NJCubScouter

Interestingly, the youth application (http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-406A.pdf) states the joining requirements a little differently: Stated that way, it is clear that a youth must have completed fifth grade AND be 10 years old to meet the eligibility requirement under that option. I agree it should be clarified. It should be stated exactly the same way in every official publication and web site, and it should use bullet points (or numbers as Stosh has in his post) to make clearer that there are three options, all of which have a specific age (either 10 or 11.)

Rather wide range there. I would take them literally, prepare something that will take 12.5 minutes and then ask if there are any questions.

Wouldn't it have been, oh, I don't know, courteous, to tell the council what you intended to say so that they could find someone else? I have no reason to doubt that what you said was absolutely true, but even so, if funding was cut in half then someone, somewhere experienced a reduction in real program and/or services. Unless the SE took the cut out of his own salary, which is unlikely.

I agree with you that it is not "mad" (i.e. crazy) to require married couples to tent separately. It is unusual, but as I said, it is a matter of personal preference. But as far as your post, I just didn't see what family camping vs. Scout camping had to do with it.

Is this a dinner-type thing or a small meeting? If it is a meeting, what is the purpose of the meeting? Have you been given any parameters as to what you are supposed to talk about? Do you hold a particular position or have some particular experience that led you to be asked to make this speech? It might be a good idea to speak from that perspective. But again I think more information is needed about what you are trying to accomplish.

The thought had crossed my mind. Maybe all the moderators will be working for him someday.

Reminds me of the old song, "I don't like spiders and snakes." Long before your time, BeastlyGamer.

I'm glad some of you here know what BeastlyGaming is talking about, because I sure don't.

I never would have bet that a thread could go from transgender Scouts to marauding moose in only 511 posts.

I don't think people should get hung up on one word like "nobility". It is not a word I generally use but I think we can all agree that the people mentioned in the original post - Bill Hillcourt and Joe Davis, though I had never heard of the latter before this thread - are worthy of admiration.

I would be curious to know whether anyone in this forum has had a GOOD experience with the Lions program, or knows a pack that has.

separate tents for a married couple thats well mad. Why is it? This is scouting not family camping. I figured I was not the only one who did not remember this exchange between DadScouts and Tyke on the second page of this 26-page thread, so I "quoted" all of the relevant posts. BSA policy permits married couples to tent together. Although there has never been a married couple among the leaders in my troop, I suspect that most married couples would choose to share a tent (like Stosh and his wife) and that most units would not have a problem with it. It does not matter whether it is "Scout camping" or "family camping." It is a matter of personal/unit preference.

Well, overall it does, but I thought we were focusing on the mention of "boys" and lack of mention of "girls" and whether that somehow prohibits the BSA from having programs that include girls. Which it has had for 45 years.

It sounds to me like Fred's pack does not want to have a Lion den regardless of how many potential leaders step up. Which I can understand. If I were a pack-level leader today, I would probably be taking the same position. Tigers are young enough, in fact some of them are too young - and I would say that included my son at the beginning. The idea of going a year younger and including kids who are barely past being toddlers - and potentially including kids who have not even reached their fifth birthday until a month into the program - is mind-boggling to me.

It would take a lot of those Benjamins because you would be committing to rebuilding the camp every time there is a really heavy rain and the floods wash pieces of the camp down the Delaware River. I think the camp has basically been destroyed two or three times in recent years.

That's too bad. I knew it had been closed for a few years but had not heard it is up for sale. I went on a weekend camping trip there, probably about 12-13 years ago. Most of what I recall is that it was very, very rainy all weekend (in other words, just like almost every camping trip this troop goes on, except when it snows) and that at the beginning of the somewhat rickety stairway from the street level down to the "ferry" was a spiderweb with the largest spider I have ever seen in my life. Little-known fact, one of the two islands that make (er, made) up the camp is in New Jersey, though the parking lot and access to the camp was from the Pa. side of the river. I am not sure who would want to buy such a flood-prone piece of land.

If you do tell your council that you do not wish to have a Lion den, I would be curious to hear the response, given the direct vested financial interest of both the council as a corporation, and individual professionals, in increasing membership numbers. ("Who are you, a mere volunteer, to decline to do extra work for free so I can make more money?" Not to be cynical or anything.) From the first day I heard about dens for Kindergartners, I knew it was going to be a problem. I don't have any direct contact with it though, since I have not actually been a "CubScouter" for almost 15 years.

I meant to say this a few days ago, but in addition to the 12 words themselves, I think we need to look at the descriptions in the Scout Handbook. There is no "Responsible", but here is the description of Trustworthy (actually from the 11th edition as it was the first thing that came up on Google, though I can't imagine it has changed much): People can depend on him. That takes in at least a portion of "responsible", doesn't it? Trustworthy is not just about not lying, it means being dependable. A Scout does what he says he is going to do, and if you want to extend that a little, a Scout does what he is supposed to do. Sounds responsible to me.

It could. This really isn't a legal issue. It's a what's-best-for-the-organization issue, or if you prefer, a what's-best-for-the-current-members issue, or both.

Other than your implication that "tort law" means "contract law", when in fact "tort law" means "NOT contract law", I agree with your council's attorney's opinion. Courts generally interpret "purpose" clauses in corporate charters broadly. (Not to belabor the tort/contract point, but if someone hits you with their car while driving in a careless manner, or allows an unsafe condition to exist on their business property and a customer slips and falls, or someone punches you in the arm without justification, etc. etc., those are torts. If a dispute involves a contract, it is generally not a tort, although there are some legal claims that are hybrids of the two. This post does not constitute legal advice.)

blw2, I think those are good guidelines, but this is a troop of 11 kids, 7 of whom have been Boy Scouts for less than a week. The realistic options are kind of limited.

I understand what others are saying about "let the Scouts decide", but if the result is that the Tenderfoot and not-yet-Scout with three months in the troop are their own patrol, it seems unlikely to me that they are going to get the benefit of the patrol method. Maybe the answer is to have two patrols of 5 and 6, or 5 and 5 with an SPL if the Scouts decide to have one. Maybe the SPL could keep his title but in effect serve mostly as the troop guide for both patrols. There really is no need for an ASPL position at this point; that Scout should be in a patrol.

The DAC was adding to the requirement, which says the Eagle candidate must "give leadership to others." It does not say who the "others" need to be. So I guess the best answer to Scouting4Ever's question is, it depends on whether the district is applying the requirements the way they are written, or adding to them.

The idea of "challenge and complexity" (see my previous post) can apply to construction-type projects as well. I remember there was once a Scout who wanted to put up a flagpole as his project. The Scoutmaster said it was "not enough", other elements must be added. Instead of expanding the size of the project, the Scout quit, went to another troop, and got the project approved. (Our SM was surprised that the district approved it.) Which also reminds me, on the other hand, of a kid whose project involved some improvements at a camp owned by his church. It was about three projects' worth of work. It was gently suggested to the Scout that while it would really be great if he did all that, he had the option of doing somewhat less. He did the whole project anyway. His attitude was that he wanted to do something significant for his church and the kids who use the camp, and the "Eagle project" aspect was almost incidental, which is not an attitude you see every day. Not surprisingly, he was NOT one of our last-minute Eagles, and I believe he holds the troop record for palms, 4 or 5 I think.

I am not sure that there is a "lasting impact" requirement. The first article I linked-to above says there is no "permanency" requirement. Is that the same thing? I guess it depends how you define "lasting". If it means "forever", then no, that is not required. If it means "lasting" for a significant period of time, well, even a "once and done" blood drive DOES have a "lasting" impact. That blood will save and improve lives for, well, I do not really know enough about blood transfusions to say; months? years? A significant impact, either way. So I don't think it's necessarily an issue of "lasting", its an issue of planning, development and leadership. The "turnkey" blood drive where the Scout did not do much more than make a phone call, and then stand by while paid professionals did their regular work, isn't going to do it. But to quote the Guide to Advancement, "In the case of a blood drive, for example, elements of challenge and complexity can be added so there is a clear demonstration of planning, development, and leadership."