NJCubScouter

Well, I guess you are right. I mean, if I wanted to be a lawyer about this, I might point out that it says the fees are "negotiated", not that they are "reduced", which creates three possibilities, (1) they negotiated for a higher fee, which nobody would ever do, so forget that one, (2) they negotiated but agreed to pay the same fee as everybody else... in which case they probably wouldn't say anything about it at all, so that's probably out too, (3) it's a reduced fee, but I wonder how much? So I guess this is the second "something new" I learned in the forum this week.

Do you have a source for that statement? I guess I assumed that the LDS church paid the same fees to National, per unit, per youth and per adult registrant, as everybody else. But we all know what happens when you assume...

I am a little curious about this statement in the article: It's my understanding that, prior to this change, the LDS Church required boys in its units to move from a Boy Scout Troop to a Varsity Team when they turned 14 and to a Venturing Crew when they turned 16. I am presuming that some of these Varsity and Venturing members were/are still working on Star, Life and/or Eagle. So what the LDS Church seems to be saying is that kids in a Boy Scout troop can stay in the troop past the age of 13, in order continue advancing through the Boy Scout ranks. This raises a few questions. Say a kid makes Eagle at 16 as a member of the troop. Do they have to leave the troop immediately after making Eagle? Can they stay and get palms? Or what? And if they have to leave after they "finish advancing", that seems to fly in the face of all the hundreds of discussions we have had in this forum, about advancement not being one of the "purposes" of Scouting, and being only one of the "aims." Why not just let the kids stay in the troop as long as the BSA lets them, which is the 18th birthday? We had one Scout who aged out at Second Class. Another question is, while a Scout who is currently a Varsity Scout or Venturer (one of the "185,000 older young men") will apparently be able to register with an LDS troop "to pursue rank advancements", what about the kids who are currently still in the troop and below the age of 14? Will they have to leave when they turn 14? And what about kids who are not yet old enough to be Boy Scouts? When they join, will they have to leave when they turn 14? I know we have some LDS Scouters in this forum, maybe they can shed some light on this. The other thing that occurs to me is that if the LDS does not want to have Venture crews (or troops with Scouts aged 14 through 17), can't some other CO's get involved to accommodate the boys who are interested in these programs? This change only affects units chartered to LDS churches.

Barry, I never said they should quit. How I think it should be handled is that if the Scout meets the requirements of the MB as written, with nothing added or subtracted, he should get the MB. Since the MB requirements refer to Scouting activities, if the only way he can schedule these trips is with another troop, they count. But I also think that we still don't have all the relevant facts here. On one hand there is a statement by the OP of how he thinks the SM will respond to the proposal if he is asked, which implies that SM hasn't even been asked. Fine so far, but a paragraph or two later, a meeting with the council has already been scheduled. Does that add up to you? It doesn't add up to me. Nobody should be "attacking" anyone in this forum. I don't think I have attacked anyone. I am not sure the person who opined that the Scout does not "deserve" Eagle "attacked" anyone either, though it's a close call. At the same time I do not think HE had sufficient facts to make such a statement. As for there being "better ways" to make a point, that could be said of hundreds of posts in this forum. I do the best I can, I know you do, maybe we all need to try a little harder.

I have been an advocate for keeping our responses to a question, especially from a new Scouter or a parent, focused on the actual question that was asked. And I agree that nobody should be making a judgment that a Scout (who none of us know) "deserves" Eagle in this type of situation. He deserves Eagle if he fulfills the requirements. But I also think it is natural to raise questions when someone presents what seems to be an extreme and almost unbelievable situation. I think that category includes a situation where a Scout has been in a troop for 6 or 7 years and does not have 14 nights in a tent (aside from summer camp) - and apparently considerably fewer than that, because he now has to rush around to get the remaining nights in before the end of the year. This of course does not excuse the behavior of the SM/MB counselor in adding to the requirements.

I hiked that trail as a Scout as well. I thought it was 15 miles. When my son was a Webelos we did what I think they call the "Inner Loop", probably 3 or 4 miles. I drive right past there every day.

It is difficult to keep all the crazy people straight sometimes.

I suspect you know this: He did make money, but the manner in which he made the money resulted in a five-year stay in federal prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche#1986.E2.80.931988:_Raids_and_criminal_convictions I am not sure how much, if any, of the money he got to keep. Maybe that is in that article somewhere, but I didn't read the whole thing.

Well, at least they are up front about it. Since they are not really running a BSA program in their troop, but rather a program of their own invention, they at least owe potential members that information before they join.

The thing that strikes me about the Hiking MB, and probably the reason that so few Scouts in my troop earn it, is not the total of 50 miles hiking, but the requirement of a 20-mile hike in one day. That's a lot for one day. I don't think I ever did that. My recollection of my Philmont trek is more like 7-10 miles per day. I am certain that my son never hiked 20 miles in one day. I seem to recall a 15-mile historic trail somewhere but do not recall whether that was one day or two. But never 20 miles.

Actually, some would, some wouldn't. Your first sentence is not correct. The Girl Scout Promise: What I believe GSUSA has done (although I couldn't find it easily online) is to say that a Girl Scout who has issues with saying the word "God", whether because she is an atheist or agnostic or a member of a religion that specifies a different word, may refrain from saying the word or substitute a different word. (Or something like that.) But "God" is still in their Promise. I don't know about chapels or sites "reserved" for religious services. The BSA council camp that our troop usually goes to does not have a "chapel" either. I believe they have services in the dining hall. I remember that when I was a Scout there were camps that had religious services outdoors. So I don't think the absence of a "chapel" means anything. I see no problem with any non-governmental organization declining to sponsor any other organization, regardless of whether they "see things differently" or not.

My father was Scoutmaster for the last three or so years of my time as a Scout. The main thing I remember was the lengths to which he went to avoid any favoritism or the appearance of favoritism. Prior to "our time", the troop had for whatever reason developed the tradition that the SM, with the approval of the troop committee, appointed the SPL and ASPL. Around the time that my father became SM (probably just before), I was appointed ASPL for a one-year term. As the year was starting to wind up, my father made it clear to me that there was no way he was going to appoint me SPL, and that if I wanted to try to become SPL the PLC would have to make a proposal to the troop committee for the Scouts to elect the SPL, including eligibility requirements, term length and term limit if any. (We shouldn't have had to do it that way, since even then the "book" said SPL is an elected position, but we had to do it that way.) All of that happened, the committee approved it, and I ran and was elected SPL. The previous SM had appointed his own son SPL, but my father wasn't going to do it. I was probably slightly annoyed by that at the time, but I am impressed with it now.

It's just words. This Czech party is in fact an extreme far-right and/or neo-Nazi party, depending on which article you read. In the U.S. "Workers Party of Social Justice" would more likely be a "progressive" or "left-wing" party, but even here we had the "U.S. Labor Party" which had nothing to do with labor or the "labor party movement", and the "National Democratic Policy Committee", which had nothing to do with the Democratic Party. They were both vehicles for crazy-right-wing Lyndon LaRouche.

Grouping of "required" merit badges was actually much more prevalent in the somewhat-distant past of the BSA. I believe that in the 1959 handbook there are a number of different groups and you had to get certain MB's from those groups. I do not think this carried over into the 1965 handbook, which otherwise was pretty similar. I know that in the 1972 handbook the "structure" of required MB's was much as it is now - most required badges are "absoute" requirements while others were in small groups. I seem to remember "Swimming or Safety or Sports." Now it is "Swimming or Cycling or Hiking." And as we know, Camping was removed from the required list in 1972, to be restored in 1979. Personally I believe Camping should remain an "absolute" requirement. The number of nights of camping required is fairly small - one summer camp (6 nights) plus 14 nights, which can be done in seven weekends. (I know we have another thread in which a 17-year-old Eagle candidate apparently has not met this requirement and may not meet it, but I think that is very unusual. My son probably had 80 nights in a tent, not counting probably about 20 in cabin camping, and also not counting 7 years of summer camp, and my son was not even the most avid of campers, having turned down chances to go to Philmont as well as "extra" summer camps. One of his friends probably had (just a guess) more than 200 nights camping, including everything.) Where was I? Oh, the point is that because the number of nights needed for Camping MB is relatively low, it does not exclude other types of activities including backpacking. In fact, most nights spent camping on the trail while backpacking count for Camping MB anyway, it only wouldn't count if you are using a constructed shelter on the trail, which is rare in my experience anyway. So the bottom line is that I don't see any need to make Backpacking MB required, and definitely not as an alternative to Camping.

You learn something new every day, I guess. I did not know it was possible to have two CO's (or if I did know, I forgot - I say that in case someone finds a thread from 2004 or something in which the issue was discussed and I participated. It has happened before. ) My personal preference would be to avoid having two CO's unless there is a really compelling reason to have two - and I don't consider not wanting to tell Organization A that you have chosen Organization B to be a compelling reason. If both have something really different and important to offer, and the only way you can obtain those benefits is to have two CO's, that might be a compelling reason. Otherwise, what you are getting is the potential for more bureaucracy, maybe more paperwork (possibly having to run around getting two CR's to sign things), maybe some confusion, and as Stosh said, maybe issues in the future with politics between the two groups. As for "who owns the building", fred johnson put a smiley in front of that, but I think it is an important consideration. If nothing else, the CO needs to provide a place for you to meet, and hopefully some storage space as well. All other things being equal, your access to those things is generally more secure if you are dealing directly with the owner of the building. My son's Cub pack met in a public school, but (for reasons we all know and love) the school was not the CO, the PTO of the school was the CO. The pack applied for use of the school facilities under the auspices of the PTO, but technically, the PTO didn't actually have any greater "say" in who uses the facilities than any other group. From a facilities standpoint we could have done without a CO... well, actually from every other standpoint as well, except that the BSA doesn't work that way. This also reminds me of a nearby troop that (last I heard) was chartered to "Friends of Troop xx", met in a public school but had its storage space and parking space for its trailer at a church. If it were my troop, I would be concerned that there were too many ways for this arrangement to "go wrong", but it wasn't my troop, and to my knowledge it is still working.

In my limited experience with the issue, this seems to be part of a thorough physical examination of a teenage-ish boy. Just wait till he's a few decades older, but hopefully by that time he will no longer be living with you and you will no longer be aware of the intimate details of his medical exams.

Now I'm confused. Earlier you said your troop would "kick out" this 17 year old, regardless of the specific circumstances, because your troop/CO has a "zero tolerance policy", but now you are saying that the pastor and bishop (which I assume is the leadership structure of the CO) would probably allow such a person back in as an adult leader. This doesn't seem consistent to me.

Cool.

But what is "it"? Every pack and troop being required to accept girls? I can think of one major nationwide CO that would probably finally "walk" over that one. Or only in councils that want to do it? Or "local option"? Or what?

RS, from your first post I got the impression that you were talking about overnight/weekend camping trips at council camps. Later posts seem to be more about summer camp. So what are we talking about here?

As I said, I'll believe it when I see it. If everything that everyone has ever reported that "their SE said" or that "the Director of such-and-such said at Philmont" actually happened, the BSA would be a much different place. As for a "pilot program", so if the Lion Cub program is a model, does that mean that a few councils will have their packs and troops admit girls, and then over a period of years this will be expanded to more councils? (And even now, after several years, the Lions program is still not nationwide, or at least I don't think it is.) And will there be a local option, or will every pack and troop be "coed"? I know you don't know the answers to these questions, based on what some person posted on a Facebook page based on what their SE supposedly said, I'm just making the point that without the details, and without an official statement that this is happening, it is all just rumor.

Right. What I think actually happened here is that a media outlet became aware of a discussion that was going to happen at a meeting and, without knowing or understanding the background, sees it as a "new" issue, when it really isn't. Then someone posts the article here and people get wound up over it. Again. And again, and again. It may be that something really does happen soon, but I'll believe it when I see it. As I have said before, I remember about 45 years ago, when I was a Scout, hearing that the BSA was "discussing" merging with the GSUSA. Maybe they actually were discussing it, maybe they weren't. What I do know is that it hasn't happened yet nor has any other version of the "coed rumor" (in terms of Boy Scouts and/or Cub Scouts) become reality.

I would estimate that about half of our leaders and committee members remain with the troop after their sons age out, and I am not even counting people who stick around for a few months and then leave. Our last SM continued in his position for about 8 years after his son aged out. (The current SM has a son in the troop.) Our current CC remained as an ASM when his son aged out (about 12 years ago), switched to being a committee member a few years later, and has just become CC. Our past CC remained in that position for about 6 years after her younger son aged out. My son aged out about 8 years ago and I have remained on the committee, and I became Advancement Chair after my son aged out. There are other examples, but the point is that it is common practice in our troop.

I'm not sure this really means anything. So there are going to be discussions at National. My impression has been that National has been discussing this issue for well over a year. This just seems like more discussion.

Thanks for the information. I'm going to Roundtable tonight in the next town over, that will have to do for now. I'll have to skip Atlanta, even though I see our illustrious fellow forum member @@RichardB is running two of the sessions.