NJCubScouter

Ed, it sounds like they are using the term "legacy project" to refer to a project that you can put a little nameplate on that says "John Smith, Troop 123, Eagle Project, August 2008". Or words to that effect. In other words, something tangible that will be the Scout's "legacy", like a footbridge, ramps for the disabled, etc. Most of the projects done in my son's troop have fallen into that category, but I think the point here is that there are other types of valid projects as well, as long as the requirements are met. I think there is general agreement here that a Scout is unlikely to meet the requirements with a blood drive.

When my son was in Cub Scouts, an outgoing Cubmaster of his pack (and other parents whose sons were in the same Webelos den as the Cubmaster's son) did exactly what you are considering. They followed all the steps to get a charter for a troop for the same CO, the Cubmaster was registered as Scoutmaster, other parents were registered for committee positions, the first boys (the Cubmaster's son's den) were signed up, they even got another troop to agree to "mentor" them, have joint outings, etc., until they were ready to fly on their own. I believe they got as far as crossing the boys over to the new troop... and unfortunately at that point it all fell apart. The new SM either got busy elsewhere, lost interest, or his son lost interest, or some combination, and never held a meeting or any other activity. For six months to a year he was still telling the other parents, any day now, any day now... and the day never came. Nobody else stepped up to get it going, the boys drifted off to other things (only one out of seven joined a different troop), and I assume they did not re-charter the next year. So I guess the lesson is, good intentions count for little unless you (and the others interested in forming the troop) are ready to do what is necessary to get it going and keep it going, including overcoming the hurdles that may appear in your path along the way. It sounds like you are ready to do so. Good luck.

John-in-KC, of course we need young people to continue in Scouting, serve on staff, etc. There will always be those who will want to, either because they think they "owe" something, or because they just want to, or for whatever other reason. My question is, should a person who chooses not to do so, be made to feel like they are some sort of deadbeat because they didn't repay their "debt" to Scouting?

GW, does that mean that just because someone makes Eagle (or stays in the program through age 18) that they "should" continue as a Scouter? You say "should" rather than "must", but even the word "should" implies some kind of obligation. This hits home for me because, hopefully, in a year or so my son will be sitting in an Eagle BOR, and he may well be asked what he is going to do to "give back" to Scouting. I am pretty sure that at this moment, he would not know how to answer the question. I am not sure how I would have answered that question myself at age 17 (and it was never asked; I did not make Eagle, though I did "age out" and became an ASM, briefly.) As it turned out, I had nothing to do with Boy Scouting from the time I started college at age 18, to the time my son joined Tigers, and even then I did not become a Scouter until two years later. I suppose one could say that I "gave back" by (successfully) encouraging each of my children to join the Scouting program appropriate to their gender, though only in my son's case does he appear to be sticking it out to the end. And then, of course, I did become a leader in the units my son was/is a member of. But somehow I don't think that the members of my son's (hypothetical) Eagle BOR are going to want to hear that his "giving back" will occur in 10, 20 or 30 years.

We have a custom number/veteran's patch (with the name of the town as well) but I believe it comes from an independent patch shop rather than the BSA. I'm guessing we probably have a two-year supply for new Scouts/adults at this point, and I am sure we are not going to trash them just because the BSA changed the colors. I also doubt that we are going to ask anyone to change patches. When the old patches run out, I assume new ones will be ordered to be given to the new recruits, so it will probably be a number of years before the white-on-red patches disappear. (If ever; after all, we have one ASM who wears the pre-1972 patch for his position on an otherwise up-to-date uniform.) As for the shoulder loops, I also don't think we will be asking anyone to buy the new loops, even though they are fairly inexpensive. Of course, the new boys/adults will have no choice but to buy the new loops, so for some time we will probably have a small rainbow (no political statement intended) of shoulder loops. It sort of defeats the purpose of having the loops in the first place, but so be it.

It is a difficult question to answer with certainty because (from what I have read on this forum and elsewhere) different districts seem to have different traditions and expectations regarding what a "camporee" is. I can tell you that it probably would be impossible to put together a camporee that would meet the expectations of people in my district in two months. Even apart from the "program" that you would have to plan and staff, it concerns me that you do not have an "exact date" (or in other words, you do not have a date) for the event. In my district, most troops have already planned their calendar for the year (starting in September) and the rest (including my son's troop) will do so over the next couple of weeks. If this is also true in your district, it is possible that many troops have already planned outings for the same dates that will eventually be reserved for your camporee. And that leads to another question; if you don't have a date, that means you also don't have a location reserved, right? (I suppose if you do the camporees at a council camp, the council can assign different dates to different districts, so maybe you do have a location; our camporees are generally held in county or state parks, so if we don't have a reservation two months in advance, we probably aren't getting one. We did have one on private land, but I'd have to assume they set that up many months in advance. That one was actually done as a "hike-o-ree" which may take less time to set up, but that assumes you have a suitable trail adjacent to a suitable campsite, and quite frankly that one was a little rough for the 11-year-olds. And even that one was not simply a hike but was done in conjunction with the creation of a new historic trail, which had to take at least 6 months of preparation.) And we haven't even gotten to the program or staffing issues yet.

I think those are good questions. To expand on the scenario a little, the vast majority of boys in my son's troop do far more community service than is required for advancement, and I suspect that is true of most other troops as well. I think my son has probably done about 200 hours (including working on others' Eagle projects) and he has not even started on his own project yet. He does recruiting at his old Cub pack when asked. And that is besides the things FScouter mentions. He "gives" to Scouting and the community, and Scouting "gives" to him; assuming he does make Eagle, I wonder (with FScouter) whether the "books" aren't "in balance" at that point.

My council's "Trail to Eagle" packet speaks to this subject, when discussing what kinds of projects will be approved, as follows: "Unit leadership should be especially careful of "Drives/collections" and "one day" projects, because of the difficulty in satisfying all of the requirements of a meaningful Eagle project. Any idea of this type should be thoroughly discussed with your District Advancement Chairman before any planning begins." I am not quite sure what they mean by "one day projects", because I have seen a number of projects where the actual labor takes place on one day. The problem with drives/collections is clear enough, however; as OGE and BobWhite said, it is difficult to demonstrate sufficient "leadership" with such a project. In five years with my son's troop, I have seen two projects of this type. One was a project to collect American flags in need of retirement, and hold a mass flag retirement ceremony at a historic site. I am actually somewhat surprised that this one was approved; I suspect it was borderline, and possibly the historic/patriotic aspect pushed it over the top. The other was a food drive mainly involving collection of food donations outside a supermarket on two weekends (and related promotion), and I am pretty certain that this was only approved because of special circumstances. (The Eagle candidate in question is severely disabled and had required many other accommodations on his way to Eagle; nevertheless he did an excellent job with his project, as he had done throughout his Scouting career.) I'd have to say though, that either of these borderline/special-circumstances projects would seem to involve more demonstration of leadership than would a blood drive. There is, however, no "legacy" requirement for an Eagle project. In our council there seems to be an unofficial preference for "lasting" projects as well, although I think they are somewhat more flexible than your advisor. My own son is somewhat struggling with his choice of projects right now as well, for basically this reason.

I happen to have a pamphlet here (Emergency Prep, 2003) and yes, there is a copyright statement in it. (Actually it would be protected by copyright law even if the statement wasn't there, but I believe the potential penalties for violations would be different.) In light of some of the discussion above, there is an interesting statement on the inside front cover, which as I recall has always been there in one form or another, that says in part: "The costs of development, writing and editing of the merit badge pamphlets are paid for by the Boy Scouts of America in order to bring you the best book at a reasonable price." Does that mean that the actual sale price ($3.49, although apparently I paid $3.99 for this one at an independent store) only pays for the printing and distribution? If so, that raises the possibility that the BSA could put these things on the Internet for no cost or nominal cost, without incurring significant additional costs themselves.

shortridge, the Skill Awards were just a different way of organizing the rank requirements for the "lower" ranks (through First Class) and providing more frequent recognition of achievements. Before 1972, like today, each rank had specific requirements in various subject areas. For Second Class, for instance, there was a specific cooking requirement, a specific first aid requirement, probably one about knots, and so on. For First Class, there was a more challenging cooking requirement, a more challenging first aid requirement, lashings, signalling, and so on. (Tenderfoot was basically the joining requirements, as Scout is today.) In the 1972 handbook (which is when Tenderfoot became a "real" rank, with Scout created to represent the joining requirements), the specific list of requirements was eliminated. Twelve skill awards were created, including Camping, Cooking, Citizenship, Conservation and Swimming. For Tenderfoot, you had to earn the Citizenship skill award and any one other, as well as one merit badge. For Second Class you needed a cumulative total of five skill awards and three merit badges, and for First Class you needed a cumulative total of eight skill awards and five merit badges, including First Aid and Citizenship in the Community. The only required skill award was Citizenship, with the result (as some have said) that you could theoretically reach First Class having passed no requirements in camping, cooking or swimming -- and since Camping and Cooking were simultaneously made non-required MB's and Swimming was made optionally required, in theory the same was true for Eagle. You could reach Second Class having learned no first aid, but for First Class you needed the First Aid MB. The requirements for the skill awards themselves were basically just updated versions of what had been required for the ranks, except of course that you did all the requirements for the skill award and got the belt loop, instead of having to do different things in the same subject areas for the different ranks. I do not have the actual requirements handy, but I see for the Camping skill award you had to show knowledge of how to prepare for camping, participate in at least one camping trip where you demonstrated knowledge of packing, pitching a tent, etc., and finally some knot requirements. There were probably some skill awards for which the requirements had not previously been included in the rank requirements, such as Communications and Conservation; these seem to be sort of "junior versions" of the corresponding merit badges. But then I see other requirements, such as some in the Environment skill award (how they decided what went in Conservation and what went in Environment, I'm not sure) that I recognize from the rank requirements of today. Apparently around 1990, they abandoned the skill awards and went back to lists of specific requirements, although of course some of the pre-1972 requirements (such as signalling) never came back. I hope that is what you were asking.

I must admit a slight personal bias here: My son (a few months shy of 17) has only Family Life and Personal Fitness (plus the small matter of a project) left to go for Eagle, and he already has Cooking. If they were to eliminate one of the two he has left, it would make his life a little easier (as well as mine, although I know I'm not supposed to be pushing him.) I'm not really serious about this, because he has to get working on these anyway and has no time to bank on changes that may or may not be made, and may or may not become effective before he turns 18. It is interesting that this is happening right now, though; if there were an official announcement in the next month or so, it could possibly affect him. (I know, I know, he should just get the merit badges, but it's getting to be enough already!)

I shudder to think of the possible ramifications for a Scouter who signs a waiver for someone else's son and then a tragedy occurs. The recent deaths of the Scouts in Iowa, and previous incidents, should remind us that you don't necessarily have to be rock climbing, flying or whitewater rafting for things to go horribly wrong. A freak bolt of lightning or tornado comes out of the sky, a piece of machinery breaks, a vehicle suddenly goes out of control, and it's all over but the grieving (and the lawsuits.) It's part of life, unfortunately. But if a site operator finds it necessary to require a waiver of liability, etc. before entering into an activity, it is up to the parent/guardian of each Scout to decide whether their son is going to participate under those conditions. If you sign on behalf of some other parent (without their knowledge), and the unthinkable occurs... what do you think is going to happen? Even if there were no lawsuit, wouldn't you find it difficult to live with that?

I think 12 required badges is already a lot, so when they add back Cooking, I hope they will delete at least one. It is difficult to see which one(s) that would be, though. If I had to pick two for removal they would probably be Cit. in the World (added in 1972, formerly World Brotherhood), followed by Family Life (added in the early/mid 90's.) However, removing either one would probably be perceived by some as a "message" (political, social or otherwise) that the BSA does not wish to send. So it is difficult to see a likely candidate for removal. Removing Cycling would not help in this regard because it is only "optionally required" anyway. Presumably they wanted to have two specific physical activities (Hiking and Cycling) as options to Swimming. Speaking of optional, I wonder how many Eagles actually earn Lifesaving rather than (or in addition to) Emergency Prep. In my son's troop I think only 1 or 2 have earned Lifesaving over the past 5 years. Those 2 MB's aren't really that much alike to justify them being options of each other, but I doubt they will change that. I briefly thought about Personal Management as a candidate for removal, but it is probably needed now more than ever. As for adding any (besides Cooking), I think it would be reasonable to take several of what might be considered the "advanced Scout skills" badges and make them an optional group, for example the Scout would have to earn Backpacking OR Wilderness Survival OR Pioneering OR Orienteering. But again, I don't think they should keep adding required MB's without removing at least an equal number. I also think that adding back Cooking will probably be seen as sufficient to increase the amount of "Scout skills" on the list. Just for fun, I went down the entire list to see if I could find one that has not been mentioned that would make sense to add. The one that kind of jumped out at me was Public Health, although I suspect they would probably regard First Aid and Emergency Prep. as being sufficient for that general area.

I mostly agree with what Bob just said. I do not know what this particular person, in this situation, in whatever state he is in, would need to do to become "legal guardian" of the child. It is clear, however, that whatever it is, as of now he has not done it. On a BSA outing he cannot be in a tent with anyone except another adult male. In any event, we have been told he will be in his own tent, so all is well.

CNYScouter, thanks for that link. It is good information for everybody to have. I have two questions/comments: The document (in particular the PDF) seems to be the "training module" itself, and not just the syllabus. If that is the case, is there any reason why it cannot be "self-taught" or taught within the troop, rather than waiting for an outside trainer to be available? I also found an interesting quote in there. In discussing the different kinds of SM conferences, first it talks about the "nonadvancement" conferences and the reasons for those, then it talks about the "advancement" conferences and in that section, it says: "The Scout must have completed all of his requirements for rank before the conference can take place." So in other words, this says that a conference may take place regardless of whether the boy is ready for a BOR, but that even if it does, another SM conference must take place after all the requirements are completed for that rank, but before the BOR. That is what I thought was the case anyway, although some who have posted in this thread appear to believe otherwise. I think this clears up that question.

I think it is natural to occasionally have not-so-coincidental clusters of boys making Eagle. We had three boys who had been in the same class in kindergarten, joined the same Tiger den, and 11+ years later, all made Eagle within a two-month period. Competition may have had something to do with it. (Of course part of it also was that their birthdays were fairly close together, and they each made it with only days or weeks (or in one case, hours, literally) to spare. But I suspect that if one of them had made it at 16, the others would have also.) On the other hand, we have three boys now going into 12th grade and having turned/will turn 17 over the summer or in September, who also were in the same Tiger den. One has been Eagle for a few months, one has been Life for 3 years and appears intent on taking it down to the wire, and one just made Life at summer camp and probably has at least an even chance of not making Eagle at all. So, you never know.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

By the way, I have always assumed that when the BSA says "guardian", they mean "legal guardian", and I would continue to assume that unless someone proves otherwise. "Legal guardian" does not necessarily mean that the people have gone to court; it means that they have done whatever their state's law requires them to do in order to make it legally appropriate to have the child live with them, enroll them in school, make medical decisions for them, etc.

FScouter, I am not going to debate the "right or wrong" of living together before marriage. I think there are circumstances where it does present the kinds of problems you mention, and others where it does not. You disagree, that's fine. I would just point out three things: One, nobody said anything about "sleeping around." If you think "sleeping around" is the same as living together before getting married, there's not much point in discussing it. (Interestingly, Evan still has not said these people are living together, though I'm still assuming that they are.) Two, while people who are living together can change their minds about getting married, people who have already gotten married (without first "shacking up", etc.) can also change their minds about being married, and they do so every day. That's pretty disruptive for the children too. In fact, all other things being equal, it is probably more disruptive. Third, and probably most importantly, at the risk of repeating myself, you have managed to turn a discussion of a Scouting-related question into a more general debate about society in general, and I still don't understand why.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Scouter&mom, I think that is exactly the right attitude and "spirit." There is no rush. February or March is a perfectly good time to cross over, and in the meantime a well-planned pack/den program will give them more than enough to do as Webelos who are about to make the transition. I think it is natural for boys (and their parents) to have a sense of impatience before any transition, regardless of when it is. Most high school seniors I have known think they know more than enough by February or so to graduate, but graduation isn't until June. If crossover is in February, by September the boys may be thinking, why do I have to wait so long? (Especially if their parents encourage this way of thinking.) But if crossover were in October, they would be feeling that way by June. It's just another version of "senioritis."

I'm beginning to remember why I took a 2+ year break from this forum. Based on Evanscm's posts, we don't know anything at all about the "father." We don't even know if he is alive. We don't know if he was ever married to the mother. Or if he was, maybe he was an abusive husband/father. Maybe this new guy is the best thing that ever happened to these kids and their mother. Or maybe not. The point is, we just don't know. Nor did Evansmc ever say that the mother and her fiance are living together, although I assumed (along with everybody else, apparently) that they are. And on that point, I do not recall anything in the YP guidelines or the G2SS about "lifestyles." What I do recall are rules about who can be in what tent, which is what this thread is about, and which are apparently being followed based on Evansmc's second post.

GKlose, you are correct. Cooking was required prior to the 1972 handbook but was taken off at that time. (As was Camping, but I believe Camping was made required again in the 1979 handbook.) I happen to have been looking at my Scout Progress Record Book (copyright 1972) the other day, so I have just pulled it out again and can tell you that the Eagle-required MB's were First Aid, the 3 Citizenships, Communications, Personal Management, Environmental Science, Safety, Emergency Preparedness or Lifesaving, and Personal Fitness or Swimming or Sports. So, since then they have added back Camping, added Family Life, deleted Safety, made Personal Fitness non-optional, and replaced Sports with Hiking or Cycling. I find it interesting that the 1972 handbook had 10 required MB's out of a total of 24 to make Eagle, while now it is 12 out of 21. It will also be interesting to see what changes they make in the near future (and personally it will be interesting for me to see how the changes affect a certain Life Scout I know, who has a year and a couple of months to get (as of now) 2 required MB's plus the little matter of a project which is not yet even a gleam in the eye.)

I don't think it's any of our business whether (or when) these people choose to get married or how they choose to spend their weekend. We were asked for advice on an issue of what BSA policy says about who can be in what tent. Evanscm, the solution you reported in your second post is the one that avoids any issues under the applicable policies.

Welcome to the forum. (And don't let my account-name fool you, I am a Troop Committee member also; I have not been a "Cub Scouter" for years, but never changed the account name.) I guess the logical question would be, if the boys "know" what they are supposed to do, why aren't they doing it? And I guess a key to the answer would be, are we just talking about 10 and a half year olds going for Tenderfoot here, or also boys who have been around for awhile? Obviously the youngest boys may need some reinforcement of the procedures before they will "get it." I'd also point out that getting the book signed is not solely the Scout's responsibility -- it is also part of the job of the person (whether adult or older Scout) who sees the boy pass the requirement. Yes, the boys need to learn responsibility and they need to be aware of what they need to do for their own advancement... but they will pick that up as they go along. When they are just starting out, they are entitled to some help. In my son's troop, when someone "passes" a Scout on a requirement, the next words are "please give me your handbook." If the book's not there, that's another issue. As for the particular situation that you seem to be in, the person(s) who saw the boys pass the requirement(s) should sign it off in their handbook. (Although, at the summer camp that our troop usually attends, the first-year campers attend a special program geared to the first three ranks, and the counselors do not actually sign the handbooks; for administrative convenience, they instead give the Scoutmaster a "report card" at the end of the week, showing what requirements were passed by each Scout, and that is then entered in the handbook by someone in the troop.)

As a YP facilitator, I thought I had heard every possible question about two-deep leadership, but I have never heard this one. It has never come up in my son's troop and it is unlikely to come up with the current group of leaders. However, I agree with Bob. While the YP guidelines do not address the question of two spouses as the only two leaders on an outing, it is not a good idea. If I were in a position of deciding whether an outing should go forward, and all other efforts to find another leader/parent failed, I would, reluctantly, cancel the outing. One of the major reasons for the two-deep leadership rule is that if a false accusation is made against one leader, the other leader (who hopefully was in a position to see or hear what did or didn't happen) can verify the first leader's statements. If the two leaders are married to each other, I think that would raise too much doubt as to the objectivity of the non-accused leader. It is terrible that we have to think about these things, but we do.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Hmmm. It's kind of curious that the BSA web site says the SM appoints the JASM but the handbooks say the SPL makes the appointment (even with the consent of the SM.) They ought to fix that.