ScoutLass

True, CNYScouter, but that has to mean full on scout-style, minimal adult supervision cooking. Wolves and Bears have outdoor cooking requirements in their BSA-approved handbooks. Of course, it isn't the first time that the left hand didn't know what the right was doing. I'd err on the side of the handbooks in this case.

Gotcha, Renax. Sorry if I jumped the gun, I get a little uptight about rule-adding. I'm a Roundtable Commish and I spend half of each roundtable dispelling myths. Some packs come to me with retainment problems and when you look at all the rules they have added, it's no wonder that the parents and boys are jumping ship!

Yeah, Tigers don't have an outdoor cooking requirement, so I'd say it's up to the parents/pack rules in that case. Our pack allows Tigers to roast marshmallows over the fire, supervised of course, but they don't typically prepare meals.

As for Wolves, unless you have a group of boys that shows up for every campout, be prepared to stage an outdoor cooking during a den meeting or picnic. All our original Tigers came to every campout during wolf year, but some of the new families just weren't ready to camp yet or were too busy to attend. We had an outdoor cookout at the CO so all the wolves and bears that didn't attend the campouts could still knock out the cooking requirement.

Well, I didn't see anything in the G2SS stating cubs can't cook. Webelos need to prepare and cook an outdoor meal for their den as one of the Outdoorsmen requirements. Bears have a similar requirement for achievement 9G. Wolves have prepare and cook an outdoor meal for achievement 8E. So really, Wolves on up should be cooking outdoors at some point, under adult supervision. Except for Tigers, it is spelled out that the boys should be cooking outdoors.

I'd be asking my pack leadership how they expect the boys to earn rank if the adults are too afraid to allow the boys to do the necessary work. Is leadership handing out rank badges without the boys actually completing all the requirements?

I'm not seeing how adult rules/kid rules equals hypocrisy. I can drive a vehicle, my son cannot. I currently own a cell phone, my son, by our family rules, is not old enough too. Some privileges come with age, but too many adults fail to teach that to their children so the children think of privileges as rights. Adults get cell phones because it is the adults leading and coordinating events, and they are responsible for the safety of the girls. Something tells me this girl wasn't on the phone with the paramedics calling in an emergency.

Personally, I don't see the girl as the main problem, the mother is the problem. Arguing and undermining a leader in front of the youth is enough reason to reprimand the mother. She either follows and upholds the rules equally and respectively from here on out, or her volunteer service is no longer necessary, IMHO.

Swearing would have had the youth sent home immediately. If there was no one else to pick her up since her mother was working it, then she'd be sent to spend the rest of Camporee with her mom. This is how I see it, at least, and would have handled it. I have handled similar issues in the pack twice. One time we lost the boy and his mom, the other time the parent and child really stepped up to the plate and things improved.

Every page in the forums is giving me the Firefox "Reported Attack Site" red page of death again. The recent threads also disappeared from the side bar, not sure if this is related?

In Girl Scouts as a kid we did foil dinners but in a coffee can. We'd assemble our meals, wrap in foil, and stick them in the bottom of our coffee can. We usually made hobo stew this way, but sometimes we did other things like pizza or beenie-weenies. The can kept the foil from burning, was easier to fish out of the fire and we wrote our names inside so they didn't char off.

Coffee cans were considered a required part of our mess kit for camp.

You may not know the success of your recruitment until the fall. Even if only six boys showed up, these six boys went to school the next day and told their friends about the awesome time they had. When your fall recruitment fliers go out, don't be surprised if you end up with a bigger turnout than previously.

It's hard to sign kids up in spring, in my experience. Parents don't want to commit to something over the summer and give up their free time with their family. Spring and summer sports are also in full swing. View spring recruitment more as planting a seed for fall, which it sounds like you did well.

I assume you have a strong summer program planned since you are trying spring recruitment. If you have the contact information for the boys who did attend, give the parents a call and invite them and their boys to one of your summer pack events. If they enjoy the event, sign 'em up on the spot.

Parents are just like the boys. We're all trained to keep the boys busy, because bored boys become capital T-R-O-U-B-L-E! The adults are the same way. Some just hover, others butt in, and some turn into this "super dad."

Nine times outa ten you can solve the problem by assigning them jobs. Come up with a few options before the meeting and don't give "no" as a choice. Give an A or B option, not a yes or no option. "Would you prefer to do this or this," not "Could you help with this?" Busy parents can't hover or cause (too many) problems.

With this dad during fire building, I would have brought some some logs and asked him to split them while you worked with the boys starting the fire. Seems like the type that would of jumped all over the chance to show off with a hatchet.

Keep 'em busy, keep 'em outa trouble. No matter how old they are.

It just tried to hit me with an automatic download masquerading as a Windows virus scan. I was clicking on a thread when it happened. Of course, it tries to look like a Windows alert, and I'm on Linux, so it's pretty easy to spot that it's malware of some sort.

I'm starting to see a weak Webelos program as the culprit for a lot of later cub loss and early boy scout loss in the retention department. I don't think anyone is directly to blame, it's just a misunderstanding of both the leaders and parents of how the program should work. Webelos get bored with the cub stuff and either drop out or hang on to get their AOL and cross over. Those who hold on, are shocked by all the responsibility of Boy Scouts and drop out.

Webelos isn't just another cub rank. It's a bridging period where the adults begin stepping back and turning the reigns over to the boys, but a lot of webelos dens are run exactly like a wolf or bear den. One thing we've started doing is assigning webelos parents "jobs" during meetings so they aren't still hovering over the boys. It's hard for the parents to let go and let the boys do it after three years of us pushing them to get involved! We also started fully implementing the webelos version of the patrol method so the boys get used to doing for themselves and working as a team instead of depending on the adults to plan and do everything.

We have more boys crossing over and more staying in boy scouts since we started following the webelos program as it's meant to be.

I also thinks that both cub and boy scouts do themselves a disservice by only feeding one troop or depending on one pack as a feeder. Not every boy and troop is going to be a good fit. I think most packs benefits from forging a relationship with at at least two troops, and every troop should foster relations with at least two packs. (except perhaps those in closed communities, such as a church with a both a cub and scout unit made up from teh membership)

Even go see its can be completed with the family. Many communities have events with fire trucks to tour. Lowe's Home Improvement stores had a free event here a few weeks ago where my kids got to talk to the fire fighters and tour the truck. Schools have events with fire fighters or police officers. Parents can also arrange for a family tour of stations. I do it all the time as a homeschooling parent. I know the requirement says visit a fire or police station, but I think the point is to visit with the officers and learn how they do their job, which can be done by visiting them at an event or elsewhere.

Sometimes, you may have to fudge a little. We were having issues touring a newspaper or news station a few years back, none were letting us in at hours that didn't conflict with school. Now I'm a freelance journalist, but talking to me didn't feel like the boys were meeting the spirit of the requirement. Instead, I had another freelancer buddy come in and help the boys put together their own newspaper, then we headed to the copy shop so they could take it to the "presses." (we also had a tour of the copy shop) They then presented it to the rest of the boys at the next pack meeting, and it was a huge hit.

If the boy really wants to earn tiger and the parents are supportive, there are creative ways to meet the go see it requirements that meet or exceed the spirit of the requirements. I know some purists will disagree with me, but hey, we have to work with what we have sometimes.

As everyone has said, the boys don't have to earn everything at the same time. Only once have all my boys earned rank at the same time.

We hand out rank at pack meetings as it's earned. We've never done B&G as the huge rank ceremony like some other packs do. I'd give the parents and boys a heads up that they are a bit behind the other boys, & let them know what they still need to do. We have a big crossover to the next rank ceremony each June at our picnic. All boys take part in this, since they are all moving up to the next rank regardless. If your pack does similar, let the parents know their son son will be a part of that whether he chooses to complete his current rank or not. That way no one feels left out for not advancing with the rest of the boys. It also drives home the point that it's not personal, he just didn't do the work.

I do this. As wolves, the denner each month gets to plan a game for the meetings, with my help. As bears, they get to plan whole meetings with help (usually one full meeting a month is all theirs then they help plan the other two with me). As Webelos, they go into the Webelos patrol method. We don't use assistant denners. Instead, we give a citizenship award to the boy who was the best citizen in the den or showed major improvement (more of a good behavior award that we developed for den discipline). That month's good citizen does the duty of an assistant denner.

While cub scouting is for families, I don't think it's every too early to begin teaching leadership to the boys.

Camilam42, apologies on the handle, got it wrong scrolling up and down.

Since you wish to switch freely between philosophy and theology, it's only fair to point out that both are quite similar and the outcome depends on the ethics, morality and beliefs of the theologists/philosophers rationalizing those beliefs. Once you used religious arguments to back up a philosophical point, it became theological. This is why I have tried not to use those same forms of rationalizations. Theologythe pursuit to understand the nature of god, religion and faith. Philosophythe pursuit to understand life, the universe and everything. Both strive to rationalize their arguments. Neither are considered a science nor purely factual. So basically, much as the ancient philosophers did, we could talk around each other for a lifetime and still never solve anything.

As for local option, COs have local option in nearly everything else. Has it diluted scouting? Some say yes, same say no. A badly run program is a badly run program, and probably would be even if every pack and troop was run by national instead of individual COs. I do not believe nor have I seen proof other than empty attempts at rationalization from both sides that this dilution would happen. This is an opinion, not based upon any facts.

You say: Fortunately or unfortunately that isn't the case. The BSA runs based upon principles which they have determined to be best for Scouts and Scouting. I don't have to convince you nor do I have to not convince you. The choice is clearly yours. Accept the BSA policy and abide by it, or not. You don't have to like it, but regardless of your personal view, it is what it is.

You forget a third option, which is effect change in the BSA. I do not have to accept it when I can work to change it. That is the choice I have made, based upon both my theological and philosophical rationalizations. But you are correct in one thing -- It is not you I have to convince.

Barry -- I don't have a half century to look back on, only my own 35 years and even in that short time I have seen the moral compass of the general population move back and forth quite a bit. We need to look back further than 50 years though. The immoral behavior you speak of isn't new. I don't think the majority of people now find teen pregnancy, divorce, infidelity or porn acceptable. 2,500 years ago these were issues that caused the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, to work out his precepts and rules for monastics and lay people to stop these issues which were a problem in his time. These are issues addressed in the Ten Commandments, by countless philosophers, in Victorian England, and in nearly any other culture in time or place we look.

I also would have to say that if something is found in nature it is natural. I'm not sure how it could be otherwise as that is the very definition of natural. As for the monkeys, that would be a whole thread on its own! I actually focused on southwest history/tribal anthro, so am not as well-versed in primates as others. Theories abound, and it differs on primate population and species. Boredom (or idle hands as you say) is one theory, though.

I must step away from this discussion for the holiday week. I hope everyone has an enjoyable Thanksgiving.

Barry, I am familiar with the studies or some similar to that you refer to. Unfortunately, your teacher espoused only one theory culled from these studies. There are several theories in both the civilization and the monkey studies depending on who is espousing them. Another major theory is that homosexuality rises when the population begins to rise, in other words it is a natural form of population control that clicks in. Which then makes homosexuality completely natural when that theory is the one chosen. A large population is naturally more difficult to govern and manage, so it declines or falls. While homosexuality and a decline/fall both appear to be natural byproducts of the rise of a population, one does not necessarily relate to the other in terms of morality. The nature of theories is to base them upon facts, but they remain theories because the facts of them cannot be proven yet or at all.

Edited--You commented as I was that perversion was your take on it. So scratch that last paragraph!

I also wonder if the program you mention actually used the word perversion in the moral sense your post conveys or if that was your addition. Generally when studying animals researchers refrain from projecting human morality onto the subjects, as it is generally accepted that the same moral grounds do not apply. This is why it isn't called murder when a lion kills the old lion and takes over the pride.(This message has been edited by Scoutlass)

Camlan, a natural mistake and no hard feelings. We have priests in Zen too, as well as monks and nuns. In fact in my sangha (church), we have a Catholic priest that is also a Zen monk which can lead to all sorts of terminology confusion, as well as interesting theological debate!

The reason I state your argument is invalid because it is as you say, the teachings of the Catholic church. The reasoned arguments in these teachings are only reasonable within the scope of the specific theology and history of the organization/faith from which they are drawn. Not everyone shares this theology. Not all parts of the world have Catholicism or Christianity playing a major historical role in their development. The theological argument you presented argues the "unnatural" side of homosexuality, but I could make an equally rational argument that life-long celibacy vows are unnatural. These are not based in fact, but upon theological arguments. It only proves that within the theological arguments based upon Catholic doctrine and Christian scripture that your position is correct for other Catholics. The bible is also open to interpretation, considering there are other Christian denominations that have "proved" through rational theological discourse that homosexuality is not immoral.

I could share rational arguments based upon my personal theology that are at direct opposition to yours. To what is the point though? I am not trying to win you over to my religion or my set of religious moral beliefs. A theological-based argument from me or anyone else holds no weight unless all parties are of the same belief system. The BSA's, across-the-board decree on this issue has the fundamental flaw of assumption that all COs and members should be on the same page in regard to this one issue of morality, thus disrespecting those organizations that have a differing moral take on this. As I said, I do not think anyone's morals should be forced to fit into this preordained box nor forced to accept another faith's morals as superior to their own, therefore local option eradicates that problem. I won't make you and you won't make me.

One last thing and then I'll drop Rome -- the date of the fall of Rome is not agreed upon by historians. Some do not consider the fall to have taken place until Constantinople fell in 1453. 700 years after Mohammad.

Camlan-- No, I am not Catholic. I am not a member of the Christian faith, and I only have minimal knowledge of its teaching (primarily what I learned in said history and anthropology texts and classes).

Homosexuality is still morally acceptable in many areas of the world, in first world, second world and third world countries. It isn't a theoretical argument, but a facet of history that is happening at this moment as we speak. Oh, and "Pagan" Rome did not convert to Christianity, it split apart,as empires do as they fall -- Islam and Christianity played major roles, along with all the various small-tribe religions of conquered people that were no longer held under the imperial thumb. Rome was eventually reduced to a city-state. Even Constantinople fell. Historically speaking of course. The decline of Rome also heralded in the dark ages and the crusades -- which most historians tend to agree were more focused on greed and power that religious zeal. So Rome isn't the best example to use here...

Most of your argument fell apart once you began quoting scripture and what I assume is church policy(? not sure of proper terminology here). A religious argument, even of my own religion, is based on faith and therefore can hold little weight when being passed off as fact.

What makes a family value traditional? That confuses me. Traditionally, people sent their children to the fields or factory at a young age. Traditionally, women were second class citizens. Are they traditional because they are your family values, or the values of the loudest person or the person with the deepest pockets? The religion I follow predates Christianity by about 500 years, give or take a century. Are my family values more traditional than yours because they are older? No, of course not, but both of our values deserve the respect of equal consideration by the organization that we have pledged our time and resources to forward.

I will never convince you of my side nor will you convince me of yours. This is why local option is the only option that will really work.(This message has been edited by Scoutlass)

The moral argument doesn't fly, as not all organizations represented within the BSA feel that homosexuality is morally wrong in any way, shape or form. The BSA is not a Christian organization, though many seem to think otherwise.

Now, I have a degree in anthropology. History shows that there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It has been documented for thousands of years. In fact, some people at different points in history believed those that had "two genders in one body" had special powers and were closer to the god(s) than the average heterosexual male or female. Most major religions, and even athiests and agnostics, can agree on a basic set of morals -- don't kill, steal, lie, hurt others, etc. It's these peripheral beliefs packaged as morals where disagreement lies, which is why there shouldn't be an across the board decree made on them by the BSA -- an organization that tries to be inclusive of all religions.

The key line in scout oath and law is "morally straight." Any arguments that homosexuality is not morally straight do not hold water because this is a peripheral moral that is not held by all religions represented in the BSA. (Thus local option being the best choice to handle these differing peripheral morals).

This issue has been raising some issues in my own home. My son, who is crossing into Boy Scouts soon, recently discovered the homosexual ban when he was working toward his religious medal. Our (straight if it matters) priest raised the question in regards to a conversation about the precepts. My son is really bothered by it, which is understandable considering his favorite great aunt is homosexual and has been with the same partner for over two decades. I have explained that I belong to and support an organization that is not in line with our family or religious values in this regard because I view it the same as with him. When he does something bad or wrong, I don't stop caring for him or kick him out of my life, I work to steer him onto the correct course. The BSA is a wonderful organization that is wrong in this regard, so we don't turn it out, we strive to steer it back onto the correct course. My son's latest idea is to write religious leaders and organizations that are active in the BSA but not supportive of discrimination against gays, voicing his concerns and why he thinks they should be concerned and take action. His argument is compelling. He says all these scoutmasters he has been talking to stress how their scouts are boy led and how they are here for the boys, so shouldn't it be the boys that lead the BSA away from it's backwards stance on this subject?

And oddly enough, I am not left wing. Sit just right of center on most things. The argument that only left-wingers even care is not based on fact in any way, shape or form.

Received this message on Facebook from our council:

"Scouting.org and all national BSA applications are currently out of service. National is working to fix the problem. We appreciate your patience while the issues are resolved."

We sing and do skits at every pack meeting. The boys and adults seem to enjoy it, even with my off-key singing!

A few things we do:

Each den must do a skit or a song at each pack meeting. Let the den leaders know in advance so they can plan. The skit/song is done by each den before they are handed their awards.

We usually open with a repeat-after-me song or other simple, quick to learn song. This way any stragglers can just join in as they show up.

Den chiefs. These guys know a thousand songs & love being centerstage. We have a secret signal we give if people start to look bored. When the chief sees the signal, he bursts into whatever song, from where ever he is in the room. Everyone looks confused for a minute before joining in. Always results in lots of laughs.

We rotate the numbers, and the number sticks with a den until they cross over. The crossing over Webelos den numbers become the new tiger den numbers. So right now, we have:

Tigers:#4

Wolves: #5

Bears:#1

Webelos:#2 & #3

If we get enough boys to split a den, say in bears, we would then have bear den #1 & #6

I was under the impression that den #'s shouldn't repeat in the pack, otherwise it messes with den yells (Den four, let's Roar! doesn't mean the same thing when every rank has a den 4) and it makes it more confusing.

1)The 5:1 ratio I though applied to summer camp/day camp. That's how it's implemented around here anyways. The wording is clear as mud because it applies to parents with multiple kids. in other words, each cub is answerable to one adult (preferably a parent/gaurdian), but a parent with two sons as cubs may have two cubs he is responsible for. Not that the adult is responsible for two or three cubs that are not related to him.

2)To my knowledge, other training doesn't expire just because YP does. Of course, since they've been messing around with YP this year, this could be a change or a glitch in the myscouting record that I am unaware of.

3)Baloo doesn't expire and only has to be taken once. From tour permit Faq:

Q. Does the BALOO training that is listed in the activity training matrix have an expiration?

A. BALOO is a locally administered course that does not have an expiration date. Repeating the course biannually is not a requirement at this time. Insert the date you took BALOO into the training matrix.

We have a couple different contact lists we issue. Each den has a contact list that includes all leadership contact info then the contact info for each family in the den. The pack list has everyone's info and goes to leadership or anyone that is organizing a specific thing (such as the Blue & Gold coordinator). The only we reason we do it this way is because chances are a tiger parent doesn't need a webelos parent's contact info, so the pack list would be overkill to give to everybody. Giving each parent a list with 50 or more families on it seems overwhelming and unnecessary.

Personally, I always find it odd when parents don't want their contact info known, but this has been an issue in the past. We announce the list at the first pack meeting and request any updates to emails/phone numbers before we issue the new one for the year. At least one parent always requests to be left off the list. We explain they can be left off the general list, but not the pack list that goes out to leaders. This could be what your CC is concerned about.

I seem to remember something else that had to be forced onto a divided society by the courts back in 1964. Didn't go too well in several areas of the country, with everyone being divided and everything. Still, looking back, I think most people would agree it wasn't just a good thing, it was a good thing that should have happened a lot sooner.

You would think society would learn from history, but few do, so the courts too often have to step in.

I agree with you Gary, but I never stated to take sticks away all together. Boys (and girls) should be allowed to play with sticks. It is whacking each other that isn't allowed. That is what the control is set on, not sticks in general. I just don't think it is up to the cubmaster or den leaders to be handling all the controls when it comes to safety on a campout. It's during the down time that the boys get bored and stick fighting commences. Parents need to now what is expected of them to so they know that a campout isn't just an outdoor pack meeting.