elitts

Well, by "troop" I meant the 3 troop scouter MBCs who do the Cooking MB in the troop. I didn't mean it was actually a troop policy.

While on a trail hike or backpacking trip, prepare and serve two meals and a snack from the menu planned for this requirement Actually, you have two options. Option 1: Prepare two different meals for the same lunch. Example: You have a lunch of cold sandwiches on your menu and a dinner of Beef Stew. So you divide your hiking group in half and serve sandwiches to half and beef stew to the other half. Option 2: Prepare one meal on two different hikes. The key thing is that you need to serve two of the meals off the prepared menu, while on a hike or backpacking trip. (my t

One thing that can be important for older scouts is to make sure they are periodically reminded that if their schedule doesn't easily permit the time required to serve in a Position of Leadership, they can opt to carry out a Scoutmaster approved "Leadership Project" instead. Given the intense variety of thing high schoolers are involved in, it may be that doing a leadership project would be better than half-assing it as ASPL or Patrol Leader when their meeting attendance is sure to be spotty.

Keep in mind that completing this requirement doesn't require a backpacking camp-out. Our troop sometimes schedules a 10 mile hike during lunch on our normal weekend camp-outs for the express purpose of letting scouts working on the cooking badge prepare a meal.

It's not a superiority complex, it's a deliberate effort to tell people "Don't let your girls join Scouts USA or they might get molested. Just look at the news!!!"

I understand the thinking of people that go with the 24 month interpretation, and outside of my own troop, if someone wants to go that way I don't mind. EXCEPT, there is this nasty tendency amongst some scouters in my neck of the woods to take an "interpretation" and then start promoting it as "The BSA Rule"; and that I object to.

The rule specifically says "Their ages can be no more than 2 years apart". My take on it is that ages are integers so as long as the kids can still say they are 12 and 14, it doesn't matter how close they are to their next birthday. But there are a couple of moms in my troop that always decide on the most restrictive and obnoxious possible interpretation of things; they've decided it's 24 months between birthdays even though the rule doesn't mention birthdays or months. (They also felt we should set up a boy/girl rotation schedule for the bathroom. Even though it was a 1 seated port-a-

The boys almost always like this too, except that when you do that, no one gets to sleep on Friday until 3am because the keep each other stimulated. This tends to change pretty quick once the kids hit 7th/8th grade and are in sports though. Then they start wanting smaller tents so they can exclude the "annoying kid" who still thinks its fun to make fart noises and shriek at 1am. Then by high school they usually don't want to tent with anyone who isn't going to go to sleep by 11pm.

Except for the activities where a parent can substitute for a registered adult leader. (Currently that list includes merit badge sessions and fundraising events)

That's what it was in our troop. The way our finances are handled, people could run a negative account balance with the troop until it was like -$75 so we had 15-20 scouts on our books that hadn't really attended anything at all for a couple of years. When they increased the annual fee from $24 to $33 per year our troop made a specific effort to weed out kids that had stopped coming and dropped them from the books if they weren't interested in participating anymore. At meetings and camp-outs, nothing changed, but on paper our troop dropped from 75 boys to around 55.

The reason that turned into a discussion about more than merit badge couseling is because the FAQ references both merit badges and fundraising. Merit badge meetings have always had the exception to 2 deep leadership, but when they say it's merit badge meetings AND fundraising, how do you not ask "well then what else might be ok?"

I think if the leadership actually stated something like "Our insurance carriers will no longer cover us unless we have 2 adults at every event" I think there would be a great deal less grumbling about the change. People understand the realities of the world, what they don't like is when you tell feed them a mishmash of inconsistencies and try and pass it off as "We think this way is better".

I thought this would be hilarious myself. Better yet, they could buy GS cookies by the truckload, then sell them in the "off season" for $8/box.

Yes, It's a "dance" that you can do in video games. I walked into the room once when my son and a couple friends (12 ish years old) were playing some game and the conversation was about who was going to teabag who. After I figured out what they were talking about, I asked them what they thought it meant and the response was "You crouch over someone and wave your butt on someone's head when they lose". I told them they were wrong, and that regardless of what they thought it meant, I didn't want to hear that term again, but later that night I made my son look it up online. His exact resp

So even the BSA documentation is mixing up the rules and reasons. 2 Deep Leadership isn't to prevent abuse, it's to insure there is backup for the adult leader. "No 1 on 1 contact" is to prevent abuse. If this was an "abuse prevention" rule, then it would tell us that no adult can ever be out of the view of another adult.

Well, then if the "Barriers to Abuse" are to stand and be considered rules, they should change to FAQ to read: Yes, 2 registered adults over the age of 21 are required at ALL activities. A stupid rule that is consistent is better than a stupid rule that's inconsistent with arbitrary exceptions. And at least with a consistent rule people can stop arguing about what the rule means, and start just deciding when they are going to obey it, and when the stupidity of it means that it will get ignored. The unfortunate thing about the stupidity of issuing rules that can't be obeyed is th

If you make something a rule, all of the other aspects of your program need to take into account maintaining that rule. If your program needs require making exceptions to a rule (unless it's an emergency) than you have very good evidence that the rule is a problem in the first place. In this case, the FAQ is telling us that regardless of the actual rule, 2 registered leaders aren't a requirement for merit badge meetings or fund raisers. But how can "whatever reason they had" that necessitated mandating 2 registered leaders not apply in just those circumstances? What they should have d

8lbs per day. I've tested it extensively.

It would be good if the things written there were consistent and there was always clarity on when something is a rule and when it is a guideline. For example: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Adult Supervision Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. But the FAQ says this: Q: The Barriers to Abuse say that there must be two registered adults present for all Scouting activities and meetings. Does that include merit badg

This would depend on the type of teasing. Friends tease each other. Parents tease their kids, my son even tries to tease me sometimes. When you have a kid on the spectrum who doesn't understand what teasing is, you don't just ban it all, you teach the boys and the child until they understand what works and what hurts feelings.

I understand why "Sped" is offensive as a label applied to a person. But why would "SPED" Accommodation be offensive in the context of "Special Education Accommodation" given that fact that most public schools still have "Special Education" departments, programs and teachers?

I think you got it wrong. The rules as written would mean that TWO adults would need to stand outside monitoring the conversations. 🙄

This was/is me as well. Chugging along "as many miles as possible" isn't my bag. I'm grudgingly willing to backpack to get someplace cool if needed, but I HATE it. (I'll happily canoe though) It's the actual being outdoors I enjoy, and part of that is eating a decent breakfast and a warm, tasty meal at the end of the day. You might talk me into leaving my seasonings behind in favor of mediocre dehydrated food, but it'll have to be a pretty exceptional destination. Besides, when I did Philmont in 92 my pack was 70-75lbs. Now that so much gear is lighter, you can't tell me to leave th

Alps Mountaineering actually still manufactures (or has manufactured) a line of external frame packs. A couple of the scouts in my troop have bought and use them and are quite happy. I know personally, internal frame packs drive me nuts. In addition to not being able to attach things to the outside, I find them to be extremely warm on my back. Plus, (and this is the biggie) they carry with more pressure on your shoulders than the external ones do; and since I already have neck and back issues, I want every pound possible riding on my hips.

But this wasn't "a Crew going out on the trail" in the context of a "Trek", it was 3 guys doing a non-programmatic day hike. The "Trek" for the the Intro to Backpacking course didn't start until Wednesday. Therefore the section of the brochure headed with "Adult Leadership on Treks" wasn't applicable. If you can find me a section that discusses "Adult Leadership at Base Camp" you will have something to point to.