shortridge

As usual, CC, you are far too smart for the rest of us. No, seriously, I have no idea what your point is, because it's obscured by your extreme condescension. Yeah, some boys do independent work. They always have and always will. I did when I was a Scout, and the MBC chuckled, shook his head, asked some questions to make sure it was my work, and signed off. Hardly the imposition you seem to think it is.

I'm confused. What was the result? I loaded up the link and was told I'd completed it. Which I hadn't.

Try reporters' notebooks - sold at Staples and the like. Skinny and fit easily and comfortably into a back pocket. Plus they can be easily held in one hand while taking notes in a standing position. Three-ring binders are far too schoolish.

I did NCS for Outdoor Skills Directors, at Hawk Mountain, Pa., in 1998. With one or two exceptions, everyone in the program could have taught the bulk of the course. I did pick up a few neat skills and tricks, but the real value came from the informal conversations with my counterparts about their camps, program offerings, etc. The time - a solid week - and cost really make it impractical for use as a unit leader skills program. I think most councils would be well served running a series of Saturday workshops on different skills throughout the year. That way a Coast Guard lieutenant commander doesn't have to waste his time "learning" knots, for example.

Color me still confused ... What's the logic in a council requiring parents attending Webelos camp with their kids to register as leaders?

So the troop isn't cooperating, but you think a sub-group of the troop is going to magically help? How does that work again? The OA isn't a magic bullet to solve another unit's problems. You still need to convince members of this same troop to help you, and frankly, the privilege of running a stomp-rocket event, handing out stickers and wearing their sashes just isn't the draw you think it is. Your pack needs to solve this communication issue with the troop before you can reasonably expect any partnerships.

Recipes and ingredients for the troop/patrol's favorite one-pot (microwaveable?) meal. Addresses and phone numbers for the local outdoor store closest to their college. A copy of a favorite outdoors book - Colin Fletcher, etc.

Why would the partner not be able to? No different than an uncle, grandparent or family friend filling in.

"There is a difference between simply living your life within the view of others and making it a public issue." And what is that difference, skeptic? Since you say there's a clean line, where is that line drawn? What makes someone openly gay vs. openly straight?

I do not discuss the life styles of adults with the scouts Skeptic: Have you or any one of your fellow leaders ever had a conversation about your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend within earshot of a Scout? Have you ever mentioned or joked casually in earshot of Scouts about your w/h/b/g doing laundry, cooking a meal, watching a movie with you, sharing a good book, attending a sporting event, taking too much time in the shower, getting ill, sewing a patch on your uniform, picking up your kids or calling you at work? Has your w/h/b/gs ever driven Scouts on a trip or attended a unit meeting or has registered as a committee member? If married, do you wear a wedding band? ... If you answered in the affirmative to any of those, you are being openly heterosexual. And by your own rules, you should not be allowed in Scouting. In so many little ways, we Scouters discuss the "life styles of adults" with our Scouts, though we may not recognize it. How difficult would it be for you to go through a day or a week without doing any of those things publicly? That's what a don't-ask, don't-tell policy requires. For some reason, DADT proponents think it's just fine to require gays and lesbians to follow that - we can't have them being openly gay! -- but would be righteously offended if someone suggested that they stop talking about their w/h/b/g. (This message has been edited by shortridge)

To clarify Beavah's question (I'm not sure if the smiley means he's joking or not) ... On the age-appropriate guidelines chart, SAR missions are restricted to older Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouts and Venturers; SAR practice is allowed for all Boy Scouts, varsity Scouts and Venturers. In the G2SS, the activity that is banned is "flying in aircraft as part of a search and rescue mission."

JP, You or your council misunderstands the two-deep rule. That applies to outings. What you probably mean is the no 1-on-1 contact rule, which could be met by the Scout having a buddy of Scout age present, not necessarily a parent or adult.

blw2, The questions you ask here - what will be said, what will be done - are good and natural ones for a parent to ask. But the parent should be asking the Scoutmaster, an assistant SM, a committee member, etc., not the merit badge counselor. If you talk to one of those men or women in your son's unit and learn more about the process in Boy Scouts, you'll find it's vastly different than what you're used to. Part of the difference is that to earn merit badges, your son will need to go to his Scoutmaster and get an application and some names and contact information of counselors. The counselors, it's important to note, may not be Scout leaders. In many cases, they are just local experts in a topic volunteering their time to help a Scout learn about astronomy, model railroading, or theatre. But one of the core things about earing merit badges is that your son does all the work. Including calling the counselor, setting up an appointment, getting a buddy and then doing the fun stuff. As a parent, there's nothing for you to do in the process except watch with pride. Your son is fairly new to Cubs, you said, meaning none of this applies to him for probably a few more years. You need to learn about the Cub program and enjoy it with your son before getting concerned about the Boy Scout program. They are two utterly different beasts. Best of luck, and have fun!

For some reason, donations to build the AT&T Amphitheater are easier to get than donations to pay for camperships to Camp Noname.

But, none of this matters to those that simply would throw out the "baby" to make a point. I think you've utterly misunderstood the point of this thread, skeptic. The people saying there's a problem here are with the BSA, not some feared outside agitators. Do not understand the concerns. Again, there are no concerns here - except those expressed by the BSA, in pointing to a provision in the Constitution of the State of West Virginia. Also, what are these camp lawsuits you refer to? In places where camps are owned by a local or state government and leased to a council, they *should* be open to all groups, shouldn't they? In places where camps are owned by private entities and leased to a council, they should be open to those groups that the owner approves. In places where camps are owned by a council, the council can place whatever restrictions it wants on rentals. Pretty simple.

I've certainly been involved in some rather lively discussions on the I&P threads. I've been known to leave them (the monster thread of the moment, for example) when I can't keep up. But those are specifically noted as no-holds-barred areas. In the program threads, I've rarely noted anything but good old-fashioned questions, answers, civil disagreement and mild teasing. Those threads that have gone over the top have generally been those where someone posts a problem out of the blue, giving less than a smidgen of information, because -- as it inevitably later comes out - he/she is a [ parent of a child / committee member / Roundtable chair / den leader / ASM ] who has been unjustly WRONGED and wants to PROVE that the EVIL MR. SCOUTCHAIRMANMASTERLEADERPERSON committed a SCOUT CRIME and know how they can SUE in the NATIONAL COURT OF SCOUTING ... you've seen the type of thing. Trust me, compared to other Internet discussion boards, on the whole we're extremely civil when it comes to people like that.

Maybe they want enough seats for the 30,000-member American contingent they expect for the World Jambo in 2019 because by then they're going to open BSA up to everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religious preference or favorite Skittle flavor.

I assume CampMaster popcorn is a competitor with Trails End? I'd never heard of them before.

Nonprofit does not mean an institution is not allowed to make a profit. It means any profits are put back into the institution, rather than disbursed to shareholders.

When I was a staff commissioner, we had three people who did commish duties, taught all the Scoutcraft MBs and ran the FYC program. Needless to say, the campsite visits and inspections were our lowest priority. The necessary focus on speed (zipping through all the sites to get back to teach our class on time) ensured Scouts got good instructional program, but didn't do much from the commissioner POV. Thankfully, years later there are separate staffs for each. But not every camp has that luxury. Consider where your camp's priorities are. Personally, I don't see a need for the commissioner system at camp, aside from site inspections. If I'm an SM and I have a problem, the CD or PD or area director is going to hear it from me or my SPL or one of my PLs. I can brew my own coffee and the boys can fetch their own TP. And a commish stopping by the campsite during the day is probably not going to find me there anyway. (I found that to be true in the vast majority of my visits.) That said, I admit my perception is clouded by the fact that my - very compact - camp has largely shifted to a dining hall camp, away from patrol cooking and even heater stacks. The troop leaders can chat 1-on-1 with the CD and PD by walking 200 feet from the DH to the admin office. In a more spread-out, site-cooking camp, commissioner visits would be more important. Added: On the topic of inspections - some troops didn't care, others Really Cared. Some sites, boys would be crowding around the bulletin board watching me write their score and cheering or groaning loudly. The competitive drive for collective cleanliness was quite remarkable.(This message has been edited by Shortridge)

Or because for so long it was silly to apply the term "field uniform" to something crafted by a fashion designer and not an outdoor apparel firm ...

Hal - A business can discriminate at that level however it likes, generally speaking. Choosing who you want to engage in commerce with is a private decision. The Summit would not be turned into a publicly-owned operation. To put it another way - if the Human Rights Campaign, a leading GLBT group, is seeking to buy meals for a convention, it can choose to not purchase from Chick-Fil-A. There's no grounds for a lawsuit.

Sounds bizarre to me. My council, a nonprofit entity, can rent its facilities to outside groups, including commercial businesses, without this concern. Does W.Va. have something screwy in its constitution? I imagine that would affect a huge number of other NPs, too - like the art museum opening its galleries up for a speed dating service, or a private college renting its auditorium for a corporate retreat.

Yeah, I'd disagree strenuously with separate living areas. Back in my day, all under-18 staffers lived in large platform tents with electrical outlets. CITs bunked with full counselors. One 18+ staffer had his own tent, and was around to supervise. But since we were all together, there was no caste system - everyone was staff. Quite a few area directors worked their way up.

Yeah, I'd disagree strenuously with separate living areas. Back in my day, all under-18 staffers lived in large platform tents with electrical outlets. CITs bunked with full counselors. One 18+ staffer had his own tent, and was around to supervise. But since we were all together, there was no caste system - everyone was staff. Quite a few area directors worked their way up.