skeptic

Do not think they can dictate that. If a unit wants a different charter but with the facility arrangement it should not be any business of the LC. And, since it appears LC's are balking in some areas anyway, not sure where they are coming from.

Thanks for this reminder and idea maker. I am going to give my SPL a "tarp challenge". Have various items available, such as poles and line, along with the rope. Include older tarps without metal rings and see how they might attach lines, and so on. Could be a great exercise for a meeting and even more of a chaollenge on an outing.

What is still not clear to me is why were they then at the Scout range? Were they trespassing on the range, or did they somehow get some kind of use pemission for the range? It the firearms are privatedly owned, what is the Scout connection beyond the range itself? What am I misssing?

Or simply use whatever works as a slide. Again, who says it has to be level/rank specific in appearance. We do not require Scouts, the older type, to use official Scout slides,so why the little ones. Use a curtain ring, or a rubber band, or a small vertebrae from an animal, something interesting attached to adevice; they are more fun anyway.

Ride to the Flags. Service today, and Honor and Rememberance https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10160700391950798&set=pcb.1289504331787325

Is this an indication that Mr. Spielberg no longer has BSA on his bad list? Whatever, if done well, as he generally does, it should be a positive thing for BSA comingout of the bankruptcy.

Whether Cubs or any other level, the uniform is optional, though has its place within reason. I have seen many units that simply encourage whatever families can handle, and they also do keep closets. Many use a basic T with the neckerchief, especially at the Cub level. You can, with a bit of effort, make your own T's too. At some point, hopefully the youth might be in complete uniform, but it is a tool. The PROGRAM si what is important. Worldwide, a very basic shirt of some kind with a neckerchief IS the uniform. Do not stress, but do work on keeping it fun and educational as best you can. JMHO

Once again we are seeing the ignorance of knee jerk reactions and trying to solve a problem without anybody using common sense or rational thinking. How, I have to ask, is running a proper shooting sports range dangerous? If anything, it is something that should be encouraged. Very few youth that are or have been trained "properly" to respect and handle firearms will become the fools responsible for mass shootings or dangerous handling of firearms. That training should be a key in the gun laws, not discouraged. We are having similar concerns in California with one local gun club shutting down its junior program due to the legal concerns with a new Calfirnia law related to advertising firearms and related materials to youth. It does not specifically single out the youth range programs, but the club is afraid of the irrational legal vultures that will twist it to their advantage. It could change, but currently, they will no longer allow youth in their firearm programs. Much of this just adds to the ignorance of our legal system much of the time, and the lack of simple common sense and paranoia.

Now we should prepare for the next tsumami of dark birds and over reach. JMHO. Just want to move on and let the program return to the precepts on which it has most functioned for over a century. Understand that it is not a perfect program, and never has been. It is made of the ideas from the wider society, and is dependent on that society to make it work. When the darker elments of society are allowed access, negative things can occur. Vigilance and response under the rules and protections are a constant part of all of us if we want to make it work, keeping in mind that awareness is important, and following up if there are concerns, no matter who is part of that concern, is the ONLY right way.

Hopefully both. They really are joined at the hip, more or less. But, BSA as a corporation, not but one option for the program here. Would like to see them figure it out, as the bones are still there, and so would be less difficult if done with integrity.

The negative attitudes a few bring to this is disappoointing. IF you believed in Scouting before, you should go back and see why and then work on putting that into play again in some new manner, or even the old. If you found the early development of Scouting as BP imagined it in the age of huge cultural and international upheaval and the needs of the changing masses and its youth, then you might ask why that seemed a positive for the time and how it might play in the more modern enviroments. I have to believe that most on here come because they want something from the program, or saw something. I realize a few are on here because they likely are enjoying the negative elements of this imbalanced trajedy of toxicity that is not actually representative of the real Scouting idea, but rather a reflection of the very reason Scouting should still have a place. Even the most jaded I suspect, if they are honest, cannot truthfully claim that the benefits of Scouting for over a century, both BSA and the world momement, far out strips the damages from the small darkness that somehow took hold, but is not the real Scouting. So, those of us that truly believe it still is even more needed and has its place should do what we can to right the ship, even if it means jetisoning some parts of the perhaps too broad or segmented organization. Do Our Best and put the Law and Oath at the forefront, and work to heal the wounds of the darker societal intrusions.

Am I the only one that suspects that if real vetting happens, a large percentage of the claims will go poof or be tossed? And, I still do not understand why immediate vetting should not have been the case to start, as then perhaps a large part of this mess would have been distilled into verified categories, versus "I was a scout and someone looked at me funny" categories.

What is not being admitted is that there very likely are these types of camp rule violations in most camps. We do not search people, or not usually, and we all have known of inidividuals that ignore the rules and bring unauthorized items into the camps. Most do not expose such violations, and a few may simply keep something with "camping" gear and forget it is there. It is when these items are involved in incidents, or simply exposed, that we become aware. Simialrly it highly likely that alcohol could be found in a large percentage of searches, along with larger than useful (for normal use) blades, yes firearms, possibly even fireworks, and varioous recreational drugs. We are dealing with people, and many have big egos and think they are immune to the rules. Until we get the larger picture, we likely are better off not passing judgment. Hopefully an answer will be found, and changes or legal responses applied in a reasonable and balanced way.

The documents shared over time have been similar, but changed a bit. The basic premise, is the same for a long time now. Problems lie in that many councils seem to NOT want to do it if they are responsible. We are looking at changing CO's, not to the Council, as ours does not really want to do it, and we are not comfortable with it anyway due to the asset issue. The good news is that our local church wants us to stay with the useage agreement, just not the legal CO problem that is ongoing in the litigious atmosphere. We can perpetuate our tenure though, which is the main issue for us, beyond the meeting place of decades with its history.

That was already noted in the earlier postings.

Subscribe Sign In https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfchronicle.com%2Fbayarea%2Farticle%2FBoy-Scouts-Chinatown-survival-troop-17378339.php%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2iiW3b0mQY2Sc4057JzQZuf0OP3N1SP3-AjRoLp8wtre5JZDNoF1hd1Oc&h=AT0vwmsquKWMJaHZc6Dqi9wammasLtSZWjR2RCuD9zyPfbTXROwiDqV4ayYo3miYePOfpCilboBYkTlXIpSYUgB16fhk8k4WgzKqbh2jaNOwoWqDF4zWGEGo7Ak65rSm&__tn__=H-R&c[0]=AT0tTvMUcQSJfk45w70_9xAhnU7LQCBas0_Su0IqSeqhcwJiO4oYAy8Xrcc4-Vhhbk90oGE8LWR5k4al1HKgpz4uZ3KofUFBNdN76lNlF1X3jKhIRYZ1q677-4yj2fic3MMCtIZIsiH3AgbvctaXmorBqbVxnVyKcjyJbtsAfjblA3PnsHBms_k65d14ep-C4NrHUV0A5-I-X8yhUBk BAY AREA Peter Hartlaub (he/him) is The San Francisco Chronicle’s culture critic. Email: phartlaub@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @PeterHartlaub

While I do not really remember much of my initial troop, as we moved soon after I had joined, though it was not into serious drilling, but did have some of the basic elements of formations and respect. The unit I joined after moving was sponsored by the VFW, as opposed to the Lutheran Church, and it had a strong cadre of adults from WWII, as it was the fifties. It was there I learned and came to like basic drill and formalities, and we did include some more militaristic bits, saluting the SM if meeting formally, as well as the youth leaders. We drilled regularly and could do it well in parades and flag ceremonies. The drilling does serve a purpose beyond just "looking good", as it forces one to be aware of the command voice and, while marching, those around you. To this day I truly enjoy crisp formations in motion, especially a four wide flight smoothly rounding a corner, or a column changing direction as one, rather than in line. It just, to me, is impressive and almost mesmerizing in its smoothness. But we do not drill today, or seldom do it beyond basic flag ceremony practice. And honestly I cringe at times with the lack of tight formations and motions many groups present, including our own. But, they are still being respectful and it is still mostly appreciated by observers, even myself. I try to not be overly critical beyond working at standing up straight and staying in line, and respecting the ceremonial elements at actual formations. I have told my own youth more than once that if I can stand at basic attention for ten minutes, so can they; but also I teach them how to NOT be tense while doing it, especially locking joints. Related I find writing this is the comparison to the lack of interest by so many today in the OA. And I see that to be partly due to the loss of the OA mystique and well done ceremony. The PC atmosphere and, to me mainly misplaced idea of disrespect of the Native American history is part of that. There is no doubt that often sloppiness or not understanding the formalities of Native ceremony contributed, it is more the bending of history and culture in a questionable direction that actually often does more damage to the image and culture than the poorly performed ceremonies. Just my own perception, and I will not argue the foolishness of cultural appropriation with anyone, as that to me is mostly simply nonsense or other terminology not appropriate here. In the end though, BP, especially after his retirement from the military, made it pretty clear that Scouting should NOT be military boot camp or preparation. He aspired towards a world brotherhood of Scouting, a term we still use today and represented by the purple patch. And it works, when allowed to. Many of us have had the privilege of seeng it at a jamboree or in today, online interactions. And that "brotherhood", or I suppose that "family" of World Scouting may be more important to day than ever.

While there continues to be a great deal of confusion about the "agreement" between BSA and UMC, I do not feel it is accurate to suggest they are "dumping" the scouts. It surely is not the case in most of the units with whom I am familiar. But, as in ours, we are trying to formulate how to avoid any LC ownership, which seems likely to be a new CO, but continued primise use. Our local church "wants" us therer, but the legal confusion and fear of more direct confrontations runs deep. It is the lack of specific detail as to how they as a CO might be liable going forward that is the issue. Unless our legal system makes serious adjustments, with some concrete guidelines and penalty tables, it will continue to be free range for the manipulative lawyers some call black birds of carrion and greedy. So, the CO support that is still there, is very leery of such things in the current litigious atmosphere of our society.

Do not see that, but some likely do, especially those that tend to a negative bias from the get go. But, just a view. Will leave it there, and move on to something more positive and important.

I just looked at the survey via the link shared, and I frankly do not see what some suggest is trying to raise money, or make a profit. Is the link not inclusive of the survey?

Is the chosen battle really worth the discourse and dischord?

How about is it simply "human predator based". That is really what it is. I has little to do with the Church/CO or BSA directly, as the people doingit are NOT representative of the CO's or BSA. They are part of the fringe, but sadly fairly common negative elements of humanity. Just an observation that seems obvious to me. But, I guess some will disagree, as is their right.

Hearsay to roil the waters is not a good idea. Unless there is supporting evidence to such comments, it is not anything for this forum, or so it seems to me.

I just hope that those that would put someone to the grinding wheel due to their interpretation of something in the GTA or even what something means, would chill a bit. Also hope that most rational Scouters will have the sense, maturity, and integrity to not embasrass a scout over something like this and instead, if that important to them seek out and discuss with the unit leader(s). Even an aside meant to simply make a youth think a bit can come off wrong and cause issues. I learned years ago to not chastize a youth for something that is not dangerous or likely to cause harm, especially uniform stuff. I jokingly asked a Star Scout at camp what lodge the "tote-n-chip" was since he had that patch where the OA flap is in theory supposed to be placed. He was upset, as I embarassed him, though I suspect he also knew what I meant. At chow that evening I was taken to the woodshed by a very annoyed leader from that unit. I did apologize to them as best I could, but it was really not worth the outcome. Since then, I only correct or annoy my own youth.

It is apparently not of high importance to most councils. Otherwise, every council would maintain at their office a used exchange department. Far too many uniforms go to some form of thrift, and most of those end up in the market with little control and often excessive expectations. IF each council were to keep such a resource, people could use it for exchanges as youth grow, and the supply issue might be partly mitigated. But, that would mean they would likely lose a good percentage of "new" purchases. The focus needs to not be on profit to sustain the council, but service to meet the "uniform" part of the program. JMHO of course.