twos :-/

> Would a religious organization treat the spirituality of its members as

> casually as we do?

Madkins: If you make a distinction between "religious" and "spiritual" it might be easier to explore the apparent contradiction expressed in your question.

To me "religious" implies a devotion to "beliefs" and to a community that "acknowledges" a brand of "revealed truths." The outward actions of religious people can be characterized by church attendance and a belief in a specific creed, or interpretation of written scripture. The extremists are evangelicals and religious fundamentalists.

On the other hand, "spiritual" implies a special inward, non-verbal attitude or frame of mind. For Christians this might be expressed as unconditional love. Buddhists often express it in terms of unlimited compassion. The outward actions of spiritual people can be characterized by either a spiritual retreat from society, or an intense involvement in community service. The extremists are cave-dwelling mystics and saints and boddisatvas who dedicate their lives to ending human suffering.

To find where you fit into this spectrum, simply reflect on how you would treat an atheist Scout.

Scouting was invented by a military general named Robert Baden-Powell. By most accounts he was not a religious man, he did not usually attend church or quote scripture. However, he attached a great spiritual significance to the outdoor life and once speculated that camping gear is "the various media adapted to individual tastes through which men may know their God."

While B-P publicly advanced Boy Scouting as a game to foster citizenship, his real motivation may have sprung from the spiritual significance that he attached to the outdoor life.

In the early days of Scouting, B-P represented spiritual retreat from society as the "Religion of the Backwoods," and engagement with society as "Practical Christianity." The later did not require a belief in a deity because in "Scouting for Boys" he acknowledged the Buddhists of Burma as a "distinguished" example of those who practiced "practical Christianity" in their everyday lives (page 302).

Scouts engaged in "nature knowledge" (which B-P characterized in the subtitle of "Rovering to Success" as a "step towards realizing God") through a series of Scoutcraft Proficiency Badges which are worn on the right sleeve of the traditional Scout Uniform. Scouts engaged in "community service" through a series of "Public Service" Proficiency Badges which are worn on the left sleeve of the Scout Uniform.

Baden-Powell believed that Scouting was itself a form of religion in which Scouts could gain for themselves the essential spiritual experiences that inspire all religions: the mystical insight gained through both a retreat to nature, and a devotion to public service. These actual experiences could then breathe life into the scriptural book-learning taught back in the "Sunday-schools" of the Scouts' own congregations.

Boy Scout Troops depended largely on the sponsorship of organized religion, however, and organized religions are in the business of selling their own brands of "revealed truth." In the 1920s, a backlash from Anglican clerics and Catholic priests threatened the very existence of Scouting itself and Baden-Powell was forced to issue a statement, saying that it was "not his intention to attack Revealed Religion or to suggest a substitute for it."

Thereafter, Baden-Powell more frequently used the term "God" when describing his pantheistic views, and was fond of quoting Carlyle as saying: 'The religion of a man is not the creed he professes but his life--what he acts upon, and knows of life, and his duty in it. A bad man who believes in a creed is no more religious than the good man who does not.'

As far as I know there was never a corresponding mystical Scouting tradition in the United States. But a hint of Baden-Powell's indirect approach to spiritual experience is built into the Scoutcraft and public service requirements for advancement in Scouting and can perhaps be found in what we sometimes call the "Spirit of Scouting."

The best exploration of the spiritual underpinnings of the creation of Scouting can be found in Tim Jeal's biography of Baden-Powell. Excerpts can be found on my Website, see:

http://www.inquiry.net/ideals/beads.htm

Kahuna: If I understand you correctly, the BSA is just "saying" that they are a religious organization for the purpose of discriminating against children who are "saying" that they are not religious?

The temptation to explore the hypocrisy of religious fundamentalism is overwhelming :-/

Is there a lawyer in the house?

> I don't think the BSA is admitting to being a religious organization in those cases.

Kahuna, OK I just don't understand. In the first example, the BSA files some legal paper saying "Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization...." but you say that the BSA is not admitting to being a religious organization?

The BSA now positions itself as a religious organization. It is curious that the ACLU does not recognize that Congress has "established" a religious organization with a monopoly on Scouting.

The following are from BSA sources:

In case no. 92C-140, Riley County District Court, Bradford W. Seabourn vs.

Coronado Area Council, December 16, 1992, the BSA filed a "Separate

Answer" with the following as its "Sixth Affirmative Defense:

"Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization, association or

society, or nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised

or controlled by or in conjunction with religious organizations,

associations or societies within the meaning of the Kansas Act

Against Discrimination, expressly permitted by the Act to limit the

occupancy of its real property, which it owns or operates for

other than a commercial purpose, to persons who believe in God or to

give preference to persons who believe in God."

Recently, in the Balboa Park case, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones

Jr. ruled that "The Boy Scouts are a religious organization"

http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/1DE211_July_2003_Order.pdf pp.11.

The judge based that finding on assertions made by BSA in pleadings of

that case. That finding was not disputed in the BSA appeal of that case.

Indeed, in the appeal brief, the BSA compares itself to a number of

specific religious organizations, and argues that such leases may be

extended to religious organizations

http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/Ninth_Circuit_Brief.pdf

The following is from a letter from Lawrence Ray Smith, Ph.D (Chair of the BSA Religious Relationships Committee) in his May 7, 1998 letter to the UUA explaining the removal of the UUA's "Religion in Life" award from the religious awards approved for wear on the BSA Uniform:

"This version of Religion in Life contains several statements which are inconsistent with Scoutings values. Boy Scouts is not a secular organization as stated in Religion in Life; Boy Scouts is an ecumenical organization which requires belief in God and acknowledgement of duty to God by its members. The reference to the trouble some Unitarians Universalists may have regarding the duty to God inappropriately incorporates doubt in an award process that is designed to forge a stronger link between a youths Scouting values and religious life".

http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/scouts_to_uua.html

> Now, regarding clothing banks that people have mentioned. I don't mean

> to sound mean, but why would a boy want to get rid of his uniform....?

Um, $10 and 2 Reeses Cups.

That's what we pay for used Uniform shirts. It motivates some of our Scouts to ask their friends and relatives for their old Scout Shirts. Sometimes they can find them in thrift stores for $5-$7 and make a small profit. We then ask a $10 deposit when we rent it out. Pants and boots are still $5.

One time one of the Scouts brought in a Scout who had dropped out the previous year, wearing his old Scout shirt, and asked for the $10 and Reeses Cups saying that we didn't have any rule about against bringing in Scout shirts with ex-Scouts inside them.

The ex-Scout ended up staying, which started our Reeses bounty on visiting boys: Bring a friend in for a Scout meeting and you both get 2 Reeses Cups. If he joins, the whole Patrol gets an additional 2-Pack because, after all, it takes a village....

None of our Scouts have ever owned a new Scout shirt. The big advantage is that you never hear any of that nonsense about the Uniform being too expensive to wear while camping, where a real Scout Uniform belongs.

An indoor Scout Uniform? William Hillcourt is turning over in his grave!

Speaking of inspiration, William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt used to run an annual Patrol Flags contest in Boy's Life during the 1960s, I think. Does anyone know what month they used to announce the winners? The photographs were truly amazing!

Prairie,

I'm sure that the BSA would like to have it both ways, but apparently their current legal strategy is to position themselves as a "religious organization."

As for the term "secular," the description of the BSA as a "secular organization" was one of the reasons cited by Lawrence Ray Smith, Ph.D (Chair of the BSA Religious Relationships Committee) in his May 7, 1998 letter to the UUA explaining the removal of the UUA's "Religion in Life" award from the religious awards approved for wear on the BSA Uniform. The term "ecumenical" is curious:

"This version of Religion in Life contains several statements which are inconsistent with Scoutings values. Boy Scouts is not a secular organization as stated in Religion in Life; Boy Scouts is an ecumenical organization which requires belief in God and acknowledgement of duty to God by its members. The reference to the trouble some Unitarians Universalists may have regarding the duty to God inappropriately incorporates doubt in an award process that is designed to forge a stronger link between a youths Scouting values and religious life".

http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/scouts_to_uua.html

> WOW how many different topics can you discuss in one post? I

> thought this was about the BSA trademark not the membership

> regulations.

Membership regulations are only one symptom of what happens when the government grants one religious corporation a "dictatorship" over Scouting in the United States. Most, if not all, of the problems that people have with the BSA are caused by the BSA's monopoly on Scouting. The whistle-blower thread of this discussion is a result of the assumption that Scouting has be run as a multi-million dollar corporation. Alternatives to the BSA will probably all follow the volunteer model advocated by Baden-Powell in his last message to Scouters, and is the practice in the local neighborhood branches of Scouting associations in most of the world.

> Other youth groups have managed to do just fine without the name

> "scout" in them so whats the problem?

See my previous posts.

> Why the need to ride on the coat tails of the 95 year history of the BSA?

Likewise, why do religious fundamentalists and people earning $200,000 have to ride on the coat tails of Scouting as a movement?

> What legal grounds are you aware of that no lawyer has every thought

> of that would give any credibibility to your opinion?

I simply don't know what the legal strategy will be, and if I did I would not broadcast it. However, the YouthScouts are conducting an extensive discovery process, and I believe that this information about the history of the trademark on "Scouts" will be available to others at some point.

> And there is the crux of the matter. You personally do not like the parent

>organization and you have no idea who "they" are or what "they" do.

I have a pretty good idea of who they are and what they do.

> And so you feed that lack of information with emotion rather than fact.

You should read up on the psychological term "projection" :-/

> I watched a windmill at work once that had no grain, but when the

> wind blew the arms started spinning and the mill wheels started

> grinding but nothing got produced. Complaining is no different.

I'm not complaining, I'm working to build an alternative to the BSA.

There is some truth in what you say because this discussion is a distraction from this week's work to research the historical names of Baden-Powell's Proficiency Badges :-/

> The Mods should consider moving this thread to the "Issues & Politics"

> sound-off folder.

Given the title, I hadn't noticed that it was not in that category.

> I don't think that BSA is a "religious corporation", but one could make

> a case that elements within BSA have made an effort to align the

> organization with the conservative religious movement.

Prairie, the BSA is currently positioning itself as a religious corporation. The following was complied from BSA sources by Stephen Hansen, Ph.D. in another forum:

Yes. I think it is appropriate to provide references to some legal cases in

which the BSA has said that it is a religious organization....

In case no. 92C-140, Riley County District Court, Bradford W. Seabourn vs.

Coronado Area Council, December 16, 1992, the BSA filed a "Separate

Answer" with the following as its "Sixth Affirmative Defense:

"Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization, association or

society, or nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised

or controlled by or in conjunction with religious organizations,

associations or societies within the meaning of the Kansas Act

Against Discrimination, expressly permitted by the Act to limit the

occupancy of its real property, which it owns or operates for

other than a commercial purpose, to persons who believe in God or to

give preference to persons who believe in God."

Recently, in the Balboa Park case, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones

Jr. ruled that "The Boy Scouts are a religious organization"

http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/1DE211_July_2003_Order.pdf pp.11.

The judge based that finding on assertions made by BSA in pleadings of

that case. That finding was not disputed in the BSA appeal of that case.

Indeed, in the appeal brief, the BSA compares itself to a number of

specific religious organizations, and argues that such leases may be

extended to religious organizations

http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/Ninth_Circuit_Brief.pdf

> How many other Red Cross-like programs are there in the USA with

> the word Cross in them?

Does the Red Cross deny blood to children who are agnostic about the existence of God? If it did, you would see Congress grant charters to alternatives.

> How many other Royal Ranger-like programs are there with the

> name Ranger in them?

"Royal Rangers" is protected, "Ranger" is not.

> What is the this thing some people have for wanting the BSA to be

> like like other programs? Just because England does it do we really

> have to? My apologies to Eamonn but I refuse to drink beer at room

> temperature just because our British friends do.

That is the whole point, Bob. In a free market the BSA can be the BSA, and those who don't like their brand of Scouting can go elsewhere. Just because you don't like warm beer, doesn't give you the right to define "beer" for everyone else.

> Why do we have to be like anybody else?

In a free country you don't have to be like everyone else, but more importantly we don't have to be like you :-/

> Trademarking the scouting name benefits us as members by certifying

> our identity in the community. Why do you suppose that other group

> wants the word Scout in their name? For the instant identification.

Scouting is instantly recognizable anywhere in the world. It is not something that the BSA invented. Scouting is Camping, Outdoor Uniforms, Patrol System, Advancement, Role Models, and the Scout Promise & Law. That's what Scouting is. Scouting is not the Eleven Skills of Leadership, the One Minute Manager, or the values of the religious right.

> Whose history and identification are they looking to benefit from?

> Ours. It's not the word they want, it's the instant community

> recognition factor that we as members have developed over

> nearly one hundred years.

Most of the people who worked to build Scouting over the last hundred years, including myself and most of the Scouter.Com community, were people of good will who were in it for benefit of the Scouts. It is the religious fundamentalists who want the "instant community recognition" that comes from promoting their values as the "traditional values" of Scouting.

> It is the assumption of program quality based on the BSA

> program that they want people to identify with when they

> hear their name. They want people to think they are us.

That is a two-edged sword because lots of people associate the BSA with hate politics. But the BSA is not Scouting, the BSA is just a religious corporation that seeks to identify Scouting with right wing politics.

> This is not the first time this has been tried. This kind of thing

> pops up every few years. Every time the court has upheld the

> BSA trademark, it will in this case also.

Maybe. But if the case gets out of the San Francisco court, to the Ninth Circuit, and on to the Supreme Court, it might raise enough attention that Americans start to think the unthinkable: that the problem with Scouting is not its right wing politics, the problem with Scouting is the Boy Scouts of America's monopoly on Scouting.

In the end, after many years of litigation, the success of an alternative Scouting movement in the United States will depend not on liberals, but on the interests of moderate Republicans. If an alternative Scouting association fills some practical need in the market, then it will succeed as a small niche organization. This may come from some currently unexpected direction, for instance the desire for a form of Scouting with a spiritual rather than a literalist approach to Duty to God, or the need of girls for a rigorous outdoor alternative to the Girl Scouts.

Those who truly love Scouting are interested in Scouting in ALL its different forms. For them Scouting is a movement, not the monopoly product of one multi-million dollar corporation.

Apples and Oranges.

Indian Guides, 4-H, Civil Air Patrol, and Campfire Boys and Girls are NOT Scouting.

The point is that the BSA is only one brand of Scouting, in the same way that McDonald's is only one brand of burgers. People who do not like the BSA's corporate product should be able to practice Scouting as it is done in other countries.

There are many advantages to a free market economy, Bob. Competition benefits everyone, including those who choose to stay in the BSA.

The first benefit you will see is one of the largest outdoor youth programs in the world offer an outdoor uniform.

If that were true, then we would return to William Hillcourt's BSA program before it was gutted in 1972 and the numbers went down.

On that we apparently agree :-/

Numbers aren't everything. Most of the organizations that you cite would rather embody certain values, than to be the most popular youth organization in America.

Even the BSA is willing to sacrifice numbers to hold to its "deeply held beliefs," like the idea that kicking little agnostic children out of Scouting makes Jesus happy.

> the majority of Buddhists in the world worship the Buddha as though

> he is a deity of sort, asking him for guidance and teaching, striving to

> become enlightening so that they could be in nirvana (heaven of sort),

> etc, eventhough he is no longer with the livings.

Well, if religion means anything, it means not to trust the majority of any population. The majority of Christians seem to believe that kicking little agnostic kids out of Scouting makes Jesus happy. That is about as far from the compassion that Buddha taught, as it is from the simple Gospel of love that Jesus taught. At least while he was still alive on Earth.

In the Rinzai and Soto schools of Buddhism, asking some deity for guidance, teaching, or enlightenment is considered a distraction from your practice, an illusion, and just plain lazy.

It's like praying to Jesus for a base hit.

And you don't hear a lot of Buddhist sermons about how "no member can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing an obligation to God," now do you?

When the first missionaries landed in Japan, Buddhist priests were the first to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, just because they were curious about these people with the round eyes. Does that mean that they "believed" in Jesus? Belief, disbelief, the mind of a true Buddhist is like a mirror: what is reflected is not really the essence of the mirror.

Like a mirror, the mind does not get dirty when it reflects "duty to God," or "there is no God." But the "recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship"? Come on, is that what they teach in your Sangha?

> Different variations of Buddhism believe in different deities in addition

> to Buddha.

Buddha is not a deity. He was a sleepy human being who became a fully awakened human being, then taught other human beings how to awaken.

It is inevitable that over the course of thousands of years, popular Buddhism would pick up a few local pond and stream gods along the way, in the same way that Christianity incorporated a bunch of pagan stuff too. I mean, where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was born on December 25th?

Let us remember the original meaning of Christmas which is Saturnalia.

At any rate, you won't find many Buddhists debating the existence of God because it just clouds the mind. But making Buddhist kids say that they have a duty to God is about the same as beating up Amish kids because you know they won't fight back.

You will always win, but someone should stop you.

> Kleenex has a trademark on their name are they the only tissue

> company that exists? Pepsi has a trademark on their name, are they

> the only soda that exists.

The brand name "Boy Scouts of America" should have the protection of a trademark. "Boy" or "Scout" are the equivalents to "tissue" and "soda."

Fortunately, through a lack of foresight, James West neglected to trademark the word "boy."

In England the WOSM Scouts Association does not have an exclusive right to "Scout." In America the BSA was not successful in preventing the Girl Scouts from using it either.

But not to worry, Bob, the liberals are sleeping.

> What is preventing anyone from starting up a youth organization

> competing with Boy Scouts?

Theoretically the Congressional Charter, although nobody has put any real effort into it since Randolph Hearst established the "American Boy Scout," the American branch of Baden-Powell's arch rival, the British Boy Scouts. For the BSA's side of the story, see:

http://www.inquiry.net/traditional/b-p/deposition.htm

> The Scouting trademark is being challenged? Tell us about that.

The case is in a San Francisco court right now. If YouthScouts gets a favorable ruling, then it is off to the Ninth Circuit, which is no friend of the BSA. From there it is on to Bush's new Supreme Court. Say "Thank you, Ralph Nader!

See:

http://youthscouts.org/news.html

As the Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times!"

> Kudu- you've mentioned several times that BSA has some kind of a

> "monopoly" granted by the government. Would you like to give us

> some specifics about what BSA does that no other group may do?

In England, where Scouting was invented, if you don't like the WOSM "Scouts Association," you are free to join other brand names of Scouting, such as the British Boy Scouts, or the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association.

In the United States we do not have that freedom, and so you get endless arguments of how the Scouting monopoly should be run. What neo-conservatives and liberals have in common is the conviction that the government should only allow one brand of Scouting, and that it should be governed by their slant on what is right or wrong.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Probably either challenge the trademark on Scouting, as is now being done in California, or to seek Congressional Charters for alternative Scouting associations, like the Girl Scouts did successfully (although the BSA did try to force them to use the term "Girl Guides" in the 1920s).

> Why? because the Presbyterian Church is a private organization and

> is protected by the freedom of association, as is the BSA. Is a

> Presbyterian minister protected by the First Ammendment rights to

> free speech? Absolutely. He can say whatever he wants. But if what

> he says conflicts with the Presbyterian faith, he can be removed. Has

> his rights been violated?

I'd say yes if Congress grants the Presbyterian Church a monopoly on words like "church," "Bible," "God," "religion," etc, as they do with the BSA on words like "Scout," "Scouting," etc.

The church to which I belong had a government monopoly arrangement similar to the BSA's when we ruled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and there hasn't been a decent witch-hunt since.

If anyone deserves a dictatorship on Scouting, it's us!

I am trying to find a quote about being prepared, possibly by Baden-Powell.

The advice was to survey every situation with the question, "What could possibly go wrong here?"

Does anyone have a source?

> But if the quality of your unit program is what you make of it (as you

> say Kudu), then isn't the quality of every unit dependent on what it's

> leaders make of it? Or is your unit unique from all others in this way?

I don't understand what the quality of my unit program has to do with the topic of "Dictatorship or Democracy."

> But what is the point of being a member of an organization just to

> ridicule it.

I don't think anyone joins the BSA just to ridicule it, but he who doth not take delight in the hypocrisy of religious fundamentalists, hath smelt too much wood-smoke at twilight:-/

Apples and Oranges.

The quality of my unit's program is what we make it to be. Most Scouting happens on the unit level.

Which is the point, really. The question people have to ask is, does your unit need a local Council summer camp enough to put up with someone in an air conditioned office telling you that you can't go to Lasertron?

Most people trade convenience for freedom. It is human nature.

If I was concerned with my local Council's performance and wanted the power to influence it, I would move from Scoutmaster to organization representative. The position is open in my SO right now, but I just like to go camping.

As far as the BSA national program goes, it was much better when it was run by Hillcourt, but program elements like the Uniform and Patrol Leader Training will not improve until the BSA faces competition in the marketplace.

As far as changing the world goes, I would rather help build alternatives than to change a monopoly.

We will see what happens.

Flame-bait much?

>> There does not need to be a specific cause, it's a PRIVATE

>> organization.

> I can't even fathom how a Scouter could think this way. It's flat out

> un-American.

Well, duh!

I've seen a few references to Stalin in this discussion. If you want to invoke Stalin, then the correct analogy is: reforming the BSA is like trying to get Stalin to be Washington. If you don't want Stalin to act like Stalin, then work to build an alternative to Stalin. You are not going to reform Stalin.

The BSA is the way it is because it is a "PRIVATE" religious corporation with a government-established monopoly on Scouting. Why should anyone be surprised that when the government establishes a religious organization with a monopoly, they become un-American?

The BSA is not un-American because it is not "democratic," it just happens to be run by a majority of religious conservatives. The BSA is un-American because its monopoly prevents freedom in the marketplace. Without the freedom of a market economy, "democracy" is meaningless.

Baden-Powell's last message to Scouters included the suggestion to keep Scouting a volunteer movement. I live a mile from the Canadian border, and when I call the local Scouts Canada "office" to use a SC Scout Camp, I get an answering machine in some volunteer's house, and he calls back in the evening after he gets out of work. My guess is that the people who are most outraged that professionals juggle the books to get the money they need to pay their salaries (and in the process get rid of volunteers who stand in their way), would be the first to object to the lack of "customer service" in a volunteer alternative :-/

What no leftist, liberal, or moderate Republican reformer wants to do, is surrender the convenience a nice local air-conditioned office run by a guy making $200,000. Neo-conservatives, on the other hand, understand that the monopoly is everything. Without it, saying that the BSA is PRIVATE organization would have about the same sting as Ronald McDonald saying that his organization is PRIVATE and nobody can force him to flame-broil his burgers.

When Americans begin to look at Scouting as a movement rather than as the commercial product of a conservative religious corporation, some people will realize that (at the very least) the problem with "Scouting" is the lack of Congressional Charters for alternatives to the BSA and the Girl Scouts. Only then will we see people build alternatives for the very small number of people who would prefer to see millions of local dollars go to their Scouts rather than professionals.

The BSA will always be the Wal-Mart of Scouting because, after everything is said and done, most Americans value convenience over freedom.

> I'm afraid I don't understand the argument that says "if they bring their

> own, they'll take better care of them". If you apply that logic across the

> board, we shouldn't have stoves, lanterns, cook sets, or anything else

> -- the lads should bring it all.

To keep things logical, just classify tents as personal gear :-)

Tents are expensive and fragile, whereas most Patrol gear is not. The Scouts in my Troop really do take better care of their own tents. They seem to be more aware of the condition of their tent if no one else has ever used it. I'm sure that different Troops have very different experiences, but the bottom line is that if a Scout neglects his own tent, the rips and mildew do not become someone else's problem on the next campout.

Our all-girl Venturing Crew borrows the Troop tents and they do not always take good care of them. The older male Scouts tend to be more responsible, so they have their own Troop tents for those who need them, and we let them lock them up between campouts. If a young Scout wants to borrow one of the Troop tents, he sets it up outside before the campout to make sure that all of the parts are there. This is a hassle, so it makes tent owners very popular.

As far as lanterns go, I'm always happy when those things break. If nobody in the Patrol wants to learn how to find replacement glass or mantles, so much the better! From what I have observed at Camporees, the Troops who most value rows of identical tents tend to light their area up with bright lanterns. Ugh!

> I've always believed that if someone damages a tent through negligence

> or mistreatment, they pay for repair/replacement.

That usually requires a lot of high drama :-/

www.kudu.net

We still have about ten troop-owned Eureka tents, but we encourage the Scouts to buy their own. Sometimes the Scouts also borrow them from their families' friends, so now our campouts can range from 90% personal tents to less than 50% personal tents.

They do seem to take a lot of pride in ownership, and in nine years, I have never heard of any of their own personal tents reeking of mildew from sitting under their beds for a week after a campout :-/

Inexperienced Scouts also tend to remain a lot drier in a cheap $50 dome tent than they do in $100+ Eureka tents that are not set up with the perfect amount of tension on the rain fly.

Even some of the poorest families spring for a tent for their son for Christmas or a birthday. But these things go in cycles and depend a lot on the personalities of the Scouts and their families.

> 3. Tents are expensive and there are so many to chose from.

We encourage parents to buy the cheaper small "3-man" dome tents (that actually only fit 3 small Scouts) in the $50 price range (much cheaper at the end of the season). These work very nicely for backpacking.

Another popular style in our Troop is a rectangular "semi-dome" style 3-man Coleman tent that can actually fit three men.

We discourage family-size tents which can be harder find room for in the woods.

There is a scientific formula for calculating the correct tent size based on the amount of sleep that the Scouts will get on Friday night: 1 Scout = 8 hours, 2 Scouts = 6 hours, 3 Scouts = 4 hours, more than 3 Scouts = 0 hours :-/

I had a couple of $50 "Ozark Trails" (Walmart's brand) "3-man" dome tents that lasted for ten years, until my Scouts managed to loose both of the rain flies at a Camporee somehow. It was just big enough for me, plus all my equipment. I used seam-sealer, and never got wet during the worst rain storms. I also used them in the winter down to about -10 degrees. The poles get brittle at that temperature, and need to be handled carefully. This particular style used plastic clips to secure the tent to the bent poles, and a few of these clips did break in the cold. Some of the newer models have sleeves through which you slide the poles.

The trick is to try to ask parents to buy the models with rain flies that come down to the ground, which helps prevent rain (and even snow) from being blown up under the rain fly.

Some Troops have a "Recommended List" of tents that have worked well for them, so as to avoid the really bad toy tents with the tiny rain fly caps.