T2Eagle

There are some holes in the story and probably lots of poor communication. It sounds like the camp was getting advice from one set of experts and the staffers were getting conflicting advice from another: "Bourgeois said Jolly contacted him about the injured bird - specifically, asking Bourgeois to identify the animal. Bourgeois also said Jolly had contacted the game warden to ask what should be done about the injured eagle." If the Camp was being told in no uncertain terms not to touch the bird it's hard to fault them for wanting to follow that directive; it seems like a more difficult call than the headline would lead you to believe. From the Camp's perspective, if they were told by a game warden to do nothing, than the staffers' actions look a lot like the idiots who "rescued" a baby bison earlier this year.

I think Hooters generally sends the wrong message about objectifying women. Having said that, I recognize that they are a popular restaurant chain throughout middle America, and if a local business wants to sponsor a day camp and provide some volunteers more power to them. As Stosh pointed out, to the Cubs this is just another group of adults helping out at camp. Much ado about nothing, but outrage is fashionable these days.

For better or worse, some kids find the playing of a particular game comforting, just as some kids find burying their nose in a book has the same effect. I've handed my phone to kids who are homesick and let them play a game for half an hour.

Have the boys go camping every month, make sure they do all their own cooking, cleaning, and taking care of their equipment. Have them decide on the one big fun thing they're going to do on the Saturday while at camp. Go to summer camp, but let them participate in whatever program they want, don't have them work on requirements in lock step while they're there. In 12- 18 months anyone who wants to be first class will be.

This is pretty much what we do. We usually have 3-4 adults in camp any given morning; we generally sit together sometimes near or with our scouts but not necessarily. Thank goodness our camp does no singing, jumping up etc. that early in the morn. I do check in with our scouts, especially the younger ones, at breakfast to gauge how they're faring. Everyone goes to morning flags and then the scouts are off to program and we are free to relax and/or amuse ourselves until lunch. My ability to stubbornly ignore what others want me to do that I think is silly is usually greater than my opposition's.

We're a Catholic CO, we don't have any restrictions on who can be in the unit. As far as boys go I can't imagine excluding any youth for that kind of reason. Frankly, I don't think I'd stay with the unit if they did.

What paperwork don't people turn in, what happens either for them or the troop when they don't turn it in.

The best anti-bullyng policy is creating a culture that is intolerant of unkind or disrespectful treatment of anyone by anyone. If you have a policy such as the one listed you will soon find yourself in pointless arguments about whether a particular bad behavior does or does not meet the definition of bullying. Skip that part, bad behavior is bad behavior and will not be tolerated. This is one area where adult intervention by me is swift and sure, if I see a scout being mean to another I pull them aside then and there. If things happen out of my site my youth leaders and non leaders alike know that they should step in and if its anything consequential --- from the victim's point of view --- than I need to know about it. I have told my fellow adults the same thing, nip things in the bud, react when you see it, and the chances of it becoming a long term problem are reduced to near zero. In my opinion the most important consideration is the recipient's view point. If a scout says "well I don't mind if guys tease me" you have to point out that clearly the person they're teasing does mind, and if what you're doing isn't objectively a kind thing to be doing than if someone is bothered by it what you are doing is unkind. Unkind is a violation of the scout law, we live by the Oath and Law, period.

I agree with the main points of both of Beavah's posts. Our kids are digital citizens, they interact act with the world extensively and relentlessly through social media. If we're not a part of that communication than our voices and our guidance also aren't a part of it. I believe the second post is probably the more important one to give thought to. I am very careful about everything I post to FB, and with every post think of whether I mind that everyone and anyone I can think of, and folks who I don't think of, can see and make a judgment about what I post or comment on. This is in part why I tend to not have an extensive Fb network. But I am flabbergasted sometimes at what other people post, sometimes intimate things, sometimes just boneheaded things about coworkers, employers, friends, neighbors, etc. that no one should make permanent and public. I have not been asked to be Friends with any of my scouts, at least in part because teenagers don't use FB although they certainly use other social media. I am considering creating a FB account to use strictly for scouting, so that my own flabbergasting boneheaded posts don't dribble out of my own close circle of relatives and friends and into the wider circle that is my more public scouting life.

Thanks for all the replies. I think I have been misinterpreting; I was requiring five hot meals, two of them on backpacking stoves. I think the requirement can be met by cooking three meals, either over a fire or on a camp stove, using three different specified methods. This means on a normal weekend a scout cooking for his patrol should be able to complete the requirement.

I'm pretty sure TAHAWK meant the mosquitoes not the bats. Clearly you've never camped in the UP.

Thanks KC for setting up the new topic. A follow up question, if three meals is the minimum number, would anyone consider a two burner Coleman a "lightweight stove?" Normally I would not, but looking at the MB Pamphlet and at the requirements for 6. Trail and Backpacking Meals, there seems to be a distinction between "lightweight" stoves and "trail" stoves.

I couldn't get a new topic started so I figured I'd Lazarus this one for my question. In the 2016 MB Requirements 5(d) says: "In the outdoors, using your menu plans for this requirement, cook two of the five meals you planned using either a lightweight stove or a low-impact fire. Use a different cooking method from requirement 3 for each meal. You must also cook a third meal using either a Dutch oven OR a foil pack OR kabobs. Serve all of these meals to your patrol or a group of youth." How do you folks interpret that? Does that mean A, five hot meals: two of them on fires or lightweight stoves, one kabob/foilpack/DO, and then two using any method to cook? Or does that mean B, three hot meals as specified and then the other two can be either hot or cold? I am in favor of A, because we use Coleman stoves on about two thirds of our trips and I want to see the scouts preparing fully cooked meals using the equipment we most often use.

Krampus, do you know whether the numbers either previously or in 2015 reflect multiply registered individuals? My own observation is that almost every male registered as a Venturer is also registered with a troop, either as a scout or as an under 21 scouter.

Hikerdirect.com by ALPS Mountaineering has great deals for scouts. Our summer camp has sites with and without standing tents. We usually bring our own. One of our ASMs went with this last year at summer camp, we had torrential rains all week and he stayed dry. It has a center height of 7 feet. http://www.alpsmountaineering.com/products/tents/camping-tents/camp-creek

Have you spent much time around priests? Our last pastor swore like a sailor, as did my uncle (who had been a sailor before he was a priest).

I would call it a bad joke, in poor taste, done poorly. As the SM the SPL is my responsibility and I would have called him on it if I had seen it. I would have told him that it was not proper behavior and that he knows better. But there are also a lot of things it wasn't: it wasn't mean or directed at anyone, it didn't demean anybody or any group of people, it didn't involve foul or abusive language, and it wasn't sexual. If someone came and told me about it at a later date I might or might not say anything directly, that would depend a lot on the history of the scout, my evaluation of whether this was part of a pattern, and whether I thought that my failure to say something would increase the likelihood that he would do something that boneheaded in the future.

Since our lodge doesn't have any chapters I'd be surprised if "national OA" had anything at all to say about whether your chapters split, combined or did somersaults. How would National even know if there was something going on vis a vis a chapter. Whenever anybody tells you "national said" claim you're from Missouri. Show Me. National BSA cares a lot about a few things, and not at all about most things, they are never going to get into the weeds about something like that.

Could not be said better. If a scout is ambitious/motivated, goes to the meetings, and goes to all the campouts it's very possible to achieve FCFY, but those scouts aren't the norm so FCFY shouldn't be the norm. For our troop, we receive most of our crossovers in February or March, and most of them get to First Class the September after their second summer camp.

I'll pass the request along to the troop also.

I like the idea that it includes working with kids with special needs, that really should be in Volume 1. Assessing and evaluating how your troop is doing could be helpful if done well. Phrases like "level up" and "visioning" make me cringe.

Yes, although usually the "Friends of" corp only owns one asset, or more accurately one physical asset and some cash. The one I'm familiar with, not my unit, owns a bus because they wanted a bus but their CO didn't want to own a bus. Other than that the troop works just like every other troop, they have tents , gear, a bank account, etc., all of which would still be considered owned by the CO. Beav mentioned a Sea Scout unit owning a boat. I can see wanting to keep ownership of that out of the CO/BSA control so that it doesn't become either the council's yacht or the way to plug this year's budget hole.

Absolutely, trust only what you can verify.

I do not understand why councils want to do that, it can't help but keep attendance down. I'm on my Council's Jamboree committee, and the very first decision we made was to not have any side trips, grand tours, etc. We're charging the cost of getting ready, the cost of traveling there and back, and the cost of attending, and that's it. If anyone is interested in going and has a council that is turning it into the Grand Tour of Scouting, you might want to call around to other local councils, or even reach out across the country to find someone who will let you join their contingent and travel with them. There is no rule that you have to only go with your own council.

If your situation is the same as blw I think it's important to remember what it is you're trying to achieve. All you want is a bank account. It's been a while since I had to do this so I'm not completely familiar with all the ins and outs today. But likely a bank needs to have an EIN, (an employer identification number) or some other tax ID number, for every account it has. You don't need to be a legal corporation to get an EIN, you do need to disclose "the name and Taxpayer Identification Number (SSN, ITIN, or EIN) of the true principal officer, general partner, grantor, owner or trustor. This individual or entity, which the IRS will call the “responsible party,†controls, manages, or directs the applicant entity and the disposition of its funds and assets." ​The Byzantium that Beav describes is that someone from the troop applies for an EIN listing the parish or higher EIN as the responsible party. This works because then any reports that might be generated, like a 1099 INT for interest earned, will be reported on the troop EIN and not the parish's so there are no surprises for the parish. None of this changes the legal relationship between the unit and the CO, nor does it have anything to do with determining the non profit or tax status of either the unit or CO. It really is only about an ID number. The most important thing to remember is not to trust free advice from anyone on the internet about anything.