NJCubScouter

Good example - but it defeats your argument. BSA has all kinds of safety regulations that affect camping, to try to minimize the injuries and fatalities that occur. This is what I was talking about regarding "balance" earlier. If you try to avoid ALL risk, you can't do anything, and that creates other types of risks. But if you accept that a degree of risk is part of a worthwhile activity, you have the activity but take reasonable steps to minimize the risks. I think that is what the BSA tries to do. Do they always get it exactly right? No. But nobody always gets everything right. There's always room for improvement. Again, it's a balancing act.

Based on my fairly limited knowledge of aviation law, the best I can say is that you may be right to some degree. I have to say, though, that whenever I see another attorney making such an unqualified, assured statement about the outcome a legal issue that is still working its way through the courts (or maybe has not even gotten to courts, as I have not read of any lawsuits challenging such ordinances), all kinds of red flags start unfurling themselves. I have seen these kinds of statements turn out to be incorrect on more than one occasion. The fact is, we don't really know what the legal outcome will be. I can see the courts (or even the FAA, in which case the subject of pre-emeption would not even come up) allowing some local regulation. If, for example, 200 people want to use the same 1 acre of parkland to fly their drones around, or 500 people send their drones to take photos of the same thing at the same time, it isn't going to work. The drones are going to crash into each other, and you won't be able to take your dog for a walk in the park without taking a substantial risk that your dog, or yourself, will end up on the wrong end of one of the 200 drones that are flying around. It sounds like a subject tailor-made for local regulation to me, and I have my doubts that the FAA or the federal courts are even going to want to get involved, past a certain point. This isn't purely an aviation issue, it is also about normal everyday "traffic" that may come in conflict with those of us on the ground - as it already has. Just that one article Stosh cited about the guy who was killed by his own drone makes me think that there is going to have to be some regulation by somebody.

I think there is a balance to be struck between "fully participating in this century", and courtesy. I am not opining on where the balance should be struck where drones are concerned, because I don't really know anything about them. I have never had one intrude on my solitude or create a dangerous situation in my presence. Yet. But I think that as a society, we are still stuck in the mindset that "if it can be done, it should be done." And forget camping for a second. Do we really want a society where everywhere you turn there are things whizzing through the air delivering packages, spying on people to see what they are doing, etc.? And on that last example, we as a society are well on our way to giving up our last shred of privacy in the name of security, efficiency, etc. Is that what we want, just because the technology is there? It think it still does, and I think we still are. I think American society embraces innovation and progress more than it ever has before, though there are some points of resistance, some of which are good, some of which are bad. (I would give some examples but then I would have to move this thread to Issues and Politics, because of my own post.) I think the real problem is that as technology becomes more and more advanced, and we embrace it and use it more and more, it creates more and more conflict with our expectation of how life is supposed to be lived, and with some of the "values" that go along with that. Things like privacy, tranquility, reflection, prudence, things like that. I can tell hundreds or thousands of people what I ate for breakfast this morning, or at least I could if I had a Twitter account and/or more than 5 friends on Facebook, but why would I want to? And yet people do that, and more. That is a trivial example, but the ground-level air being filled with drones (see above) is another example. The fact that there is conflict does not mean that we should reject new technology, but it does mean that we should "manage" the conflict. I don't think that we are doing a very good job at that, as a society, and as the technology gets more and more wondrous (and potentially more dangerous to our values), the problem will only get worse. That's enough philosophizing for right now.

RichardB, thank you for posting this information.

Welcome to the forums Gerred!

My local daily newspaper does something similar on its web site. I think comments can only be posted through Facebook, so your real name gets attached to it. (Though I know people who have Facebook sites under fake names, which makes sense for the purpose of posting comments that you don't necessarily want to have associated with yourself, but defeats most of the other purposes of having a Facebook account. Having said that, I would be very happy not to have a Facebook account. I have one, but virtually never use it. Unfortunately that means I have Facebook-bots emailing me every couple days pleading with me to come back, read my notifications, respond to friend requests, etc.)

Stosh, let's go back to what you said: We all know what the meaning of "is" is, or in this case, "are", which is the plural of "is." It means, currently, like right now, and in the context of your sentence you were saying that the "bulk" (a vague phrase in and of itself, but it means at least a majority, if not more) of the Scout requirements are "identical" to those of Arrow of Light - a true statement - and that bulk of the Tenderfoot requirements are identical to those of Arrow of Light. That last part, about Tenderfoot, is not true. I just re-read the requirements. What is interesting is that if you COMBINE the requirements for the Webelos Badge and Arrow of Light, it is closer to the truth, but as of last year the Webelos Badge is no longer required for the Arrow of Light. And all those activity badges, Readyman, etc., no longer exist. They have been reorganized into "adventures", some of which are "core" for Webelos and Arrow of Light, and some of which are optional for those ranks. I didn't actually know most of this until a day or two ago, because I had no reason to. My last involvement with a Cub Scout pack was in 2003. But my experience from my pack from 199-whatever to 2003, and your (Stosh's) experience from 1994-1996, is irrelevant to what the current requirements are and how the Webelos/Arrow of Light requirements match up, if at all, to the Tenderfoot requirements. (Not to mention, even in 1995, awarding the Tenderfoot rank based on meeting the AOL requirements, was "subtracting from the requirements" for Tenderfoot, even if someone at council "approved" it.)

I would say that if this was his last camping trip, the choice would be worth the thought process your son is putting into it. But since it is his first, the real question is not which he is going to do, but which he is going to this time, and which he is going to do next time. To me that is more of a coin-flip decision than a second-guessing-type decision. There is no wrong answer, because one activity will not preclude the other, it will just postpone it.

Comments on articles on the Internet generally are not the place to go to find wisdom. I find the New York Times to be an exception, but I am sure some here would attributed that to the NYT's reputation for being "liberal" - a reputation that is greatly exaggerated.

As with most of these kinds of stories, I have to wonder whether we are getting the entire story. Although in this case, it is difficult to imagine what facts would justify the firing of these staff members. They tried to save the eagle and did not succeed, but there is no doubt at all about what would have happened if they had done nothing, or even waited for the camp administration to decide what to do.

That is true for Scout. I do not think it is true for Tenderfoot, and hasn't been true for years. (It was the case when I crossed over, 47 years ago, when there wasn't even a "Scout" badge.) It is even less true with the recent changes to the Boy Scout requirements.

Is anyone arguing that a Scout going for Canoeing MB should not learn to canoe first? Or that the testing should not come after the Scout learns canoeing? Or that learning canoeing means that the Scout knows how to do the things called for in the requirements (at least the requirements that say "demonstrate" as opposed to "discuss", etc.)? This is one of those threads where people seem to be disagreeing about something, but I can't figure out exactly what they are disagreeing about.

Condolences to all.

Does anybody have an old edition of the Handbook handy? I believe all the MB requirements were in the book. Last night I looked at the oldest one I had handy, the 1959 edition, but they weren't in there, so it would probably have to be at least one edition before that. Or a Requirements book would help. I also looked on the Internet and found a site that had requirements for a few merit badges from 1911, but I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. What would be useful would be to compare the requirements for Canoeing MB from sometime in the 40's through the 60's, to the requirements of today. I have a feeling I know what you will find, and an opinion as to why, but it's probably better to get the actual answer first.

The cynic in me wonders about whether there is a relationship between the naming of this building after the head of a particular organization, which is the CO of the largest number of BSA units in the country, and the fact that about a year ago, that same organization announced that it was reconsidering its relationship with the BSA and then announced that it had decided to stay. Just wondering.

Based on the last few posts, I am locking this thread. Stosh, when we say that forum members should act "Scoutlike", we don't literally mean that adult men should act like 12-year-old boys. This thread was going nowhere constructive anyway, now it's just gotten stupid. If any of my fellow moderators feel this action is incorrect, they are free to reopen the thread.

My wife would beg to differ. At times when we have been "between dogs", I have tried to get having a dog put in the "desirable but not essential" category but the "between dogs" period never seems to last very long. When we had multiple children still living at home, the number of animals living in our home started growing, but I managed to put a "one animal at a time, and it's a dog" rule into effect. Needs vs. wants in action, I guess.

Beavah, I think you are drawing a distinction that doesn't really exist, or perhaps a better way of saying it is that if the advancement requirements are applied properly, it doesn't have to exist. I just read the requirements for the Canoeing Merit Badge, since that is the example you used, and it seems to me that if you can meet those requirements (particularly # 8 through 12, which are the "demonstrate" requirements), you have learned how to canoe properly. If, for any particular merit badge, that is NOT the case, then the answer is to get the requirements changed. It seems to me that you are suggesting that there is some philosophical distinction between learning the subject matter and passing the requirements, which is not supposed to be the case, and is likely to cause confusion in the mind of someone who is less familiar with the advancement program. The requirements are designed to allow the Scout to demonstrate that he has learned the subject matter. If the Scout is "passed" on the requirements without actually satisfying them, that is a different story. But in that case, the "fault" is not in the requirements, it is in the person signing off on the requirement for the particular Scout.

Those are legitimate questions and concerns, but I don't think you are going to get a meaningful or accurate answer here, if indeed a single answer exists. My guess, and it is just a guess, is that it is council-to-council and probably not uniform even within the councils. I am also going to go out on a limb here and guess that whatever training the young ladies from Hooters may have had, they probably did not fill out BSA Adult Leader applications or go through a background check.

If what you are suggesting is that the BSA should be bringing the national-level training to "us", rather than expecting us to go to New Mexico or West Virginia, I agree. At least this one is located in the same half of the country as me, though I still don't think I will be going there.

Qwasze, that's very funny, I said sarcastically. DuctTape, let's keep in mind that Stosh was apparently talking about a hypothetical Scout, so I think we need to be cautious about ascribing details to a nonexistent person. And since the Scout is hypothetical, we are all left free to wonder whether the name-calling by a hypothetical adult leader of this hypothetical Scout is really just a matter of the adult's perception.

Maybe it is the combination of volunteers at a camp, and promotional activity that is the problem. If there is a problem. We still don't know exactly what the moms were complaining about. They evidently don't like Hooters, or their own perceptions of what Hooters is, but we still don't know exactly what their concerns are. This thread has basically been 11 pages about nothing... and counting?

Sounds like more name-calling, like we were talking about in the other thread. Not to mention that you would treat a boy as if he is an infectious disease.

But when your company does volunteer work in someone else's house, so to speak, do you hand out your corporate paraphernalia to the beneficiaries without asking permission? And when you get back to your office, do you post pictures of your volunteer work on Facebook, to call attention to your good works? Maybe you do. I'm just asking.

Congratulations to your son and his parents! That's an interesting matched pair of questions there. I have sat on at least 15 EBOR's and have never heard that one asked. I'm going to have to ask my son how he would have answered that. Maybe I should also ask myself how I would answer it, and I never even made it to an EBOR.