shortridge

... a British necker from a cute Scout making her way across the USA. < cough cough > You traded for a *what*?

Hawkrod ... ODS? Old Darn Stuff?

Scoutfish, Woah ... calm down just a wee bit. I assume your post is in response to my comment on another thread at present. I pointed that out not to jump on anyone's back, but to simply make clear that there is no such thing in the program as Webelos 1s or 2s, or even first- or second-year Webelos. They're all Webelos, period. If you join in what would be the second year, you can still do everything that the other Webelos do, including earning your AOL and Webelos badge, or attending a camporee. As FSCouter pointed out, some folks think there's a real difference between Webelos 1s and Webelos 2s, and that's my concern.

The Whittlin' Chip can be earned anywhere, not just as summer camp. When the Bears cross over, they will become Webelos. They should be allowed to visit the camporee. ("Webelos Ones" is not an official term, because there's really no difference between first- and second-year Webelos.)

... 'cause it takes so much time to change the word "red" to "green" in an HTML file ... LOL ...

skeptic - Just because someone poses legitimate questions or criticism doesn't mean they're not showing Scout Spirit. Under that logic, it would not be Scoutlike to question the decisions of your local district or council, or especially National. And nearly every Scouter has been known to do that before. NESA is part of the BSA. I appreciate Mr. Doyle's efforts, but the pros in Irving should have vetted the book more closely, IMHO.

The "Eagle Pledge" claptrap always sets me to ROLFing. ("I believe it to be a movement that helps a Scout become master of his own powers ... and helps him find a worthy use for his powers.") Since when do we teach how to use lightsabers and control the Force? Whew. [ wiping tears from eyes ] Seriously, though. Am I the only one concerned about Ceremony 7 and its use of the OA ceremonial principals as characters? Callout ceremonies and crossover ceremonies aren't supposed to use those names, so why does NESA think it's OK? desertrat: I thought Ceremony 9 read like it was missing a few pages ...

And that's a key leadership lesson that a lot of Eagles learn (or don't) during their project process. Unless you have the charisma of a Reagan or a Clinton, you can't just stand up in front of a group and say "I need 10 volunteers to build a shed for the Little League. Come to the park on Saturday. And bring $20 each to donate to the equipment fund." You have to motivate and inspire. To some, the OA might look kind of goofy, with those white sashes and red arrows and strange totems on their pocket flaps. But it certainly motivates and inspires. Anyone who's been part of a service crew can vouch for that.

desertrat wrote: A good lodge can be a can indeed be a music club, etc. But how much of this is value added to scouting in general? How much time and energy is expended on insular OA activity that could be utilized at the troop, pack, crew or ship? It all comes back to program. If a troop's Scouts are abandoning your troop in favor of the OA lodge or chapter, don't blame the OA. Take a good hard look at what the OA is offering that your troop isn't. There's nothing preventing a troop from doing the exact same things, minus the symbolism and ceremonial details, that a lodge does. But do we really need all the overhead of OA, just to have traditional work crews? Do work crews need elections, ceremonies, sashes, patches, officers, advisors, and such? Let's put it another way: Do camping clubs need uniforms, rank patches, shoulder loops, merit badges, adult leaders and meeting places? As in standard non-OA Boy Scouting, the outward accoutrements are part and parcel of the unifying spirit, not excess garbage. Try to recruit 100 boys from your council for a work crew with the pitch that they'll be setting up tents for summer camp. You'll be lucky to get 5, if that. But hold an OA weekend, offer fellowship and camaraderie and drama and the ability for youths to tell the adults what to do, and you've got more than enough people to help out.

One additional point ... I think it's really good practice to have two adults present at all times, especially with Cubs. Let's say DL Joe suffers a heart attack, and he's the only adult present. What do the kids do? But if ADL Sally is there, she can take charge. I don't think that's really a problem in your situation - as I read it, your dens all meet at the same time at the same location, and there are plenty of adults around?

I underwent my Ordeal as a 13-year-old Scout. My Elangomat was 15 or 16, and my fellow candidates in my clan ranged in age from 12 to 60. We all had a great, unifying experience. I agree with OGE. A 15- and 16-year-old Venturer girl isn't going to want to "hang out" with 12- and 13-year old boys. She's going to taking charge, becoming an Elangomat, getting appointed Ordeal Chairman, running for Inductions Vice-Chief and getting elected Lodge Chief. It will certainly be interesting when the ceremonies are rewritten for gender-neutral roles ...

Your reading is correct. You don't need two adults in the room with every group of Scouts. Otherwise, you'd have to have two adults riding in every car of Scouts heading to camp. Just avoid one-on-one contact. But if the CO wants you to have stronger leadership rules, then what the CO says, goes ... that's their choice.

All these are great ideas. But the big problem I have encountered is if a patrol has to miss a meal because they failed to prepare it, Mommy and Daddy are screaming at me the next time they see me because their prescious little angel almost starved to death. Yeah, I don't get this. My mom taught me the basics of cooking early on. (Still didn't prevent my patrol from trying to boil one hot dog at a time, but still. ) Tough love. Hand mommy and daddy the Cooking MBP and tell them to practice with their son. Ask them how he's going to survive on his own when he gets older if he can't cook.

In another thread, BadenP wrote: If Mazzucca has his way the boy scouts will indeed become coed, as it is in much of the world already, during his tenure as CSE. I'm wondering what others think about this - not about the coed Scouting debate, because that's been hashed and rehashed already - but about Mazzuca being in favor of coed Scouting. I just don't see it. Any hints from Irving on this subject that others have picked up?(This message has been edited by shortridge)

The slogan is representative of the confusion surrounding Venturing's half-fish, half-fowl status. Until Irving bites the bullet and actually makes a decision to integrate girls and boys in the same program, it'll remain that way. It's also a tacit watering-down of the slogan of the Order I joined as a youth - the "society of honor campers" that sherminator mentioned. Camping is central to the OA's mission. An "honor society" is generic and leaves open the possibility of members who don't camp. We have enough of that already in the rest of this program.

Through my years as an election team member, I don't think I ever once wore the full uniform. I never had a problem or a complaint. The troops I visited were grateful to have an election, period. I didn't even own one when I first ran for lodge office - delivered my campaign speech in a khaki shirt and pair of greenish slacks. (I remember one guy who gave his speech still wearing his filthy apron direct from the kitchen where he'd been slaving away all weekend. He won. Then he returned to the kitchen.) With only slight exaggeration, I think the only people in the lodge who did wear the full uniform regularly were adult advisers and the secretary/treasurer types, who seemed to spend the weekend sitting at tables in the dining hall selling patches and printing out membership lists or something. Once I started working on camp staff, that changed. It was required for the job, and I adjusted to the "new normal." I now wouldn't think of wearing the shirt without the pants or shorts. But Scouting's not a job. A complete uniform costs upwards of $150. And especially in this economy, that's real money for something you're only going to wear once a week and one (maybe two) weekends a month. Bottom line: How you exemplify the spirit of Scouting and the Order gets you much farther in my book than whether you're wearing a pair of overpriced pants.

Darn, I was hoping that the scouts had a clear policy on this so I could just follow the rules and be done with it. Actually, there is a clear policy. The rule has been around for decades. The Cub Scout gives goodwill. That applies to parents and leaders, also.

In Scouting, we don't do the Dance of the Lemons, eh? Except in the professional ranks, on occasion.

That's a really good point, BS-87. Youth camp staffers can easily find themselves in situations that most adults instinctively know to avoid - like changing in the pool shower rooms together, or on a one-on-one walk across camp with a non-staff buddy. FYI, here's the document referenced in Standard M-10, which provides a general outline of camp YPT training: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/623-127.pdf(This message has been edited by shortridge)

If it is a Cub Scout, Boy Scout or Venturing resident camp, Standard M-10 (M for Mandatory) applies, pertaining to training. "Presentations include the required Camp Leadership Youth Protection Begins With You, No. 623-127, or evidence of completion of the online Youth Protection training." There is no deliniation between "youth YPT" and "adult YPT." As a youth camp staff member, I received the same YPT training as did camp staffers twice and three times my age. Neither I nor any of my fellow youth co-workers had any issues comprehending or dealing with the information presented. I think you'll find that the youth you'll be dealing with are going to be far smarter and far more mature than you seem to give them credit for. There's no need for you to re-invent the wheel, and certainly no need for a list of topics to avoid. Follow the syllabus, and you'll be fine.

When I was on camp staff as a youth and adult, everyone received the same YPT training. The same rules really apply to both youth and adult staff in a camp setting - it's the whole people-in-positions-of-authority thing.

[ looks around for Kudu ] [ doesn't see him ] [ channels Kudu through the power of the intertubes ] One of the posters on this board has had success with this recruiting presentation. I haven't used it myself, but he swears by it: http://www.inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm

JoeBob, The changes to Paul Bunyan were made about 15 years ago, 1996. Nothing new there. http://scoutleaderawards.com/advance/boyscout/changes/PaulBunyan.asp Even with the new requirements, when I was a summer camp Scoutcraft staffer and director in the 2000s, I had maybe three people earn it - over four years. Just not a lot of interest.

John - I suppose that makes some sense, but it really seems to be splitting hairs. Especially since we in the trenches often don't have easy access to those rules, regulations and policies. My concern is that saying the G2SS is not a policy document suggests that the entire thing doesn't have to be followed, when that's clearly not true.

I'm going to do a Rumsfeld for a second. Bear with me. Is this a horrible situation, for the patrol, troop and boy? Yes. Should the adult leaders have stepped in long before it got to this point - such as during summer camp when the boy and his father stayed at a hotel? Yes. Will it thus be exponentially more difficult for the adult leaders to make this situation better now? Heck, yes. Scout Spirit, fundamentally, is being and acting like a Scout. The SM should immediately call for a Scoutmaster Conference with this young man - not his dad, just him - and express his concerns, perhaps alongside the SPL. He/they should ask the Scout: Do you believe that you have acted like a Scout? Can you give examples of times when you have acted like a Scout? How do you think refusing to participate in Patrol activities is acting like a Scout? How do you think sleeping in a hotel is acting like a Scout? ... and perhaps finally: Do you really want to be a Scout? The SM and CC (and COR, if possible) should then sit down with the father and mother, separately, and discuss, asking the same types of questions, but from a parental perspective. They should make it clear that they have given this boy sufficient time to adjust to Scouting, but that time is over. The boy will begin sleeping with his patrol, in a tent, cooking with his patrol and eating with his patrol. The father is welcome on campouts, as is any parent, but he must step back and go hands-off. There will be backlash, guaranteed, precisely because the leaders lacked the gumption to say "No" from the beginning. They're going to have to prepare for and deal with that. Probably lots of calls to the COR, DE and Council. Tough it out. If this boy and his dad are allowed to continue any longer, it will drive everyone else away and make a laughingstock of the troop.