BartHumphries

I had some boys who took some of the classes in my area last year who said that they wished they could take those classes again (Wilderness Survival and Pioneering were the most requested). I always invited them to come take them again, but they always wistfully declined, saying that they were already signed up to take other merit badge classes. Some of the boys came on the Wilderness Survival overnighters and some of the boys came back during free time to run through their Pioneering knots and lashings again. I personally have no problem with a boy who wants to retake a merit badge.

And he's an Eagle Scout with the world's 9th largest company behind him. AT&T could shore up BSA from lost Mormon financial contributions without even blinking. They make more in net income than BSA has total assets.

Not just the LDS church, there's the LDS, Catholic, and Methodist churches, whose websites say that they don't support homosexuality. That's 39.32% of registered Scouts, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_organizations_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America Now add in the remaining churches who have split stances (some of the remaining churches support homosexuality, some don't, some don't care, some are split congregation by congregation in support/opposition). Over 50% of registered Scouts would appear to be members of charter organizations which don't support homosexuality (at least according to what the websites of those churches say about how many of their congregations support it and theorizing a roughly even split in registered Scouts among the different types of congregations).

Sure, the new President could change this policy. AT&T could make up the financial difference. It would definitely make things easier as far as public land use, etc. Losing such a big hunk of Scouts, though, wouldn't just hurt finances. That'd be a lot of Scouts leaving (not that many would have a choice, as a kid you often join whatever organization your parents tell you to join).

Would the LDS church leave? Probably -- the LDS Church (or at least its members) already created both Varsity and Venturing. The current head of the LDS church is very proud of having been a Scout and really supports the organization, but openly homosexual people aren't usually allowed to work with youth, so it would probably stop chartering units.

Would the Catholic church leave? Probably -- The Catholic church already actively promotes Camp Fire (USA) over the Girl Scouts USA precisely because of that star by the word God and allowance of openly homosexual leaders in Girl Scouts, so it would probably stop chartering units.

Would other denominations leave? Who knows, I don't really know anything about them, but the Methodists at least and some of the other organizations don't allow openly homosexual leaders to work with their children.

If people rush through Eagle, there's plenty more to do in Scouting. Before you earn your Eagle, though, join a Varsity team so that it's easier to earn your Denali award while you earn your Eagle, and join the OA. Then join a Venturing crew, start working on your Venturing Silver. Start working on earning these cool medals: National Medal for Outdoor Achievement (really hard), Hornaday, STEM Supernova awards. While you're part of Venturing, join a Sea Scout crew and work towards your Quartermaster. Don't forget about NYLT (meh) and Seabadge (really cool pin, also a knot). Heck, if a person really works at it, by the time they turn 21 they can have multiple medals, and a couple rows of knots on their uniform.

I've never actually seen someone do this yet -- most people that really want to push towards something go towards massive amounts of merit badges and rows and rows of palms, but it's theoretically possible.

If Cub Scouts never see anyone older than them wearing a red vest, then of course they won't wear one either unless they're either secure enough to "stand out" from the herd and ignore what others think or apathetic enough to not care what others things. You all can decide for yourselves whether or not you're going to wear a red patch vest. Like I said, I'm going to.

I'll be getting a red vest and sewing my patches to it.

Thanks

So, ScouterAdam, what are the requirements for the merit badge?

Every old uniform is still a "proper" uniform since National maintains their copyright on every old uniform. You can go to a meeting in a 1930's uniform and still be just as much in uniform. Thus the saying, "Once in uniform, always in uniform." Since the rules don't prohibit wearing red shoulder loops, and since they were previously part of a "correct" uniform, someone who once had them on their uniform may continue to wear them. Any new Boy Scouts or Scouters should wear the green ones, though.

By the way, red shoulder loops are still referenced on the national website at: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/03.aspx although I have no idea if the new insignia guide mentions them or not: http://www.scoutstuff.org/pamp-gde-2-awds-insignia.html Buy a book and tell us, please.

"Technically the sash is only for merit badges!"

Yes, the front of the sash is only for merit badges. The back of the sash, though...

The following is from http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/03.aspx

Excess Insignia

With the exception of the Cub Scout badges of rank and Arrow Points, members wear only the insignia that show their present status in the movement. Members should make every effort to keep their uniforms neat and uncluttered. Previously earned badges and insignianot representing present statusmake a fine display on a BSA red patch vest, a trophy hide or blanket, exhibited in the home of the recipient, or at functions where such a display is invited. Members may wear only temporary patches (no badges of rank) on the back of the merit badge sash. Members may wear only one merit badge sash at a time. A merit badge sash is never worn on the belt.

"Handguns also require one instructor per shooter, plus an RSO. That is a lot of staff for camps...."

So don't open up the full range. As I understand it, currently for black powder rifles only one can be shot at a time, no matter how many staff you have sitting around the rifle range. Basically, it seems like a pistol program would work the same as a black powder rifle program. With that sort of limitation on numbers, though, it seems like a person would be rather unlikely to be able to shoot enough to get a merit badge in it, but I could see an activity patch for it -- something like polar bear swim, but with pistols.

"The Camping one looks kind of sad compared to the others. 25 days/nights could easily be snagged in a year of plop & drop car camping. But the others seem to require real effort - 100 miles hiking or backpacking is nothing to sneeze at."

To get the full medal, you have to earn the Silver device for Camping. That's 125 days/nights camping. Most people only do weekend campouts (car or not) for a single night. If they went out every month, except for a week of scout camp in the summer, that'd be 18 days/nights a year. That's almost 7 years of camping like that to earn the full medal.

If a person was to go camping for two days/nights (Fri night, Sat, Sat night, Sun?) a month, plus a week of scout camp in the summer, plus a week-long 50-miler every other year, with another four days/nights to become a LNT Trainer and get Wilderness First Aid, that'd still be about five years, and at this point camping in general would be a serious part of your life.

All the non-knot, non-rank, etc., patches are easy. Here's how you handle them. Pick one patch, and only one patch. Sew it on your right uniform pocket (if you're a youth, put your rank on the left front uniform pocket, otherwise leave that pocket empty). That's it. If you're a youth, you can put more on the back of your uniform sash. Otherwise, wear a patch vest or put them up on a blanket at home.

You know, it's strange, I never really see anyone wearing a patch vest.

In Sri Lanka, like most places that were under "modern" British colonial rule, the highest rank was "Queen's Scout". I have no idea how that all worked when the island became communist, but eventually the island become a republic and the rank was renamed "President's Scout". Anyway, the patch for it is the coat of arms of Sri Lanka.

The lodge at my summer camp has a poster entitled something like "Scouting around the world - Scoutisme mondial" It's subtitled "World crests around the world". For most countries, the world crest is the same purpley/blue one. Down in the S section, for Sri Lanka, it instead shows the "membership patch".

Anyone with money can get a credit card -- just buy a one-time or rechargeable credit card from a grocery store or gas station. Pretty much every grocery store and most gas stations sell those.

I think it may be easier for extroverts to wrangle Cub Scouts, especially in a "timed" setting where you can't just sit or wait around. Instead of shouting at them to "act like Scouts" or something, just ride the wave and redirect their enthusiasm to whatever activity they're "supposed" to be doing. I think it's almost impossible to herd a group of cats with a quiet "leadership by example" mindset. I'm not saying that it is impossible for a real introvert to be a Cub Scout leader, but I think someone who (maybe has learned) to exhibit extrovert methods of operation tends to just naturally thrive a little better under those circumstances.(This message has been edited by BartHumphries)

Mine came off somewhere along the line. Luckily I had a Sri Lankan World Crest that I'd just traded for, so I sewed it on instead. What's more brotherly than wearing a real international patch of brotherhood? It's the top left image here: http://www.srilankascouts.lk/

So tonight I announced that I was going to be running a Firem'n Chit class. "Tonight, come for Firem'n Chit!" I turned and started to walk back out of the limelight, only to be conscious of a very quiet group behind me. Maybe it's my speech, but I apparently have a hard time emphasizing the "ch" enough to make it sound like church instead of sheriff. I kind of wish it was "Firem'n Safety Card" or some other name instead.

"To meet the requirements of the Search and Rescue merit badge, Scouts must complete a series of nine requirements relating to SAR fundamentals such as:

The process and safety methods of working around specialized teams such as aircraft, canine, and aquatic rescue teams

Identifying differences between search and rescue environments, such as coastal, wilderness, rural, and urban landscapes

Determining when Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) and latitude and longitude (Lat/Lon) should be used"

I thought Search and Rescue would be a combination of Wilderness Survival and Climbing, but it appears to actually be a combination of Wilderness Survival and Geocaching (the only other merit badge to discuss UTM vs Lat/Lon and when either should or could be used).

Technically, neither of them can be worn on a Scout uniform, especially not the round one since it doesn't say "Boy Scouts" or have a fleur-de-lis on it or anything that identifies it as a Scouting patch. I could see a case being made for the "shoulder patch" to be worn in the temporary spot on the shirt, as long as it isn't larger than the pocket (if it's big enough to overlap off onto the shirt, then it's too big). http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/03.aspx says: All temporary insignia must contain identification including one of the following: corporate name (Boy Scouts of America); corporate initials (BSA), BSA fleur-de-lis (universal with eagle or plain one-color), "Venturing BSA", or "Venturing". . . . Only one such patch may be worn at a time. The patch is worn centered on the right pocket and must not exceed the dimension of the seams of the pocket, nor extend higher than the lowest tip of the pocket flap. It may be either sewn or suspended from under the flap attached to the button.

The website says: Consider displaying temporary insignia in ways other than on the official uniform. Here are some suggestions:

Wear it on a BSA red patch vest, campfire robe or blanket, or special neckerchief.

Display it on a wall plaque, trophy hide, or mounted in a frame.

Or, make a special neckerchief slide, sectional totem pole, or flagpole insignia for display.

I'm going to start a red patch vest, personally. When I work with Girl Scouts, I want my vest to be as bling-blinging as their vests are.

eisely, I don't know what the law is in your case, but there isn't really a statue of limitations in California. True, in California, you must file a civil claim of sexual abuse within 8 years after turning 18 (meaning before your 26th birthday). However, an extension may be allowed if you file within three years of the "discovery of child sexual abuse or its effects."

In other words, if you have repressed memories that come out later (discovery of abuse) or you think that you're fine but some later event suddenly brings everything into your mind, you can't stop thinking about it and your life starts spinning out of control (discovery of the effects of abuse) then you can file "within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse." For instance, if you were just dandy and coping fine, not ever really thinking about it, then you had kids yourself and suddenly everything came rushing back and found yourself unable to get emotionally or physically close to your children because you're so afraid that you might hurt them that you won't even allow yourself to hug them, then you could talk to someone about that and file for the previous abuse. If a person in California abuses a child, that person may never be "free" of the consequences, no matter how much time has passed.

If an organization has any reason to think that some of its internally handled cases may still be legally actionable, in my opinion, it would be better to seek out the person and try to settle quietly, preempting noisy messy public legal action.

That being said, sometimes people are falsely accused. An organization should never have a "black list" that is based on facts that have been destroyed -- how would you go back and check on it? If it's later shown that the person(s) who made the claim were actually lying, if you destroyed the notes on who said what then how would you clear the person's name? Destroying records or any other form of evidence is not a good decision to make, in my opinion.

Turning an investigation over to the police also helps with "jumpers", people that move around. For instance, the Boy Scouts is now really good handling abusers who switch to a different District/Council/whatever. But what about a person who jumps to a different youth group? Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, American Heritage Girls (who have a memorandum of understanding with the Boy Scouts, but still don't share documents like this), the YMCA, there are lot of youth programs. For the last year I've basically done COPE for a living with a non-Scout camp and I've worked with a lot of different youth programs. Jerry Sandusky, for instance, started his own youth program. The only real way to get that information shared with relevant groups is to involve the authorities (and by authorities I'm not talking about National).

Destroying records or evidence would also make it really difficult to show that something actually was investigated well, which could (in a later legal case) cast the organization in a more culpable light. For instance, imagine the following conversation: "How much did the organization know about what was going on?" "Well, we investigated then banned the guy for life to protect kids." "If you were certain enough to ban him for life, why was nothing ever turned over to the police? What evidence did you have from your internal investigation that was certain enough to ban him for life but that you didn't feel was certain enough for the police?" "Oh, uhm, we destroyed it." "Wait, you what? Was this done to protect someone in a higher position of power? What else were you trying to hide?" That's not going to look good -- destroying anything is a really bad idea.

"People are willing to wear a uniform they think is a) functional, b) affordable and c) something they are proud of." I'll agree with C, but I don't agree with A or B.

Personally, I'm waiting for the BSA to bring out uniform boardshorts because they'd suddenly be (A) - functional. Those "uniform swim suits" are piddly small -- do I look like Lieutenant Dangle on Reno 911? Seriously, I'm not going to walk around in public (i.e. anywhere outside the swimming pool house) with shorts that high above my knees. Edit: I don't even walk around in the pool house with shorts that high, I wear boardshorts to swim in.

I'm also waiting for uniform Levi's. I'd buy those in a heartbeat too. The current pants, nylon or canvas, aren't warm enough for the cold when it snows or when there's a biting wind blowing, and they aren't cool enough for when it gets really hot. Southern California is technically a desert -- we have wild temperature swings. It's not that unusual to go from 40 degrees with a cold wind at night to 115 degrees in the baking heat the next day and the uniform pants are equally bad at both extremes. Not to mention when you unzip the legs the shorts are still too short.

The new shirts are as bad as the pants have been. Whose idea was it to make a shirt that doesn't really breath and then make the only real "vent" in the shirt go completely useless when you wear any sort of school backpack or daypack or anything at all on my back? You want me to carry everything in my arms all day long when I go to a camporee or a Scout-o-rama or whatever?

Honestly, it's much better sense to have some really light pair of pants to change into during the day (like boardshorts) after wearing heavier pants (like Levi's) during the night. Of course, that might necessitate some sort of daypack that, along with your water (CamelBak?), has your change of pants in it, but the new uniform shirts pretty much put a damper on that with their big useless back vent right where even a small school backpack sits on your back. Not to mention, if you have a tight backpack because you're walking a long distance, that velcro bump really starts to wear into the skin of your back as it rubs slightly. The new shirts are just worthless (not to mention the cigarette... I mean "technology" pocket, seriously, who really wears their phone on their sleeve).

I'm proud of my uniform, I wear the full thing at every weekly Scout meeting that I go to, but they're pretty terrible as far as "real clothes" go and I can easily see how a family that doesn't have that much money wouldn't really be keen to go buy a full uniform.(This message has been edited by BartHumphries)

I think Penn State and Jerry Sandusky shows us that people who abused in the past can and should still be held accountable for it today.

It seems like there is there no good way to abbreviate "Outdoor Skills". I struck down the initial initials at first glance. I mean, if we're going to call ourselves the OS maybe we should have little skulls on the front of our hats... no, just no. Slightly less objectionable is using the first letter of each syllable, ODS which would seem to be literally pronounced as odious or phonetically as odds. I thought about throwing in the final R on Outdoor, but that left ODRS, which is longer to literally say than the original Outdoor Skills, or phonetically pronounced as odors, which doesn't sound so great either.

Maybe "odds" is the least objectionable?

I think, regardless of a person's sexual orientation, the only people attending a Boy Scout function should be Scouts, registered leaders and any parents/guardians who are checking it out to see if they want to become registered leaders, or who are needed because there aren't enough registered leaders. From that standpoint, regardless of the aged-out Scouter's sexual orientation, he shouldn't be attending (and if guy in question has no reason to attend, his boyfriend especially has absolutely no reason to attend).

I think someone may be getting confused with the Cub Scout program where family camping is the norm.

If the COR would have a problem with it and nobody is bringing it up to him, then that's really not right and I'm not surprised that it sounds like it's splitting the troop. The COR (well, the CO, but the COR is the face of the CO) is the one responsible for putting together the Committee who's the Scoutmaster's boss. An adult who's not even a registered leader is all the way at the bottom of the decision-making totem pole for something that like -- attending the Boy Scout event isn't even close to being the Scoutmaster's adult son's decision to make, especially when people already know that the COR would have a problem with it.