Jameson76

44 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I love the tag line that emphasizes that the girls can earn Eagle so as to emphasize that's the most important thing when it comes to the "older girls program".

Yes... that is the new normal.  Forget the aim to get Scouts to First Class, now EVERYONE will be an Eagle.  There will no doubt be a really neat trophy.

On 12/8/2017 at 4:49 PM, Col. Flagg said:

The troop will usually have their own dues ($34, $46 if you add in Boys' Life). Some troops charge other annual fees to cover awards, ranks, equipment, etc. So the minimum you could be expected to pay a troop would be $34 ($46 if you wanted Boys' Life).

 

National registration is $33 as of 12/1/2017

This change will affect Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, Venturing crews and Sea Scout ships. However, it will not apply to LDS-sponsored units, nor to those units with council-paid memberships.

 

The family camping on the cover was really a not to subtle..hey look, family camping is GREAT.  Agree the article was a might vague as to how this ties to scouts nor was it useful to me as a leader in a 100+ member scout troop that does 13 outdoor and overnight events a year.  Show me new places to camp, new activities to have on an outing, how to handle the logistics of moving a large group, how to engage the scouts for better meals, low cost yet highly engaging fun things to do on an outing.

It is fairly obvious where BSA (dare I say SA or maybe FSA) wants to move, or is in fact moving.  They see not only that girls can be registered, hey let's get the whole durned family signed up. 

As many have noted and commented, that is not really what a lot of us signed up for nor intended to be involved with.  Yes the family is great, yes there are good things that come from strong families.  The same can be said of many many many activities that families and kids are involved with.  Does that mean one organization should try and meet all those needs?  

While the Pravda comment was a harsh one, it has a strong ring of truth

1. Propaganda is amazing. People can be led to believe anything - Alice Walker
2. The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief - Jacques Ellul
3. Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite - John Berger

Hammock stacking is definitely a thing, especially when some do not bring a rain fly, if you stack, less rain flys....  Great place to nap during campouts, I am not a fan of all night, like to move around too much.

On outings our troop is about 90% sleeping in hammocks, they pitch tents to store gear.  Most like they are level, no rocks or limbs in their backs, and unlike the leaders, they don't have to get up 3 times during the night for the call of nature.  

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

I've dug through the Census Bureau's statistics and no where could I find any references to any breakdown of birth mothers and biological fathers making up their references to two parent households.  69.9% of children live in homes of two parents, but with a divorce rate (increasing over the past 18 years, to the current level of 50% males and 46% females, that 69.9% of children living in non-birth mothers/non-biological fathers skews that number considerably.

It would be helpful to have a reference as to where your statistics originate.  Other non-Census Bureau surveys puts that birth-mother/biological father parenting family at well below 50%.  Depending on other social, economic, and geographic factors the boys in any scouting unit would be tremendously impacted by the reality in which we live.

My point is not exactly how many of our boys are affected, but what is BSA addressing the strong evidence that such factors are present and can have an impact on legal liabilities facing Scouters in today's environment.

Case in point.  I have 2 boys with step fathers.  I really don't know which parent is the custodial parent and if the permission slips being signed are valid signatures.  Not that those slips are valid in the first place. 

 

The numbers are from the Census Bureau

Noted in this article - 

https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-than-60-of-u-s-kids-live-with-two-biological-parents/

 

 

On 12/9/2017 at 11:30 AM, Stosh said:

So in steps BSA with it's "family" program.  So, define family.  with less than 10% of our nation's youth living in a household of natural mom and dad, that is a daunting challenge.  Is the adult who shows up with Little Johnny really his parent or legal guardian?  If custodial Mom can't make it to an activity and step-dad (with no legal standing with the boy) shows up, is Johnny allowed on the activity?  How does that jeopardize the legal standing of the Scouters?  This is but the tip of the iceberg of potential litigation that BSA is totally ignoring with it's all-inclusiveness policies.  I learned a long time ago that those little "permission slips" that "parents" sign have absolutely no standing in a court of law.  

We are all now in a Brave New World of some pretty thin ice.   Skate carefully, My Friend.

Just a quick fact check - actually it's about 58%

Each year the Census Bureau captures a snapshot of the living arrangements of U.S. children through its Current Population Survey. The 2014 results were released by the Bureau last week, and the portrait they present of the family lives of 73.7 million American kids is certainly a variegated one.

Yet despite all the talk about the growing irrelevance of marriage, 43 million children, a 58-percent majority, were living with both their birth mother and biological father in a traditional married-couple family

 

Philmont extended the "sign-up" lottery a couple of times.  Are they not filling up as in past years?

Also had several communications on 2018 availability

 

Well...if we go by current National Policy change methodology...just sort of do what you want with the shoulder loops, if it may in their opinion increase revenue or add members, no doubt it will be quickly codified.

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

@Tampa Turtle, just for you...;)

FYI, Alice is WB trained.

And a very timely Brady Bunch episode...literally ripped from today's headlines

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0531140/

37 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

One would hope that's the issue. But looking at the over use of the word "family" in all their social media posts, as well as in BL and Scouting mags, I suspect good old Mike S. wants to do exactly that; make Boy Scouts a one-stop-shop for the family. I don't think his intention is to just make Cubs more family-like. I think his sole purpose for these changes is to make all programs within BSA (Cubs, Boy Scouts, Venturing, etc.) a family experience.

Agree and that was my take when I read the (now famous) 10/11 announcement.  Follow up clarifications, talks, question sessions continually mention families and not just when talking about Cubs.  There are many many family oriented activities and groups out there.  An organization that hopes to be all things to all people, ends up being little or nothing to anyone.

On our outings if we can teeter on the edge of Lord of the Flies (not to include the fire scene, rolling large rocks on kids, or burning up an island) then so much the better,  There is mayhem there are disagreements, there are scouts solving their issues.  There is unplanned time where they get to see what is actually around the bend from the campsite.  

3 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Is it possible to involve parents and families on an occasional basis?  I don't get the impression that parents and siblings want to do every activity and trip, but maybe show up once in a while.  At Troop meetings, we have a group of moms and younger siblings who hang out down the hall while the boys meet in the gym.  That's not interfering.   My husband is an ASM and goes to summer camp and says with the same breath that he does nothing and that what he does is important.   This year I almost went to camp to do nothing too but the schedule did not work out.  I don't see the big problem if I go to a thing once in a while.  In fact, I am thinking of going to and sitting in on a PLC meeting, just to be a fly on the wall.  I am curious how much the Troop adults participate vs the boys and I'd like to see it in action.

 

I would respectfully say no.  The BSA is for participants in patrols doing the program.  It is (currently) many many things.  A social family organization it is not nor was it ever intended to be.  

 

Remember, Scouting is program that using the patrol method and boys leading is designed and hoped to have failure as part of the outcome.  If they burn a meal, forget some equipment, sleep cold, get wet, etc etc; that will reinforce that their decisions, or lack of decisions have consequences.  Yes we as leaders provide a basic safety net.  Before cold weather camping you may make sure essential equipment is on-hand.  Go to summer camp and forget something, hopefully you will adapt and overcome.  Meet with a MB counselor at a meeting but do not have paperwork or partial from camp, see you later.  Come to a BOR and do not have everything completed or maybe completed but not signed off, you will need to reschedule.

 

Our troop is 100+ scouts, we do 13 outdoor events each year, 2 weeklong summer camps, and high adventure for older scouts each year.  The Greenbar (we are old school) plans the outings and calendar each year.  NEVER have they even mentioned a family campout.  They plan the meetings at the greenbar, the adults confirm they are aware of the dates for the meetings, there is preliminary conversation about outing (or outings) coming up and what skills may be relevant, then adults go to another room and scouts plan.  They used to come get us when they were done, now they text.

 

Families are important, but not to the program and siblings and parents on outings and at meetings are not helpful.  Parents are welcome at meetings to observe and maybe talk with the active leaders.  We have had some do skills presentations in the past.  We welcome all leaders on the outings, but once you come you are a leader and not a parent.  

I suspect their silence is motivated by the FOS campaign currently underway. The local councils don't want to raise the visibility of an unpopular decision while at the same time asking for donations.

 

That boat has left the dock already.  Local councils can attempt to distance themselves, but they cannot embrace the idea (Local SE meetings last spring) while trying to minimize the fundamental change to the organization when it comes time to ask for financial support.  Many of the changes seem to be motivated solely by finances.  Thus it would seem that finances may be the only thing that local and perhaps national BSA professional leadership will listen to that may drive policy changes.  The dilemma is does one continue to provide financial support at an increasing level each year?  If so then one would be complicit in supporting national leadership in fundamental changes one may not support

 

Current National BSA leadership has not taken to heart the basic tenant of campsites with regard to the overall BSA program, leave the site better than you found it.  Will not participating in FOS hurt local councils, likely.  Will it affect near term the impact on currently operating troops, likely no.  Honestly when was the last time you saw your DE?  Will this impact some of the other possible efforts of local councils, perhaps.  These are the cards they chose to play, live with the consequences.

I listened to it.

 

Co-ed summer camps are on the way (and we should be happy for the new bathrooms). New uniforms are on the way (and apparently the old ones sucked anyway). All of this is happening because we asked for it (although I don’t know anyone who did).

 

I have seething disdain for this guy. It turns my stomach to hear him twist the truth and manipulate facts.

 

BSA is tone-deaf. I ripped up and threw away three Friends of Scouting solicitations this week. Maybe they will hear that message.

 

On the FOS, one of our leaders was asked to give at a high level, their response (I will paraphrase)

 

It appears that many of the BSA's decisions have been made for financial reasons, if I continue or expand my support I would be implicitly supporting those decisions I may not agree with.  My support will be to the local troop and if a specific Scout or program oriented need is identified

 

Most of us in the troop have that same opinion, and we are the highest FOS troop in the district. (well, up until the 2018 program I guess)

Perhaps answers to most of our questions. Note, I've not listed to this yet nor read the transcript. I will comment once I have.

 

 

BSA Chief answers your questions about welcoming girls into BSA programs

 

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2017/11/21/bsa-chief-answers-your-questions-about-welcoming-girls-into-bsa-programs/

 

Snip:

 

He talked for 30 minutes, not sure about answering anything.  The CSE is really a politician, we've got questions and he's got anecdotes and stories.  

2- The boys, who are mixed on the girl issue, are thinking that we will be required to have "Family type" campouts (whatever that means) and Boy Scouts will be like Cub Scout campouts. 

 

Cub scout campouts...tents the size of houses, enough gear to lay siege to a castle, cars literally parked everywhere, people arriving constantly, people departing constantly...do not miss those

 

Agree that the constant mention of "family" is concerning.  What does it really mean, what next will change.

There isn't such a thing, and I have not read or heard of any plans to create one.  I think some people are taking pieces of information from here and there and adding them together to create a future which is different from the one the BSA intends to create.

 

It will be up to local Cub Scout Packs, parents and chartered partners to choose whether to include boys and girls in family packs or only serve boys or girls; we anticipate a similar structure at the Boy Scouts level.

 

Using logic, if there is a family pack and there will be a similar structure at the Boy Scouts level (CSE words) then there will / could be family troops

Some of these comments assume that the BSA's intentions have changed from single-gender units at ages 11-17 to coed troops.  That assumption seems to begin with Gwaihir's interpretation of the CSE's statement at cnn.com.  I don't think that interpretation is correct.  I think that when the CSE used the term "similar" he was talking about how each CO will get to decide what kind of units to have, within the options that will be offered by the BSA - not that there will mixed-gender troops.  Mixed-gender packs, yes, if that's what the CO wants, but not mixed-gender troops.  Based on Gwaihir's more recent post, he at least seems to agree with me that it is a matter of interpretation.  So we can fault the BSA for several aspects of how this whole thing has been handled, but not for switching from single-gender troops to coed troops in the past month.  I see no reason to believe they have done that.

 

This is the statement.  Not out of context, the whole sentence:

 

It will be up to local Cub Scout Packs, parents and chartered partners to choose whether to include boys and girls in family packs or only serve boys or girls; we anticipate a similar structure at the Boy Scouts level.

 

Clearly the intention (similar) is to have "family" and / or co-ed troops

 

This was the statement on 10/20 (a clarifying statement from the Big 3 junta) 

 

While our curriculum is relevant both to boys and girls, our commitment to single-gender offerings remains the same. Our decision does not make our programs co-ed. 

 

It is apparently going to be co-ed.  There will be separate but equal troops no doubt AND (my editorial license)  parents and chartered partners to choose whether to include boys and girls in family troops

 

Challenge will be that right now we go to market (basically) with 2 versions CUB and SCOUTS. 

 

Soon there will be: (one would presume)

1)CUBS - Boys

2) CUBS - Girls

3) CUBS - Boys and Girls (separate dens)

4) CUBS - Family packs

5) SCOUTS - Boys

6) SCOUTS - Girls

7) SCOUTS - Boys and Girls (separate patrols ??)

8) SCOUTS - Family troops

 

Good luck to the huddles masses yearning to joining Scouts finding the unit in the derivation they desire

Had the meeting and it was in one ear and out the other. If you try to enforce it, you are the bad guy.

 

Give you an example.

 

One of the Scouts on 3 camp outs now has snuck back into his parents' tent or shelter. Try to correct the situation and dad doesn't do a thing to encourage doing the right thing. This weekend he sat the first nite next to his son's tent until he fell asleep. When I treid to get dad away, I was told "Do yo want me to leave, because if you force this we will." Now I had enough to deal with running camporee, and went to talk to the adults that would be with the troop about the situation. They all knew about it, had no problems and one commented "glad he isn't leaving the shelter, baby steps."

 

I walked off thinking "THIS IS FREAKING BOY SCOUTS!"

 

Had a chat with the SM about all this. He does not see any problems with siblings tagging along. Part of that is his daughter will tag along on occasion. He says as long as they stay out of the way it should not be a problem. But the siblings do not. His daughter has jumped right in and do activities with the boys. The Tiger I mentioned  above I spotted  hanging around another unit's Webelos, and was all over the place getting in the thick of things. This morning while the troop was trying to pack up, he starts kicking around his soccer ball into shelters. The Scouts get and start playing a kicking game with him until the APL spots this and get the Scouts back to work. When the APL tells him he needs to kick elsewhere and points in a direction wher he could go and not be in the way, the Tiger yells "NO!" and then kicks the ball back towards the shelters, actually hitting it with the ball. That's when I told him he needed to go else where.

 

Anyway, it appears that the bulk of the adults. want it to be "Family Friendly." There is suppose to be a meeting with all the adults to set up some ground rules up. Don't know if they will get any input form the Scouts or not.

 

I am staying with the troop until after the meeting. After that I don't know. I do know that one small, struggling troop will shortly need an ASM. Something my wife suggested, and I have been invited to do, is getting back involved with the OA as an associate chapter adviser. A third idea that popped up is starting a Venturing crew.Out of the 16+ year old Scouts, only 1 showed up, and he was getting frustrated with the younger guys. I saw him away from the rest of the troop and start ranting to himself to release tension . As for the 14-15 year olds, the usual suspects were there, but I do not know how they felt. But I am going to find out. I know when they did the AT, they were vibrant and alive, now bored out of their gourd.

 

Good Lord - time to move on

 

Siblings / Kids staying with parents / Kid with the soccer ball needs to be dealt with

 

 

We had a discussion at a recent troop meeting as to why our scouts liked to camp.  The three top responses were 1) To be out with my friends; 2) to get away from my parents. and 3) to get away from my siblings!

 

Yes Yes Yes - Same feedback we have had. 

 

There was a really great parent we approached to be active in outings, he advised son had asked him to not be as they wanted their space.  We did have a place for him behind the scenes.  He went to camp with us for the week (we take 55 - 60 each time to two different camps each summer) I honestly did not see him speak to his son at all except on Saturday when we loaded up and headed home

I do not mean this as a National bash but do share others concerns about the Summit debt. I do see what they were trying to do. 

 

I have been involved in the planning, both logistics and security, of some major special events with comparable duration and attendance. I think they could have figured out other venues around the country and come out ahead. I am think they thought a permanent location would double as a 'Philmont east' and they would get more bang for their buck. It was a reasonable gamble but it appears their assumptions were off (probably wishful thinking) and the development costs were a lot more than expected.

 

Special events today is getting tougher and tougher, peoples expectations and what folks need to provide keep rising and it is a real challenge. (in my opinion that is why I think it may be best to leave that to someone's else venues but I understand the desire to do one's own thing)

 

It is really really hard to make the economics work on virgin land development vs a legacy property. (That is why selling off an old camp is a greater loss than it appears...recreating it would cost so much more).

 

I suspect that the Summit ran into the mountain real estate trap us Florida flat-landers sometime fall into. There is a reason that some hilly land is so cheap and undeveloped....because it can be really expensive to provide access to, develop, and maintain. I do not claim to really understand the balance sheet (I am the only non-accountant in the family) but BSA would not be the 1st entity whose fiscal solvency is threatened by an overly ambitious real estate development. Usually the big winner is the guy picks up the pieces afterward.

 

I am with David Co the Summit events are too rich for my blood...for that kind of money I'd rather do another kind of adventure. I feel like BSA has been slowly pricing my family out (but that and the Summit should be another thread.

 

We looked at Summit and while it was interesting, for what is offered there, I can do it for 1/2 the cost locally (we live in a state with mountains, etc).  As has been noted, more experience and less actual high adventure

 

You do have a good catch on the legacy portion.  Part of the beauty of Philmont (other than the actual beauty) is that it looks very similar and the trek is very similar to what was done 40 - 50 years ago or longer.  I went as a youth, then went 10 years later as an Explorer post advisor (all of this in the 70' and 80').  Then I went 3 years ago with my son and current troop.  Except for the better equipment available, it was really the same experience.  Most of the scouts we send today all come down with IWTGBTP syndrome.

 

Maybe in 20 - 30 years if it survives the Summit will have some of that, but now, do not see it and no real attraction.

 

Though I might want to swing by and see what $500MM buys in a camp property.

To be fair, a SM buddy was telling me of a problem he was having with an older gay boy scout who was hitting on a younger lad at a camp out. He was rebuffed and retaliated by stripping the boy of POR duties. Stalking etc followed (and things went down hill from there, police, counselors, etc, etc). So even Boys only issues of sexual misconduct do occur and have to be dealt with. I think rules will need to be tweaked...especially the first few years.

 

I do think the social dynamic will change. When Camp Woodruff started using Venture girls in the camp store our boys (of all ages) seemed to visit the stores a lot more than previously. 

 

The TPG's (Trading Post Girls) are all part of the marketing plan...a plan to extract as much cash from campers as possible

That is one big can kicked down the road...$136 million! I guess Jambo will pay for that...

 

Assuming $100 profit from each attendee and with the Jamboree in 2021, would need 1,360,000 to attend.  That is doable

If you wonder where the cash went or is in fact going, look at page 35 of the Annual Report (2016).  There is Note 5 which details Land, Building, and Equipment.  High Adventure bases (Philmont / Sea Base / Northern Tier) less accumulated depreciation of $28 million are on the books for $53 million

 

Summit less accumulated deprecation of $30 million is on the books for...wait for it....$364 million dollars.  Yes Summit is on the books for almost 7 TIMES the value of the other 3 High Adventure bases.  I find that concerning.  If BSA dumped that kind of cash and infrastructure there, just the debt service is ridiculous.  

 

Just for fun also note that in 2012 National Council issues debt to finance the development of the Summit, $175 MILLION in 10 Year tax exempt bonds.  There is a balloon payment of $136 MILLION in 2022.

 

Guess National will start admitting emotional support animals...for the right fee

"Too big to fail". It is now looking like a huge gamble that may not pay off. 

 

If you wonder where the cash went or is in fact going, look at page 35 of the Annual Report (2016).  There is Note 5 which details Land, Building, and Equipment.  High Adventure bases (Philmont / Sea Base / Northern Tier) less accumulated depreciation of $28 million are on the books for $53 million

 

Summit less accumulated deprecation of $30 million is on the books for...wait for it....$364 million dollars.  Yes Summit is on the books for almost 7 TIMES the value of the other 3 High Adventure bases.  I find that concerning.  If BSA dumped that kind of cash and infrastructure there, just the debt service is ridiculous.  

Looking at the 2016 annual report it seems clear the BSA is in some financial trouble. The Summit continues to suck cash, our net insurance is costing $70m a year (vs $40m in 2015), we lost $28m in net cash from operations (vs $6m loss in 2015) and then read Note 9.... the lawsuits being filed could cause “ ...operational impact on our program.†Just 1 lawsuit filed in Oregon is suing BSA for $21m.

 

It appears we are selling assets and continuing to bond with the hope that Summit will take off and the we won’t lose these upcoming massive lawsuits. Our assets (think selling camps) will keep us afloat for a while until we sell too many and kill the program.

 

The discussion around girls joining has been around for decades. While I think it can be done with a positive impact and will do my best to recruit those interested while maintaining our Pack, I think the BSA chose to include them to boost membership and save the overall program. I highly doubt this was done altruistically. Either way, what’s done is done and I hope that we find some new energetic volunteers and scouts with this change. I’d like to see us adding camps, facilities and programs while being at a loss of how to handle all of these extra volunteers. Perhaps this change will lead us there. Hope springs eternal...

 

Good Lord the amount of cash dumped into the Summit is likely never to be known.  You know they are selling day passes and locals passes to the Summit for non Scouts to generate up some cash, right?  It is literally trying to do everything for everyone, sort of Disneyesque.  And it it hemorrhaging cash daily.

 

As we speak of surveys and market research, what crystal ball told them there was untapped and unfulfilled need for a high adventure base in WV?

For none of these ranks does it say how far away from home, etc the camp should be.  If they meet the requirement, then sure

 

For Tenderfoot the requirments

 

Camping and Outdoor Ethics 1a. Present yourself to your leader, prepared for an overnight camping trip. Show the personal and camping gear you will use. Show the right way to pack and carry it. 1b. Spend at least one night on a patrol or troop^[1] campout. Sleep in a tent you have helped pitch. 1c. Tell how you practiced the Outdoor Code on a campout or outing

 

Cooking 2a. On the campout, assist in preparing one of the meals. Tell why it is important for each patrol member to share in meal preparation and cleanup. 2b. While on a campout, demonstrate an appropriate method of safely cleaning items used to prepare, serve, and eat a meal. 2c. Explain the importance of eating together as a patrol

 

For Second Class

 

Camping and Outdoor Ethics 1a. Since joining Boy Scouts, participate in five separate troop/patrol^[1] activities, at least three of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least two must include overnight camping. These activities do not include troop or patrol^[1] meetings. On campouts, spend the night in a tent that you pitch or other structure that you help erect, such as a lean-to, snow cave, or tepee. 1a. On Aug 1, 2017, this requirement will become: Since joining Boy Scouts, participate in five separate troop/patrol activities, at least three of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least two must include overnight camping. These activities do not include troop or patrol meetings. On campouts, spend the night in a tent that you pitch or other structure that you help erect, such as a lean-to, snow cave, or tepee. 1b. Explain the seven principles of Leave No Trace and tell how you practiced them on a campout or outing. This outing must be different from the one used for "Tenderfoot requirement 1c". 1c. On one of these campouts, select a location for your patrol site and recommend it to your patrol leader, senior patrol leader, or troop^[1] guide. Explain what factors you should consider when choosing a patrol site and where to pitch a tent.

 

Cooking and Tools 2a. Explain when it is appropriate to use a fire for cooking or other purposes and when it would not be appropriate to do so. 2b. Use the tools listed in Tenderfoot requirement 3d to prepare tinder, kindling, and fuel wood for a cooking fire. 2c. At an approved outdoor location and time, use the tinder, kindling, and fuel wood from "Second Class requirement 2b" to demonstrate how to build a fire. Unless prohibited by local fire restrictions, light the fire. After allowing the flames to burn safely for at least two minutes, safely extinguish the flames with minimal impact to the fire site. 2e. On one campout, plan and cook one hot breakfast or lunch, selecting foods from MyPlate or the current USDA nutritional model. Explain the importance of good nutrition. Demonstrate how to transport, store, and prepare the foods you selected.  

For First Class

 

Camping and Outdoor Ethics 1a. Since joining Boy Scouts, participate in 10 separate troop/patrol^[1] activities, at least six of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least three must include overnight camping. These activities do not include troop or patrol meetings. On campouts, spend the night in a tent that you pitch or other structure that you help erect, such as a lean-to, snow cave, or tepee. 1a. On Aug 1, 2017, this requirement will become: Since joining Boy Scouts, participate in 10 separate troop/patrol activities, at least six of which must be held outdoors. Of the outdoor activities, at least three must include overnight camping. These activities do not include troop or patrol meetings. On campouts, spend the night in a tent that you pitch or other structure that you help erect, such as a lean-to, snow cave, or tepee. 1b. Explain each of the principles of Tread Lightly! and tell how you practiced them on a campout or outing. This outing must be different from the ones used for Tenderfoot requirement 1c and Second Class requirement 1b.

 

Cooking 2a. Help plan a menu for one of the above campouts that includes at least one breakfast, one lunch, and one dinner, and that requires cooking at least two of the meals. Tell how the menu includes the foods from MyPlate or the current USDA nutritional model and how it meets nutritional needs for the planned activity or campout. 2b. Using the menu planned in First Class requirement 2a, make a list showing a budget and the food amounts needed to feed three or more boys. Secure the ingredients. 2c. Show which pans, utensils, and other gear will be needed to cook and serve these meals. 2d. Demonstrate the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and other perishable food products. Show how to properly dispose of camp garbage, cans, plastic containers, and other rubbish. 2e. On one campout, serve as cook. Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in First Class requirement 2a. Supervise the cleanup.