Brewmeister

BSA 24, I'm not sure where you're coming from on your answer. The Cubmaster is the program guy but is not the gatekeeper for advancement or awards.

As it relates to the Webelos pins, just look at the book, it's all in there. All the other answers are making this way too hard or adding stuff that's not there.

Practically speaking I would go over mom's head and talk to the boy. In our den we always had special meeting dates or extra time before/after regular meetings to deal with Webelos pins earned at home, and the boys brought their books, not mom or dad.

Dealing with PITA parents is a sad fact of the job, but don't take it out on the boy just to show mom a thing or two. If he actually did the test he'll be able to tell you about it. "Yup, I swam the length of the pool, then we did lifesaving, etc etc." Who knows, he might have actually just taken the book and done it. Maybe not, but work with the boy--it's his award and not mom's.

(This message has been edited by brewmeister)

The problem I have seen with rotation, in my admittedly limited cross-troop experience, is that rotation is often tied to the advancement of said SM's scout.

This leads the troop to focus on older scouts, and their advancement, to the detriment of the younger scouts.

I believe a unit benefits from a long-tenured SM, and particularly if that SM no longer has a boy in the troop, provided that (and this is a big caveat) the SM is willing to support the program the boys want to have. The risk with a long-tenured SM is you have someone whose wealth of experience is negated by his inertia.

Our Pack had never used red vests. When I was a TDL we made them as a project and were the first den wearing them, and we started doing more "fun" patches. Fast forward a year or two later and more dens started asking about the vests. By then I was CM and we bought yards of red felt and gave it to the dens along with the vest template. Soon everyone had them.

I did notice that the more patches a boy had on the vest, the more likely he was to wear it. However, about half of our boys wore their vests at any given time.

When my son received his arrow of light he was wearing his vest. And he is neither home schooled nor autistic.

The Webelos dens used the leftover felt material to make minature "blankets" that hang under their arrow plaque and on which they put their old cub scout awards and honors when they cross over.

We found the vests to be something the boys appreciated and wore. But as always, "your mileage may vary," and their enthusiasm toward them may be directly related to other elements of a particular unit's program.

Sorry to continue the thread derailment of the OP's comment...as to Summerd603's question, I do not understand the correlation between the vest and a sash, unless they are talking Webelos khaki. But again, my son wore his red vest with his khaki shirt.

Perhaps they feel that the feedback from people who commit to be on a panel is more credible than anonymous comments compiled from an open internet forum? How does that cartoon go again? "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

By the end of bear year the boys will be done wearing them....Trust me. the only ones who don't are the boys who are home schooled or autistic. No a put down, just what I have seen over the years.

Wow...just wow. Classic BD response, on so many levels.

Just got the final meeting invite, and the patrol leaders have been invited to the planning meeting. Definitely a step in the right direction.

Brewmeister - this policy has nothing to do with the scout law.

Well ok, then maybe we can change the last line of the Oath to "morally ambiguous?"

On my honor I will do my best, unless it gets too hard, to do my duty, to God, unless I don't believe in one, and my country, unless that seems to jingoistic,...

What the hell, let's just toss it all out the window.

I also predict that, sooner or later, the BSA is going to say it's ok to be untrustworthy, disloyal, unhelpful, unfriendly, discourteous, unkind, disobedient, surly, unthrifty, cowardly, unclean, and irreverent as well.(This message has been edited by brewmeister)

Usin' da blue card doesn't facilitate anything. It's a completely antiquated and annoyin' system, which is why fewer troops and camps use it every year.

Oh lordy yes.

I had forgotten about these from my own experience...or perhaps we never used them. Got reacquainted thanks to my son joining a troop.

"Wow, dad, I can take the geocaching merit badge!"

"Gee, that's great son! Now you just need to get your scoutmaster's approval to start it, fill out this form, find another boy who wants to take it with you so that YPT guidelines are maintained, buy the book if its not in the library, contact the AC to see if the troop has a MBC, then find a MBC if the troop doesn't have one."

"But when do I get to go geocaching, dad?"

Yeesh.

People complain here often about MBs being offered at camp, or disparage "merit badge meetings" troops hold.

Is it any wonder we do? This whole process is a giant PITA.

Hypocrisy and identity crisis are really at the heart of what makes people outraged at the BSA.

This is the fundamental logical flaw used by any who would quickly bash an organization, BSA, relgious, etc., for failing to live up to a set of standards.

It's so much easier to have no standards and then just let anything go, isn't it?

But the fundamental premise of Judeo-Christian belief is that humanity is imperfect and those imperfections must be atoned for, and have been. The existence of those imperfections does not negate the value of the standard.

Or to put it more simply, "hate the sin, love the sinner."

I don't mean tenderfoot as in easy, I mean tenderfoot as in work on tenderfoot requirements.

I'm starting to think I dreamed this somehow

I'm not asking about a whole program year, just one specific activity I recall seeing here...I think.

A search for "NSP hike" yields only one result, in passing.

I received the meeting agenda and one of the new items is to discuss increased involvement of boys in the process. So, it appears we are making steps. Hard to turn a battleship that has gained momentum. We'll see.

The troop needs to arrange transportation for all the Scouts that are signed up to go. It really shouldn't be up to each kid to figure out his own ride.

No.

Do we expect the troop to arrange transportation to weekly meetings?

A scout troop is not a bussing company. It is incumbent on each scout/family to get the scout to various activities. That can include driving their scout or arranging to carpool.

If the troop leaders are nice enough to put together transportation arrangements, good for them.

In this case, EagleMom can be upset with the other drivers for not holding up their end of the bargain (which is debatable, as it appears there was still room but it was just agreed the boy would not go). It is not a troop level problem and certainly doesn't merit airing at a committee meeting.

Somewhere in these forums I recall reading about doing a hike for the NSP to work on basic skills...maybe it was called a tenderfoot hike. Either I'm dreaming or the search function in this forum is failing me.

Can someone refresh my memory on this and describe any practices/program you might have in this regard for the NSP?

Thanks to bnelon44 and CricketEagle for answering the question I had posed.

This is not a new troop--it is a well established troop that likes its annual calendar of regular events. But, what I immediately noticed was, "Where are all the older boys?" I suspect some of them are bored with the same-old, same-old. However, I also think it's sage advice to not turn myself into a PITA so early in the game. Also since it is my son's first year in the program it will all be new to him.

As you may know, my son has been part of his troop for just a few months. I offered to serve on the committee or in whatever capacity I might be needed. As a result, I recently got notifiation of the "committee leader planning meeting" that will "lay out our calendar of events for the upcoming Scouting year."

Noting the distribution list of the email, I asked if the PLC was going to be part of the meeting. The reply was:

Possibly. The August meeting is primarily to set up the core schedule of meetings and events for the year by the committee members. This meeting secures the adult participation required for us to pull of the years events.

I think having the PLC attend would be fine, but the actual planning and execution of specific events would be conducted at Troop meetings or follow up planning meetings by the boys.

IMO, how can the troop program be what the boys want if the boys are not part of the annual planning process? I do understand the need for adult leadership required, but if we can't get leaders to support and be at the events the boys themselves want to do, then we have a bigger problem.

Looking for opinions on this as well as how to respond, if at all, in a positive manner.

The reason that the BSA has backed itself into a corner on this issue is that it has forgotten the adage of "hate the sin, love the sinner."

None of us are perfect. We smoke, we drink, we lie, we cheat, we do things behind closed doors that we wouldn't want others to know. It is the imperfection of humanity.

And, like it or not, the BSA values are that gay behavior is not morally straight. We are not alone in that judgment.

However, the BSA's response all along should have been to prohibit the excercise of that behavior around youth, just as it does with smoking and alcohol. Obesity?...not quite sure how to handle that one.

Perhaps even more fundamentally, sexual behavior of any type has no place in a youth organization.

Unfortunately at this point I don't see a way where the BSA could revise its policy in any way without it coming across as "gay is OK," and that will be disastrous to our membership because of the people it will drive away, and I don't for a second believe there's a big bubble of people waiting to be scouts and leaders "if only." I believe proponents of this change, even in these forums, know this as I have stated elsewhere.

False moral equivalance between dissimilar things. Apples and oranges in other words. A sexual choice is different than the choice of what to eat or put into one's body (so to speak).

"You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

I think we just ought to let every manner of perversion into scouting because it's all morally equivalent anyway. Maybe we can get NAMBLA to charter a unit. Standards are so 20th century.

That's a great resource; thanks.

Morally straight is what it is. It is black and white. It is not a question of my morality or your morality. Accepting otherwise destroys the scout law and destroys scouting. It is that simple, and you know it, or you would not be protesting so loudly otherwise.

Well I tried out a jungle hammock just like 'fish has on a 4-night campout.

The reason I went with the jungle/box style is that I tried the Hennessey and, while very comfortable, I did not like the wrap/cocoon feeling. I liked the tall mesh sides of the GI style. With bottom spreader bars I could lay flat and actually spread out a bit.

I slept very well--much better than on a cot or pad. The only sleeping problem was the "reverse bend" on your knees. This can be addressed by having a pillow under them apparently, but I found that drawing up one leg under the other would also eliminate that.

The only problem I had with setup of the tent was the top cover. I didn't make top spreader bars and with 3 lines per side, 6 in total, the question is where to tie them? In order to spread them out it requires a fair number of surrounding trees which can be hard to come by. And the top cover seems to be essential to this style for stability.

Thinking about this more I am wondering if a single tie on the center would be sufficient to hold the netting up--basically ignore the corner ties altogether. I'll have to give that the back yard test.

There are definitely drawbacks to the GI style over the Hennessey in terms of weight and more complicated setup. On the other hand the cost can't be beat and the comfort was hands down better than on the ground.