NJCubScouter

If I could edit my posts I would take this sentence and delete the part that is underlined: I'm also leaving aside the fact that some troops have more than one of some other positions (my son's troop has two and at times three Quartermasters), and count the multiples for advancement, because I'm pretty sure they aren't supposed to do that.) and replace that part with: "under the heading of a 'Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project." I really was not trying to get into that issue. I do think it might not necessarily be appropriate to do this in every troop. But it is up to each Scoutmaster, not me.

The fact that your son has been told that he does not have a position of responsibility (por) because they are all "taken" is somewhat troubling, in light of the fact that there are at least two por's that a troop can have more than one of. Those are Assistant Senior Patrol Leader and Instructor. (Actually there are 3, the third one being Junior Assistant Scoutmaster, but I'm not counting that one in this case. And I'm counting PL as a non-multiple position because it is one per patrol. I'm also leaving aside the fact that some troops have more than one of some other positions (my son's troop has two and at times three Quartermasters), and count the multiples for advancement, because I'm pretty sure they aren't supposed to do that.) I do not mean to suggest that your son should necessarily be ASPL or Instructor, or any other particular position or project. I agree with what BobWhite said, "without knowing your son's needs and characteristics it would be difficult for us to determine what project would serve his development the best." This is something for him to explore with his SPL, and if that does not produce a reasonable result, with the Scoutmaster. My point is that what you really know in this case is that your son has not had a por while a Star scout because he has not been selected for one, not necessarily because they were "all taken." (By the way, he already has had at least one por, hasn't he? If he is working on Life, that means he is Star now, and that means he must have already held a por for at least 4 months while he was First Class.)

Bob says: There are dozens of great reasons to join Boy Scouts and each person no doubt has their own. But there are only 8 specific methods of the Boy Scout program and they are the same nationwide. High adventure is not one of them. "High adventure" is part of the outdoor method, and I know it is not specifically mentioned in the "official" description. But do people "in Boy Scouting" generally regard "high adventure" as being an important part of the "Boy Scout program?" I think the answer is yes. And why do they think that? Because that is what the BSA itself says. How else do you explain the fact that when you go to the official BSA web site and click on the phrase "Boy Scout" you get a screen that has a little description of the Boy Scout program, illustrated by one photo, of a young man descending a cliff? The BSA had hundreds, perhaps thousands of different images to choose from to put in that spot, but the one they chose was one that anyone would define as "high adventure." Presumably, the BSA has carefully selected the words and images on its web site, both to present factually accurate information, and to create an "image" in the viewer's mind that would promote the program -- hopefully by inducing the viewer to "support" the program in some way, either by joining, recruiting someone else to join, or in some other supportive way. At least, I hope and believe that is what they intend. So, the relevant questions are these: Is this particular photograph of a high-adventure activity an accurate image of what Boy Scouts do? Or at least, what Boy Scouts have an opportunity to do if they continue with the program and are physically capable of doing so (and the financial resources are availalble either from themselves or from some other source?) I think the answer is yes, at least as to the second way of asking the question, with all the qualifiers. And the second question is, if the BSA is using this particular image to promote the program, does that mean that the BSA regards "high adventure" as an important part of the program that will attract people to join it? I think the answer is yes. And what about the fact that "high adventure" is not mentioned in the official list of methods, or in the description of the outdoor method? In light of all the other information, that fact seems pretty irrelevant. Overselling, is selling past the point that the customer has said yes to your product. I don't hear that from the posters I have responded to. Bob, you're right. That is the technical meaning of the word, though I have seen it used how I used it, to mean that someone is presenting accurate facts but is drawing at least one conclusion from those facts that the facts do not really support. I was trying to be diplomatic. I thought it would be more polite to say that you were "overselling" your point than to say that, while you are correct that there need not be a direct correlation between money and program, I think some of your statements downplay the importance of money in Scouting, and present an inaccurate picture of reality.

High adventure is not listed as a "method" of Boy Scouting, but national certainly does promote it is a reason to join Boy Scouting. Click on http://www.scouting.org/nav/boyscout/ymain.html This is from the official BSA National web site. Which program are they talking about? It's not Venturing. And what about that guy on the right, what is he doing? (I'll spare you the mystery, he is rappelling (sp?) down a rock face. As for Scouting's aims, physical fitness is clearly being promoted, and also he is probably thanking God for the rope, but let's face it, he is having fun and the image is meant to convey having fun in a high-adventure activity. Like the "Follow the Rugged Road" slogan from when I joined Scouting, but with the nifty red helmet added.) I don't mean to suggest that this is all Scouting is about. It's not. The outdoor method is one method. But the fact is that National promotes the Boy Scout program to BOYS, at least in part, as a path to high adventure activities. As for the larger point of "money," I don't think Bob's point is wrong, but I do think he is "overselling" it. It is certainly true that a low socieoeconomic situation should not be a barrier to a boy getting the "Scouting experience." But it does have some impact. As I believe Bob said, money makes it "easier." Well, sometimes "ease" is the difference between something happening or not, or happening the right way or not. I could understand an adult who is just scraping by financially not feeling that he or she has the time to get involved in Scouting, in comparison to someone who is relatively comfortable. Multiply that by hundreds of thousands of people in a depressed economic area and it should be no surprise that keeping a Scouting program going will present greater challenges.

Zippie, Cubbingcarol, Bob (and a few others, it's getting complicated to figure out who) are correct. In a unit that goes by grade in school to determine the joining requirements (which to my knowledge, means almost all units not chartered to the LDS church), it all depends on the cutoff date for starting kindergarten (or first grade). In my district the cutoff is Oct. 1 (one day later than in zippie's.) To my knowledge, all schools in the U.S. start kindergarten at age 5 -- but what that means is that if you are born between the first day of school and the cutoff date (in other words you were born in September), you are actually starting kindergarten at age FOUR -- or more precisely, 4 years, 11 months and some number of days. Zippie's son, born Sept. 25 (and assuming school started Sept. 1 in the year he turned five), started kindergarten at 4 years, 11 months, 7 days. Then, assuming for simplicity that school ends on June 30, he finished first grade 22 months later -- at 6 years, 9 months, 6 days (please don't fault me if I am one day off.) That is the day he will be (or in this case, was) eligible to begin working on Wolf requirements. Even if things do not "get going" until September in his pack, he is still a 6-year-old Wolf for several weeks. (By the way, cajuncody, by my math, zippie's son will still be 16 when he STARTS 12th grade, but when he completes it (assuming June 2015) he will be 17 years, 8 or 9 months.) Now, one might say, hey, wait a minute, does that mean you can have FIVE year old Tigers? Yes, it does. Just subtract a year from all of my math about zippie's son, and he started first grade several weeks short of his sixth birthday -- or in a unit that gets going at the beginning of the summer, he could have been almost 3 months short of his sixth birthday. That is not a fluke, it is what the rules say, combined when school starts and ends, and when the cutoff date is, in a particular school district. If the cutoff date is Oct. 1, and school starts Sept. 1, then one-twelfth of all children -- a small but not tiny percentage -- will start school when they are 4, meaning that they can (briefly) be 6-year-old Wolf Cub Scouts. This, by the way, is the main reason why, when someone has brought up the idea of starting Tigers in Kindergarten -- to match what the Girl Scouts so with their Daisy program -- I have questioned whether it would be a good idea. It would mean you could theoretically have a Tiger who is FOUR -- though weeks (or at most about 2 months) short of his fifth birthday. That doesn't seem like such a good idea to me -- and evidently not to the BSA either, since they have not adopted this suggestion.

Is he willing to let it look like it was done by second-graders? That was my initial reaction too, but even if the principal said yes to that question, we all know what probably would actually happen. The dads ans moms supervising their 7-year-olds would let the painting project go on for about 10 minutes, see what kind of disaster it is turning into (Jackson Pollock comes to mind), say "We can't have THIS" and take over themselves. At first the boys are standing there watching their parents ("Watch and learn, son), but eventually the boys filter out onto the school playground while moms and dads are painting away by themselves. The job turns out well, but it's not exactly what the BSA has in mind for a service project, because the boys didn't really do it. I suspect the principal knows he'd be getting a parental paint-job, and the fact is that he already asked for the boys "OR some parents" to do it. What he's REALLY asking is, can the parents paint the restrooms. By the way, if the school is that short of funds that they cannot afford painters, then depending upon insurance considerations, there may not be anything wrong with the principal recruiting parent-volunteers to do the work -- but not just parents of the Cub Scouts. I know in my school district several years ago, they had a bunch of parents in on a few weekends installing computer cables all over the schools (I think that may have been part of a nationwide campaign.) But the recruitment was directed at the ENTIRE "school community" -- not just targeting the parents of Scouts or any other particular organization. The pack my son was in also was chartered to the PTO of the school that almost all the boys either attended or had "graduated" from. We did service projects for the school, but they consisted of picking up trash from the fields, woods and parking lots etc. outside the school. That's the kind of project that boys can actually do (though as I recall, the dads went around holding up the garbage bags while the boys threw in the trash, but that's OK.)

On the issue of counting political campaigning for service time: I suspect different Scoutmasters would have different opinions on whether political campaigning "counts" as "community service." Therefore, some might approve such activity for Second Class, Star and Life "service hours" and some might not. The rules against partisan activity in Scouting would not necessarily be an impediment because the requirements do NOT say that the service hours have to be as part of an activity in which one identifies oneself as a Scout. Personally, if I were a Scoutmaster I probably would not approve service hours for activities in which one CANNOT identify ones-self as a Scout, so I would ask the Scout to do other service for service-time purposes, while encouraging his citizenship activities as a campaign volunteer. But I don't think my opinion is necessarily the only "right" one in this case -- the requirements give the SM latitude in this area. Even if one were to define "community service" to include political campaigning, and find it appropriate for "service hours," it does not seem to me that political campaigning could qualify as an Eagle service project, in which a Scout is required to "plan, develop and give leadership to others in a service project..." I have been a volunteer in many election campaigns. In my younger days these were partisan political campaigns, usually for president or governor. As an adult, I have campaigned (and campaign-managed) non-partisan campaign for the local school board, eventually running myself, and being elected. This is all to say that I know a little about political campaigns, and the roles that various types of people can plan. There is no reason, necessarily, why a teenager could not "give leadership" to others as a campaign volunteer. I was a campus coordinator for a presidential campaign when I was only a few years older than most boys going for their Eagle. Most likely the Scout would be coordinating other youth, such as "Young Democrats" or "Young Republicans." But, "plan" and "develop" a "project" as a teenage campaign volunteer? That seems very unlikely to me. Most of the planning and developing is done by the paid campaign folks. Gabe, as a volunteer organizing other volunteers, you may in fact be planning and developing the organization's efforts, or you may be carrying out plans developed by someone else. But I don't see that kind of role existing for someone who is under 18. I remember when I was in college sitting in rooms with adult political activists, and having little or no credibility with them simply because of my age. I think that not even being old enough to vote would have excluded me from the room altogether. And I didn't even come close to "developing" and "planning" any aspect of the campaigns. But if your experience is different, it would be interesting to hear how.

The units I have been involved with, or known of the inner workings of, have all had some way of dealing with the boy whose family is TRULY unable to pay. Of course there are always the issue of whether the family IS truly unable, but the person who started the thread said the boy was "unable," so let's assume that is the case. In the troop I am involved with now, one of the members of the CO (referred to, when there is a need to refer in committee meetings, as the "anonymous parishioner"; the CC, SM and past holders of those positions know who it is, but I do not) is willing and able to provide (and has in fact provided) funds to allow boys to participate when the family cannot pay. (My impression is that it probably someone who had a son in the troop years ago, but it could be someone who just wants to help the youth of the community.) It is my understanding that this assistance could potentially be for any amount up to and including summer camp (about $200.) This is all handled through the CC or SM. I don't think anyone has ever asked for the usual $10 for a weekend camping trip. There is one family that has made it known that they are currently unable to come up with the $35 annual dues this year, and they have been (quietly) told not to worry about it, pay what they can, when they can, and let the troop be a place where the boy can not worry about his family's financial problems, which are all too apparent to him and others. I don't even think the troop leadership went to the "parishioner" on the $35 dues, they just decided that the troop treasury will absorb it. I also know that 2 boys (including the 1 mentioned above) did go to summer camp this year, either for free or for a very reduced amounts (let's say a 90 percent discount), thanks to the "parishioner. I also am certain that if, as a matter of last resort, let's say the "parishioner" did not exist and the troop had a bad year fund-raising and could not "carry" a non-payer, money (within reason, say the annual dues) would just magically appear, and a few committee members would happen to go to one less movie each that particular month. As far as I know, it has not happened. Obviously, not all units have the resources we have, either in terms of an anonymous benefactor, or sufficient fund-raising to be able to "carry" a non-dues-payer or two with no impact on the program. But I also know there are some council resources available though donations that have been made, though my impression is that these are for bigger-ticket items starting with summer camp, on up to at least partial funding for a Philmont trek or Jamboree trip for truly needy boys. I also know that in a past unit, the local Lions Club (which was not the CO) was there when necessary. The point is, as others have said, there should be SOME way of dealing with this, other than the way it is apparently being dealt with now. Maybe the den leader in this case is inexperienced himself and does not know about this aspect of Scouting. I don't think they teach you in training about the "generosity" that surrounds Scouting, it is just something you pick up along the way.

OK, Eagle and I basically said the same thing in different words. I just added in my "speculations on the future of Cub Scout uniforming."

There is no need for a "struggle" and no decision to be made by you as a pack leader. When to switch to the khaki/olive uniform is not a choice to be made by the den, or the pack -- it is up to the parents/guardians of each individual Webelos scout. The right to wear it is "earned" by being a member of a Webelos den, which in most packs would be achieved by completing the third grade. Now, I can almost hear you saying, "What's the point of having a UNIFORM at all if it is not "uniform," i.e. half the boys are in blue and half in khaki?" (Or words to that effect. I know those words because I've thought them myself, as have a lot of other people.) The answer seems to be that the BSA, at least so far, would rather leave it up to parents to decide when (within a time span of 18 months, give or take) to shell out the bucks for a new uniform. That seems like a reasonable choice to me. Of course, it may be that from this point forward, the issue starts to takes care of itself, because of the recent change from the orange Tiger shirt, to putting Tigers in the blue uniform. It used to be that the blue uniform was purchased at the beginning of second grade, which (especially if it was purchased somewhat "large" as many people do) made it possible that the boy could be well into the fourth grade, or conceivably all the way to crossover, without outgrowing the uniform. (It may have "helped" that in my son's pack, nobody wore the uniform pants, which of course is another issue.) I think that becomes less and less likely when the blue uniform is purchased at the beginning of FIRST grade. It may now become common for the uniform to be outgrown at or shortly after the boy becomes a Webelos. And that MAY eventually lead the BSA to prescribe the khaki/olive uniform as soon as the boy becomes a Webelos; but for now, that has not happened.

Hunt says: 2. There is nothing in the requirements that suggests all the camping experiences must be done after the blue card is signed. Some take that position, but the majority view here (I think) is that camping done since joining Boy Scouts should count. In our troop a boy is entitled to use all days of camping (as defined in the requirement) since joining, as indicated in the Troopmaster records (which are almost accurate.) The date the blue card was signed is irrelevant. I am sure that is what the requirement means, though perhaps it should be clarified. 3. Just to throw this in, there is nothing in the requirements to suggest that camping done outside of Scouting doesn't count, as long as the boy pitches his own tent or sleeps under the stars. I think you are correct on this, also though I think an issue could arise regarding the "long-term camp" aspect, about which more is written below. If the "long-term camp" is not under BSA auspices, could that include a family trip in which the boy is sleeping in an RV? (I don't think it should.) Does there have to be some "program" involved in the camping, as there is at a BSA summer camp? I think there are non-BSA camping experiences that should count, but I am not sure where you draw the line. The closer the experience is to a week at BSA summer camp, the greater chance it should "count," in my opinion. Note: the requirements say you can use a week of long-term camp, and that the requirement to pitch your own tent does not apply to long-term camp. Most people here (I think) have interpreted that to allow a boy to count Scout Camp even if they sleep in cabins or shelters. I think that's right, in fact, I don't know how else one could reasonably interpret it. The requirement says "Sleep each night under the sky or in a tent you have pitched (long-term camp excluded.)" The exception in parentheses applies to the entire sentence that precedes it, and that sentence is the only one in the requirement that restricts what kind of camping trips "count." If it is long-term camp, it doesn't matter what the sleeping accommodations are (which is why, as I wrote above, there does need to be some reasonable interpretation of what "camping" is, so somewhat cannot decide that a week with the family at Days Inn counts as "camping.") I think the BSA makes this exception because generally at most summer camps (or at least every one I've been to) the boys sleep either in constructed shelters or in tents that have been set up by the staff, not by the campers. My only question is if a "week" of long-term camp can be counted, and Scout Camp lasts six nights, can you count one night from the next summer's camp? Well, when I was counting up my son's nights of camping recently, I only counted the six nights he spent at summer camp the first year, and none of the six nights the second year, toward the Camping merit badge. (Why I am doing the counting instead of him is a legitimate question, but beyond the subject of this thread. Maybe there is a thread somewhere on "why it's so hard sometimes to let go and make your 12-year-old take responsibility for his own advancement.") I guess I assumed that "week" meant "consecutive days in a week" regardless of whether that meant six "days and nights" or seven. (For some reason I thought that the requirement itself limited the number of nights in summer camp to count toward Camping MB to be either 5 or 6, but now I see that is not actually in the requirement; I don't know where I got it from.) The fact is that there is nothing in the language of the requirement that prevents a counselor from interpreting a "week" to mean "seven days" regardless of whether those days are divided between two years of summer camp. On the other hand, I'd hope that by the time a boy has been to 2 summer camps, he has either exceeded or is very close to also having 14 nights of weekend camping anyway. (I realize this might be an issue in troops that generally stay over only one night per camping trip; ours generally does 2-nighters, which allows the boys to rack up 14 nights pretty quickly. In the other direction, in my part of the country, winter camping trips are often (though not always) cabin camping, and those don't count.)

I caught up with this thread a little late but here is my answer: I am a member of a troop committee. I will list the members by function performed (if any), as well as those positions that are currently vacant, and add it up at the end. It is possible there are other people on the charter as MC's but I am only counting the people I see actually doing anything or coming to meetings. Committee chair. Advancement chair. Advancement committee member who maintains the Troopmaster records, based on information from the Scribe as well as individual boys who are supposed to report to him on a regular basis when they have had requirements signed off in their books. Advancement committee member who coordinates merit badge "classes," which I know is a controversial subject, but there she is. Or rather, there she was, as she is clearly transitioning into "retirement" at this point, her son having just made Eagle and turned 18 (almost always a virtually simultaneous event in this troop), and she having turned over her paperwork to one of the other committee members. Treasurer (at this point a vacant position; if anyone is familiar with the children's books, "A Series of Unfortunate Events," that about wraps it up for our treasurer position. I think we are currently looking for our fourth treasurer in two years. In the interim, the CC collects dues, makes deposits and keeps the checkbook.) Camping/activities coordinator. I don't know if that is her "title" or if she even has a "title," but that is what she does. She makes all the arrangements, coordinates sign-ups and collects money for camping and other events, completes the tour permits (including making sure there is sufficient adult leadership, etc. She also seems to keep part of the troop records, overlapping a bit with the advancement record-keeper listed above. She also has decided, apparently, to take over for the "merit badge coordinator" on at least a temporary basis. Training coordinator. (Me; though fortunately for me, the new ASM's who have joined over the past year-plus have shown such initiative in getting the necessary training that I have not had to do much. I should do more anyway. Otherwise, I serve as sort of a free-floating committee member and fill in for board of reviews when needed.) Fundraising coordinator; though rumor has it, he has moved away. There is one committee member who was the camping/activities coordinator but currently has no apparent assigned duties; he has taken over as Cubmaster of the pack that shares our CO and his work with the troop lately seems to be limited to liaison work between the two units. Eagle adviser; though I have gotten the impression that this individual may not actually be registered with our troop. He does not attend committee meetings. Given the amount of work he does do with the boys, he SHOULD be registered. I know he was district advancement chair some time ago, and may still be registered at the district level. So by my count that's 9 or 10, one of which is officially vacant, one of which (the merit badge person) is unofficially vacant; and one of which (fundraising coordinator) is unaccounted for at present. The ASM's also attend committee meetings, I know they don't count and shouldn't necessarily be there, but there they are. I'd also say we have one ASM (a former SM) who probably should be registered as a committee member, because his role is really as the "elder statesman" of the troop and adviser to everybody, and does not really participate in the program itself. Is it a well-functioning committee? I'd give it about a B, with an A for good intentions and a C for actual execution. The roles between the committee and SM/ASM's sometime seem a bit muddled, in both directions. Some of the functions depend too much on whether a particular person shows up at a committee meeting or troop meeting a particular week, and with most people having busy schedules that doesn't always happen. The communication between and among the advancement committee and troop leadership is not always what it should be, sometimes resulting in slightly delayed advancements. (I know this because my son passed his Second Class BOR a couple months ago, should have gotten the badge at the latest at this week's troop meeting (the first of the school year), but the advancement chair didn't show up to give the report to the record-keeper who would then inform the SM, etc. etc. Why my son's handbook showing he passed his BOR (signed by the exact same advancement chair) is not enough for him to get the piece of cloth, I am not sure.) The one thing that is really holding things together at the moment is the camping/activities coordinator, she fills in to do what is needed, for example in addition to everything else I think she may end up coordinating our major annual fund-raiser. She also performed multiple functions for the Cub Scout pack of which I was ACM, and when the older of her two sons crossed over, she gradually became increasingly active in the troop, but now that both boys are in the troop she has left Cub Scouts behind and is the perpetual-motion machine for the troop. That's good and bad, of course -- it shouldn't all depend on one person, and there's a fine line between hectic and burned-out. But without a doubt, we would be in trouble right now without her.

After re-reading my post, I guess I should emphasize, I am talking about people who are truly, seriously, mass-murderously EVIL. There have been female leaders who have, at least arguably, done things that were "wrong," corrupt, incompetent or whatever. I remember when Indira Ghandi declared martial law and suspended elections (mid 70's?), so during that period one could have classified her as a "dictator." As I mentioned, Benazir Bhutto was chased out of office on corruption charges, though there were other forces at work as well. Even someone as genuinely good and even beloved as Golda Meir lost her position involuntarily, after many in Israel blamed her for not adequately preparing for an invasion (Yom Kippur War, 1973.) But that's not the list I'm talking about; that's the "nobody's perfect" list. I'm talking about the really, really bad list.

...and the recent female Pakistani PM whose name I can't recall Benazir Bhutto, I presume. She was Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1988-90 and 1993-96 and was ousted the second time on charges of corruption in her government. (The name and the corruption charges I knew by heart, the dates I had to look up. I also remember that the news stories at the time she was booted out did not make clear whether there was really anything to the corruption charges, or whether they were just an excuse for getting rid of her in favor of someone who was more military-friendly.) KS, I have one comment on your list of female leaders who dealt with conflict. (And I don't think this contradicts the point you were making, it is just something to add into the mix.) First I should say that this comment really has NOTHING to do with the roles of female and male leaders in Scouting. I have been watching the rhetorical tennis ball bounce back and forth on that issue in this thread, and if I have time later to write something, I will. So here's the comment: While there have been female leaders who engaged in conflicts that were "started" by someone else (either externally or internally), I am having a difficult time thinking of a female leader who, herself, "created" the conflict, in the negative sense. In other words, if you think back on the "evil leaders" of the past century or two, leaders whose thirst for power or national supremacy plunged the world into war, or created regional conflcits, or who slaughtered their own people, all the ones I can think of were (or are) men. (I am limiting it to the past couple centuries, because before that things were so different that historical comparisons become very distorted. So, yes, I suppose I could list Queen Mary I ("Bloody Mary"), but I think that goes back a bit too far to have much relevance.) Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Colonel Khadaffi (sp?), Idi Amin, Pol Pot... where is a female leader who could compare to any of them, in terms of evil? (This is obviously an incomplete list, and I kept off any names that could start an argument; I personally would also include General Pinochet of Chile, Ayatollah Khomeini and Fransisco Franco (who, at last report, is still dead), others might nominate Mao and Ho Chi Minh, but the point is not who should be in the rogue's gallery, rather it is that all of them that I can think of are men.) Though I suppose the answer to my comment might be, it isn't that a woman can't rise to this level of evil, it is more that they haven't had as much of a chance, and given time, women will make the list as well. That would be a whole other debate, and since it would just be speculation, is probably not worth getting into. It is just interesting that, up to this point, in recent history, the "bad list" seems to be an all (or almost all) male club.

In practical terms it seems unlikely that a troop would have a Junior Assistant Scoutmaster younger than age 16. But there is no minimum age requirement. Anybody have a current Scoutmasters Handbook handy? Doesn't it say a JASM must be at least 16? (In other words, 16 or 17?) It used to. I think it still does.

Backpacker says: Bush has stated numerous times that the US economy takes priority over its wilderness areas. This was also stated by Christine ToddWhitman, Sec of the Interior. For whatever it's worth, Christine Todd Whitman (usually just called Christie Whitman by those of us in New Jersey, where she was governor before joining the Bush administration) was the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, not Secretary of the Interior. She may very well have made statements about wilderness areas, I am not sure where the boundary is between EPA and Interior on that subject. Her main problem as EPA administrator was that she did not agree with the president on environmental policy (which would tend to be a problem.) Early on she made several statements that were contradicted by the president or vice president, eventually she learned to just say what she was told, and after about 2 years of this, she not surprisingly decided to return to her lovely estate in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, where the environment is very nice and nobody's drilling for anything.

Just as a personal observation: Over the past year and a half I have witnessed several 18 and 19 year old "Assistant Scoutmasters" and let's just say that while I am sure some of that age, somewhere, take their responsibilities seriously, I haven't seen one yet. I think back on my own situation and it confirms to me that going from "older boy" to "Assistant Scoutmaster" just because you were born more than 18 years ago, is a pretty big leap. I think the BSA should consider creating some "in-between" position, though I don't know what you would call it... Senior Junior Assistant Scoutmaster? No, that's no good. But maybe there is a good answer somewhere.

NW, an 18-to-20-year may also be Assistant Cubmaster. http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/leadership.html (This is an unofficial site but I have been consulting it for several years and have never seen them be wrong about anything; some of the information including the qualifications for positions appears to be lifted directly from BSA publications.) The basic pattern for troop and pack adult leader positions is that if the title has "assistant" in front of it, you have to be 18, but if it does not, you have to be 21. (The latter includes committee positions, including (as I just confirmed after not being certain), Pack Trainer.) But as for troops, you are correct, ASM is the only position available until the age of 21. Rooster, I know of a similar situation in the same general time frame. Within a month of each other in 1976 both me and my fellow JASM at the time turned 18, and he decided that since I was becoming an Assistant Scoutmaster, he would join the Troop Committee. Since I assume I would have heard about it later if there was a problem, I have to assume that he went on to serve on the Troop Committee without anyone giving him any trouble. That would seem to verify that either the age requirements have changed, or they were not being enforced. (Keep in mind that since that time the qualifications for most of these positions DID change, to allow women to serve in them, so maybe at the same time they reviewed and changed other aspects as well.)

Well, TwoCub, it seems to me that if I am going to post a response here, I have 2 choices, 1) Tell you things you already know, which doesn't help you much, 2) Evaluate the situation you are actually facing and your proposed solution. Since Option 1 has been ably handled already, I will go for Option 2: I think your proposed solution is creative, and a good solution.

I think I agree with scoutingagain, it is an interesting idea but I do not think it is necessary. For one thing, Camping and First Aid are already required, certainly Camping would be in the "Scoutcraft" category and I think First Aid would fall in there too. (At least as much as Bugling. ) In other words, the most BASIC Scoutcraft badges are on the Eagle-required list. Except for one, Cooking, and one can debate whether that should be back on the list or not. Having looked at the cooking requirements my son has to pass for First Class, I would say that they are making the boys learn almost as much about cooking as I did for the Cooking Merit Badge, back when it was required. The difference is that they are making the boys do so for one of the "basic" ranks, meaning they have to know cooking for Eagle, they just don't have to get that merit badge. NW says: I imagine there are people who are upset that Bird Study is not required. Well, it was, though just a bit before my time. (It was added in 1915 and removed in 1952.) See http://www.usscouts.org/usscouts/eagle/EagleHistory.html

No posts in this forum can be based on distortions of the facts? Is that a new rule?

A couple of months ago, on a whim, I decided to buy and try one of those Red Bulls. I was surprised at the price (I don't remember what it was, but I think it was more than $2 for that little can) and almost put it back without buying it, but I decided what the heck, you only go around once in life, it might be absolutely the best thing I ever had to drink, and it might be a good substitute for coffee. It was just about the most vile-tasting thing I ever had to drink. After the first swallow I figured, nah, it couldn't really taste like that. But as I drank more of it, I had to conclude, yes, it really does taste like that. I think I got about two-thirds of the way down the can before figuring out that it wasn't going to get any better, and chucked the rest. As for what the boys should and should not be "allowed" to drink, I guess it depends on how any given troop treats coffee and caffeinated and/or sugary soft drinks (colas, etc.) If boys are "allowed" to drink coffee or to bring Pepsi, I don't see any basis for prohibiting Red Bull. There should be discussions of what kind of beverages contain what substances and about the nutritional and other effects of each, but if you are going to "allow" the boys (and adults; I drink coffee on camping trips too) to take that information and make their own choices, that needs to be done in an evenhanded manner. And I don't think the relative quantities of caffeine make that much difference, at least not given the numbers posted. If something had 1 or 2 mg of caffeine, I could see permitting that while banning the drinks that have 24, 80 or 110 mg., but I can't see drawing the line between 24 and 80. I personally would not ban any of them.

Fuzzy Bear, what are you talking about?

Well, as often happens, when I finally figured out what I was going to say about this and go to write it, I find that TwoCubDad has said basically the same thing (including the exact same example I was going to post, about the devoutly religious boy annoyed at the generic nature of grace-before-meals at Boy Scout camp) in fewer paragraphs than I would have. To choose a non-religious example, what if little Johnny had been to Boy Scout camp last year and was dismayed to find that his tent-mate was kind of a slob, clothes and boots and everything wandering over the invisible line in the middle of the tent, and so on. This year Johnny went to Junior ROTC camp and it was a lot better, no wayward items, everything lined up right, etc. He's happier and has a better time. Isn't that nice? The difference between the atheist camp, on one hand, and the religious camp, the Boy Scout camp and the Junior ROTC camp on the other hand, is that the latter three generally do not have newspaper reporters nosing around camp trying to make a story out of kids going to the kind of camp that suits their needs, and trying to get the kids to say something "newsworthy."

Well, if the people selling the patch are telling the boys it is a collector's item and they will be able to sell it for more than they pay for it, that is wrong. Again I find myself responding to one of my own statements. I don't mean the patch necessarily won't be a collectors item or that a boy won't be able to sell it for more than he paid for it. What I mean is that there is no way to know whether these things are the case, and therefore it is "wrong" to say that they are. Apart from the "securities fraud" aspect of this, is a "values" issue. (Yes, I do believe in values.) I get a sense from Eamonn's post that a boy might get the idea that a portion of their Scouting activities involve some sort of get-rich-quick scheme. Thrifty, yes, investing yes, but I think I'd rather people learn about "speculating" somewhere other than in the Boy Scouts. What's next? Day-trading merit badge? Learning how to play the float, as part of American Business? How about Gambling Merit Badge? Nothing wrong with any of these things, for adults, but can't we let the boys be boys? (I know, I am making more of this than it's worth. At the moment, it entertains me to do so.)