Lisabob

Gotta agree with Merlyn there, LH. Go to any cub round up night and start asking the parents of all those squirmy little 6-10 year olds what they know about BSA membership policies. Or, just sit in the back of the room and listen to the Cub Master or whoever doing their spiel about joining. In the years I've been involved helping packs run round ups, never once have I heard any pack make reference to the DRP (which I'm fairly certain most of them neither know, nor care, much about). And in the years I have helped my DE and other district professionals run round-up training, I've never once heard them bring it up either. These policies are only a big deal among people like us on this board, and probably among people who unexpectedly find themselves on the wrong side of those policies. In everyday unit-level scouting, these policies are almost never discussed among leaders, let alone among the more general parent population.

Lee, welcome and congratulations to you on all your past accomplishments. Not having been a cub or boy scout, I do not have any of the three knots representing the youth awards that you have earned, but I'll second dan's sentiment and say that if I (could have) earned them, I would wear those. To me personally, the knots that would be meaningful are the ones that represent something I worked really, really hard at, and where I went "above and beyond" what was expected in the context of "just doing my job." That's why, if I had earned them, I would wear those youth-related knots; they indicate something special that the wearer (hopefully!) didn't just blunder into. And I'll differ with Beavah here by saying I don't think one necessarily has to set aside pride in past accomplishments just because some happened before the age of 18, and others after that birthday. But that's also why I've not bothered to do the paperwork for, or wear, the knots I've "earned" as a Scouter thus far. They aren't that meaningful to me, because they represent just checking off some boxes for doing things I ought to have been doing anyway if I was doing my job reasonably well. Though my wood badge beads are meaningful to me and if there were a WB knot I might wear it I guess. That's just my take on the topic though, and I hold no ill will toward those who think otherwise or who wear a chest full of knots for that matter - more power to them, if they've earned 'em all.

See what they do with this one: Grandma: 123 Street, My Town, USA 12345 (Phone: 678-901-2345) Yep, I'd be sorely tempted to resubmit the dang forms with that same info in all the "missing" lines, and I'd also be sending copies to my DE and SE. Idiotic, on their part! JeffD, congrats! Glad to hear things went well for your pack.

Personally I don't think you're entitled to any of that money, unless the troop has a policy of forwarding dues or scout account money to new troops for all boys who leave and join another troop. Note, I'm not agreeing with how the SM apparently handled things - it is shabby, rude, and just plain dumb of him to create more enemies and not be a bit more magnanimous in these circumstances. However, I still don't think you have a very strong claim on the money, let alone on the trailer. And I think you need to decide whether you want to start your new unit out still looking backward and fighting these old fights (which may drag on for some time), or whether you want to start with a clean slate, looking forward to all the cool things your new troop is and will be doing. Is it really worth it to fight over pro-rating dues, etc., in the bigger picture?

Ask the dad about any medical conditions. There's a world of difference between a kid who is a little homesick, and a kid with a documented anxiety disorder. Telling the first one to "suck it up" (perhaps in gentler terms) may help; telling the second one the same thing will probably backfire and escalate the problem. If there is a medical condition, ask the dad about how they deal with this, ie, medication, behavioral modification, biofeedback, whatever. Ask them to help educate you on what works and what doesn't work. And maybe this boy isn't ready for a full weekend of camping. If that's the case, maybe for a while he joins the troop on Saturday mornings and only camps one night. If it isn't a medical condition you can still do a lot of the above, but you're right, that point where the other boys (and adults) are willing to put up with it will approach much more quickly. I think it is still fair to (nicely) express this concern to the parent and ask for his input. And in this case, maybe the boy only goes on campouts when dad can go, for a while. He may outgrow this fear on his own over the next year or two, and in the meantime, it would be better for him to only go on some of the campouts than to quit.

Although I'm not in CVC from whom GW quoted, I am very nearby and I can tell you that their interpretation has been a somewhat contentious one. I'm not saying right or wrong, merely contentious. As to where things go wrong: 1) In my observation, it comes back to the SM not taking those SM conferences seriously enough, all the way through the ranks. We have a few scouts who have been recommended for their next rank where I've really had to scratch my head and wonder how in the world they got their scout spirit sign off from the SM, in light of behavior issues. 2) In my observation, other scouts pay close attention. Closer than we might want. "If it is ok for Joe over there to be a total jerk for years and still make Star/Life/Eagle, why should I work so hard at living up to the Scout Law and Oath?" This is what I heard, almost verbatim, from a scout who recently lost his cool and decked another (younger, and at the time, really obnoxious) scout. 3) In my observation, although it goes against BOR policy and I realize this full well, I wish we could get more formal feedback from the scouts in a fellow's patrol when that fellow is up for advancement. Of course this would have to be tempered to avoid abuse, but in most cases, those other fellows are pretty blunt about what they see and sometimes that's needed. 4) Adults have to set clear expectations for behavior and then they have to be consistent about enforcing them. Senior scouts and those in leadership need to "buy in" to those expectations, and sure, have a hand in shaping them to some extent. Adults need to help senior scouts learn how to convey those expectations to the rest of the group too, instead of leaving them on their own and hoping they "get it," but then expressing dismay when some of them inevitably do not.

Oops, apologies, didn't mean to hijack the other thread! LH, I hope you find your way here because I am really getting a chuckle out of the image forming in my head of what a "Man Scout" might be.

If being fairly active in District and Council means the adults themselves are active at these levels then they fall under what I call "Man Scouts" a species to be avoided at all costs. Oh, LH, I can't let that slip by! Do tell, what are the attributes of a "Man Scout?"

OK then! Great idea Beavah. Folks, please contribute your thoughts for that parents list! Here are a few of mine (not in any particular order, and certainly not exhaustive): 1) be comfortable letting your child go places with out you, at least for a little while, not far from home, and with people whom you know & trust. 2) help expose your child to different foods, and the good manners to at least try new things before pronouncing them inedible. 3) know that even in Boy Scouts, we're pretty much all volunteers, doing our best, and while all leaders should welcome input and constructive feedback, ranting raving shouting phone messages are usually counter-productive.

OK GW, have it your way if you want to. I'm not going to keep trying to explain this to you because it seems rather clear to me that you aren't interested in actual thoughtful discussion based on ideas and evidence. I get the feeling that what you're looking for is a "gotcha" type of exchange instead and I don't have any interest in playing that particular game. Although I find your initial example in this thread to be an exceptionally poor one for the purposes of making your intended point, you are of course within your right to continue on down this path anyway. So I'm done - last post for me in this thread.

GW, again, I think there is a misconception here. "The government" funds all kinds of research about all kinds of groups of people. If it were the case that the government refused to fund research that had a bearing on a particular group then yes, you might be well founded in your objection. HOWEVER - and it is a big, big, however - that is simply not the case with regard to your example. "The government" engages in research by providing grants for specific projects to different labs and research scientists. One over here might be doing research on breast cancer, another over there might be doing research on prostate cancer, etc., etc.. No one can reasonably expect each researcher or each lab to do it all. The fact that each researcher and lab specializes, however, does not mean that they, or "the government," are wrongly discriminating against other people who are not part of a particular study. And that's what's happening here. The National Institute of Health and various other parts of the gov't bureaucracy commission all sorts of research, including, *but not limited to,* the research being conducted at Pitt. And by the way, one of the better strategies for getting research funding from "the government" is for a lab to specialize, so that they get to be really good at what they're doing in their little area of expertise. Then, they'll be more competitive in grant competitions, and not incidentally, they'll probably also use any money that they are granted in a much more efficient and effective manner, than somebody who isn't an expert in their little niche might do. Non-experts have very high start-up costs and learning curves when it comes to doing any kind of serious and meaningful research.

Hello fgoodwin, Yes I have heard of AHG. However, since this is a BSA forum and most people here are talking about programs for boys more often than not, the standard "don't like the BSA? Just go join AHG" doesn't come up much. As to whether or not SpiralScouts is growing, or is growing fast enough, or whatever - that is not part of my point. I am not stating that they aren't growing or aren't interesting as an alternative to some people. I am not interested in judging the relative merits of their program. I am saying that, for whatever reason, they are a small organization that isn't available in many places and consequently, they may indeed not be a viable option at this point for many people who want a scouting experience for their children, but who don't have the resources to provide the structure of such an experience by themselves. And if we're being realistic, that probably includes MOST scouting families, including most in the BSA. And by the way, I have no idea how widespread AHG is, but I suspect they are better known, in part, because of the very popular line of dolls (with a good marketing campaign) by the same name that came out a few years back.

What are my thoughts? Well first, are there any other troops in the next town over from you? I think that unless there's a major leadership turnover among adults, it is unlikely that an adult-led troop is going to become anything else, anytime soon. They've already established that they (adults) want to be in control and having done that, they aren't likely to give it up. Same with the bullying thing. We confronted that in our troop and I found, to my great frustration, that if the SM isn't capable of or willing to address such issues, nothing is going to change (unless the SM changes...as ours did). And new, young scouts, will almost certainly be the next group of targets so you'll likely see many of them drop out early on. You might want to ask this troop about the drop-out rate among 1st year scouts for the last two years. In the second case, is it possible that the troop is so new, the adults just don't know the rules yet? Are they trained? Do they understand that paintball is "out of bounds" and they just don't care, or do they really not know? If they know and don't care, I'd be wondering what other G2SS matters they're ignoring, and I don't know if I could trust them with the safety of my child. If they don't know, then you have to determine whether they're "teachable" or not. Some people are willing to learn, others both don't know, and don't care. Size and financing are deceiving sometimes, and would not be the major factors in my decision, if I were choosing again. Sometimes a smaller troop with fewer resources is still going to be a better experience than a large, wealthy troop. And adult involvement in district/council is an uncertain indicator too. Sometimes that means they're well connected to the old-boys-club and also stuck in their ways. Sometimes that means they are on the cutting edge of a bunch of cool stuff. Kind of depends on the district/council. In the past, ours was very clubby/cliquey, so being involved was a matter of snobbery. I have to say that's one good thing we've discovered from forced re-districting - it broke some of that up, so now, people who are involved tend to be involved for "better" reasons!

Thank you for your responses, EagleDad and everyone else. I'm in the process of building a webelos-scout transition workshop that we'll present at a roundtable in late spring/early summer, specifically for next year's webelos leaders. Your input is really valuable to me, and I may come back with a draft or two of what we've put together as we get a little further along. Barry, I LOVE the idea of holding the last few months of Webelos meetings in the same location as the troop. Of course, that means most, if not all, boys would probably feel guided to that particular troop, right? Did you have boys who went to other troops, despite this experience? Just curious.

We camped at Wright-Pat AFB last year and toured the museum. Boys enjoyed it, but I'm told the actual area available for camping was pretty cramped, with several other troops in attendance. However, it was a worthwhile trip. We also visited (but didn't camp at) the US Naval Academy. Now THAT was a trip that impressed the socks off the boys, to the point where we have a couple of older boys expressing interest in possibly attending.

Thank you, Kadiera, for your responses, and I hope you'll stick around the forum for a bit! It is always good to learn more about other scouting programs. I wish you and your program well.

Folks, I do fear some people here are missing out on a major requirement of scientific research, and that is that one ought to be controlling for all sorts of factors extraneous to the ones that the researcher is actually trying to study. For example, if I wanted to know the relative effectiveness of a particular medication for black middle aged women, I'd do my very best to only include black, middle aged, women in my study! Is that "discrimination?" Not in the way the word is generally used. Rather, this is the way good science gets done. You have to carefully tailor your sample group to match the population you are truly interested in learning about. It should not be required or expected that every researcher study every possible group of people in order to avoid these rather spurious claims of favoritism - aside from reducing the ability of researchers to specialize and become true experts, such an expectation is just not practical. Now, if the government were refusing to fund any studies that looked into the health concerns of white, middle aged men, then GW, you might have a point. As it is, that is so definitively NOT the case, that your argument does not hold up to scrutiny, I'm sorry.

I found staying on the established trail to be the hardest one to drum into their little heads. There are lots of good reasons for it of course, but it is so...interesting...to see just what's "over there" off the trail. If you have a group of boys like that, I recommend you get them out to some less-traveled places so that they can stay on the established trails and still feel like "real" explorers. (Parents now, they're a whole 'nother breed! The ones who show up in flip flops for a hike, drop their water bottles on the ground while stamping out a cigarette butt in the patch of rare ferns next to the trail, and gabbing loudly into their cell phone as their dog chases through the underbrush after the local fauna - yup, they're a real treat. Maybe hand them a trash bag and put them in charge of the "litter patrol?") Anyway, here are a couple of links that I used when doing LNT lessons with our cubs: http://www.scouting.org/cubscouts/resources/13-032/ (good teaching plans for cubs) http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/21-117/index.html (more detail and more hands-on activities for boy scouts, but could be adapted for older cubs too) http://www.utahscouts.org/ssi/story.php?file=/resources/links/lnt_res-links.txt I hope this works - it's longish - it is from the Utah National Parks Council site (if the link doesn't work, try going to http://www.unpcbsa.org/ and use their search box to find "leave no trace for cub scouts") And by the way, UNPC has about the coolest council service patch I've ever seen - a dino in a cave! May have to order myself one...

Should have added to the last post - if BSA Supply were smart, they'd have the new stuff out in time for the holiday shopping list!

I'll probably buy them for my son because by the time they hit the shelves, he'll have outgrown his current uniform anyway. If I'm going to buy new stuff, it might as well be the "cool" new stuff that he isn't embarrassed to wear in public. For myself, it will depend on the fit. If the new shirts are cut better for women than the old ones, then I will probably buy myself one. Otherwise, probably not. We'll see.

OneHour's post brought to mind another matter that I've batted about in the last couple of years. When you hear from your child, or witness at a meeting/outing a situation where a boy is being unkind toward another boy (maybe your son) and you are not the Scout Master, is it ever appropriate to contact the boy's parents and let them know? For example, we have a couple of boys who joined the same year as my son, who are basically good kids but they are good at manipulating and sometimes they can be total brats. They can make things really difficult for their patrol leader (currently my son, but not limited to him) by refusing to do what they're asked, mouthing off, and intentionally spoiling the efforts of the rest of the group. There are times my son has been so frustrated that he wanted to quit, or at least resign from being PL, because of this behavior. Now I know their parents reasonably well from years of cubbing and boy scouting, but their parents seldom attend any more. And when their parents are in attendance, the boys behave differently. On a number of occasions I've been sorely tempted to call up their parents and let them know what their kids are doing because I am pretty sure the parents wouldn't condone the behavior in question, if they only knew. And if my kid were misbehaving in these ways I surely would want to hear about it! But on the other hand...my spidey sense is tingling, which usually means that there's something not so smart about this approach too. (Please note, this is a hypothetical question - although I've used examples above from my son's troop, I most likely wouldn't call the boys' parents even when sorely tempted, because my son would be horrified if I did that. But hypothetically, is there a time when it is appropriate to do so?)

I think it depends a bit on the other boy's history too. We have a couple of boys in our troop who are well known for being less than kind. One of these is likely to become an Eagle scout within the next year (though I find it hard to swallow, but then all of us are "works in progress"). If I had heard that he was calling people names, I'd be inclined to believe that this boy meant it to be hurtful and mean, because that's how he often behaves toward the younger scouts. In this case, no, I don't think you're over-reacting at all and the SM might want to have a conference with the older boy about his unacceptable behavior, including helping him outline steps to correct this on-going behavior. And then the SM should keep this fellow on a tight leash for a while too. On the other hand, we have some guys who just get a little goofy sometimes, but I doubt they'd ever intentionally hurt a younger scout's feelings by name calling and put downs. Now they might say something dumb and not realize the impact their words had, but they're not generally mean spirited. So if it were one of them, I'd be more inclined to take them aside and quietly let them know that they had really upset little Johnny over there, and they might want to figure out how to apologize. That would probably be all it would take in those cases.

I appreciate the feedback on this. To be clear, my position in the matter is not as a member, potential member, or parent of (potential) member, but rather, as somebody on the district membership committee, where the topic was broached. My initial reaction was that they should try to follow BSA rules even prior to chartering, and that they probably ought to wait to raise money until they officially exist, anyway. It just looks fishy to raise funds for a yet-to-be created unit, and what happens if, for some reason, after raising a bunch of cash the unit doesn't come to pass? But those are my personal views and I wanted to see what others might think on the matter. And I can appreciate other people's perspectives here too. I really like Beavah's long-term-lone suggestion, which makes more sense to me than many of the alternatives. I do think that the potential leadership of the one crew that doesn't want to own any gear at all, is unrealistic. And I also think it is a reaction to years of Boy Scouting where the troop these adults were part of did almost exclusively car camping, complete with big heavy trailer and all the gear that could be stuffed in it. But to say that the unit will own nothing and that the youth members will have to provide everything is, in my view, a major hurdle to recruiting new members. So I'll have to float Beavah's proposal to these guys and see if it sticks.

Ugh, folks, if you would like to start making analogies to Hitler or if you want to argue about the meaning of the first amendment, or whatever other polemical debate you want to engage in, I not-so-subtly request that you go start your own thread instead of tromping through this one. In the meantime, I'd like to ask Kadiera to tell us more about SpiralScouts. For example, I'm curious about the nature of the program for your older members (SpiralScouts and Pathfinders). Is this an outdoor/camping oriented program, similar to what people likely think of when they think of Boy Scouts? I'm also curious about membership. About how many members do you think you have? And while I notice that your website says that members of all different faiths are welcome, I'm curious to know whether that includes atheists (which is, sorry to say, often the context Spiral Scouts are brought up in on this board).

I only have time for a quick comment here but historically, the reason for the existence of programs like the one in question has been that minorities (and women, and children) have been vastly under-studied in medical research, and consequently it has been found in the last 10 years or so that the "typical" effects of drugs & treatments that have only been studied on adult white males are not necessarily applicable to other groups. In short, there is some serious catch-up research to be done. However, the idea that doing such research now discriminates against majority whites is, I find, ludicrous. There has never been, and is not now, a paucity of funded research that includes that group.