NJCubScouter

Isn’t there a description in the Scout Handbook? I have “lent†my copy of the current handbook to my troop so I don’t have it here to look at, but my guess is that it’s in there. I do realize that it may be considered heresy to suggest that Scouts read the parts of the handbook regarding the advancement process to find out how to advance. The Scouts in my troop usually look at me like I’m from some other planet when I suggest they read the handbook.

And why does his pack number appear to begin with a zero? There should be a disclaimer that no frogs or caterpillars were harmed in the making of this advertisement.

I agree with that. It's almost like you have a small pack, made entirely of Tigers. (Just writing that makes me want to go running screaming into the night... and it isn't even night-time.) Last time I was a den leader (which was a long time ago), dens were supposed to be 6-8 kids. Ten and nine is borderline-manageable, but hopefully there is also an assistant den leader for each den. Nineteen together, even with two den leaders, is insanity.

I searched for French Scouting uniforms and did not see any that color. Maybe Scouts Canada? http://thirdottawa.com/uniforms/ And this: http://wiki.scouts.ca/en/File:Insignia-placement-RoverScouts.png But I see nothing there about painting your face in the colors of the French flag. Perhaps the young man in question had just met a female Scout from France and this was his way of expressing his admiration?

Maybe he is just trying to be helpful?

You and your facts.

As I assume you realize, the kids in that photo are definitely not from the US. I do not know where they are from. It's kind of interesting, the BSA has done everything they can to get almost every hint of red out of the Boy Scout uniform (supposedly because the boys "don't like wearing red") and here are these kids from somewhere wearing red uniform shirts. There are two kids who are the focus of this photo. The one with the hat (I'm assuming that's a girl but I'm not betting any money on it) is holding up two fingers on each hand. Two fingers is part of the Cub Scout sign (unless they changed it when they replaced the Cub Scout Promise with the Scout Oath), the other part being that your arm is vertical-ish, which hers are not, and you only do it with one hand. Otherwise, two fingers means "Peace" (more popular in the 60's and 70's but still recognized) and "V for Victory", although that usage (from WW2 I assume) is declining. Two fingers does not have any negative connotations in the US that I am aware of. The other kid is holding up two fingers with his right hand but I am not sure what he is doing with his left hand. It could be a version of the "heavy metal" symbol (index finger and pinky), but that could very well have yet another connotation in whatever country he is from. Added note: Here is an article about the "V" sign and its meaning in different countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign Since it is from Wikipedia, it is not guaranteed to be correct, but it looks ok. Apparently the insulting version of the sign as used in the UK and other countries, but generally not in the US, is made with the palm facing inward. The US versions, either V-for-victory or the peace sign (or the Cub Scout sign) are made with the palm facing outward. Added added: I especially like the part in the Wikipedia article in which our 41st president was visiting Australia and attempted to give the "peace sign" but did it backward, thus accidentally giving the insulting two-finger salute to a group of Australian farmers.

Well, I hate to be cynical... actually no I really don't, it's just the way I am... The things you list may be EVIDENCE that is being used by National to assure themselves that this thing will really work (and hopefully they are correct), but it is not the reason why they are doing it. They are doing it because they think that is how they increase membership and revenues. Just my opinion of course.

Not to mention that your average 10.5 or 11 year old probably doesn't even know how the trip was planned or how the site was selected, or who did it. They were asked "Do you want to go to x" and they decided they did, cleared it with their parents, obtained the required fee, if any, and signed up. If one is lucky, they have read the Tenderfoot requirements so they know they are supposed to present themself to their leader, prepared for the trip. And they actually do it. If one is lucky.

It would be nice if the BSA did not engage in EITHER "creative marketing speak" OR "lying." There is a fairly fine line between them.

I get bored just from reading that.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Only from Back Pack's perspective. And speaking of Crypt Keeper, Happy Halloween to all.

Alternate answer: Most don't, but you should probably make sure your tetanus shots are up to date anyway.

It's increasingly starting to feel that way. After all, I did recently join the Ancient Association of Retired-and-non-retired Persons.

Yes, Back Pack, good luck on your exams, even though you think people in their 50's are "old." Well, in a few months I won't be in my 50's anymore. Does that mean I will no longer be "old"?

I think that if a troop, as a unit, is sleeping outside, either in tents or under the stars, that is a camping trip. Our troop sometimes camps (every two years I think) on the property of a fraternal organization that allows us to use the property. The property is essentially just off "Main Street." From the camping area you can see the houses across the street, not to mention the organization's lodge. Otherwise it is fairly secluded, for where it is. So it's not exactly "backwoods camping", but it is still camping. A troop that only did that sort of camping would not have much of a camping program. Once every two years seems about right.

The BSA (meaning the corporation) is not a boy-led organization, nor was it ever intended to be. The same is true with the councils. Units are "owned" by the CO's, which also are not boy-led organizations. The BSA program with the largest number of units is Cub Scouts, and those units also are not boy-led. Troops are intended to be boy-led and Venture crews are intended to be youth-led. Boy-led is part of the programs in which it is age-level-appropriate, but it is not the governing principle of the organization. There is some youth representation in the councils and in National, which is a good thing.

I just noticed that this thread was in Forum Announcements; I am moving it to Open Discussion.

I'm not going to quibble about how big a disaster it would be, especially since this is all predictions anyway. But I think it's a bad idea. Five miles for boys, five miles for girls.

I am not talking about speculation, and I am not talking about some local CO's and Scouters running the program differently from the way it is prescribed by National. There has always been some of that and there probably always will be, regardless of whether any given program or unit is single-gender or mixed. What I am talking about is what I think National should do when it prescribes the program for girls in the "Boy Scouts." It should be identical. Same ranks, same requirements, same merit badges, same POR's, same organizational structure, same Philmont, etc. etc. etc. They have already said that girls will be able to earn Eagle, and I think it follows from that that the lower ranks and requirements must be the same as well. If, on Day 1, there is still a reference to "brotherhood" in the Scout Handbook or some other publication, I don't see it as a big problem. They make changes to the handbook just about every year, so they will clean up the few things that need to be cleaned up within a short time. I hope that National will soon make clear what their timetable is.

I think that if it is going to be separate, it HAS to be equal, 100%. Separate but less-than-equal would be, among other things, a public relations disaster of epic proportions.

Item 1: Then he is exactly the Scout who the first version of the change was intended to apply to. His EBOR will be after August 1, so it doesn't matter when his birthday is. (As opposed to Scouts whose EBOR was before August 1, who only get the palms if their 18th birthday is also before August 1.) Again, that assumes I understand this correctly. Item 2: There are, which is how my son (who had his EBOR near the end of 2009) has both the "regular" version of the Eagle patch, which was in his kit, and the "centennial" version, which was not.

I was writing an answer to #1 but then I realized that I'm not sure I understand the question. You say your son's application has been "sent on to National", that your son is still 17 and that he will likely have his EBOR after his 18th birthday. My understanding of the process (from the 12-15 EBOR's I have sat on, and from my son's own journey to Eagle) is that nothing gets sent to National until AFTER his EBOR. So has he had his EBOR yet or not? But I think he gets the palms either way. If he has his EBOR after his birthday I think he gets them under the first revision. If he already had his EBOR, then when the paperwork comes back from National, then he will be Eagle as of the EBOR date, and if the EBOR was before August 1 he will get the palms under the first revision, and he had his EBOR after August 1 he will get them under the second revision, because he has not turned 18 yet. At least, I think that's correct. As for # 2, I have not heard of that in our council, and I hope I never do. The Scout should be entitled to the Eagle patch even if he can never wear it.

I guess. But I don't think it's really fair to call them insta-palms. I think the Scouts who will get palms from these rule changes have generally spent the three months active in the troop and in a POR, and then some, BEFORE they make Eagle. It is typical in our troop to have kids make Life at 13 or 14, and then Eagle with time running out when they are 17. For the 3 or 4 years in between, these Scouts are active in the troop - we generally don't have kids who disappear for a long time and then come back to make Eagle - and they are generally serving in a POR for that entire time period, which is far longer than they need for advancement. In other words, they have had the same level of activity and have given (at least) the same amount of service to the troop as the kid who makes Eagle at 15 and then earns palms in the traditional manner. They're just doing things in a different order. Yeah, yeah.