Twocubdad

Welcome to the campfire, '86. I would think most council service centers will sell you a replacement medal, but you will need to provide some proof that you are an Eagle Scout. If you have lost your certificates as well, the national office in Irving maintains a record of all Eagles and can provide you the verification you need. Maybe someone else can post the phone number or knows the correct name of the office that handles this. I would also think it would be a bit easier if it is possible to go through your original troop and council. They may have the records locally. Just walking into a council office cold off the street may take a little more effort.

To tell you the truth, Rooster, I kinda had you in the back of my mind when I wrote my post Monday night. Your response makes my first point that this is an either/or, black-or-white question. Consequently I don't feel the need to debate our respective answers. Although I respect and understand your position, neither of us are going to change any minds. Nonetheless, I'd like to follow up on a couple things. First, in your original reply to my post you wrote that "the Scout that stands up and confidently says, 'I know the one and only true God' - is demonstrating a STRONG faith. To be sure, your statement is insulting to those who truly posses such a faith, and demonstrates a weakness in your own. " First of all, if I insulted you, I apologize. But likewise I think your statement is the kind of condecention we goats (or are we the sheep and you the goats? I loose track.) find offensive. Not that I'm trying to bust your chops over it, just food for thought. The way you made your case in you last reply to Hunt is better stated. Secondly, in that reply to Hunt you said you think a concensus of posters here believe that Its okay to have a faith different from mine, so long as youre willing to express doubt in your faith as being the only way to God. Just the opposite. I don't pretend to tell you how or what to believe. I saying that MY faith has room for the possibility that there are different paths to the truth. In my mind that doesn't show a weakness or doubt in my faith, only a different understanding of the nature of faith.

Yes, Bob, I'll agree with you that there were integrated councils and units prior to 1974. I'll take your word for it that there were integrated units all the way back to 1911. But are you saying that all BSA programs during that time were integrated? Could you really go to any Scout camp and see black Scouts swimming and eating along side white Scouts? Will you agree that BSA tolerated racially segregrated units up until '74? I think where you are loosing some of us here is when you try to draw the distinction between BSA as a national program being integrated because they allowed members of all races while ignoring the fact that many of those members were in strictly segrated units. That's an extremely narrow definition of integrated. That would be like the Montgomery Board of Education claiming that their school system was integrated all along because it had both black and white schools. I'm really not trying to argue the point you think I am. I was a Scout in '74 and remember taking quite a bit of pride in the fact that I was a member of an organization that promoted racial equality. Although my hometown had a very small black community, we had black Scouts in our troop and we all did what we could to make them feel welcome. I don't particularly see it as a stain that through the first half of its history BSA reflected the predominant societial views on race. But neither do I see it as an organization that was out front or ahead of its time in promoting equality.

So let's summarize: Since its inception, BSA has allowed members of all races. Until 1974 national policy was silent on matters of race. Local units could and did exclude racial minorities if they chose to do so. A national non-discrimination policy was adopted in 1974 as part of a settlement between BSA and the NAACP. Can everyone agree with that?

What I hear from our DE is that whole soccer teams/leagues will be recruited as Cub Scout packs which will play and practice soccer during the season but shift to traditional Cub Scout programs during the off season. I think I remember him saying that there will be an emphasis toward hispanic units, given their traditional connection with soccer.

Your council scout shop can't stock socks? (Say that three time fast!) That's baloney. I'd have ask to speak to the Scout Executive.

You'll get no argument here, BP. Eamonn can certainly speak for himself, but I believe the original point was that too few crews operate as you describe. Far too many are rehashed Boy Scout troops or as I described, unlike any Scout unit at all. If all crews offered real Venturing programs no one would have a complaint. Uncle: for the most part that was a rhetorical "we." But if you want to nail me down on it, I'll say that it is my district committee. Short of the guy who is running our one real Venturing crew and is our district Venturing chairman, I don't think we really know what to make of Venturing. All we know is that we have to net two more Venturers and one more crew each year to make Quality District.

Putting in 15-18 hours a day at day camp last week I didn't have much time to follow this. It is an interesting thread, despite all the recent baloney. Sorry for jumping in on the tail end of the discussion. But I can't think of any question which separates the sheep from the goats better that, "Do you believe that yours is the one true religion." Let's set aside for the moment the possibility that one day The Truth will be revealed to each of us (a I think many of us are in for a surprise, especially those of you who think you won't be surprised) and deal with what we know and believe here and now. Personally, I can't think of anything much more arrogant than for someone to think that their religion is the One True Religion to the exclusion of all others. I believe what I believe. I can separate those things which I believe as a matter of faith and those things I know as a matter of experience or physical or scientific fact. My beliefs are based on my experiences, what I've been taught, how I was raised and the conclusions I have reached based on my own study and thought (and some would add prayer). People with different experiences and upbringing may and often do come to very different beliefs. But who am I to conclude that your beliefs are wrong? There's an old saying which sums this up: If you don't believe, no proof is sufficient. If you do, none is necessary. A more practical answer to Hunt's original question is to ask how BSA would go about determining what a "True Religion" is. Who gets to decide? And how fine of a distinction do we make? Is Christianity the True Religions? Just Baptists? Heck, one of our local CO's is tearing itself apart trying to decide what it means to be "True Baptists." Which half of the congregation should their Scout troop side with? BSA walks a fine line becase they very pointedly do not want to get into the business of deciding which religions are true. As Bob White wrote early in the thread, all BSA requires is that a Scout do his duty to God and be Reverent. If a Scout sincerely believes in the "spirit of all humanity" as his supreme power and that he does his duty to that power by helping other people and being positive force in the world -- or whatever other non-traditional faith you want to describe -- who are we to judge?

Lodge makes a neat little trivet that holds the lid. You can use it upside down as a griddle or right side up just to have some place to keep the lid out of the dirt while you're stiring. I've got a 14" oven that was too big to fit in the gas grill to season. I used a turkey cooker to heat it up. I turned it upside down on the burner so that it would heat more evenly. You need to be very careful. I used welder's gloves and metal hooks to manuver the thing.

I agree with much of what has been said thus far. I'm aware of only one "real" venture crew in our district. The rest are essentially dual-registered Venture Patrols or other, pre-existing organizations that have simply signed a charter. If a JROTC program becomes a Venture crew but keeps it's military uniforms, continues with it's JROTC activities, only meets during the school year and doesn't incorporate any BSA elements into it's program, what has been gained? Would it be any more acceptable if we registered a Little League team which only played baseball, wore only baseball uniforms and was active only during baseball season? Would you call them Cub Scouts? Unfortunately, Venturing is the worst part of the numbers game. There are many loopholes for chartering crews and folks with an eye for quality district know them all. Our district openly sells Venturing to existing youth groups by telling them they don't need to change their existing program in the least, but they get free access to all the Scout camps and facilities. In the three years I've been on the district committee, I don't know of a single new crew that was cut from new cloth for the purpose of operating a Venturing program. All of this detracts from delivering a real BSA program to these kids. We spend far too much time playing with smoke and mirrors instead of trying to deliver a real program to these kids.

Frequently and loudly.

A sit-down with the CO is a good start. You'll want to find out where they are and what level of support you can expect. The greatest task facing you is finding a good Cubmaster. Your CO and COR may or may not want to be involved in the process. A good partnership between the CM and CC is the basis of a successful pack, in my opinion. How much time you want to spend trying to turn around your existing dens is a call you have to make. Bringing around a bunch of folks who have bad attitudes and wrong ideas can be daunting. Whatever happens with that bunch, I'd encourage you to get involved with the fall Roundup drive and make a real push to recruit new Scouts into your pack. Try to recruit a couple new Tiger and Wolf dens. Not only will an infusion of new, excited Scouts help turn around the pack, but their parents will be the leaders you will need to rebuild the pack leadership. My last suggestion is for you to get involved beyond the pack level. Go to Roundtable. Get involved in Day Camp. Make friends with your DE and other Cub leaders in the area. Not only will you learn more about the program, but you'll also develop a local support system. You'll also find that there are numerous district-level activities you can take advantage of. Here there is something going on nearly every month you can involve your pack in without having to do all the planning and organizing yourself. Good luck!

Eamonn! You've moved south! I'm really looking forward to meeting you have having you in our council. You've described our office staff to at "T." Our front office is generally run by five women who seem to be doing the work of two. I once told one of the women that I could submit a tour permit listing hell as the destination and they would approve it. Insead of denying it, becoming offended or arguing about, the woman shrugged and said, "Yeah, I probably don't read these things as closely as I should." Knowing they must be working for peanuts (eeeh, eeeh, eeeh) the thing that surprises me is the relative low turnover rate. I suppose regardless of pay, a clean, nine-to-five job with no heavy lifting beats WalMart regardless of the pay. The group you failed to mention is the middle management guys who allow this to go on. We have an assistant Scout Executive who raises "clueless" to a new standard. Of course he and our SE are a matched set. Neither are exactly the sharpest pencils in the box. Our Program Director is a young guy they seem to be bringing up in the same mould. He never seems to have much to do with Scouting though. Maybe I'm just making a wrong assumption about what "programs" he's in charge of. We do have a good guy as Field Director. To my understanding he runs things at the council level. At least the little contact I've had with membership and programs at the council level, he was involved. I will say our saving grace is that we have a good field staff. Our District Director is top-notch. Knows when to help, knows when to get the heck out of the way. Our DE is brand new to the district, but seems like a good one, based on the couple contacts I've had. Based on first impressions, he's earned the benefit of the doubt for now.

There is no requirement that Webelos Is and IIs be in separate dens, although that is obviously the much preferred way to go. I don't think the difference in the new and old requirements is going will be a huge obstacle. Besides, the new requirements kicked-in this time last year. Your WIIs should have started using the new requirements then. The greater difficulty is programming around the activity pins the first year boys need but the second year boys already have. Citizen is probably the primary one to worry about. Fitness, the other WAP required for the Webelos badge, is largely done with the family so it isn't as great a problem. The trick will be to sit down and go through the advancement records and come up with a progam that meets the needs of both groups.

I belive you will find the official BSA discipline policy described on pages 47-54 of the Scout Handbook. Bob -- your post at the top of the current page was very good. Thank you. I'd like to continue the discussion, but don't have the time right now.

ABSOLUTELY! We've done soldier/sailor/Marine boxes at Christmas time for years. We always encourage our boys to include notes with their boxes and SASEs. Many of our boys receive really nice letters in return. Some even get military patches and other cool stuff back. But the best thank you we ever got was this winter when a guy on special leave to the states drove three-hours each way to come to one of our den meetings to talk to the boys and hand deliver letters from the unit. That was way cool. I think official policy is still to discourage the soldier boxes, but there are enough reservists in every community that you can hook up with an individual and make your own arrangements.

Question: what is a better choice for a survival kit, 12 or 15 matches in a waterproof container or a butane lighter?

Western civilization slips yet again. Of course Boy Scouts should be able to carry and use matches. I was surprised by my Webelos last year that none of them had any idea how to strike a match. Forget lighting fires, we had to have lessons on match lighting. I guess I'm a bit more lienient on the lighter question. A small Bic lighter doesn't contain enough butane to really do much and would dissapate pretty quickly even if the lighter were open. An old-style lighter which needs to be refilled with lighter fluid may be a different matter. Not too long ago I would have had more of a problem with lighters from a philosophical standpoint than a safety one. We use to take great pride in building a two-match fire. Using a lighter somehow seemed like cheating. But I changed my mind recently after really learning how the pioneers used flint and steel to build a fire. I always thought the old timers would grab a piece of flint off the ground and wack it with the back of a knife. That only results in a dented knife. Prior to the invention of matches, folks carried elaborate fire kits with specially tempered steel strikers, sharp pieces of flint, charcloth and a tin to make more, flax tow or some other type of tender. I figured that if the pioneers carried all this gear to start fires, what's wrong with taking advantage of the current technology and use a lighter?

And while you're working on that, I've also been wanting to ask BW about the mechanics of how he handles this. When you meet with a Scout and he explains to you what his limitations are going to be in the coming months and lays out a personal plan that he feels he can meet, how specific do you get? Is "I'll come to as many meetings as I can" good enough, or does the Scout detail the meeting and activities he can attend? If the Scout suggest a percentage will you go with that? Does all this get rendered to writing somewhere? If not, six months from now how do you and the Scout evaluate whether or not he has lived up to his earlier plan? Bottom line is how do you hold the Scout accountable for meeting the requirement.

I thought I was understanding this but Eamonn you just blew me out of the water. I understand that the Eagle BOR did a number of things wrong, most notably denying the boy's application without taking the time or effort to find out what was going on. BUT, at any BOR (or more appropriately SM conference) if you ask a boy "have you been active in the troop and patrol?", "do you feel that you adequately performed you position of responsibility?", or "did you complete your service project?" and the Scout answers "no" what is the BOR to do? I've said before I accept the principle that we are to treat each Scout as an individual and allow them the flexibility to "do their best." (Althouth I've still not hear an answer to my earlier question as to what you should do if the plan a Scout lays out for himself is below the mark.) But are you now saying that even if a Scout tells you he hasn't met his own self-defined standard that's still okay? Why does it matter what the reason was? The requirement says be active for six months, not be active for six months unless you are involved in some other valuable activity. I don't understand.

Eamonn and Scoutldr nailed the problems with training earlier. The problem with Cub position specific training is structural. When CS Basic Leader Training was scrapped a few years ago in lieu of the current system, all the basic program info (organization, advancement, uniforms) was pushed into position specific courses. That causes three main problems: First, this basic info is repeated in every course. Bob White is correct that the training needs to be geared to the untrained leader taking the course for the first time. But the training overlooks the fact that many, many leaders track along through the program with their Scouts. (Hence Webelos leaders throwing themselves out of windows when the trainer yet again pulls out the Pin the Badge on the Cub Scout game.) The greatest complaint we hear about training is that it was all a repeat of the last course. And the order the courses are taken doesn't matter. Subsequent courses alway repeat the first because they all plow the same ground. This is a direct result of how the overall system of position specific courses are organized. The second problem is that repeating all the basics pushes out more of the games and activities which I think is what most new Cub Leaders are looking for. Granted, that info is available at Roundtable and Pow-Wows, but telling folks they'll have to come back for that info is frustrating for the trainees and doesn't help them answer their Number One question: what do I do with these eight boys this coming Monday night? Third is the problems cause for the training committees trying to organize five separate courses. Ten-to-fifteen people would be a great turn out for a Scoutmaster Fundamentals course, but when you divide that over five position specific courses, it's hard to justify each individual course. And this may just be a problem for our local trainers, but with the emphasis on Powerpoint, they are having a problem finding facilities with five separate "smart classrooms" to conduct the training. I think a re-shuffling is in order and would suggest the following: -- Combine Tiger and Cub Leader training. With the push to integrate Tigers into the Cub program this makes sense. Plus, there has never been enough difference between the programs to warrant two courses. -- Combine Webelos Leader position specific with Webelos Leader Outdoor Training. I don't understand why training committees don't do this now, tacking the two courses together. Given a choice of completing the training all at once versus taking two or more weekends, most folks will want to do it all at once. -- Combine Cubmaster and Committee Member training into one one "Pack Leader" training. The current Commitee specific course is the most useless of the bunch. I can also see the advantage of having mutiple leaders cross-trained at the Cubmaster level. This plan would address the first and third problems well, but the second on less so. Being able to include more Pow-Wow-like material is simply a matter of finding the time. Unfortunately, the most popular way of doing training is to get it all done in one day, Fast Start and New Leaders' Essentials in the morning and position-specific in the afternoon. I like the NLE course and think the idea of all BSA volunteers understanding the big picture of the program is a good one. But using the morning for Fast Start and NLE is what has forced all the basic Cub Scout material into the position specific courses. While I like NLE, I'd still like to see the Cub p-s coursed tweaked to accommodate more games, skits and activities. Related to that, let me ask a question regarding Fast Start. Our local trainers treat Fast Start as a separate course required for "trained" status. As a result, the first hour of the training day is spend with everyone viewing the FS videos. Seems to me this hour could be better spent. My understanding of FS was that it has always been part of the required training, it was originally considered as much a recruitment tool as it was training. When a new leader agrees to take on a position, they were given the FS video with the idea that it was a quick overview of the program to tide them over until they could take the full training course. It seems redundant to have everyone sit through FS and then jump right in to NLE and position specific. How is this handled in other councils?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Bob is right that the basic question is unanswerable. Had George Washington or Abe Lincoln served in the first half of the 19th century would we remember them any more than Millard Filmore? Had Nixon immediately fired Halderman and Erlichman when he found out about the break-ins, or if Clinton had kept his pants zipped would we be adding them to Mt. Rushmore now? Who knows. As to Hops post, it was an e-mail that made the rounds back in the winter. Someone sent me a follow-up copy where someone had responded to the original. I didn't write it, so don't complain to me about any of the responses. Here it is: The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective: Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. So let's fight the war on terrorism. That would be in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. Dubbya's war in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. A good case can be made that Iraq has taken time, attention and military muscle away from the real fight. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. History lesson: Japan bombs Pearl Harbor. FDR declares war on Japan. Germany declares war on the US. US declares war on Germany. That used to be the way things worked. Besides that do you really mean to equate WWII with Iraq? (And Merlyn's above post explains this better -- TCD) Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. No, but North Korea did attack South Korea, an allied of the US with which we had a mutual-aid treaty. The Korean War was also fought under the umbrella of the UN and with the help of numerous other countries.. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. True. Maybe there is a lesson there for Dubbya to learn.. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Right again and yet another lesson for Dubbya. As a result LBJ fell on his sword and gave up the presidency in '68. Now there's an idea! Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. No, but the Serbs and Croats who were slaughtered did ask for our aid. If you're still hung up on naked aggression, consider that Bush 41 attacked Somalia and Panama. Regan went into Grenada and Lebanon. Your point? I seem to recall that at the time Clinton went into Bosnia the Republicans were more concerned with Clinton's sex life than his foreign policy. The couple times he bombed Iraq (remember the No-Fly Zone?) the Republicans screamed that he was only doing it to distract everyone from the impeachment hearings. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three timesby Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If Wilson had only managed to off that little private with the goofy mustache during WWI... In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on! (See the last two lines of this message regarding the US military.) The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation. An isn't it interesting how Reno was skewered over how badly the FBI screwed up Waco, although she had been in office only a matter of days when it began? An Leezy keeps whining that they had only been in office 200-and-something days when 9-11 hit. We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. Yeah, but she eventually found the records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroythe Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick. Scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas now, aren't we? It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!! And tell me again who was in charge of rigging, er, running the Florida election? Our military is GREAT! PASS IT ON. DAMN RIGHT! PASS IT ON. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

We seem to be bouncing backing back and forth between two different requirements. Let's focus on the requirement to be active in your troop and patrol. I agree 100% with the principle that we should look at the individual needs and abilities of the Scouts and that a blanket, one-size-fits-all quota is a bad idea. But when you sit down with an individual Scout, what are the limits? True story: A friend of mine and a mom of Scout in our troop approached me recently, concerned that her son would fall the other Scouts his age due to his heavy participation in sports. The boy is currently playing on TWO baseball teams. With games, practice and weekend tournaments, it's unlikely that he can attend any Scout meeting or activity before August, including summer camp. Football starts around the 20th of August and can run until mid December, depending on how deep they go in the playoffs. Practicing four nights a week and playing every Saturday, he's basically gone from the troop until the holidays. Of course baseball starts up again March 1 of next year. The bottom line is barring rainouts or injury, the best we can expect from his is a couple troop meetings in August, an odd meeting or two around the holidays but his full attention only in January and February. Forget that at this rate the kid will be 26, maybe 27 years of age before getting the 10 outings required for First Class, but under what definition can this boy be considered active? In counseling the Scout does the SM not have the descretion to say, "I'm sorry, but the requirement says you must be active in your troop and patrol and I can't agree that the schedule you've outlined constitutes active." The principle has been quoted several times in this thread that we can't add to the requirements. But what the policy says is that we can neither add NOR DELETE requirements. Can you really, in good conscience, say that this Scout is active in his troop and patrol? By the way, I told the mom that she and her son should really have this conversation with the SM, that I was only an ASM, and a brand-new one at that. But that generally speaking, her son was more than welcome to participate in Scouting at whatever level he could. He needed to understand, however, that with the schedule she laid out, he needed to reconcile the fact that he was not going to advance in the program like the other boys, if at all. (And by the way, NJ often reminds me that not everyone "gets" my sarcasm, so please don't focus on the fact that Scouts can't advance past age 18. I'm just kidding about the age 27 part.)

Hey, you're not hurting my feelings one way or the other. I'm just calling it like I see it. But if you can't find any reference to a Tiger WCA and I can't find it and no one else has jumped into the conversation having found it..... A Tiger WCA may be in the pipeline as part of the ongoing push to "fully integrate" Tigers into the Cub program. That's why I couched my first response the way I did. As soon as you make an iron-clad statement, someone whose neighbor mows the lawn for a maintence guy at national will come up with a rumor that the award is in the works. That said, I think the best evidence there is working against a Tiger WCA any time in the near future is to look at the requirements for the older Scouts and then compare that to what's available in the Tiger program. WCA is a "stretch goal" for most boys. It's a big bite to complete all the requirements in the specified Achievements and Electives. Other than a handful of simple electives, there isn't much of a similar nature in the Tiger program. Personally, unless they come up with some more difficult requirements from outside the Tiger handbook, I would not want to see a Tiger WCA. I'd rather see the boys earn it in a later year when the the requirements are a little meatier. Besides all that, given that most Tigers are all completing first grade probably this week or next, why don't you have your boys work on their Wolf WCA?

I'm not aware of the award being offered to Tigers. It's not mentioned in the Tiger handbook and there is no space provided for it on the WCA application. As the requirements for the other levels are found in the respective handbooks, I would conclude it's not an option for Tigers.