shortridge

E92, That's certainly how I would read it. The DL can only be measured on the things he or she has direct control over, and that's the program year. A hypothetical: If you have a den of 10, and five kids move away over the summer after crossing over, then the DL shouldn't be eligible for the award? Doesn't make sense to me.

camilam, You seem very knowledgeable on your church's doctrine. Where I think you veer off is in your understanding of just what the courts have ruled in the various BSA cases. You claimed: These cases show that the Scout Law and Oath are incompatible with homosexual behavior. In fact, as I stated, a United States judge would not rule on such a thing. Yes, judges wrote decisions in those cases. You misunderstand my point there: The judges were not ruling, and would never rule, on a question involving the content or interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law. That is a decision for a private organization to tackle, and not a legal question for the courts. What the courts did rule is that a private organization such as the BSA has the right to set its own rules on membership. They did not take a position one way or the other on the rightness of those rules. They did not state, as you claimed, that the Oath and Law are incompatible with homosexual behavior. That issue was not before the courts. There most certainly was a judgment made on a moral impotice which includes the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No, there was not. These cases were not decided on moral grounds. They were decided on legal grounds. Upholding National's decision to take and enforce a position on homosexuality is not an endorsement of National's position on homosexuality. You completely misunderstand the nature of American law if you believe that. When the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the KKK to march in Skokie, Ill., the justices were not saying "We agree with the KKK's stance on integration." They were saying "This is a point of law, and this is our decision." To state that courts have upheld the argument that the Oath and Law are not compatible with homosexual behavior is flat-out wrong at best and naively absurd at worst.

What Eagle92 and ScoutNut said. Your pack's "way" can't stand in your son's way of earning his Arrow of Light. There is no rule that says a first-year Webelos Scout cannot earn his Arrow of Light and cross over to a troop, and a pack cannot make such a rule. Glad to hear your son is so gung-ho! Sounds like he'd get a lot more out of Boy Scouting than another year in Cubs. Ask the pack leaders to show you the rule that allows them to add to the AOL requirements. They won't be able to. Then stand back proudly and watch him cross over to his new troop and tackle a new adventure! Congratulations!

Horsemanship seems daunting to me, but as the last time I got on a horse was when I was 3, that's to be expected. Surveying looks complicated, but to a surveyor, it probably isn't. Archaeology appears difficult at first glance. It requires eight hours in the field or in a lab ... but has a "mock dig" option that can be chosen for that requirement as well.

These cases show that the Scout Law and Oath are incompatible with homosexual behavior. No, they don't. A United States judge would never rule on such a point. What those cases did show is that a private organization has the right to determine its membership. Simple. I don't quite understand what you are getting at. What organizations within the BSA are you speaking of? And if they didn't think that they were morally wrong, why don't they allow for homosexuals to serve as volunteers then? The answer to that is pretty clear, because the BSA doesn't think that it is "morally straight" to do so. The cases that I listed are clear examples of this being upheld. ScoutLass is talking about the various chartered organizations, local owners of the BSA "franchise." They're not allowed to permit homosexuals to serve as Scouting volunteers within their organization because of the National dictates. And again ... none of those court cases upheld the position that homosexuality is not "morally straight." Try reading them again.

3)For CSDL Award again tone of the requirements state "Graduate a minimum of 60% of the eligible members of your den into a Webelos Den." Again how is this interpreted? Does it mean that 60% of the Wolves stay the entire 2 years and move up to Webelos, or does it mean that 60% of those who are Bears move up? Current Bears moving up. A Wolf who dropped out is clearly no longer "eligible" to move into Webelos. Also, consider that the den leader in question may have just been a Bear leader - tenure requirement is only one year - so he or she had no control in how the den operates as a Wolf den. Does it mean that 60% of the TCs stay the entire year and move up in May, or does it mean that 60% need to be active as Wolves? I'm told that my pack loses members over summers, despite having a bi-weekly program over the summer. ... [Another question] Also Do they need to be active as Webelos? It means moving into the new den/program level. The current den leader clearly has no control over how things work out for the boys in their next experience. Active or not, they moved up, and that's what matters in this context. And don't forget that the graduation requirement is in the pick-five-of-these category. Someone could earn the award by holding regular den meetings, going to camp, having a den chief, having an ADL and doing a single den service project. Fairly simple stuff if you're doing the program right.

Don't wave your lifestyle choice in my face and I won't wave mine. I've met many heterosexual people who make similar statements, thinking they're being open-minded. They're OK with gays, the reasoning goes, just as long as they don't talk about their sexual orientation. After all, these folks believe, I'm not flaunting my sexuality. So they shouldn't either. It's a very simplistic type of thinking that falls apart fairly quickly. Under that logic, if a heterosexual male talks about his wife or girlfriend, that's considered OK. But it's not OK for a homosexual male to talk about his husband or boyfriend. Make sense? The only way you can say "don't wave yours / I won't wave mine" is to apply an across-the-board ban on any discussion of personal lives. No chatter about what you're getting your girlfriend for your anniversary. No discussion about the great dinner your husband cooked the other night. No reminiscing about the family vacation last year unless you can avoid any mention of your spouse's gender. See how unnatural that would be? Could you live or work like that? Yet DADT, whether applied in the military or in Scouting, keeps some people from doing what many more people take for granted - being open and honest about their lives. Under Tom Trailblazer's plan, just what "behavior" would be banned? Talking about one's personal life? Would the SM's wife be allowed to give her husband a kiss in the parking lot in front of a group of Scouts? How about the ASM and her husband, a committee member, sharing a tent? (After all, they might have sex.)

Spun off: What makes a good provisional summer camp program? What qualities do your good provo SMs possess?

AFAIK, Drugs: A Deadly Game is still available for ordering ... http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/60-060.pdf

This thread is great. Problem, meet Solution. Connections made.

Another option would be to connect with a local law enforcement Explorer Post. They'd have the connections and expertise to run that type of program if you wanted to do it troop-wide.

Adult volunteers should not be paid for their time as that would raise a lot of legal and tax issues for the unit, the CO, and the individual. Why? Isn't this how Scoutreach works? The CO can certainly elect to pay its leaders as part of its program.

Drop the tutu and it wouldn't be crossdressing. Ballerinas can be men, too.

I was called out, instead of tapped out. I didn't feel short-changed because no one slammed their hand down on my shoulder. I would think that'd hurt the tapper more than the recipient, after X number of repetitions ... In my day, I did countless elections and call-out ceremonies, as a chapter elections team member and lodge summer camp chief. We always deferred to the SMs. If they wanted the candidates and troop told right away, we announced it; if they wanted to tell the candidates themselves, that was fine; if they wanted to wait until summer camp or the next district camporee for a formal call-out ceremony, that was kosher, too.

Call-outs (the term replaced "tap-out" quite a while back) are entirely optional. So your concern is not due to an "OA thing." It also has nothing to do with wanting to "increase numbers." Candidates generally have up to a year to complete the inductions process. They can do that with or without having been called out. Conflicts with family vacations or other events often spring up, making the candidate delay until the next opportunity. It's not a conspiracy. Some chapters and lodges prefer to perform the public recognition immediately; others want to wait. Some unit leaders have preferences. Your local leaders can best answer your questions.

Dean, your argument strikes me as a bit confusing. You say: "I would never withold or refuse to give an award that a youth has earned." And yet you want to do just that: "In Pack XXX we will not recognize, nor award x,y,z because we feel it doesn't fit with the aims of scouting, regardless of whether it is endorsed by BSA national." You hit the nail on the head in your last line. This is not a battle worth fighting. Write letters of complaint to National, if you want, but don't punish the kids for having fun and learning. That's a ridiculous and self-defeating position. The Cub did his best, worked with his Akela and earned a belt loop. That's what matters. It doesn't affect the moral authority of the pack one whit. /snark on If you're going to take such a strong position against video games, remind the members of your Pack Purity Patrol to confiscate all BlackBerries, smartphones and iPods from the hands, pockets and purses of your pack parents before they enter your meetings. What's good for the gander ... /snark off Really, if you're having problems with kids playing games during pack meetings ... make the pack meetings more interesting.

My troop usually averaged between 8-10 camping trips a year, including summer camp. Two were District events - spring Klondike and fall camporee. We usually wrote off the period from mid-December to mid/late January because of the holidays and school breaks and family vacations, and I don't remember doing a whole lot of camping in August, the month after we returned from summer camp. Mileage also varied depending on OA weekends, as the adult leaders were active there.

If you're thinking of the Summit as just an "outdoor camp" (what's an indoor camp, BTW? ), you need to start thinking from scratch. Even just a cursory glance at the BSA's materials on the Summit shows that it's not just a wilderness area with primitive camping. - It's got to have the civil infrastructure - roads, buildings, water, sewer, electricity, Internet access - to handle thousands of Scouts every few years for national Jamborees and possibly world Jambos as well. - It's got to have the adventure infrastructure - facilities and equipment for swimming, boating, climbing, mountain biking - for HA treks and activities. - And it's got to have the corporate infrastructure in place - the Scouting Leadership and Training Center, a visitor's center, a BSA museum and lodging for those who want to come but don't want to sleep under canvas. In addition, the first national Jambo is due there in 2013. That's a little over two years to get the entire site ready. That means working FAST - which in turn means lots of money in incentives to get it working. The last thing National wants is to get complaints that the toilets are backing up on the VIPs.

Never thought that it would someday be illegal to go out into the woods like I used to do as a kid. Better make sure one knows all the rules before they leave or they could end up doing something illegal. Hold that train just a second. It's not illegal to go out into the woods. Some landowners and land managers do have specific rules, sure. That's their prerogative. So yeah, you might not be able to randomly chop down trees in the nearby patch of woods like you did when you were a kid. That's life. Private landowners have private property rights. And public land managers have to develop some rules to cope with the herds of visitors and keep the land from being trampled and burned up inside of a decade. Stupid, careless visitors far outnumber the smart, conscientious ones. All I'm inquiring about with this thread is how many of these rules may in fact contribute to the attrition rates in the BSA program? How many of the rules reduce the level of adventure and excitement necessary for our boys to simply enjoy the great-outdoors without having to go to Alaska all the time? How many of those rules are from the BSA? Very few of the items you've mentioned are Scouting policies. (And no, just because Philmont does something doesn't make it a Scouting rule. Philmont is not the Perfect Place. Nor is it Scouting's premier high adventure camp, IMHO.) The fire restrictions and other non-Scouting rules you decry haven't had a huge impact on the number of people heading into the woods. (National park visitor numbers last year, for example, were up 10 million over 2008 - 285 million. That's just shy of the all-time record of 287.2 million in 1987.) So why do you think they're boring kids out of Scouting? All I'm saying is that by all the various restrictions one may chance upon, it can in fact take it's toll on the "adventure" aspects of the trip. You seem to be advocating a no-rule, anything-goes system. Am I understanding you right? = = = = Scouting and safety rules haven't crowded out adventure. Yes, Cubs are going to be disappointed if their den leaders and parents promise them shotgun-shooting, mountain-climbing and sailing right away. But that's not Scouting's fault - that's the fault of ignorant adults.

Sounds interesting - like a good way for troops and packs to connect who may not have been familiar with each other in the old districts. Good luck! As for a gift ... a cool neckerchief slide might work, and be simple enough to do. Take some round wood slices, woodburn a pattern or emblem representative of your camp on them, and stick a leather circle on the back. Set up an assembly line, and you can crank 'em out in an afternoon.

Shortly after my daughter was born, getting 2-3 hours of sleep a night and working a 4-12 shift with an hour's commute, I fell asleep at the wheel just a few blocks from home. I came within a foot or two of going head-on into a power pole. Instead, I abruptly woke up, jerked the car to the right and only messed up the axle bouncing over a curb. Most terrifying experience of my life. Since then, I don't drive if I'm tired. Period. If I find myself getting sleepy while driving, I pull over at a rest stop and take a nap. Better to be late than dead. Drinking soda, snacking, opening the windows and letting cool air blow on you, cranking up the radio - those won't cut it if your body shuts itself down.

RememberSchiff wrote: Remember when all scouts were taught to swim at camp, just like 4-H and Y camps still do. Maybe if you teach an 8 yr old boy to swim, he will want to kayak next. Can't have that. Meanwhile the paddle boards remain stacked and unused in the camp cabana. What camp are you attending where swimming isn't taught? That's hardly a BSA rule. Sounds more like a serious program or staffing problem (i.e., not enough lifeguards to look out and teach simultaneously) with your camp. = = = = Overall, I think BSA allows us a great deal of flexibility in what we do. Yeah, I agree that Cubs could certainly do more with outdoor adventure. Too often that program gets watered down into arts & crafts & Pinewood Derby heats. But there's simply not enough structure and training for den leaders and Cubmasters to teach them how to do outdoor adventure properly and safely - and that's more of a structural problem than a program one, IMO. We don't want to release several thousand untrained den leaders into state parks across the country building massive 10-foot-tall bonfires and teaching kids that all mushrooms are safe to eat.

Stosh, I agree with you on most things - including being against the HA-is-expensive mindset - but do want to point out that many of the items in your list are not the subject of BSA "rules." Camping and no fires? only back pack stoves? Where's the adventure in that? If I wanted to cook on gas, I would have stayed at home. No rule against it! Sure, some areas have burn bans, but that's a local rule for fire safety. Seems smart to me. Dealing with bears? I see them all the time at the zoo, and it's a real rush to see them in the woods where there are no bars. The bears I saw at Philmont were being trapped and taken out of the area so the boys would be safe. Where's the adventure in that? No rule against bears! There are plenty of places to go outdoors where they live and roam. Just don't go to Philmont if you want bears. Whitewater canoeing/kayaking? The rush, the rocks, the ability to fight nature in an active way. No, still water, 50-miles of lake after lake and a few muddy portages. Where's the adventure in that? No rule against it! In fact, there's a Whitewater merit badge ... which would seem to encourage it. Marathon trek watching the trail every step of the way so we can get to the next site were there's blackpowder shooting and pole climbing. Where's the adventure in that? Why can't I just sit and watch the deer for a while? No rule against it! Poor planning and program? Yeah, sounds like it. Why can't I just sit with my feet in the stream a bit longer and watch the birds nearby? No rule against it! (See "Poor planning and program," above.) Why can't I eat nettles or cattails? No rule against it! Sure, you don't want an entire troop scavenging the marshes and woods for five meals on a weekend-long campout in one small location, as it would devastate the area, but eating edibles is perfectly fine. My copy of the Wilderness Survival MBP, in fact, mentions edible plants, while of course cautioning Scouts to know their plants well before consuming them. Why can't I use a hand ax to build my fire? No rule against it! Splitting a little firewood, creating fuzz sticks or making logs fit in a fire ring? Go ahead. Just don't go chopping down a bunch of trees and ruining the place for everybody else. Why do the adults have to drag themselves along in herds? Two is hardly a herd. And patrols don't even need that. 1950 Scout handbook had as 2nd class requirement, go on a hike with patrol and or one other 2nd class buddy cook a meal and do it all on your own. 1st class requirement was the same but with an overnighter and 24 hours. How many of our 21st Century boys would be ALLOWED to earn rank from 70 years ago? NONE. I feel like a bit of a broken record ... but there's no rule against it.

A few comments ... - One way to reduce space needs: Backpack. Use lightweight, compact tarps for the dining flies, and ditch the trailers and chuck boxes. - Putting 80 Scouts together in one location for meals on a regular campout - even just cooking and serving - creates a very large impact on one plot of ground at least four times over a 24-hour period. All those feet tramping around the picnic tables or campfire circles - not to mention the multiple blazing campfires or big propane tanks attached to those two-burner Coleman "camping" stoves - lining up to get their food dining-hall style is going to rapidly kill whatever grass may exist there. - There's no rule that says troops have to camp out together, as a group. I would wager that these large troops split up regularly, taking just half or a third of their patrols out at one time - they'd certainly have enough adult leadership to do multiple treks on the same weekend. Three or five patrol campsites are much easier to locate than 10.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Call me uptight or preachy, but I just don't find it to be funny. Simple as that. This goes beyond a "gray area." There are lots of other fill-in-the-blank sports team jokes out there that don't center around causing intentional harm to a child. Good fun is good fun. Child abuse isn't.