SeattlePioneer

There are two separate issues here: 1) Getting a top notch Cubmaster to discuss how to run an excellent Webelos program at the Cub Scout Roundtable. I don't see any objections to that... 2) Allowing new 2nd year Webelos Dens to participate in Camporee, competing among themselves. That seems to be controversial. Our district has done that for years, although the past two years no Webelos Dens have turned out for Camporee. When they did I was involved in setting up competitions for Camporee. When Webelos Dens came along, I simplified the Scout skills needed so they could participate in a meaningful way. For example, one year Scout patrols lashed together a flag pole, erected and staked it out and performed a flag ceremony. For Webelos dens, I demonstrated how to do the lashings and then let them erect the flag pole, stake it out and do a flag ceremony. Another time a did a bugle blowing contest. All the Scouts got a chance to practice blowing a bugle. The patrol chose their best bugler to do their best blowing any bugle melody ("Taps" being most popular). Webelos Dens could participate in that as well as older Scouts. All I can say is that I haven't observed problems inviting Webelos Dens to participate. We also invite Webelos Dens to participate in our Klondike Derby, which amounts to a winter camporee. Most Webelos Dens do that as a day activity. One reason I support that is that I hope it will encourage Webelos leaders with little experience at camping with a group of boys to do that with a Troop where they can see how to do it, and make it easier to do because a wide variety of quality activities are available that the Webelos Den Leader doesn't have to program. I simply haven't seen the problems others describe. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Hello Twocubdad, Personally, I thought warnings about other district's experience with Webelos at Camporee were entirely appropriate, and were welcomed by me. I'm not the Camporee chair. I'm merely trying to support his program by aiding in promoting participation in Camporee. In my enthusiasm to do that I was promoting the idea that Scouts who are now Bears would officially be Webelos on June 1st and eligible to participate in Camporee. Because of the points made, I contacted the Camporee chair and asked him if that's what we wanted to do or did we want to limit Webelos participation to those currently 1st year Webelos who would be 2nd years Webelos at Camporee. He decided he wanted to limit participation to 2nd year Webelos, and that's what we will be promoting. Perhaps that's an example of how critical comments can help refine program plans.

Well Gern, As a matter of fact I DO think there is a good deal of liberal/environmental political correctness to the Leave no trace program. Frankly, there are a very wide variety of different choices about what units include in their program. Units and unit leaders make choices about which programs they wish to include and emphasize in their programs. Frankly, I've never included the Leave No Trace program in any program activity I've conducted. Being courteous in your outdoor practices is a part of program, but adopting the ideas of this program is certainly not necessary or required. Sorry I have other fish to fry, or I would if environmentalists hadn't poisoned all the trout in backcountry lakes because they were "non native" species.

I have great success having dens compete putting up self supporting tents. The first den with their tent up and the boys inside with the tent zipped up is the winner! How about fishing? Have boys toss a line tied to a stick over a curtained off area until they catch a "fish" tied on by someone behind the curtain.

I e-mailed our Camporee chair to ask him if he wanted to include 1st year Webelos that had just finished as Bears. He decided against that, but said 2nd year Webelos would be eligible to compete with other Webelos Dens for awards. Perhaps he will modify some activities to make them Webelos friendly. In any case, that's the official deal. I might add that I just got an e-mail from the Committee Chair of a pack for which I'm Commissioner ----they are sending two Webelos Dens to Klondike. And what's Klondike Derby except a winter Camporee? When I was at Klondike a few years ago, some events were modified for Webelos. Boys Scouts building a fire did their own axe work, while Webelos dens had an adult leader do the axe work. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Hello Moosetracker, I agree with your line of argument. Personally, I doubt very much that the portions of the Scout charter that so concern Kudu have any legal force to speak of. The charter is a typical act of Congress to recognize organizations doing good things and to encourage them to keep at it. The idea that it dictates and sharply restricts the program as suggested by Kudu has no basis in fact that I have seen. And in any case, the "methods of Scouting" referred to in the charter are the kind you describe in your post, things like advancement, uniforming, adult (male) association and the other methods of Scouting which remain part of the Scouting program. It is the methods of Scouting as they are in 1916 that are being recommended for preservation in the charter by my reading of it. And that we continue to do, by and large. I see no reason why "scoutcraft" should remain as it was in 1916. After all, Baden Powell was the very image of a Modern Major General at the time, using the latest methods of organizing and training troops when he was a commander. "Scoutcraft" as in the skills of infantry troops has evolved hugely in subsequent decades as new technologies have arrived on the scene. Instead of trying to hang on to obsolete methods, perhaps we should be regreting that we don't take Scout patrols into the wilderness via helecopter with the Patrol Leader leading the way rapelling down into remote areas. Indeed, it seems that Kudu's program includes SCUBA diving, which might be an example of just that kind of program. From Kudu's own description of his program, he chooses which elements of old timey "scoutcraft" he preserves and which new elements he adapts. The Scouting program he doesn't like does the same thing, only makes different choices than Kudu. I don't see how Kudu can reasonably condemn BSA in principle when Kudu is doing the same thing. Criticism on the merits of those choices is quite a different thing. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Hello Packsaddle, Usually I'l the one who's the curmudgeon, stubbornly holding on to the traditions of the past. So defending the new is a rare position for me to be in. That's due to the grating way Kudu makes and defends his positions. I find his claims about the Scout charter to be dogmatic in the extreme and I doubt very much the dogmatism is justified by the facts. I think they are the product of Kudu's imagination and wishful thinking. That's what I see the current debate to be about --- is Kudu's claims about the Scout charter defensible based on the facts or his own personal interpretation. Once we start discussing programs on their merits, I am glad to hear anyone's criticisms of the program. I enjoy discussing a wide variety of Scouting issues.

Sorry MC and Desert Rat, I encourage adults to be in uniform. It makes adults more a part of the program and it's a gift to Scouts to see adults participating. When adults take Committee or leadership positions, they are recognized at the next pack meeting and given a neckerchief and slide by their Scout and the badge of their office. They are also sworn into their office, promising to do their best and to obey the law of the pack.

Well Kudu, I guess your references prove that courts do in fact issue pronouncements about issues when they are called to do so. But none of the references you provide support the claims you keep making. In particular--- "No, I did not. The Congressional Charter does not forbid new stuff, as long as the new stuff does not replace the original Scoutcraft stuff. " Do you have a court citation to support your position on that issue? Or is that just your personal opinion? And what exactly do you mean by "the original Scoutcraft stuff"? I don't see that described in detail in the Congressional charter. It appears that your troop doesn't use uniforms dating from the style worn in 1916, and you dote on camoflage patterns and such. Isn't that replacing "the original Scoutcraft stuff"? What! No leggings?! And why your antagonism towards Cub Scouts which was "new stuff does not replace the original Scoutcraft stuff"? Is Cub Scouts therefore something you think authorized under the 1916 charter but just isn't justified on it's merits? Suppose I suggest that "scoutcraft" refers to the skills used by infantry troops in managing their day to day lives in the field ---- pretty much what Baden Powell had in mind I'd say. If we adopt that definition then "scoutcraft" has changed and adapted to new methods, equipment and practices. Rather than cooking over a fire, scoutcraft might better involve the methods of preparing an "MRE" in the field. Do you have a court decision you can cite that suggests that "scoutcraft" was frozen in time in 1916 rather than something that would be adapted to new methods and technologies as they developed?(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

No, our district doesn't have a Webelos Woods. Last July a Troop put on a Webelos overnight, but not the same thing. One district in our council has a "Cubolooza" which is a camporee for Cub Scouts through Tiger Cubs. I don't organize Camporee and no, I'm not familiar with Guide to Safe Scout rules regarding Webelos at Camporee.

I have three Dutch Ovens-- 10" aluminum I've had thirty years 12" deep cast iron I've had several years 14" Cast iron I bought on Ebay several years ago The best secret about Dutch Oven cooking is to cook and experiment while at home, using charcoal or wood coals in your yard or driveway. Experience counts, and that's the quick and easy way to gain experience --- in my experience, anyway.

Hello Hawkrod, When I'm recruiting boys for Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts, I'm marketing the programs to them about hiking, camping, bb gun or rifle shooting, swimming canoeing and so on. That's why most boys join the program. And if boys complete an honest 1st Class program they should have learned not only about hiking and camping but the rest of the Scout character, fitness and citizenship program. That's my bias. I'm glad to have boys who wish to continue on to higher ranks, but that's not my personal priority. As a Scoutmaster I thought boys who had achieved the Arrow of Light tended to be more mature and more purposeful ---and usually better behaved. As a Cubmaster these days, I'm glad to find parents who were Eagle Scouts especially, or Scouts at all. They usually have a better understanding of the program and a greater commitment to it. Often enough I have adults who more or less apologize for not completing Eagle. I tell them my idea that First Class is the most important rank, and often they seem to be cheered up by that (enless they dropped out as Second Class!) I just don't consider the higher ranks the MOST IMPORTANT. For me, that remains First Class. Maybe we'll just disagree. It just works for me as an opinion.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Hello moosetracker, Oh, it sounds like the horseplay incident produced trivial actual harm. Still, horseplay that results in an univolved person being knocked down is wrong and deserves an apology. And I'm sure we all recognize the potential of horseplay to get out of hand and produce genuine harm. Frankly I thought it was VERY poor judgment for the council to change the advertized program your son participated in, and appalling for them to refuse him the ability to call home for parental counsel and advice. In my view, refunding the fees paid by anyone who complained or might claim some harm AND a sincerely apology would be in order. It's easy to make a poor judgement ---- I did that by posting an email by someone with their name and phone number a day or two ago. I'm surprised a council program wasn't reviewed more carefully to catch the poor practices you described. We do our best. Sometimes it isn't very good....

Well Kudu, it's interesting to hear your pronouncements of the Scout Charter as "The Law," but do you have legal opinions to back up your claims from courts to support your claims, or are these your opinions as a layman about the Scout charter? As I read it as a layman it's a rather honorary recognition of Scouting by the Ciongress and a mandate to go out and do good things. I think Scouting fully lives up to those vague hopes. In short, I don't see the Scout charter as being anything more than being of symbolic importance. But perhaps I am wrong. Do your have references to legal briefs and courts decisions that have intervened to direct the BSA to conform to the congressional charter in particular ways?

Hello Proud Eagle, I have no objection at all to discussing the merits or lack thereof of any part of the Scouting program. That's the spice of life as far as I'm concerned. I merely object to references to the Scout Congressional charter as if it was some kind of Holy Writ. The program and changes to it need to justify themselves on the basis of facts and rational argument as far as I'm concerned. We've already noted that Baden Powell didn't get around to conjuring up Wood Badge until 1919. The idea that innovation and change should stop in 1916 seems ludicrous to me. And frankly, my primary interest is in the Boy Scout program. I was sold on being district membership chair and working primarily on Cub Scouts by my district Executive in 2004 who pointed out to me that "You can't have a youth program without YOUTH!" As a practical matter, without Cub Scouts a lot of Boy Scout Troops would die on the vine. By working to recruit Cub Scouts and strengthen Cub Scout Packs I figure I'm helping to keep Boy Scouts in business. The figures I've seen say that 85% of Boy Scouts come from Cub Scout Packs. The strongest troops may do OK recruiting outside of Cub Scouts, but they are usually the Troops who manage their relationships with Cub Scout Packs with the greatest care, too. Without sucking up a good many boys from Cub Scouts they would usually be headed in a downward spiral. Perhaps that's not the case for Kudu, and I give him credit for that. I take him at his word that he has developed effective methods for recruiting and an attractive program. Unfortunately, that's not something that is easily replicated for a variety of reasons.

Scoutfish, In the example you gave of a boy engaging in horseplay and injuring another person, the fact that the injury wasn't intentional doesn't mean the action wasn't wrong. Had he intentionally injured someone, it might be a crime. The unintentional injury due to horseplay was an act of negligence ---- a wrongful act. Has an injury occurred, the negligent person would owe for the damages he caused, and an honest person would, at a minimum, apologize for their bad behavior even if it didn't cause injury.

Where would we find someone able to get the fire started Proud Eagle? I thought that was a lost art even among Eagle Scouts!

Here we have Kudu, picking and choosing among the things he likes and doesn't like about Scouting in 1916 and the things he likes today. He is in fact no different that the Chief Scout Executive doing the same thing. Only their tastes in program are different. His willingness to dump the Cub Scout Program that provides 85% of Boy Scouts these day, and his willingness to be contemptuous of the leaders who provide that program is telling. Not even Kudu is willing to live within the straight jacket of the 1916 Boy Scout Program.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

The idea is that as of June 1st, Scouts who are Bears right now become Webelos. Webelos will be doing the same comptitions as Boy Scouts, but they will be competing among themselves for awards. When I was leading Camporee competitions, I looked for ways to make them a good experience for Webelos Dens. If the event were lashing together a flagpole, I might demonstrate the lashings and make the competition about raising the flagpole, setting the stakes to hold it up and leading a flag salute. It may be that Webelos will be a little overwhelmed by Camporee, but I think that's true for 1st time Scouts, too. This has been done succesfully in the past, just not recently. Does that sound reasonable?

Often I see this punctuated as a question--- What to Do With Webelos? This month my district Cub Scout Roundtable will be having one of our most talented Cubmasters give a presentation: "What to do with Webelos! By the time a Cub Scout hits Webelos age, they've probably done most of the annual Pack activities a couple times, and are looking for new adventures. They'll also be eyeing the Boy Scout program, but may have questions or concerns. We'll give you some great ideas to spice up your Webelos program and avoid the "been there done that" syndrome. We'll also provide good suggestions on learning more about Boy Scouts and getting your Scouts excited about crossing over." At our district meeting last night, our Outdoor Activity Chair announced the camporee for June 3-5th. Bear Cubs officially become Webelos on June 1st, so I'm aiming part of our program at getting Bear/Webelos dens to partner with a Scout Troop and attend the Camporee as their first Webelos activity. Scout troops may wish to invite Bear dens to one or more of their troop meetings to prepare for the Camporee. The past two years there have been NO Webelos dens at Camporee, despite the fact they have been welcome to attend. My theory is that these den leaders need some help to participate in that activity and our kickoff to provide that support will be at our Roundtable January 13th. We'll see if this kind of effort gets some Webelos Dens to the Camporee. If it does, I will count this effort a success.

Many Cub Packs around here charge around $60/year. I started rebuilding a Cub Pack two years ago that was down to one boy. No history of costs available, so I've aimed at charging $5/month as a fee. Parents can choose to pay the $60 in cash, or get a free membership by selling $200 or more in popcorn. 70% of the families rechartering with us this year sold $200 or more in popcorn. For spring recruiting in May, we will be charging $40 to join, again $5/month. We have a treasurer who signed on a few months ago and I hope will be giving us a better idea of what we can pay for out of those funds + the popcorn revenue and put together a more formal budget for next year. My bias is to pay for as many activity fees as possible out of pack revenues, plus recognition and advancement awards, and expenses for den programs. It might be nice to give boys their new Handbooks in the spring. Perhaps new neckerchies too. But that would be a secondary priority for me. This pack is in a relatively low income area, although only some of the families are low income. My aim is to have a quality program with low costs to families. Another of my biases is to have Tiger Cub-Bear activities fairly near by. In my view there are lots of things boys that age can do without a lot of driving. Webelos should probably be doing more traveling to find adventure.

Why not simplify your criticism of Wood badge? Baden Powell didn't hold the first Wood Badge course until 1919, and of course that was YEARS after the Boy Scout Charter was approved in 1916. So obviously it must be a violation of good Scouting practices.

If we weren't going to do anything except the program as it existed in 1916 we would: 1) be using an axe and saw to cut down trees to construct lean tos for the night when we went camping. 2) have no Cub Scout program 3) still be wearing these uniforms: http://www.njscoutmuseum.org/TourImages/100_0012-sm.JPG Change for change sake is no good either. Changes in the program need to be evaluated carefully in the light of current needs. But arguring that we should be straight jacketed into the program as it was in 1916 is absurd.

Melgamatic, I've been growing a pack that was down to one boy two years ago. We will have a Webelos den come June. I'll consider buying one of the award arrows to show our current Bear Den and younger Scouts now --- pehaps that would motivate them to stick with the program.

My Scouter experience began in 1981 when I was recruited to be an Assistant Scoutmaster and became Scoutmaster a year later. I don't have children, so my Scouting service has been to help others and to serve my own interests ---- Scouting provides me with congenial friends and acquiantances and low cost recreation. When I'm looking around for things to do, the opportunity to earn knots can influence me in a small way. In my view, that's one of their purposes. Last night I discussed with my District Executive making an effort to start a Cub Scout Pack using a labor union as the Chartered Organization. My research suggests that unions can make supportive Chartered Organizations, and my hope is the union might contribute families motivated to create an excellent program and reach out into the low income community that surrounds the union headquarters to encourage additional families to join Cub Scouts in an area not served by Scouting now. *** AND *** I would be eligible for a knot for organizing a new unit! Besides, I'd like to say I organized at least one new Scout unit in my life! I know I was being considered for the Silver Beaver award by my council this year, but I discovered last night I was not selected for that recognition. So no knot for that, not this year anyway! As I noted in an earlier post, I have and wear three knots for the Scouter's Key, District Award of Merit and Tiger Cub Den Leader. If knots shape a Scouter's behavior to achieve them by completing the requirements honestly, they are a VERY cheap way to motivate Scouters to do useful things for the program.