Rick_in_CA

On 10/23/2018 at 6:23 AM, Tired_Eagle_Feathers said:

One of the things that irks me so far with my son's Cub Scout experience (I was never in cubs, just Boy Scouts) is this pervasive idea that everything has to be comedic, or slapstick cornball to be "fun".  Even during the BALOO training they emphasized that there should never be a dull moment during the campfire and if there is the leader should jump in with some kind of space-filling cornball thing to keep it "fun"

I kind of agree with you on this. I remember when I was a cub, I didn't like some of the more silly stuff that was done. As for training, at BALOO and OWLS, some of the advice actually made me angry. Take run-ons (this is where a scout or scouter is encourage to jump up and interrupt a skit, song or speaker with a quick one-liner), they are simply rude and unscout like. If one of my cubs did that, I would reprimand them and make them apologize for interrupting and being disrespectful. The rounds of applause, and stuff like that I find annoying. It can make a quick 20 second announcement into a 2 minute performance. 

One that was common in my pack for a short time: "The Announcement Song", which the cubs would sing whenever the word "announcement" was spoken. I disliked it because it was an interruption, and slowed the administration stuff down so it took longer (which took time away from the fun stuff).

Thank you for sharing your story @seaoat. I share MattR's sentiments, that is what scouting is all about. God speed on your final journey.

9 hours ago, blw2 said:

It seemed like mostly the same sorts of activities (swimming, skiing, paddling, eating, zip line, climbing, ropes course, etc..) but it sounds like it will be much more free form.... like if the kids get up and feel like going swimming that day...then they go swimming.  They get tired of that and decide to go try their hand at archery....then that's what they can do.  Now I have my doubts that it's quite that open and free, but even if that's only half right, it still seems like it'll be pretty good.  Minimal "classrooms", nobody reading a handbook endlessly to them.

This is what boy scout summer camp used to be (and should be again). When I was a scout, if we wanted to swim, we went swimming. If we wanted to shoot archery or 22s, off we went and did it (occasionally there was a brief line). Wanted to go canoeing? Off we went (unless they were being used by the canoeing merit badge class). Wanted to go hiking? Off we went. The camp was almost all free form.

3 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

They're called water blasters or water cannons and they are not in the shape of a gun.

Let's clear something up (using this as a platform - not meant to single you out).

The G2SS does NOT ban water pistols, or paintball guns, or laser tag guns.  What the G2SS bans is pointing and shooting at people or targets in the shape of people.  You can use water guns, paintball guns or laser tag guns to shoot at targets that are not people or representative of people.  This rule is not in place because National thinks squirt gun battles are more dangerous than water balloon battles or wet sponge battles.  It is in place to be consistent with what is being taught on BB Gun, Rifle, Shotgun and Archery ranges - namely - never ever ever point a gun, loaded or not, at another person.  I know, I know - I get the argument - a water gun or a laser tag gun is not a real gun and won't hurt anyone - but ask yourself this - do you believe that television and video game violence is responsible, if even just partly, for how violent our society has seemed to become?  It's always a popular argument when some kid shoots up a school - that he (and it's normally a he) must have spent too much time playing shoot-em up video games.  Isn't the BSA essentially making the same argument when they say even pointing water pistols at each other teaches Scouts that aiming guns at other people is ok to do?  If you accept the video game argument, shouldn't you also accept the BSA's position?

There is an additional aspect to the ban. My understanding that the original ban dates back to the early 70s. It was a reaction to the protests against the Vietnam War, and the growing anti-military attitude of the country. The BSA was trying too make a big deal out of the fact that it wasn't the military, especially trying to eliminate anything that could look like specific training for war.

At the time, most of the scout leaders were veterans, and many of them ran their troops like military units. I remember learning how to march and dress ranks when I was a boy scout. When our troop marched in parades, we (tried at least) to look military (we marched in formation to a called cadence). To a layman, the scouts looked military (we wore green uniforms, saluted, had ranks, marched, organized in patrols, learned to shoot guns, the military offered lots of support to the scouts, etc.). One of the reasons for the switch to the Oscar de la Renta uniform was to make scouts less military looking.

Weird duplicate post.

On 2/8/2018 at 11:09 AM, Col. Flagg said:

Not sure if you all knew, but Boys' Life has a pretty decent archive going back a long way. You can find a number of the GBB "from the campfire" or "from the hiking trail" columns from him there. Our PLC is frequently pointed in this direction when they need good inspiration.

One word of caution: The navigation is a bit weird. Sometimes your search results show up with a link back to your search results...sometimes it doesn't. If can get a bit aggravating if you are in a hurry.

Figured I would share this trove if you hadn't already found it. 

You can also find all the old Boy's Life magazines in Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HEFsdunJeZMC&dq=boys+life+magazine&source=gbs_navlinks_s

2 hours ago, shortridge said:

The article wasn’t written by Leave No Trace. Don’t assume that one random writer represents the organization.

Correct. But the author is correct that Leave No Trace does recommend against geotagged in social media:

http://lnt.org/blog/new-social-media-guidance

Quote

 

When posting to social media, consider the following:

Tag thoughtfully – avoid tagging (or geotagging) specific locations. Instead, tag a general location such as a state or region, if any at all. While tagging can seem innocent, it can also lead to significant impacts to particular places.

Be mindful of what your images portray – give some thought to what your images may encourage others to do. Images that demonstrate good Leave No Trace practices and stewardship are always in style.

Give back to places you love – invest your own sweat equity into the outdoor spaces and places you care about. Learn about volunteer stewardship opportunities and get involved in the protection of our shared lands.

Encourage and inspire Leave No Trace in social media posts – given the millions of social media users in the world, think of the incredible potential that social media has to educate outdoor enthusiasts – first timers to seasoned adventurers – about enjoying our wild lands responsibly.

 

50 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO, Scouting should be leading the comeback of "free range  parenting"  

My $0.02,

Which was Mike Rowe's point in his recent rant. I agree with both of you and Mike Rowe. But I'm afraid Eagledad is correct, the BSA is too afraid.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I wish more leaders would look at the mission "First", then build the program. Once in a blue moon, Calicoe and I agree.

Still, we need to remember the program is for the average boy and the average Boy Scout does't get far enough in their advancement to require these badge. So, whats the point?

We have been spending a lot of time lately discussing how the mind of a boy works, or doesn't work (according to Mrs. Barry). Honestly, most of that discussion is more toward scouts before puberty. I believe the subjects of these badges are appropriate for scouts when they reach a maturity where the material is thought provoking. And, I believe thought provoking exercises are important in the Mission. But where we adults miss on the types of exercises (all type of exercises or activities ) that develop scouts to make ethical and moral choices is their maturity. Our challenge is provide a program that challenges every scout in the troop at their level of maturity and experience. It needs to be a challenge that requires effort from the scout so he will grow from the experience, but not take away the adventure from the heart of the scout. 

Just like I don't believe the average scout is mature enough to grow from the experience of leadership until puberty, I believe sit down studies of subjects aren't really a big motivation for scouts to attend scouting activities until puberty. The adult mind simply doesn't work the same for scouts 14 and older, which is the main reason adults loose their older scouts. No adult likes to be treated like a kid, and that is what most adult leaders do to their older scouts. The older scouts are adults with adult drives and reactions. Adults like mental challenges and stimulus. That doesn't mean they will like the these kinds of badges, but they will have the maturity to understand that the material has value and worth the time to learn, or experience. 

Barry

I think you bring up an excellent point about scout maturity and merit badges. I sometimes wish some of the badges had age restrictions or prerequisites. Something to help postpone some of the badges until the scouts are mature enough to get the most out of them. But I am leery of age restrictions, as I am afraid we would get the merit badge equivalent of "must be 14 to use a wagon". I wonder if the UK scouts have it right to split the boy scouts into two age groups. What works for a 12 year old is going to be different than what works for a 16 year old.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

And patrol campfires. We humans, or a least we males, are naturally attracted to fires (like females to diamonds ) and socializing around them. Our patrols today struggle a little with patrol campfires because it was a lot of effort for just a couple of hours of socializing, but boys being boys (of all ages) managed to find something to pull them together before hitting the sack. Patrol campfires were easy for us in the 70s because they were required for cooking and heating water for KP. 

As a SM, I encourage a fire all day in the adults camp site, so that they had a reason and a place to relax while staying out of the scouts way. State fire bans are the devil and one cause for disrupted patrol method. 

Barry

I agree about camp fires. To me, sitting around the camp fire in the evening is one of the best parts of camping. The fire bans make me sad. Though here in California, after years of drought, things are so dry in some places a fire ban makes complete sense.

It's hard to pick just one, but here are a few that stand out.

My boy scout troop was camping at the Pinnacles and visited the Bear Gulch Cave. This cave is a large talus cave (made by large boulders) that climbs up following a water course. The cave was partly flooded in that it had water running in it, and the only way through was to go wading (in about thigh high water at it's deepest). But it was a hot day (the Pinnacles can get really hot), so we didn't care that we were getting wet. The upper two thirds of the cave is completely dark (I mean pitch black, no light at all), so we were all carrying flashlights. We had a couple of hours to explore the cave, and we quickly split up into groups (patrols mostly if I remember correctly). We climbed through the cave up the top, stopping along the way to stick our head into every crevice we could find. And then went back down to the bottom. I then had the idea to do it without flashlights. It was a whole other experience in the pitch black. The sound and feel of the rushing water, the texture of the rocks, our voices and the dark. We relied on our memories of the path and the water current as a guide. It was a great feeling of accomplishment when we got to the top and sunlight again. We had done the whole thing without turning on the flashlights once! There were other groups from our troop already at the top. We told them what we had done, and turned around to go down in the dark again. This time leading two other patrols. We did a total of five passes through the cave without lights before it was time to move on.

In 1976, I was a webelos. My local council was holding a special week-long event in celebration of the Bicentennial called something like the Bicenteree. It was in a dry valley somewhere in the Diablo Range. The valley wasn't a normal campground as it had no facilities and just a dirt road running into it. The National Guard trucked in all the water and there were big banks of porta-potties. My older brother, along with my Dad (he was an ASM) stayed there all week with the troop. Us webelos were only going to be there the final weekend (we were hosted by the troop). It was to be my first time camping with real boy scouts, so I was excited. The den leader drove all of us in his huge station wagon (remember those?) and parked the car in a huge field of vehicles, grabbed our gear and hiked in (it wasn't far as the "parking lot" was next to the camping area). We could see on the hill above the camp a large black and pink scar on the hillside. It turned out that the day before, there had been a grass fire. The whole camp was mustered to be ready to fight the fire. All the scouts were ordered too return too their troop area and prepare to do fire duty. The fire was actually put out by a plane dropping fire retardant on the fire (hence the pink) with some actual firemen and national guardsmen. The scouts just stood and watched. My Dad managed to get a great photograph of the plane doing the drop. It was my first scouting camp out (though we had done family camping many times before), and it made a big impression on me. It was a big event, with well over a hundred boy scout troops attending. I remember wandering around and seeing giant pioneering projects (signal towers, bridges, fences), a few foreign troops, a troop playing bag pipes, buglers, games, competitions, archery, activity everywhere. To a webelos, it was an amazing introduction to the world of boy scouts! I couldn't wait!

7 hours ago, David CO said:

The boys at my school shower after gym class.

A lot of schools are eliminating group showers in the locker rooms and replacing them with individual stalls. Most of the local schools did that many years ago for the women, and are now doing it for the men. They aren't doing it because of concerns with transgender students (though I'm sure that is becoming one more reason), but because of a dramatic increase in body modesty in our society (lots people equate any nudity with sex - so group showers must be perverted). When I was in high school (and junior high) the guys took group showers after gym. But I was surprised to learn that most of the girls didn't. They used individual stalls (their locker room had a small number of individual stalls in addition to the group shower area - almost all the girls waited to use the stalls). A couple of years after I graduated high school, they apparently rebuilt the girls locker room and eliminated the group showers, it's all individual stalls now.

On 6/24/2018 at 12:18 PM, Hedgehog said:

Our Troop has been to Camporees (West Point and others) where there were Girl Scouts and Venturers.  NYLT is co-ed due to Venturing.  OA allows female adults to be inducted.  Cub Scout Pinewood Derby in our Troop always had a "non-scout" division (read younger or female siblings).

Rick:

Really?  I guess I have to be specific.  "I also see the co-ed dynamics and understand that there are reasons that co-ed scouting would not work as effectively as a program that focuses on single-gender development between the ages of 11 and 14 due to the cultural, educational and political factors at work in the United States."  Hopefully, you can't twist those into a situation where I'm insulting other forum members.

I'VE HAD IT.  I'VE TRIED TO BE REASONABLE AND STRIKE MIDDLE GROUND AND HAVE A PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION.  BUT YOU ALL ARE SO FREAKING BOUND TO YOUR OPINIONS THAT YOU TURN EVERYTHING INTO AN ARGUMENT.  THE SCOUT LAW DOES NOT EXIST ON THESE FORUMS - THERE IS NO TRUSTWORTY, FRIENDLY, HELPFUL, COURTEOUS OR KIND TO BE FOUND.  YOU GUYS GO ON HAVING FUN BASHING THE BSA AND BASHING EACH OTHER.  I DON'T HAVE TIME TO DEAL WITH ALL OF YOUR PETTY BEHAVIORS AND COMMENTS.  I'M OUT.

I HAVE A LOT BETTER USE OF MY TIME INCLUDING WORKING WITH MY TROOP,  MY CREW, MY SON AND... YUP... THE FEMALE SCOUTS BSA UNIT OUR CHARTERED ORGANIZATION IS STARTING.  

Wow, I apologize if my comment came across in an unfriendly way. It was not my intent. I was also attempting to address hyperbole in general, not you specifically. I guess I failed in that.

Hedgehog, I've been enjoying your comments on this topic, and I hope you will continue to contribute too this forum.

Understand the "don't point water pistols at people" thing has been there a long time. And it's not about keeping people from getting wet, it's about not pointing any kind of gun (real or play) at people. It comes out of the "BSA is not military and does not train youth for war" thing from the 1960s.

And yes, the you must be 14 to use a little red wagon rule is one of the dumbest in GTSS.

6 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

I also see the co-ed dynamics and understand that co-ed at the younger ages won't work.

So it doesn't work? At all? So the 120+ coed scouting programs around the world are all failures? Really?

Look, I think the reality of international scouting clearly shows that coed scouting can work, and work well (ask Cambridgeskip or ianwilkins). That doesn't invalidate the argument that single-sex scouting is better than coed (and some rather cogent arguments in favor of that position have been presented on this forum). But can we leave the hyperbole out of it?

I understand that there is a lot of passion around this question. But some of the hyperbole I have seen around this topic is silly and discredits the arguments being made. Not to mention that it can come across as an unintended insult to our international scouter friends ("your coed program sucks").

5 hours ago, mashmaster said:

Civil Air Patrol?  Tell me more about that.

The Civil Air Patrol is the official civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force. It includes a cadet program for youth ages 12 to 21.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol

On 5/22/2018 at 9:44 AM, SSScout said:

a Firestone has stated the difference between a "stick" and a "stave" (or "staff).   The first is a whacker, the second is a tool.  What I try to instill in the Scouts I work with is the "respect" shown  tool.   If your stave is carved, polished, used, hiked with, used for balance, as a tentpole or  joined with another pole for a flag waver/signal flag, then that Scout will not see it first as a weapon.  Yeah, it can be a weapon, but that is not it's first or second or even third use.  

And if the Scouter uses a hiking stave, what example does he/she set?   Give the Scouts opportunities.  Good opportunities..... 

 

As for using scout staves as weapons, one of the original uses for the scout staff was "self-defense" (in the 1911 hand book and others). Personally, I think it can be a good idea teaching older boy scouts some basic self-defense techniques, either with staves and without. Be prepared. But SSScout is right, weapon is pretty far down on the list of uses for a scout staff.

To much of scout training now days is of the "go get help and let others deal with the problem" kind. But scouts should be taught what to do when "help" is too far away or otherwise unavailable. They should be taught first aid (obviously), how to fight a brush fire, how to defend themselves, what to do in a flood, earthquake, avalanche, downed power lines, water rescues, etc. It is what "Be Prepared" is partly about.

Interesting article, thanks for sharing it!

I wonder, has anyone read the book the article is talking about: "The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys are Struggling and What We Can Do About It"? And what did you think of it?

This was my main concern about adding girls to the mix (something in the abstract that I support) - that given our fear driven society, the YPT and GTSS changes would be over the top and get in the way. I guess my fear is coming true. Sigh...

21 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I understand what they are getting at. Some pedophile adult leader says the 1 on 1 contact with a scout youth was at a non scouting event so it doesn’t count as a YPT violation.  The problem I have is that when they expand G2SS so much and add so many rules it makes it very difficult to run a unit (especially smaller ones).  You will have two scenarios.  

One... leaders start ignoring G2SS completely as it has become the equivalent of the 4 pages of warnings in your lawnmower engine manual.  They may refer to a few sections for guidance but don’t take the book to heart.

Two...leaders follow it to the letter of the law.  Trips and meetings are cancelled due to insufficient leadership.   Leaders drop out as they feel their life outside of scouting is now being monitored.  Etc.

Neither makes scouting safer but it does help give Nationals an out in any possible mishap that could occur.   

The problem I have with the no one-on-one contact outside of scouting rule is that for me, it would have been a problem. I often transport my pretend nephew (I'm not actually family, but I am a very close family friend) to soccer practice and other things one-on-one. He is no longer a scout (he lost interest), but if he was, I would have to decide to either ignore the rule, our not be a leader anymore.

2 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

Was that in the Dale case?  Regardless of whether it was that case or a different one... I will try to put this gently... what the BSA's attorneys evidently told the Supreme Court in the Dale case - as reflected in the majority opinion, which I have read several times - does not serve as what I would call a role model for trustworthiness.  So it wouldn't surprise me if they said that too.

I think that was the Dale case, but I'm not sure. It's been a while.

2 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

It was my understanding that the BSA parted ways with both public schools and the military as CO's not necessarily because it was a religious organization that was discriminating, but because it was was an organization that was discriminating on the basis of religion.  (The Supreme Court has stated that discrimination against atheists is discrimination on the basis of religion.)  A public school or military unit being a CO meant that the government was discriminating on the basis of religion.  I could be wrong, but that was my understanding. 

I think you have expressed what I was trying to say, but with more clarity.

3 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

Let's assume the National Council of Churches is a religious organization.  (I'm not really familiar with it so I will take your word for it.)  Is the National Conference of Christians and Jews a religious organization?  The name suggests it is an organization of people who express a faith, but it is not the same faith.  To me it does not meet the definition of a religious organization, for much the same reason as the BSA doesn't.   

You might be correct, but didn't the BSA tell the Supreme Court that it was? That was part of the reason the BSA jettisoned their two largest groups of charter organizations: public schools and the US military (because government entities can't own and operate discriminatory religious groups).

8 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

Just as an aside - the DRP was created in the first decade of the BSA (which is why it's in the Bylaws and not the Charter) and it appears that James West was a primary reason for it - but not in the way that the above implies.  The DRP was created to assuage the Catholic Church which was worried that because the BSA was closely tied to the YMCA at the start that the BSA would become a Protestant organization under James West and not be open to Catholics, not because James West wanted it.

Another aside, since it was mentioned - the BSA stated back in 1920 that Buddhism was compatible with the BSA and the DRP so hopefully we can put that one to rest.

That would make sense. Learn something new every day!

As for Buddhist, you are correct that the BSA does say they are welcome, but that doesn't change the fact that I have met Buddhist that said that the DRP wasn't compatible with their faith (since Buddhists don't have a creator God, how can they recognize him as the leading power in the universe?). No matter what the BSA says, it's a problem for many.

8 hours ago, qwazse said:

I'm sorry, Rick, but I know a lot of Jews, Muslims, and Christians who would not see themselves in that language. Not now. Not a century ago. The folks who left for Trail Life made that quite clear.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Which language are you referring too?

I know several scouters (some current, some past) that when looking at the DRP found themselves unable to support it because of their religious beliefs. One of which was a Protestant minister (it was the "grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings" part - and I still don't understand his objection even though he tried to explain it to me. I see nothing in the DRP that isn't compatible with Protestant theology. But I'm not a theologian. Anyone here have a clue?). Another was a Jainist that after reading the compete DRP, resigned as a den leader because the DRP was incompatible with his faith (I met him at a Scout-O-Rama several years ago. He was no longer a registered leader, but still volunteered with his pack as a parent.). I have met a few others that have said the DRP was a problem with their faith. I admit that I have a problem with the implication in the DRP that a non-believer can't really be a good citizen - my faith tells me otherwise.

So much for "absolutely nonsectarian".