Pale Horse

I find it a little ironic that he sued the Pack leadership for improper supervision when he himself was part of Pack leadership.

I live in an area with a fair number of immigrants. It's more of the skilled-labor, engineers, and computer scientist types from Europe, India, China, & Japan. Many are here for a few years and have plans to return home.

It does seem that my Asian families don't particularly want to camp, especially not rustic camping. It may also be due to weekend obligations that take precedence over Scouting. Since a lot of families do plan on returning to their home country, they want their kids to learn that culture, so they have them enrolled in a cultural school on weekends (Chinese School all day Saturday for example).

1 hour ago, mrkstvns said:

Are these summertime events supposed to be organized by and for the pack....or does it count if the pack sends scouts to a council-run day camp?

We count that. Our pack organizes our attendance at Day camp. Collecting registration information, payments, ensures we have adequate adult:youth ratios, sends in registration. 

Just to add to the list, Cole Canoe Base in northern Michigan is patrol cooking only. 

I'm all for safety, and anytime a range safety officer (RSO) feels they aren't equipped to meet necessary safety standards, they should indeed cease operations or limit a Scout's participation.  However, this sentence in particular is especially troubling.

"And he said that, 'Well he's not going to shoot on my range. We've had problems in the past with kids like that,'" James said.

The RSO's concern was not based on anything this particular Scout did, but on the Scouter's prior experience with "those type of kids". That's a problem. 

45 minutes ago, David CO said:

I am surprised at the number of people who are shocked at the idea that a scout leader might see their son's underwear. I grew up in the days when many people still dried their laundry outdoors on a clothes line. We would have laughed at the idea of a boy being embarrassed about a scout leader seeing his underwear. 

Many things have changed since those days, and this is one of them. It's not embarrassment I'm worried about; I'm not embarrassed to see underwear and many Scouts probably aren't either. It's the appearance of impropriety that concerns me though and I have no desire to be accused of anything untoward by the .0001% that would take umbrage against it.

59 minutes ago, Buggie said:

Need gloves too.  Gas mask might be prudent as well. 

Nah, chances are they're still clean. Everyone knows Scouts don't change underwear at camp.

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

I'm surprised at the number of posters who are shocked at the idea of a worried SM searching backpacks. Obviously experiences vary in different parts of the country, but if bag searching isn't yet common for overnight youth activities near you, it probably will be. It would be good for BSA to develop a policy for when and how scout belongings should be searched. Preemptive searching, even if cursory and tied to presentation, makes more sense to me as a deterrent but at the very least BSA ought to give guidance on how a SM or any leader should handle it if they have reason to be concerned.  It seems clear from this very interesting discussion that there doesn't appear to be any kind of policy.  Apart from worries about contraband substances and weapons, smuggled food in bear territory is a real concern. Someone just posted elsewhere on this site about a bear that had to be euthanized after eating contraband food. Say all you want about scout privacy, that scout could have gotten himself or someone else mauled, and the bear died. 

Nobody has a problem with a SM taking actions directly related to addressing safety.  The original posting has zero to do with safety and all to with an over-bearing SM trying to enforce HIS policies,  not the Troop's Youth Leaders' policies.  That is a problem.  Even if it was a health & safety issue, I firmly believe he should still have a second person there as a witness. There's no way in hell I'm rooting around anywhere a scout keeps his underwear without a second set of eyes present. 

Guess we saw this coming from a mile away.

7 hours ago, Thunderbird said:

Lions are not supposed to join until August-September when they are actually in kindergarten.  What I have heard (indirectly / second hand) from the Cub Scout team is that packs can decide to award the pin either way, whichever way works best for them.  IMO, now that Lions are officially part of the Cub Scout program and because there is no Lion summertime pin, it makes sense to me that the summer between kindergarten and 1st grade they would earn the Tiger summertime pin.  Otherwise, they would earn nothing during the summer between their Lion (K) and Tiger (1st grade) year.  I also think it is less confusing to the Cubs and parents this way, because at the end of the school year they are advanced to the next den level.

If you do it that way, what do the Webelos earn in between their 4th & 5th grade year?  Since they've added Lions, they should probably just add a Lion summertime pin.

Personally, my experience is with the less expensive suits. Generally when I hear people mention Frogg Toggs, that's the version they're referring to. Again, not bashing by any means. It's usually my "just in case it may rain on this hiking trip" gear.  I think they do a great job at what they're designed to do, but for me at least, I know I'm going to have to replace them after the weekend if I need to break them out.

https://www.amazon.com/Frogg-Toggs-Ultra-Lite2-Waterproof-Breathable/dp/B007X5XDU4/ref=asc_df_B007X5XDU4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309798558622&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7226290251153901402&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016894&hvtargid=aud-643191255296:pla-448468426702&psc=1

12 minutes ago, mrkstvns said:

I think you're a little hard on the Frog Toggs....I've had them hold up well for extended outdoor excursions and they're still willing to be dried up and folded for next time.

An REI rain jacket is unquestionably more durable, but it's also many times the price of Frog Toggs.

For the "in case I get caught in the rain" problem, I just pack one of those flimsy plastic Wal-Mart ponchos that have a Rollback price of 97 cents. Now *that* is the solution that's only going to serve your for the half hour downpour!

Don't get me wrong, I love Frogg Toggs, for what they are; a semi-disposable rain suit. If you're careful, they can certainly last multiple uses, but I consider it a bonus if they do, and don't count on it. I know for a certainty that I'm going to blow out the crotch of the pants first use, and keep a roll of duct tape handy.

For the cost of 3 sets of Frogg Toggs, he could get a decent jacket from REI.  Over the course of a summer of teaching Scout skills at summer camp, I would put money on trashing 3+ sets of Frogg Toggs. 

https://www.rei.com/product/147952/rei-co-op-groundbreaker-rain-jacket-mens?CAWELAID=120217890006410178&CAGPSPN=pla&CAAGID=30320805880&CATCI=aud-363396065244:pla-421048767589&cm_mmc=PLA_Google|404_1050517642|1479520008|none|5c4bf608-415d-43d0-ba21-0fad69121028|aud-363396065244:pla-421048767589&lsft=cm_mmc:PLA_Google_LIA|404_1050517642|1479520008|none|5c4bf608-415d-43d0-ba21-0fad69121028&kclid=5c4bf608-415d-43d0-ba21-0fad69121028&gclid=CjwKCAjw3azoBRAXEiwA-_64OpAZb43Z1oaRtD7RwdlwBDVBhjRWjQboGZn1bXVeiKtwxtf8AoDl_xoCJtMQAvD_BwE

Frogg Toggs are nice, if you don't mind replacing them after every use.  They'll be fine if you just need to pull it out to use for a half hour, but expect to need a new set (especially the pants) after any extended use.

I keep a few sets scattered around my gear, in case I get caught without a real rain jacket, but it's no substitute for a real rain jacket. REI brand is decently priced and good quality.

There's debate on this. Many units (ours included) follow the method outlined on https://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/National_Summertime_Award where they are earned the summer after earning the rank.  

So the Tiger one would be earned the summer after first grade.

There's a recent response from national floating around on one of the Facebook sites that this is the intended method of awarding. However, without clear guidelines in guide to advancement, it's up to your unit to decide what works best for them.

5 hours ago, yknot said:

A 'scout is trustworthy' will not be an adequate legal defense when a scout arrives at a camp site with an inappropriate item and something unfortunate happens because a leader didn't check the bags. We're involved in a youth organization and as adults it's our job to keep them safe. No other youth organization would allow kids on an outing without checking bags. On school, church and sports outings I've been involved with, it's been done by adults as part of the routine while loading buses and cars and no kids are present. 

I'm simply blown away that our purported mission is to develop leadership skills and we're teaching these kids that they should have no expectation of privacy and our base position is one of guilt, demanding searches of personal gear and pat-downs "in the name of safety".

I've never experienced being searched (or even heard of anyone being searched) as a youth on an outing (school, sports, church, or scouts). Granted that was 25ish years ago, but even today, the thought that all bags are being searched on a class trip, is beyond belief. Private/Catholic schools may be able to get away with it, but in their quasi-governmental capacity, public schools would be seem to edging into some Constitutionally-questionable areas. I vaguely remember something about not losing your rights at the schoolhoiuse gate (in this case 4th amendment). 

Besides, kids are smart. They know you're searching bags, if they wanted to sneak things in, they won't be putting it in their bags. As mentioned above, we can't keep contraband out of prisons, but somehow we're going to be able to stop Little Johny from smuggling that extra snickers bar.

How timely, this goes along well with our council's webinar next week to explain the $12 increase in registration fees for 2020 to cover "insurance costs".

3 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Maybe we need "instant replay"? When adults make the wrong call, the advancement decision can be reviewed and reversed. Not correcting a "mistake" by adults, "punishes" the larger group of scouters and scouts who follow the rules. 

My $0.02,

They'll never reverse a decision and just fall back on the "not punishing the youth for the mistakes of adults."

18 minutes ago, malraux said:

My cynical side also says that the bsa really wanted to find a within the rules answer to cover what they realized what she was going to do regardless. That said, I’m glad they found a within the rules cover for the situation. 

So then is she eligible for Eagle in 6 months (assuming completion of service project, POR, etc.)? And if so, in the name of avoiding delayed recognition, why should she have to wait 2 years for the first "introductory class of female Eagles"?

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

Well if we're falling back on a scout is trustworthy do we not owe the same benefit to those scouters reporting shenanigans? 

The people "reporting" shenanigans on here have nothing to base those accusations on other than a girl achieved First Class in 90 days.  The bar for "reporting" seems pretty low.

16 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

You're making the same generalization error based on your experience, just in the opposite direction.   Unless you've sampled a statistically significant portion of the entire scouting nation to back your claim that is.

It may or may not be sufficient or empirical evidence, but he does have the Scout Law to fall back on, and the whole "Scout is Trustworthy" argument. I'd say the onus of the argument is on whomever is asserting there are shenanigans afoot to provide evidence to the fact, as opposed to someone saying everything (for the most part) is above board.

9 hours ago, mds3d said:

Are we? I thought this was about crossover? Whenever I think about crossover, I think about Cub Scouts moving into the next program (crossing over to the older program).  I do think most units move scouts from wolf to bear to Webelos scouts by grade, but moving on to Boy Scouts (not Scouts BSA) has often been done by whenever the boy both completed his AoL and met the requirements for joining (age based) instead of waiting until a grade transition.

The thread branched a bit, sorry for the confusion. My question and subsequent followup in response to Treflienne was specific to Cub Scout advancement "ranking up", not Crossover.

6 hours ago, Treflienne said:

First off, the more traditional approach is by birthday -- though the age used to be 12, not 11.

And the promoting-by-age is not an LDS-only exception.  The brand new Scouts BSA Handbook for Girls says, on the inside front cover

Our troop knows of one girl (not a cub scout) planning to join as soon as she turns 11.   Oddly enough, her mother was not aware of the age-instead-of-AOL grounds for joining scouts, even though the girl has two brothers who have gone through cub scouts.

 

We're talking about advancing rank within Cub Scouts, not moving from Cub Scouts to Scouts BSA .  The practice of advancing Cub Scouts to the next rank by age is/was exclusive to LDS units.

4 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Well, all LDS units will effectively be cancelled after the end of the year, so if any units do continue to exist, it will be under new chartered organizations. Thus it will be up to them to determine how their Scouts will approach the issue, since the CO is ultimately the primary voice governing how each unit operates.

Right, so I guess my question is: Are other Chartered Orgs allowed to operate under that method or was that an exemption for LDS units and no longer allowable?