Bando

OGE, perhaps I worded that wrong. You're correct in the fact that the local option would not require anybody to do anything except for CO's to choose what's best for their own units.

My point is that even the availability of a local option for gay leadership would likely cause a mass exodus of LDS units. And if a gay-free BSA is more important to LDS (or any other CO) than just saying no to the option, keeping their units as-is, and letting other CO's make the decision for themselves, well, that probably says more about their dedication to the Scouting movement than anything else.

"However, since the people at making such big changes at the national level is the National Board of Directors which is made up of individuals and organizations who believe in the current values of the BSA. I doubt such a change as the so called "local option" is going to happen any time soon. "

And who is on the National Board of Directors? More than a few LDS folks.

"Speaking for myself. If the "local option" does happen. This Scouter will be among the many who will leave the organization. If that makes me bias, so be it. "

I've never understood this sentiment. At all. Are you really telling me that your involvement with Scouting, your child's ability to take part in all of the great things Scouting provides, is completely outweighed by the audacity Nationals would have in asking you to accept a gay leader in your troop? That's really the linchpin in your involvement in Scouting? That's what's most important to you, that this is an organization where your kid will never have to encounter a gay person?

The point of my issue with LDS Scouting is that the BSA has never asked LDS to accept their program as it was/is. Rather, the BSA has continually morphed itself, especially over the last 20 years, so that the LDS would stay in the fold. That means encouraging phantom units and authorizing the use of non-mainstream scout books and leadership techniques. That means imposing the need to enact rigid membership policies that seem only to serve to keep the LDS contingent from taking their ball and going home, because let's face it, if such decisions were changed, the only units that would wholesale leave the organization would be LDS. The rest of us would only be filling a few holes in our troops or finding new CO's. That means encouraging an entire wing of the Scouting movement in America to operate in hands-off obscurity from the rest of the boys, with separate camp weeks and isolation from what make Scouting so much fun: watching boys learn from each other through a diversity of beliefs and backgrounds.

Scouting may be great for LDS, but is the LDS great for Scouting? What do the rest of us get out of it?

Our SPL routinely attends the committee meeting every month, and gives a short, informal report if he actually has anything he wants to discus. It's a great way for the adults and a representative of the youth leadership to get on the same page, share thoughts, etc. No need to be rigid or overly demanding.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room isn't that LDS constitutes such a large proportion of the BSA, but rather, the fact that their large presence has forced the BSA to take hard-line policies on a number of issues.

Does James Dale happen if the BSA isn't afraid the Mormons will pack up and go home? Who's really afraid of "avowed homosexuals?"

For me, that's the biggest issue I have with LDS involvement with Scouting. The attitude Gary has taken in this thread, "We have the largest number of Scouts, so why -shouldn't- it be our way?", seems to be directly in line with this.

I realize this probably opens a can of worms, but from my experience in the BSA, and talking to a lot of people from a lot of different places, there's an underlying resentment of the conservatism LDS has instituted on everyone else through their heavy involvement and influence with the National administration.

Our local council shop put all of their neckers on clearance sale last month. Sweeping change appears to be on the horizon.

I'd love to wear a campaign hat, but in my unit, that's a "Scoutmaster Only" item.

Usually I just go hatless. When I do sport a hat on a campout (outside of uniform), it's usually a standard baseball hat from my alma mater.

I've been asked to help teach Environmental Science Merit Badge by another ASM in our troop. The new session of merit badge classes start tonight, and I'm a little freaked out. I'm not a scientist, and while I do know a lot of the subject matter here from coursework in high school and college, I don't know it at a deep enough level (read: avocation/profession) to feel like I'm going to be particularly effective.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a debate over whether or not merit badge classes are appropriate in a troop meeting setting or any of that kind of thing, as that's been debated here extensively. The situation is what it is, and there's nothing I can do to change it. Given the rules regarding merit badge counselors, I'm certainly not qualified, but I've been asked and I'm not going to ruffle feathers and say no. While I've taught other merit badges for which I do have a wealth of knowledge and experience, and been effective, this isn't one of them. I get the impression they trust me, and there weren't any other adults who were willing to tackle it. I'll have help from another ASM, but I don't know if that will be enough. I don't want to just rubber-stamp the kids, as unfortunately they get enough of that. And I do want them to learn something and have fun with the subject matter here, because there is much to be excited and energetic about with this particular MB (it was definitely one of my favorites as a youth).

Any tips besides reading all I can and being overly prepared to tackle individual requirements at individual sessions? I try not to resort to the worksheets published online unless I have to, but I think I might have to here. That's the only way I think I can be successful at this. Set out a lesson plan, don't deviate from it, and be ready on a week-by-week basis...

We have an enterprising young scout in our troop who spends his free time making woggles. Seldom found without his wooden dowel and a bunch of colored cord. Sells 'em for a buck in pretty much any color combination you can think of. And they're GREAT woggles.

Maybe one of your boys could do the same, and spread the knowledge on to his friends. Or make it into a skill session or something. Everyone makes their own woggle. Then the boys make more and more and more and take some pride and ownership in their slides.

"Why on earth do you need a nametag? Don't the people in your troop know who you are?"

As someone who is bad with names, and is a relatively new scouter to my troop, it's quite nice to be able to have a little reminder of a scout's name when i'm working with him. And definitely helpful for the boys to keep track of a lot of adults that tend to blend together.

Then again, I'm also in a troop of 100 scouts and about 70 leaders, so yes, we do need a name tag.

When I was a Scout (mid 90's-early 00's), it was right at the advent of everyone having a Discman, the Game Boy thing, etc. etc., our troop had a no-electronics rule, except on long trips where 10 hours a day in a car without giving us the benefit of an N64 and some CD's would have likely caused all to go insane. That rule would be suspended once we entered a National Park, when we left said car, or any other time the adult leaders wanted us to pay attention to something. It worked. We all had fun, we all learned and saw and enjoyed ourselves, and it was never a problem. Regular campouts, troop meetings, etc. etc., strictly verboten.

I'm now an adult leader. All the kids have cell phones and iPods (better than the phone and iPod I have at that!). The Troop is more laid back in their approach now, "kids will be kids these days," and there's kids texting in patrol lines, pulling out the iPod during merit badge sessions, and walking around the campout ignoring the wildlife with their earbuds firmly inserted.

I have a problem with that. And it seems, at times, I'm the only one. I've done my part and made it known to scouts that when I'm teaching a merit badge, or working on a skill with them, I don't tolerate phones or iPods. They can make it an hour a week without texting their friends.

I find it sad I even have to say anything, but if I don't, I'm faced with a couple kids who are generally interested, and a dozen who are more interested in either what's happening on their phone, or the iPod of the kid sitting next to them. I've found it's a snowball effect. The first one comes out, the second one won't be far behind, and then the entire process is derailed.

If it were up to me, phones and iPods would be confiscated on the spot and returned when the parents came to claim them, but that's just me being "old school" and nostalgic for the days of, oh, 10 years ago. I guess I'm getting old in my mid-20's.

Nothing looks better on a campout than to stand back from the site and see sharp lines of evenly-spaced, identical tents. I've never been a fan of the rag-tag, randomly placed, non-matching village of dome tents.

Then again, as long as the boys are having fun and learning something, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Option C: Fold the collar into the shirt. Really, it's the only way to do it.

As a youth, my troop had about 100 scouts when I joined. By my 3rd year, it had exploded to about 120. Yes. 120. And there were indications there would have been close to 150 with the incoming new scouts (as I recall). It was getting very, very difficult, so we started putting restrictions and criteria for incoming scouts. It got a bit contentious, some feelings were getting hurt, and it ended up hurting us. A spinoff troop was started to alleviate the whole thing, and they ended up having close to 100 at times, too. Both troops now number a little under a hundred, and both have 60+ adult leaders. There's another local troop that has around 15-20 scouts, has always had 15-20 scouts, and kind of flies under the radar in comparison to the other two. Go figure.

The problem with a large troop, I've found, is that leadership opportunities are difficult. There's only one SPL, there's only so many Quartermasters you can have, there's only so many ways you can spread around Scribe and Bugler and Den Chiefs and all of that, and that's really a dimension of scouting that I found to be useful and important as an adult. Being an SPL or an ASPL who actually did something, or being a long-time PL would have been quite nice. I would love to see how a 30-40 scout troop functions, because I've never seen it...

Long story short, putting caps can be a good idea to keep numbers down, but it makes your program seem inaccessible and exclusive, and may end up making those caps irrelevant later. The idea of a "waiting list" to get into a troop is pretty odd, IMO. Start another troop before you resort to that.

My brother in law, his brother, and my dad all got postcards. For whatever reason, I didn't. I seem to remember getting one a few years back, but not this time around.

I've been having problems with my registration for Youth Staff. Sounds like my paperwork is stuck in a logjam somewhere between the Council and Nationals. Kind of surprised at how difficult it's been to get anywhere with it.

Seems to me to be a bit excessive. Kid gets lost on the way to a meeting with a merit badge counselor. Pulls out his cell phone, calls the counselor. What's the person supposed to do, not pick up because there's not a third person on the line? That's just one example of how out of hand one could get with this.

Two-deep leadership, as I understand it, is a safeguard against physical abuse. It strikes me that this policy is sufficient to keep a scout safe, even if a phone or email conversation were to attempt to set up an improper situation.

I'd second checking with the Detroit Scout Shop. Seems like a no-brainer they'd have one with Hamtramck within Detroit's borders.

I missed out on my Paczki this year. :\