Prairie_Scouter

Schleining, I hope for success by the new Pope as well, but I have to say this is the one Cardinal I had hoped would NOT be elected. Everyone will have their opinions on this, of course. John Paul II did a very good job with young Catholics, but turning his back on Vatican II and the good work done there to move the Church forward did a great deal of damage, I think. I hope for the best.

gkm, Our troop went on the Sea Exploring adventure in 2004. Although not the same as the Bahamas adventures, they share common traits. We also had fishing as part of the trip, but fresh fish is considered a "nice addition" to the diet for the week. They fully stock the boat with food; you never know if you're actually going to catch any fish. We didn't catch anything during our trip, but only a couple of the guys were really interested in fishing; ours was primarily a snorkling trip. My guess would be that if your Scouts did catch fish, the cooks for that day would be expected to do what work needed to be done, and that would include cleaning the fish. I's also expect that they won't know how to do it, so they'll have a good deal of guidance from the adults on board ship. I'd suggest that you just talk to the adult trip leaders, inform them of the situation, and see what kind of response you get. Most leaders are sensitive to these kinds of things and will make arrangements such that it's a good experience for your Scout. Also, if your son has a sensitive stomach, you might consider starting him on the seasickness medicine the day before he leaves. Our experience is that it takes a day or so to kick in, but after that, you're fine as long as you keep taking it each day.

acco40, I think if you read my 1st post, you'll see that the intent isn't to "require" less than the full uniform, ie, that they can't wear the full uniform if they desire to do so, but instead that we don't require the pants. In my later posts, I also mention that we encourage the Scouts to wear the full uniform if they are able to do so, that is, if they are able to purchase the full uniform. We don't have any restrictions on them not wearing the full uniform if that's their desire. And we certainly don't denigrate the full uniform in any way. So, if you're asking if there is some punishment if the Scout arrives in full uniform, certainly not. If you're asking what happens if a Scout arrives without his uniform shirt, at this time we generally just mention to the Scout that we'd really like them to wear it to the troop meetings; if it happens more often, we'll mention it to his parents as well, to remind him. Seems to work pretty well.

Although we're in the Midwest, we lucked out and only got rain, instead of snow (much of the Midwest got nailed by a late season snowstorm). We were on an outing in Northwest Illinois, and luckily, the rain cleared out on Saturday, so it was sunny, but still cold and windy. Nonetheless, the Scouts all seemed to have a great time, got our Dutch ovens back in practice for summer use, and had a fine campfire Saturday night. I know I don't remember much after I hit the couch after getting home Sunday, so it must have been a good trip! :-)

I'd suggest fabric boots as well, especially if you're planning on mostly shorter hikes, and not backpacking cross country. I've gone through a lot of boots in my search for the "perfect boot", and there isn't really one perfect boot. The fabric boots are generally less expensive and work well for short hikes where you're not carrying a lot. They can be spray waterproofed. Leather boots are generally more expensive, but provide better protection and better support for extended trips. Mike F is absolutely right on with the fit test. In addition, generally, fabric boots either fit or don't, ie, they don't change much after you get them. When fabric boots start to stretch out, etc., it's usually a sign that the boot structure is starting to break down. Leather boots, do soften up a bit over time and begin to mold to your foot during the break-in period. They may feel kind of stiff when you first get them, so they require some break-in period, while fabric boots generally are how they're going to be from the start. So, my suggestion for younger Scouts would be fabric boots.

Its Me, That's a good point. Whenever we set up hike or some other very physical activity, we always make a point of throwing in some lighthearted comment alluding to the idea that the leaders are MOST CERTAINLY invited to participate. :-) Eamonn, I'm a long time member of the "bad back club". Comes and goes, and as I'm getting older (in body, at least :-)), it's beginning to threaten my ability to camp with the Scouts. I've gone to extra pads under my sleeping bag for now. My own Her Who Must Be Obeyed will see me come limping home from some Troop meeting and will ask, "So, hon, been playing with the Scouts again?". "Yep!" That's usually the time she starts to question my own ability to be "mentally awake". :-) To answer another comment in the post initiating this topic, no, I wouldn't turn away a leader who isn't physically fit. Scout outings seem to sort of "filter out" the parents who either don't enjoy the outdoors or are just not physically up to the activity. Of those with a desire to help out, our more active parents tend to become ASMs, the less active become Committee members, so they all have opportunities to participate.

OGE, Here is what parents I've known have said. Let me preface by saying that we serve a diverse community. Some of our Scouts come from families who have all the benefits of high net worth, some live barely paycheck to paycheck, and most fall somewhere in between. We have families who do say that Philmont is just not something they can afford to participate in. We have families who just say "it's expensive". The cost of the uniform pants, on its own, is not a big deal, to be sure. But, when you add it to the other costs of Scouting, the multitude of other organizations that also need financial support, etc, it starts to look something like "the death of a thousand cuts" to them. A single Scout can spend a thousand dollars a year participating in outings, buying supplies, etc. Many of our families have multiple Scouts, and leaders within the families as well, so you could look at a family spending several thousand dollars a year on Scouting related expenses. Friends of Scouting in our area was recommending a donation of $150 this past year. It all adds up. Why it is that the pants become the item that's considered "non-essential", I don't know.

I can't even think of a response to someone who thinks that making a decision about uniform pants is an ethical decision. This discussion, which started as a simple poll of what units followed what uniform, has degraded into a commentary on, what, the character of those who may not follow the BSA uniform policy? No longer worth the energy.

I applaud anyone who is trying their best to stay or get in good physical condition. It's better for your overall health, and if nothing else, makes it more likely that you'll keep up with the Scouts on that next hike! :-) I find a certain amount irony in this topic. There are many, many Scouters who will go "to the wall" about issues of morals in Scouting, and others who will argue ad infinitum about how you can't be selective in which rules you follow and which you don't. And yet, nobody seems to ever bring up this part of Scouting. Is "physically strong" any less important than "morally straight" or "mentally awake", I wonder?

Sorry for the tardy response. Away on a campout. I'm wondering how this topic got from being a simple question of what uniform we require in our units to an implication that if we don't use the full uniform we are somehow lacking in ethics. And then accuse those who do so, or me personally, to be using the logic of children. And then, go on to stating that we are choosing only those "laws" that are personally convenient, as if the next step from not obeying the "law" on Scout pants will be to go out a break all manner of laws. We encourage our boys to wear the full uniform if they can, but do not require the pants. It's quite a stretch to go from not requiring uniform pants to being lacking in ethics and only obeying those laws we think are convenient, don't you think? And, no, we don't explain this to our Scouts as some sort of message of "we're breaking the rules and we don't care". We explain to them that we think it's great if they want to wear the pants, and some do, as well as some leaders, but we understand that some parents do not have the financial wherewithall, or the desire, to invest in yet more clothes that they will quickly outgrow or wear out. As far as this leading to breaking all sorts of other rules, we have yet to have a Scout come in and say "my mom doesn't want to buy the pants, and she says I don't have to learn how to tie a square knot, either". If we want to have a discussion about selective rule obeying, there's a lot of emphasis on the importance of "morally straight", but I wonder how many of us can go to a Roundtable, look at the collection of leaders, and wonder how many of them take "physically strong" to heart? Could be it's time to move on to another topic.

Somehow I knew when I answered a simple question about how different units enforce the wearing of the uniform, the answer just couldn't be accepted for what it was, a simple answer to a simple question. So, yes, our uniform usage violates BSA policy. And yes, the members of this forum, who tend to be fairly strict in their views of BSA and its policies, won't approve of that. But, yes, there are plenty of units out there who also don't require some parts of the uniform. So, yeah, we're breaking the rules. We do the best we can, sometimes we compromise where there is a need. We feel that we don't compromise on issues of substance. There are those who feel that everything is an issue of substance. Our troop is truly boy run; we spend a good deal of time mentoring our junior leaders. Our SPL was recognized at a recent Klondike as the best SPL at the event. I think we're doing something right, even without the pants.

Both our Pack and Troop require the uniform "from the waist up", that is, we don't require the uniform pants, although we do want neat and clean pants or jeans, that is, no sweats, running pants, etc. Dockers and jeans are ok. Funding is up to the individual families. Regards timing....For new Scouts, we don't have a hard and fast rule. Usually the Cub Scouts are excited to have the uniform on. We very seldom have a new Scout who doesn't have the uniform for the 1st meeting. For those that don't, we remind them regularly. Usually not a problem in the Pack; in Boy Scouts, we have a couple who I think are making a statement by not wearing their uniforms to troop meetings. I remind them regularly, but I'm not going to turn them away. The parents, especially in Cub Scouts, are happy or relieved that they don't have to spend the extra money for a variety of reasons. Neckerchiefs, suggested for all Scout activities; mandatory for Court of Honor, Pack Night, more "formal" events. In Boy Scouts, we do an inspection at every meeting for which they receive points for having components of the uniform on, which are worth extra treats at summer camp. It provides some incentive.

Schleining, >>I am dealing with it now as a Scoutmaster- got a new Scout that has his AOL, can not even tell me the Scout Oath without help. How in the world does that happen? Because they're 11! :-) I fully expect that we have to review those things with them, but we do it in the context of other activities so it gets drilled into them by the time they're asking to get things checked off for Scout rank.

We've had the "corner policy" in both our Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts for as long as I've been associated, but it's rarely executed because, mostly, the Scouts are trained that their knives, and the tools, can be deadly if not treated properly, and we treat it seriously, and mostly, as a result, so do they. So, it's there, but rarely, if ever, used. We will take away a Scouts tool privilege for a campout if he's abusing a tool or doing something dangerous with his knife. Whether he gets a warning first depends on the infraction. As far as whether they have their card with them, we don't demand that because, as others noted, if they attained a rank requiring the card, then we know they've earned it. The only exception is those Scouts that have a rank "in process", in which case we'll ask them if they've completed that requirement. Even in that case, we don't demand that they have the card with them.

OneHour, agree that even the CM isn't able to override the signoff of the Akela. Just wondering if the CM had been involved at all, since it's usually the CM that's involved in Scout matters, not the CC.

Hi Vicki, And thanks; I think you're right from a BSA organizational standpoint. I was referring more to the legal strategies currently being used in regards to BSA policy. Having lost in the Supreme Court, the current strategy seems to be having the affect of "punishing the Scouts" when it seems that what is desired by those taking such legal action is change at the national level. As I said, I don't think that that's a strategy that's going to have the desired effect, and really just makes things harder at the local unit, which really has nothing to say about national policy.

The CC does not even enter into the discussion on this (I recently completed a tour as the CC of a local pack). Signing off on the requirements for a Cub Scout is up to the Akela, whether that is the parent or the Webelos leader. The CC may, for some reason, not agree, but they have no "veto" over a signed off requirement. If the Akela is satisfied that the Scout has met the requirement, then that's it. And, the CC CERTAINLY has nothing to say about whether a Scout is going to become a Boy Scout or not. As Bob said, getting the Scout his advancements will probably require going through your local district and/or Council. If he had a Troop in mind, he can just go and join it; that shouldn't require any other intervention. Just curious, but where did your CM sit on all this? Issues relating to Scouts usually are routed to the CM rather than the CC.

Merlyn, Do you think it's possible to separate the actions of BSA's national office from the local Scouting units? Legal action taken against BSA national, as in the case of not allowing public schools to sponsor units, ends up hurting the local units rather than the national organization that created the policies. It seems to me that, having lost in court going against BSA National, the legal strategy now seems to be to take actions that have no real affect on BSA National but instead end up affecting the Scouts directly. That seems to me to be flawed strategy if the intent is to get change. Public schools present a more open environment where the Scouts may see different points of view; by forcing them out of public schools, they become more likely to be sponsored by groups who more actively support the current BSA policy, and make it less likely that the Scouts will be exposed to alternative views. Today's Scouts are tomorrows leaders. By exposing them to as much information as possible, they can make informed decisions as to whether to support the BSA policies as they grow older, or advocate change, based on their own beliefs. If legal action forces them out of these more open environments, a free exchange of knowledge becomes less likely, don't you think? Question. How does BSA's status as a private organization affect their hiring policies for their own employees?

There was a fairly well documented story on the news a couple of years ago about an asthmatic girl at school who shared her inhaler with a fellow asthmatic when that person was having a particularly bad attack and didn't have access to her own inhaler. The school praised the 1st girl for possibly saving the other girl's life, and then proceeded to suspend her on the basis of the school's zero tolerance drug dealing policy. I suspect that the administrators at that school felt the same way as the people in Eamonn's example, and this story further amplifies the need for care to be used when establishing rules. This, I think, applies especially to rules about Scout behavior. Putting together a very black and white rule may put the leadership in a position where they have, in effect, given away their ability to make "judgement calls". On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with establishing well-written rules that may duplicate some BSA rules, for the purpose of clarification and amplification. There's an old adage in sales that you need to make 3 contacts to make a sale. Sometimes Scouts, and Scouters, need to see things several times, perhaps written in slightly different ways with same overall intent, in order to have it "click". The main thing to remember, I think, is that BSA has been at this for almost 100 years, and has probably seen most situations and established rules and guidelines to cover them. Good training will help leaders know where they have a bit of wiggle room and where they don't. For example, in cases of suspected abuse, there is no wiggle room at all. In the case of, say, swearing, there's probably quite a bit of wiggle room to handle the situation as the leaders see fit.

>I do not see this topic as an issue at all, much as the Homosexual issue. Schleining, I think that these really are 2 separate issues. A strong case can be made that BSA membership is limited to those with a belief in "a God" because it is stated pretty clearly in the Scout precepts. Whether it's right or not is a different discussion, and one that goes on here fairly regularly not because we necessarily expect change, but in the spirit of honest intellectual discussion on important issues. The issue on homosexuality isn't specifically covered in the Scout precepts that I'm aware of; it's more an interpretation of other statements. And like any interpretations, these are open to debate and change. Once again, discussion here aren't because we necessarily expect change anytime soon, but there are those, like me, who believe that Scouting should be more "open". There are those who think otherwise, and various views can be discussed openly and in good spirit in these forums

I think that your idea was super, Trevorum. I'd just suggest that you look at the temperment of the Scouts involved and see if they'd see it as a fun remembrance. It's pretty obvious that you're not making anyone the butt of a joke; you just have to see that the Scouts see it that way. My own son puked out the window of someone's car on the way back from an outing, only he forgot to roll down the window first :-) It still comes up now and then, all in good humor, and he enjoys the mention of it, because we always handle it as a light moment. Like I said, it depends on the Scouts.

I agree with you. Problem is, those sorts of discussions have reportedly been going on for several years. The Chicago Area Council tried to build a fund to protect the property going forward, but wasn't successful. Maybe the sale and the challenge will get people to think more seriously about it; it'd be a shame to lose something with so much Scout history.

I can only relate my own experience. I have a daughter, 11, who is in Girl Scouts. They have about 7 girls in their unit. They meet every week right after school, at the school. The do a couple of overnight outings each year, a lock-in, and then some other trip that changes from year to year. They don't camp; rumor is it's mostly the moms who aren't into camping. This seems pretty widespread in our area, since the governing unit (forget what they call it) has sold it's campgrounds. My daughter's unit does have special events, sometimes built into their meetings. The Daisy Bridging was built into a regular meeting; because it was after school, I was able to leave work a bit early to attend. It was mostly moms, tho. They do have an end of year party at one of the parents' houses who has a pool, on a weekend. And, they have an annual Daughter/Daddy dance on a Friday night. Personally, I find them not as well organized as Boy Scouts, but that's just my perception from the outside.

Bob, Well, it may not have been "two-thirds", but you're right, and I'm sorry for carrying on about it. To continue..... >>Would you say that a driver who never learns the traffic laws, doesn't know the contents >>of Rules of the Road, and never takes a driving class would be as good a driver as one who >>does? Possibly with a great deal of experience and guidance, but highly unlikely. Do you think a driver who makes his own rules as he goes along is a good driver? No >>Because that is what we are discussing here. What you need to know to drive the car is in >>the Rules of the Road and taught in Drivers ed. All the driver has to do is learn them and >>practice them. They are not asked or expected to change the rules. I'll agree to the extent that the things you note will teach a person to drive. However, that doesn't make them a good driver, which is where I was headed with my comments. >>Unless you intend to do every activity in the G2SS you have no need to know every rule. >>You just need to know the rules for the activity you are doing. There are only 4 areas of >>scouting that are controlled by BSA policies. And almost all come down to the same >>thing...do what it tells you in the scout handbook. I think we actually agree on this. You are right that you only need to know the rules that you have a need to know. I was commenting in the bigger picture that there are plenty of rules, and agree that in the reality of everyday scouting, you probably only have to deal with a small subset of them. >>You raise a good point. If you get into someone else's car "you adjust" to how it steers, >>you don't go tinkering with someone els's car without permission. >>When you become a scout leader "you" adjust to the scouting program. From a personal perspective, that's definitely true, Bob. I was trying to make the point that while the program is what it is, you might change the presentment of the program a bit to meet the temperment of a particular group of Scouts. That doesn't change the content, and I wasn't suggesting that. Let's take the cooking requirements for Tenderfoot. Some Scouts might have no experience cooking, and for them, it's perfectly suitable to stick with the basics. But for Scouts that have some experience, it might be more fun to meet the requirement while doing some sort of "cooking contest" or something to get the work done but challenge them a bit while adding some fun. >>As far as the number of forms you have to do. If you are the Scoutmaster or assistant and >>you are following the program, then you have ZERO forms to fill out and about four that >>you have to sign. Out of curiosity Priarie Scouter, how many forms do you fill out? Well, you're probably right that I don't personally fill out that many. (I am the SM) Maybe instead of forms I should be saying "paperwork". I was referring to the amount of forms that I end up "processing" in some way or another, ie, forms that go through my hands. We've got tour permits, medical forms, troop meeting organizers, permission forms, some internal forms for tracking outings, financial statements, outing forms from the outing location (park space requests, etc),etc. As you've said in other areas, at least some of this is "self inflicted", but I think most of it is really necessary to successfully organizing the troop. Our troop is fairly small, so we don't have all of the suggested positions filled at this time. I would love to have an "outings chair" to take care of a lot of this, but right now we don't. Our troop went through some hard times a few years ago, and the previous Scoutmaster spent several years working on rebuilding the troop; I've been continuing that work, and while we're getting better every year, we still have a ways to go. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

I agree with Bob on this one. By following the guidelines in the program, you insure that every Scout is being treated equally when it comes to discipline, and this is important should the time come that you have to take some action on a Scout that the parents may not like. In our pack, we had the following sequence of events in case of a disciplinary problem. 1. We'd sit down with the Scout for a moment, remind him how important it is for him to be a part of the den, and that his behavior is slowing down the meeting. 2. Continued behavior (more than one meeting) would result in a talk with the parents and possibly having a parent attend all meetings with the Scout. 3. In those rare cases where the Scout is simply uncontrollable in a Scout setting, the Committee may decide to remove the Scout from the pack. In 8 years or so in the pack, we had this happen exactly one time (in a pack that averaged about 50 Scouts). You want to give the Scout every chance, of course, but the leaders aren't trained to be behavior experts, or psychologists. We're just parents, doing our best. Sometimes a Scout may just be beyond our capabilities to handle.