Proud Eagle

Sorry about the recent volume of somewhat unorganized posts from me lately. I will see if I can do better as the week progresses. Unfortunately I am a bit sleepy at the moment so this post probably won't make us much since by the time the sun comes up as it seems to make to me at the moment. Bob, I agree that is how things should work under optimal conditions. Unfortunately, many of us live in places with far less than optimal conditions. Your model will fall apart if for say three years you increase the number of troops recruiting by 25% (a not so unrealistic number during a new unit push, at home there have been years when the number of troops actually doubled)per year without a similar increase in the number of Webelos bridging to Boy Scouts. It would be great if the desire/demand for Scouting was constantly increasing everywhere in such a way that it required new units to be formed to meet the demand. However, just because that would be great in the abstract, doesn't mean it is good to have new units being formed in all real situations. New units should be formed when there is a real need for additional capacity or capability to provide Scouting to boys, not when one extra unit is needed to reach the district goal for the year. Let me start with a bit of demographics. My home town has about 25,000 people. That is virtually the same number it had in 1990, and that was only a little higher than the number in 1980. The population has stagnated. There is still economic growth. Average income increases, home ownership increases, and average home value increases. However, the number of persons per family, and the number of children born to each woman, have been on a constant decline. The under 18 portion of the population has actually suffered and continues to suffer a significant decline. The average age is increasing far faster than increases in life expectancies. Due to these facts several schools have been closed. I know at least 4 that have closed in 10 years without being replaced. In all cases there was only minimal need to expand capacity at other schools, because the total number of kids in school was dropping. Most new troops started in my home town don't last more than two years in reality. There are a few that have lasted longer in recent years. However, one of the old reliable troops folded up during this same time period, so that freed up quite a few potential recruits to join some of the new units. If that old troop hadn't folded, some of the new units likely wouldn't have survived. Ironically, it was aggressive recruiting by a few other new units that sapped that old units strength. Unfortunately, about half of those aggressively recruited Scouts dropped out about a year later when the unit that recruited them folded. Now in the end things essentaially balanced out. One old troop died, one new troop got itself on solid footing, another old troop continues on, and one or two other new units struggle to survive. The problem is, in this sort of survival of the fittest, recruit hungry environement, many boys are promised a Scouting experience, only to have that promise broken when the unit they joined collapses. Many of those who are caught in such collapses then lose faith in Scouting and do not find another unit. Despite this persistent problem which actually decreases the total number of Scouts that remain in Scouting for the full term, no one seems to be willing to admit there is a problem. There is no sense, in my mind, in trying to increase the number of troops, when every troop in town is really no more than two bad recruiting years away from total collapse. This makes even less sense when the pool of Scouting eligible boys is shrinking. The fact that the vast majority of the new units started fail, should be something of an indicator that maybe starting more new units isn't such a great idea right now. Someone should also have taken note of the fact that many times when these new units are started, it negatively impacts the number of recruits going into the other units in that year. Someone should also have noted that fewer of those who join these new units stay in Scouting, than those that join existing units. (Actually, many of the unit leaders have noted this. Unfortunately, no one with any pull in the district will be bothered to hear such unproductive complaints. Instead the unit leaders get griped at for not recruiting more boys, when the Webelos they were counting on to be the core of the recruiting class got swept into some new, here this year, gone the next, troop.) Now part of the problem is also due to recruiting and retention by the units. Unit leaders are very reluctant to invest time and energy into relations with packs, since it seems about every fourth year the charter orgs for those packs get talked into starting their own troop, or the DE or DC will swoop in and tell the cub leaders that they should take their Webelos to some other troop because it is their current pet project, or any number of other unecessary complications that seems to crop up. This shouldn't however, cause unit leaders to give up on recruiting. Yet many have nearly let themselves reach the point of hopelessness over the issue. Retention is also a problem. While the small unit size makes it easy to see who isn't coming to meetings, and to know who has dropped out, this doesn't seem to really be translated into a system for bringing those who have become inactive back into the program. Another problem is the program delivery is very inconsistent from year to year in many units. Many units, after a couple years of poor recruiting, start to loose the ability to run a good new Scout program, simply because they haven't really had the need to do so, and begin to forget the skills and ideas needed. Other units loose many older Scouts, because they can't do activities that will hold the interest of the older Scouts. Some of these units may only have 3-4 older Scouts, but they may all really be interested in high adventure. Unfortunately, since older Scouts are often the bizziest, that means the unit would be stuck with trying to plan high adventure activites that only 2 Scouts would likely go on. This wouldn't be much fun for the leaders or Scouts. So those older Scouts begin to drift away from Scouting and find other things to do. Here is one real world example: the last time my unit sent a contingent to Philmont, it was necessary to partner with another unit to find enough youth and adults to fill out the group and provide sufficient leadership. This year teh troop is going to send a group to Philmont again. This time the troop has enough youth and adults to fill the group, and to provide leadership. Unfortunately, there aren't enough leaders available to also do a summer camp trip this year. Fortunately, another unit was willing to agree to take the new/younger Scouts from my troop with it to camp, as what you might call "provisional" members. (The troop that is taking the Scouts to camp has several older Scouts that would likely be interested in something like Philmont, but it doesn't have enough older Scouts to make it practical to focus on high adventure, and it doesn't have enough leaders to do two types of programs.) Now you might think that everything is working out just fine with these sorts of arrangements, but I will tell your from experience that creating provisional crews and thing like that is not exactly optimal. Just one exaple of the problems would be when the adults of one unit are used to using the directing style while the youth of the other unit are used to the adults using the supporting syle. That leads to unhappy youth leaders, unhappy adult leaders, and somewhat confused followers. (Yeah, I remember, we don't really like that term, but I couldn't think of a better one right now.)

Bob, you may be right on a few of those points. Ultimately, my opinions are based on my own experiences as youth unit member in Cub Scouts and then Boy Scouts, and now as an ASM for a troop. My opinions also reflect what may be local problems, rather than programatic or nation wide ones. Bob, in another thread, you mentioned how excited you are that your troop is now offering a programs targeted at three seperate typses of Scouts: new, experienced, and older. Now, I happen to think you have reason to be excited. Such a system is providing a better opportunity to the Scouts. Having a program that best fits the needs of each individual Scout is much more likely to happen if you can break it down into several age levels. I imagine you would also admit that doing something like that would be far less likely in a unit with 5 members. It could be done in theory, but I have never heard of a single unit of that size that has, which indicates to me it is unlikely to happen. Tell me this, how can a unit with 5 members offer opportunities appropriate to the skills and interests of an older Scout and the skills and interests of a new Scout? How can such a unit put on a program that contains multi-day backpacking in the mountains, or other high-adventure of interest to the older Scout? How can that same unit offer the new Scout an experience equivelant to that offered in a new Scout patrol in a somewhat larger troop? (I certainly don't think you will be able to give every new Scout a chance to be patrol leader for a month.) The argument I am making isn't that there shouldn't be small units, or that new units shouldn't be started. Both new units and small units have a place in Scouting. What I am arguing is this: in most cases, an individual Scout has a greater opportunity to gain the full benefits of the Scout experience in a somewhat larger size troop. (By larger I mean a troop large enough for a few seperate patrols, and preffereably large enough to support all 3 patrol types, but not necessarily one of the 200 member mega-troops.) If new units are necessary to get more boys into Scouting, then I guess that is what must be done. However, this doesn't do anyone any good as far as I can see if those new units can't deliver a real Scouting program. I know in my local area there is no support (none, not a little, not less than ideal, none, unless you count the periodic "go recruit, we need more boys in the district") from the professional staff or the district or council volunteers in the area of Boy Scout recruiting. In fact our DE has even come out and said that he has chosen to help Cub Scouts recruit, because Boy Scout troops should be able to handle their own recruiting. While he may be right that Cub Scout packs require more help, he is clearly incorrect in thinking that Boy Scout troops have no need for assistance. (Yes, I know, today's Cub Scouts are most likely going to be tommorrow's Boy Scouts, so Cub recruiting does help Boy Scout recruiting in the long term. This isn't much comfort to the units desperately trying to find a fifth boy so they can recharter.) It seems that some of the effort being put into starting new units might be better spent doing recruiting at PTA meetings, passing out flyers after church services, talking to Scout age boys in school, or helping troop leaders find Webelos dens to recruit and helping packs find out about the various opportunities for the Scouts bridging to Webelos. (The current system seems to be that if a pack or den leader asks for information on local troops, they are "assigned" to a troop, most likely a new unit, or one that is known to be at risk of folding due to lack of boys. Information is not provided about other units, particularly if they are healthy, established units, with a long history. Fortunately for my troop, (one of the older ones in the area) and for some of the new Scouts (who now have access to an established, if sometimes flawed program, instead of being stuck in a unit with no traditions, no equipment, and adults that are just as inexperienced as the new Scouts), some of the den and pack leaders have made a great effort to find other options despite the lack of help from the district. This is in part due to the fact that our district (both district volunteers and the pro) doesn't exactly do a good job of fostering a good relationship between the district and unit level leaders. I think part of the problem locally is that our past SE (he resigned this past weekend, there is quite a bit to that story, but here isn't the place and now isn't the time) was very good at holding DEs acountable for the quantitative issues like number of volunteers, youth, and units. However, he was not very good at holding the DEs accountable in any qualitative manner. A Scout that was part of a unit that didn't have the resources to carry out the program was just as good for his performance reviews as a Scout that was enjoying the full benefits of Scouting. I know that the DEs aren't directly responsible for the quality of the program, that is a unit leader issue. However, when the DE is being evaluated in large part on numbers, it is very easy for them to start pushing numbers oriented goals and objectives on the district volunteers. The district volunteers then start thinking more about numbers and less about providing the support to the units needed to carry out the program. I don't really blame any one person for these problems. It is really a problem that goes beyond any one person. Everything from institutional heads, to unit leaders, to district volunteers, and even the council staff are involved. There needs to be more focus placed on qualitiative, rather than quantitative issues. If you can't support Scouting in lets say 50 units, what is to make anyone think they can support an effective program in 100? I am certain there are places that do not share our difficulties (at least I hope there are). Let me add something that should have been included up above. I realise part of this is biased due to my experiences as a youth. I had lots of fun with my troop. I really liked my troop, and I still do. However, I feel I was in many ways cheated by the size of my troop. When I was a patrol leader, I didn't really get to fully experience that because often the troop would just combine into one patrol in the field, since there were usually only one patrol's worth of Scouts in attendance at events. I also felt cheated because the PLC didn't really happend they way it was supposed to, becuase it simply didn't work with the number of Scouts, patrols, and youth leaders we had. We tried it, we wanted it to work, we just couldn't figure out a way to make the PLC work. Instead, we ended up using the whole troop as a PLC. Later, as SPL I again felt cheated, because there really was no PLC at all since we were down to one over-sized patrol. I didn't get to face the challenges that many SPLs do, and therefore I missed out on the opportunity for leadership growth that comes with such challenges. I never really realised what I had missed, until I went to Jamborree. At Jamborree, I got to see the patrol method in action, the way it is supposed to be, for the first time. Patrols cooked and cleaned together. There was a chain of command. Each patrol had a distinct identity, beyond just being a part of the troop. Unfortunately the short duration of the Jamborree prevented the developement of many positive features of the patrol method, but I could see it happening. I felt sort of like a kid in a cany store. Here was a chance to experience what I had read about in the various youth leadeship books. In the end however, I didn't really know quite what to do as SPL in that situation, since I had never really had a chance to try it before, and as such some of the Scouts in attendence probably didn't get as much out of their SPL as otherwise would have been the case. Looking back on things, I see many of the problems in my troop being caused by a drop in number of Scouts. This was in part due to retention problems. It was in part due to recruiting problems. It was also in part due to the district pushing new units that swallowed up the traditional recruiting pools for the existing units, only to themselves fail to deliver an effective program for a variety of reasons. Scouting doens't opporate on a zero sum gain. The pie isn't a stricly set size. It is possible to make the pie bigger. The problem is that many seem to find some benefit in dividing up the pie into more pieces without making it appreciably bigger. I am deeply concerned that in the quest to make Scouting available to every boy through every imaginable charter partner, that the Scouts themselves will be cheated out of the very experiences and opportunities Scouting should be offering. Given the choice between two boys joining Scouting in a unit that does not deliver the program, and one boy joining in a unit that can really offer the program, I would choose the one. Better to make a real impact on the life of one boy than to cheat two out of the opportunity they deserve. OK. So now I proved that this is somewhat personal for me. I certainly am not the most objective judge of this issue. I just don't want some Scout to look around some day and realise that there Scouting experience could have been so much more if only...

I took SM/ASM Position Specific Training today. According to the trainer the target troop size is 24-36 active Scouts. He didn't site a source for that, but I assume it was in some of the instructors materials. I know my home troop had about 24 Scouts when I joined. However, many of these began to age out. Unfortunately, these were not replaced at the same rate, because several new units were started that drew away Cubs that might very well have joined my troop. Fast forward a few years, and the troop has only one patrol's worth of Scouts. The PLC can't exist properly because the troop leadership chart had turned into something like a vertical line. There was no since of patrol identity, because there was only the troop, not really any patrols. Now these other units, all of them only lasted one or two years. Those units then folded. The parents and Scouts in those units mostly lost interest in Scouting due to this and never joined one of the surviving units. Neither the new units, nor the old units, were able to effectively deliver the true Scouting program, because there were not enough boys to make the patrol method work correctly. To make matters worse, while the push was on to create new Boy Scout Troops, there was little resources being devoted to starting new, or supporting existing Cub packs, and in fact, the Cub program began to come apart. This sowed the seeds for future problems for the Boy Scout troops. We should all admit several things: There are a limited number of willing and able volunteers in any area at any time. The professionals have only limited time and must therefore budget their efforts. There are only a limited number of youth with any interest in the Scouting program in any given area. Very small units cannot deliver the complete Scouting program affectively due to the limitations on resources. Ultra large units can also be a problem, because Scouts can become lost, and only the most capable adult leaders can manage such a large group. I would certainly agree that those at the district level must seek to provide the Scouting program to the most youth possible. However, I think in many cases the answer to how to do this is to add more boys to existing units. Boys joining an established unit with willing, able, trained, and experienced Scouters will have an advantage. Boys joining a unit where there are already mature youth leaders taking full advantage of the availability of the boy-run program will be more likely to one day have those same opportunities. Boys will benefit more if the troop doesn't fold while they are a member. Boys will benefit more if they are in a unit that provides a quality programs tailored to the needs of specific age groups, such as a unit with specific programs dedicated to new, experienced, and older Scouts. Boys will have a greater opportunity to interact with youth of varying ages in an established unit. All that being said, there is a time and a place for starting new troops. If there is some area or segment of the population not served by Scouting (by that I mean not readily available, not that there needs to be a troop meeting across the street), there is likely a need for a new unit. If there is a large Spanish speaking population, and there is currently no program available for Spanish speaking boys, then a new unit may be needed. If there is no unit close enough to home that a Scout can reach the meeting without great difficulty, then there may be a need to a new unit. If a Scout, due to religious obligations, or other duties, cannot participate on the nights current units meet, there may be a need for another unit. It is my opinion that too often the choice made by professionals, and by volunteers, is to start a new unit. There are many chartering organizations guilty of this as well. It might be beneficial for First United Methodist to support the troop at Second United Methodist, while Second United Methodist helps support the Crew at First United Methodist. Unfortunately, instead of encouraging the establishment of such an arrangement, these charter organizations will likely be encouraged to create their own units that will be in competition with each other instead of cooperating with each other. Often these units compete directly with the existing units, which causes real interference with the delivery of the Scouting program to youth. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. If you do, everyone will loose in the end. There is a place in Scouting for new units, and for small units, but in general, I think: More units doesn't mean more Scouts. More units doesn't mean more Scouters. More units doesn't mean more Scouting. More units doesn't mean better Scouting. So, to review my case, I believe that the highest quality Scouting program should be delivered to the largest number of youth possible. I also believe that this can often be achieved more affectively if institutions worked together to deliver an effective program, units put more effort into recruiting and retention, and district Scouters provided more recruiting assistance and support to existing units.

NO NO NO EVERYONE GO LOOK IT UP AGAIN Pleas see pages 57 through 60 in the Order of the Arrow Handbook, 2002 edition. "Only currently registered members of the Boy Scouts of America and the Order may wear the insignia of the Order of the Arrow." "The sash is worn at Order of the Arrow functions and special Scouting activities, when members need to be indentified as Arrowmen rendering special services." "The Order of the Arrow sash is worn with the official Scout field uniform or Scouting's official adult dress wear (a blue blazer and gray slacks). The sash also may be worn by Elangomats who are not in uniform at an Ordeal, youth wearing ceremonial attire, and in such other instances as approved by the Scout executive." To put this another way, you can wear the sash under two different scenarios: 1- you are attending an OA event 2- you are representing the OA To provide an example that may be of some use to you, I attended an Eagle Court of Honor this Sunday. The Eagle being recongnized is the current Section Chief. He is a conference vice-chief for the upcoming 2004 National Order of the Arrow Conference. He is also a past lodge chief. (He was also my vice-chief while I was lodge chief.) He did not wear his Vigil Honor sash. His older brother, who is also a former lodge chief, and the immediate past section chief, did not wear his Vigil Honor sash. In fact, of the perhaps two dozen active Arrowmen, including perhaps a dozen Vigil Honor members and several Founder's Award recipients (also many current and past lodge and chapter officers, advisers, and chairmen) only one was wearing an OA sash. The Lodge Adviser had been asked to speak about the Eagle's involvement in the OA, his contributions to the chapter, lodge, and Order at large, and the OA's possible influence on him. He was essentially speaking for the lodge. He wore his Vigil Honor sash for the ceremony, and rightly so in my opinion. You may wear the Lodge flap with the official Scout uniform. This applies to all of the various "field" type uniforms. You may also wear the Univeral Arrow Ribon with the official uniform at the times of your choosing. Additional information can be found in the Uniform and Insignia Guide.

It is nice to know Trail Pounder has recieved The Moral Compass from God so he has no doubt about what is good, and so he can proclaim what is good for all others to know. I am not convinced that opening OA to Venturers is a wise idea. I can see a way it might benefit those Venturers allowed in. However, I can also see how harm could be done to the Boy Scouts in the OA, and to the Order itself. At best any agreement to allowing Venturers into the OA would be a compromise of current standards, mission, goals, and ideals of the Order. Perhaps OA will one day evolve into the all inclusive, all program areas honor society for all of Scouting (including those scouts not even called Scouts). It is not at the moment such a society, nor is it intended to be. Further, I don't think it would function well as one in its current form. So if what you want to do is to do a large rebuild of the OA, then I think Venturers could be accomodated. However, some of what is now good about the OA would be lost in any such transition. Some of the good of things always passes away with change. How much of the Order's current character and good nature are you willing to sacrifice to make it into something new? I certainly I am not ready to rush into such a thing. Until a careful study can be done of what is in the best intersts of the Order, the Boy Scout program, and the Venturing program, I am opposed to any changes in the current method of electing candidates. Thus far all the reasons presented for changing the membership standards of the Order seem to fall far short of being cause for change. If anything, it illustrates that the arguments of both sides are based primarily on personal oppinion and emotion; not the logic, facts, and ideals that such decisions should be based on. Until one side or the other can present a compelling case, I am in favor of continuing with the Order's current mission.

Those over 18, but under 21, are still youth for OA election, induciton, voting, and office holding purposes. Anyone under 21 who meets all membership requirements may be elected by their unit as a candidate for youth membership. Also, any unit member, under 21, is eligible to vote in a unit election. If necessary I will quote the Guide for Officers and Advisors, but do we really want to go down that road again. For more on that see: http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=55073#id_55254 my post on 3/1/2004 at 6:57 p.m. should make this point clear

two words: aluminum foil I have never tried this with rice. Sounds like a challenge. To cook rice, you could either toast, steam, or boil it. I recomend a method that uses water, though if you like your rice dry that is OK with me, so long as I don't have to eat it. I would suggest placing the correct quantity of water in a properly shaped piece of aluminum foil. Place the foil "container" on your heat source. Wait for the water to begin boiling. Add the rice. Close the foil container and wait for the rice to cook. I have no idea if this will actually work, since I haven't tried it, but I see no reason it shouldn't work, in theory.

My troop has over the years always had at least one equipment trailer. At one point, we had 3 differnt trailers that were the troop's, plus one that was the Scoutmaster's that was used from time to time. Trailer number one was an old, rusty, horse trailer. It was huge. It was the surplus gear storage facility for many years. It has since been retired. Trailer number two was one of those old (1960s, I think) camper trailers that has flat sides but a egg like profile when viewed from the side. This was the primary trailer for many years. The inside had been stripped down to just a few cabinets, and the rest was open space. This allowed the equipment needed to be loaded from trailer number one for each trip. Trailer number three was purchased because trailers one and two were wearing out, and it was a hassle to have to reload every trip. The new trailer was outfitted with customized shelves by one of the parents. It can hold every piece of equipment the troop owns if need be. Generally we keep it loaded out for an average camping trip: troop tents, cooking gear, dining flys, lanterns, coolers, water coolers, paper products, some miscelaneous items, and room for personal gear. The trailer is now parked outside the garage of the charter organizations youth house, so it is very easy to load and unload items as is needed. We do sometimes take wood tools, fence posts for axe yard and campsite peremiter, two 18ft flag poles, plywood picnic tables, a metal fire ring, troop flags, extra tents, extra rope for fences, rope for pioneering projects, and on very rare occasions, pre-cut pioneering poles. Personal gear is usually carried in a single duffel bag per peson, with sleeping bags and pads seperate, and a small "carry-on" bag to take in the vehicle. Some prefer backpacks, but those are not generally allowed in tents. All seasoned adults bring chairs. Some others also bring chairs. Also, a few adults will sometimes bring hammocks or cots. I usually overpack (have to lug around all those books, binders, notepads, electric lantern, camp chair(s), full size pillow, a 4-D maglight, and of coarse my entire patch collection, that is in addition to what is actually needed for the trip). Now for certain trips we decide not to take the trailer and lighten things up a bit. This is usually done to save gas. On a few trips we will go for backpacking so everyone lightens up even more. Unfortunately, it is normally necessary to take the trailer for backpacking because of the extra room taken by packs. Though for Philmont in 2001 we fit 12 people and 12 packs inside our troop's (yes, technically our charger org's) 15 passenger van for the 3 hour drive to St. Louis to board Amtrak.

Ah, the mass at Jambo 2001. That was something. The worst problem wasn't getting wet, it was the fact that all that rain pounding on all those ponchos, rain jackets, and umbrellas made it impossible to hear. Swiss guards? I thought those were 4th degree Knights of Columbus. On a side note the priest that gave the homily was out at Philmont that summer for a week while I was there. He was a very interesting guy. OK. Back to the thread. I originally purchased a military surplus poncho for Scouting use. I have since stopped using it. It doesn't offer enough protection during wind, and my feet always got wet, no matter what. Also, I think the water proofing has degraded. Before Philmont I purchased a Red Ledge rain suit made of light weight nylon. It is relatively well vented. I only wear the pants for heavy rain. For Philmont that was my outer layer for both wind and rain. I have also discovered that umbrellas are great for summer camp. You can easily carry one at all times. You certainly don't have to worry about ventilation. The umbrella was certainly my first choice at last summer's camp, which was in Florida. I did however break out the rain suit on one particularly wet day.

It is my understanding that Explorers never held unit elections after going co-ed. I have always heard that unit elections at posts were stopped in order to prevent female youth from being elected as candidates. It could be there were other factors at work, but that is what I have understood to be the case. Really the Venturers in OA and female youth (I will use the term "girls" for the remainder of the post) in OA are two seperate issues. I don't know of anyone that would really object to a First Class (or higher) Scout in a Crew, that meets all other requirements, being elected. Many would however object to any girls ever being elected. Others would object to any youth (male or female) being allowed in without First Class. Also, someone mentioned the issue of OA youth being anyone under 21. The practical idea behind that is, I think, that allows people time to develope the leadership capabilities needed for, and rise to the various higher leadership positions of the Order. It would take a minimum of 5 years under any scenario I can think of for someone to reach the national officer level after completing the Ordeal. In reality it normally takes longer. Also, most new Arrowmen are older than 11. It is my guess that if a vote were taken of the whole of the youth membership of the Order on the issue of allowing girls (under any scenario) into the Order, the answer would be no. I have no scientific basis for this, rather I base it on my own observations of the opinions and attitudes of others. Certainly there would be many who would favor allowing girls in (some for good reasons and some for bad reasons). There would also be some lodges where the majority would favor it. In the end, I think it would be a "no" on a nation wide vote. Here are a few issues that would suggest girls in OA might be a less than optimal idea: Event planning, which is largely done by youth, would become more difficult. Arranging for adult leadership would become much more complicated. (Most adults are male. An even larger percentage of active adults are male. I can only think of 3 active female members in my lodge.) Can you imagine the day the ceremony team includes girls? Can you imagine what allowing girls to take the part of the principals would do to the sometimes already strained relations with certain Native American tribes? (obviously some tribes wouldn't care, but some would) There are several other issues I would like to bring up, and I will do so later. However, I need to go review a few other materials first. One last note. OA is not youth run. It is youth led. The OA is run by a combination of youth and adult. At the national level the national director, the Order of the Arrow Committe, and the national officers, are all involved in running the OA. Also, remember that the OA is part of the Boy Scout division. The OA Committee is essentially a sub-committee of the Boy Scout committee. Final note, not even lone Scouts, who are within the Boy Scout program, may become candidates. It is impossible for anyone to be inducted as a youth who is not a member of a troop or team.

To the best of my knowledge, Posts stopped having elections when they went co-ed. This was done with the purpose of preventing female youth from being elected as candidates. I may have my facts wrong, but that is what I understand to be the case.

What suprises me most about that is they actually had extras in stock. I had assumed those were ordered on an as needed basis.

I would periodicly need new or extra rank badge while I was a youth. All I ever did was go to the nearest Scout shop (at the office of another council, as it happened to be), pick one up from the pile on the shelf, and pay for it. No one ever asked a question or made a comment about it. Even the Eagle badges were right there on the same shelf. I always wondered if they asked for some proof for those. This seems like one of those rules that is more trouble than it is worth. This is in fact the first I had ever heard of it.

I must strongly insist on installing a door or curtain to block the line of site between the fire ring and flush toilet. This is after all family camping.

I usually carry such material in a day pack. That way I will have my books and papers, and my other essentials all available in the vehicle for the trip down. Then depending on the activities going on I may repack the daypack upon arriving at the campsite. Usually this packpack contains, on the way to a camp out, the following things: pens pencils compass minimaglight bug repelent FRS/weather radio rain suit Scout Handbook Fieldbook Requirement Book Bible OA Handbook OA binder (various OA recourses and documents such as election forms, Guide for Officers and Advisors, ceremonies scripts, Guide to Inductions, etc.) GP binder (non-OA Scouting stuff, troop roster, annual calendar) spiral notebook highligher clipboard water bottle(s) very small first aid kit length of fiber rope, approx 4ft. sometimes I will also carry: camera sun tan lotion snack food novel or other reading material extra knife extra bandana Also, if making a quick single night stop as part of a longer trip I will usually put any cloths and toiletries for the second day in the pack. Generally this is about all that will fit. More would likely burst the seems. I don't even want to think about what that all weighs.

I am glad to hear the ball is now rolling. I must say, there are quite few... anomalies in the way things are working in your area. Ordeals at summer camp are very rare, most places hold call outs during camp. Call out during troop meetings is also quite unusual. Usually troops only get a unit election and a camp promotion visit. However, there is nothing wrong with this. It is just a bit uncommon based on my experience. The case of a problem at camp is not so unusual. I know while I was lodge chief the camp program caused a few problems for us, mostly because none of the core group of active Arrowmen were on staff. I ended up having to essentially deputize the chapter adviser for the area of the camp to figure out what could be done, since he knew Arrowmen in the area and was going to be at the camp during its first week. By no means was that one of my shining moments. OA is, after all, a youth run organization. Those youth have limits on their time and talents. The chapter chief you talked to is likely unaware that those two fellow Arrowmen are not going to troop meetings. He is also probably near to oblivious of those three new members that never showed up. The average chapter probably has dozens of members that are never seen at OA meetings or events. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be attempts made to reach out. It sounds like those 4 OA members from your son's troop aren't doing a very good job of promoting the Order (due to their not encouraging the new members, and due to their not attending troop meetings). It is also possible that they assume if your son was interested he would have pursued the matter with them. (You mentioned it seems common in your area for older Scouts to no longer be involved with the troop after joining OA. I must say that is a very severe problem. Certainly you would expect officers and the like to occasionally need to skip a troop meeting for some OA related business, but for the average member to have their primary Scouting involvement be through the OA , is very troubling. Someone (that chapter chief perhaps, or some other officer) needs to stress the importance of supporting the home unit to these wayward Arrowmen.) In any case, I hope that now that contact has been made that thing will work out well. The first step is often the most difficult, hopefully that is true here. Good luck on all this and thanks for the update.

Laurie, I thank you for your agreement. It is good to see that at least someone understood what I was trying to say. (I was almost worried I was using Greek, or something.) I must now return the favor and agree with you. It is relatively simple to plan a camp-out. What is difficult is actually making it happen. This is particularly true if you have a large group of elementary school children who have minimal experience in camping, coupled with parents who have a similar lack of camping. I can just imagine a dozen Cubs, and their parents, all setting out with untested equipment for the first camp out of their life. To carry out effective camping activities it requires more than filling out forms, scheduling facilities, and planning menus. It requires training other leaders, introducing kids and adults to basic skills and fundamental safety measures, and convincing everyone else to do their part to prepare. Doing what it takes to plan and prepare for effective camping if there is essentially no camping experience in the group is a very difficult task. It can be done. It has been done. It will be done again. That doesn't make it easy. However, it is probably worth the effort. (Didn't Wheeler say the good comes through the hard or something like that? This may be a case of that in action.) As to changing the policy on den camping, I can see no reason for it. Also, since the proponents of den camping have not succeeded in their efforts (which appear largely limited to this forum) to find the reason for the rule, it is difficult to say that the BSA's logic in creating the rule is unfounded. Also, the opinions expressed by some shows that making it easier to ignore, break, or be ignorant of the rules is not a good idea. I think some would take a mile if given an inch. Maybe I am wrong, but if people will admit to taking as many liberties with the rules as some of you, it really worries me about what other less committed leaders would be willing to do if given the chance. Finally, some have indicated a total lack of understanding of the sort of skills needed for various circumstances, and a lack of what activities are appropriate for various groups. (Not to whip a dead horse, but GPS? You have to be kidding me. I took GPS through Philmont, and I assure you it fell squarely in the category of a luxury good rather than a necessity. Heck, you could almost do Philmont without a compass. Surely you can find your way on a clearly marked trail near to your base of operation in some place close to civilization if people can find their way in 137,000 acres of the back country. Show me a case where a Cub leader NEEDS GPS, and I will show you a case of shoddy planning and poor execution.)

We very briefly had a SM who had, years before, simultaneously acquired Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever at the same time. Both were incorrectly diagnosed, despite the fact he new he had been bitten by a very large number of ticks while sleeping out under the stars. Therefore treatment was at best several weeks late. He still has certain medical complications from that come up. However, he did recover pretty well, since last I heard he was supposed to be going on an expedition to the Himalayas sometime. Now you mentioned the, shall we say, cooperative tick checks. Most people I have known tried to avoid that. Enough Scouts are embarrassed about just using the open air camp showers. At camp the medics always suggest that it is best to have someone else check for ticks, but it is usually about that time that some Scout gets the inspiration for some rather unpleasant joke.

The worst thing about this position is the fact that it could compromise your leadership as the Scoutmaster. I am not really certain I can add anything that helps in that matter beyond what has already been written. I certainly know what it is like to be bullied. To one extent or another I was the victim of that for several years in school. I also sometimes was the subject of a bit of it at Scouts. In fact, my first summer camp experience had a few very bad moments related to that. I can certainly say it could be worse. When I joined my troop there was a small group of youth leaders that seemed to treat new scouts about the same as pledges to a fraternity. I can certainly tell you that being tied to a lawn chair is no fun. Even less fun is being tied to a tree by your ankle, while same said group looks on and laughs. Though in some ways I was lucky, there was another guy that they thought made an even better victim. In the end everything turned out OK. The adult leaders who had supervised that years summer camp soon left the troop for various reasons, and more observant and capable leaders replaced them. The twisted older youth aged out and left the troop fairly soon as well. Unfortunately, I was the only one of an entire den of Cub Scouts that bridged together that stayed in the troop long enough to age out myself. Bullying must be stopped. Certainly boys do joke around at times in ways that I would rather they didn't. Where it becomes a problem is when the object of the joke isn't laughing. When it becomes a critical problem is when someone specifically takes pleasure from the discomfort or suffering of another person. It is necessary to make it clear that bullying, teasing, and other such things are totally and completely unacceptable. What starts as simple teasing can wind up being a serious problem that endangers the well being of others.

If SM confrences are conducted on the 1st Monday of each month, and the only thing needed to participate is show up, I think that covers it. If there is a problem with the kid attending on the 1st Monday, then an alternative is needed. If he needs it sooner for some reason, I can see making special arrangements would be appropriate. Also, if he has to make a reservation ahead of time, that could be a problem. However, if it is known that the SM is available during the 1st meeting of the month, and all you have to do is show up and say, "I need a conference" then I think there was ample opportunity already provided to this Scout.

I don't really miss the stars. At first I liked them. This was mostly due to the fact that I had a high rating. Then I started to think about that. Just because my previous posts on some other subject were good doesn't mean my posts on some other subject will be. Let me provide examples. I could probably be classified as a minor expert on the Order of the Arrow. On the other hand, Venturing, and to a greater extent, Cub Scouts, are not areas of particular expertise. Some new forum member that just looks at the stars might think I was some sort of BSA guru. That may be true on a few issues, but it would be misleading on others. The stars were a good idea, and do serve a purpose. However, I think we can all do just fine without them. Thank you for your continuing efforts to maintain and improve these forums.

I certainly hope it wasn't my losing my cool that became the proverbial straw that broke the camals back. I do think a temporary brake, to give everyone a chance to cool off and recalibrate is probably a good idea. We had bocame far too consumed by Issues and Politics in recent days, to the neglect of the more practical and uplifting forums.

I am sorry. I lost my cool. However, I still haven't regained it. I am afraid I won't be able to make a rational post for a while until I cool down. If I say something that sounds nutty, just give me a bit to recalibrate.

That is IT! I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more! I was OK until, until Wheeler just went too far. I was sympathetic for him personally. I liked the idea of bringing a bit of philosophy and idealism (though not the boat load we got) into things from time to time. I even liked reexamining certain fundamental ideas about Scouting. It is after all, good to be challenged from time to time. I have even agreed with a few of Wheeler's conclusions. Other times I have agreed with him in part, but thought he went just a bit to far, or took a wrong turn at the last intersection. Now, however, Wheeler has gone much too far. He didn't just make a wrong turn, he drove off the side of a mountain this time.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I have heard stories that would suggest that something like this is possible. All it would take is one very badly run troop. Council may have never been sent the advancement reports on those 41 merit badges, they may have simply awarded them in-house for whatever reason. It is also possible that the troop didn't even make a record of those badges if they weren't reported to council. There is also the possibility that the troop records were damaged (my own troop had a problem with water getting into the filing cabinet with the troop records in it). The troop may not have been using registered counciler's, so that could be another problem. The Scout Handbook is not a certain way of verifying something either, it could be forged, or it could have easily been lost in a move. If there is a signed handbook, contact one of the persons who signed it to verify that it is not faked. If he doesn't have blue cards, find out if he has the cards that are given out when a badge is awarded. This isn't quite as solid as a complete blue card, but it just might do. These sort of things can be straightened out. When I was finishing up things for my Eagle, the district advancement chair forwarded a copy of my records from council to me for review. I discovered there were several things missing. However, the only important things were a few merit badges. If memory serves me, one was found in troop records, one I had a blue card from, and another the only record was the card presented when it was awarded.