CalicoPenn

In my opinion, without proper instruction in the use of an axe AND a hatchet (hand axe), Totin Chip training is incomplete. Part of learning how to safely use the tools is learning which tools to use for a particular situation.

You can't split logs with a hatchet (at least not safely) - and most people shouldn't use an axe to split kindling. The handle is too long and unless you have a lot of experience wielding an axe - it's just unsafe to do so.

There is also different handle lengths to consider (a 3/4 or a full) and different uses of an axe depending on it's head. A single-bit axe is (in the absence of a maul and wedge set or a splitting maul) better suited to splitting while a double-bit axe is better suited to chopping and limbing. Yes - you can do all three tasks with either type of axe, and it's done all the time when you can only have one axe with you (If I could only choose one, my preference would be a double-bit - but that's a personal preference)but it's not the ideal (its like a carpenter using a roofing hammer for framing - you can do so, but it isn't ideal).

I would try to encourage the Troop to re-tool (sorry un-intended pun) its Totin Chip instruction to make sure that axe use is covered as well as hatchet use.

In my troop we used all three types of axes - the single-bit, the double-bit and the hand axe (hatchet), and both sizes of axes. The troop owned the equipment and Scouts were never to bring their own with them to campouts. Axes were never allowed in a Scouts tent - when not in use, they stayed in the equipment tent or in the leader's tent.

As an aside to demonstrate the reason why Scouts shouldn't have axes in their tents - at a camporee, when my Explorer Post was serving as emergency services (security, first aid, fire watch, etc.), we were called to one of the units camp sites at about 3am to provide first aid for a Scout who hurt himself with an axe. One of his unit leaders told a scary story at the units campfire after the camporee campfire and the Scout got scared and brought an axe to bed with him "just in case". The Scout eventually fell asleep and in the middle of the night, rolled over onto the axe head. The resulting cut didn't require stitches but because it was about 3 to 4 inches long, it produced a bit of blood and really scared the heck out of the lad and his leaders.

I have no opinion on brand names - a good axe can be found at the local hardware store. I strongly suggest that only axes and hand axes with wooden handles be used. Fiberglass and metal handles just don't absorb the shock of axe head connecting with log as a wooden handle does and the more shock the handle absorbs, the less shock is transfered to the Scouts arms and shoulders.

Since the troop is young, you might also want to start out with a 3/4 axe (this refers to length of handle, not size of head as some think) knowing that eventually you'll need a full size axe. Again, this is a safety consideration. A 3/4 axe will be safer for younger Scouts to use - the handle is of a size that isn't overwhelming like a full size axe might be. At some point, as they get taller, the older Scouts (and adults) will find the 3/4 axe is a bit short which now makes it less safe (not unsafe - just less safe)to use and a full size axe will be a better fit for them.

I would be very concerned about letting each Scout bring their own hand axe. It really isn't necessary for a unit to have more than one or two on a trip, and Scouts tend to want to use what they bring along - if they're all bringing hand axes along, what will they use them on? Most likely, the trees surrounding your camp site. Better to make axes and hand axes troop equipment.

A hatchet can do as much damage as an axe - about the only difference is an axe head may be more likely to break some bones in a foot if it's dropped than a hatchet just because of sheer weight. The counter to this argument, I think, is that using a tool for a purpose it's not intended is far more dangerous. If you have to split some logs, or even chop apart a good size branch to fire size pieces, an axe is far more safer to use than a hatchet.

Calico

If I hear a boy say "my knife sucks", my first reaction isn't going to be to jump all over him for his use of the word. My first reaction is going to be to ask him why his knife sucks then ask what he's going to do about it once I get the answer. If he tells me it won't cut anything or is too dull, he's not going to continue to use the knife until he sharpens it. If he tells me the blade or the handle is loose, he's not going to continue to use the knife at all.

An experienced Scouter would look beyond the word choices of the scouts (unless it's one of the really offensive words (ie Carlins 7 words you can't say on TV) and drill down to the real issues.

I wonder - what would your reaction be if you were a parent called to pick up your son from summer camp because of behavioral problems and after driving 100+ miles to pick him up you learned that the behavioral problem was that your son used the word "sucks"? I know what my reaction would be, and I guarantee that the whole camp (not campsite - I mean the whole camp) would learn words that would make a longshoreman blush.

Calico

Knowing what the vine looks like is as important to poison ivy identification as knowing what the leaves look like.

At our cub scout day camp there was a hickory tree with a very healthy crown of leaves. A perfect place for getting under in a small shower, right? Except, the tree itself was dead. Snaking up the tree were a number of vines, all growing to the top of the tree. The vines weren't grape and didn't look like Virginia Watercreeper. The leaves covered the crown of the tree, and it once being a mature hickory, that put the crown of the tree about 90-100 foot up. It took binoculars to confirm the suspicion that the vines were poison ivy.

Calico

To the next available moderator, Please remove all of my post from this thread completely. Now that you have needlessly edited one post and butchered it in the process, there is no reason for them to remain. Its a real shame you didn't look at the OA Fact Sheet before editing the factual posting I provided.

Calico

Nothing in my post is a secret or is to remain a secret to a parent or a Scout. In fact, an official Order of the Arrow Fact Sheet readily available to anyone through www.scouting.org (the BSA's official website)without any special passwords also lists exactly what I did about what occurs in the Ordeal. It is the ceremony that is the mystical part of the experience, not the Ordeal itself.

You can view that fact sheet here: http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-512.html

Take a look at the section titled "Induction". It is made public knowledge precisely because of concerns that Crossramwedge made earlier about the OA being some sort of "secret society".

If after looking at this public fact sheet you still feel that this aspect of the Ordeal should remain a secret from parents and boys, please contact the National Lodge Chief to register your request.

CalicoPenn

I have some questions that might help answer your question a little better. Have the Webelos in the past typically joined one of the two Troops or do some join Troop "1" and some join Troop "2". If your pack considers itself a "feeder" Pack to one particular Scout Troop, then that is the Troop to approach about Den Chiefs. If your Pack is "feeding" both Scout Troops, then you should ask both Troops to consider supplying some Den Chiefs. From your post, it doesn't appear that either of these Troops is a "sister" unit (both sponsored by the same group).

That being asked, I see no problem with asking for Den Chiefs from both Troops. A good Den Chief is a recruiting tool for his home Troop. A GREAT Den Chief is a recruiting tool for the Boy Scouts and doesn't care what Troop a Webelos joins, just as long as he crosses over and joins A Troop.

Get your Pack a few Den Chief's Handbooks - and have your Den Leaders (and CM, and ACM, and CC) read them. They'll help a lot. Den Chiefs can be a great addition to the Den and Pack program - and Packs that understand the program and support their Den Chiefs tend to thrive.

Now - to take it a step further and become a GREAT Pack that Scouts clamor to join as Den Chiefs: Buy each of the Den Chiefs a Den Chief Handbook of their very own (instead of looking to the Den Chief or his unit to buy it). Offer (to the Troops) to purchase the Den Chief braids/position patches for the boys (Den Chief is a Troop POR for Rank - Troops would typically purchase these items for the Scouts - having the Pack offer to purchase/reimburse for these items goes a long way to building Pack/Troop relations and keeping the Troop interested in continuing to supply you with Den Chiefs in the future). Give the Den Chiefs meaningful responsibilities in the Den/Pack - they aren't baby sitters - they should be involved with the leadership team of the Den (in fact, they are part of the leadership team of the Pack/Den) - don't treat them as 12 year old Cub Scouts. At the first opportunity, offer to get them to Den Chief Training - most districts hold it at least once per year (often times at the same time as the Cub Scout PowWow) - and be willing to pay for it.

Now to REALLY shine - assign one person (and ACM works well for this, or the Den Leader Coach can do this) the task of mentoring the Den Chiefs through a full years service and the tasks required to earn the Den Chief Service Award. They don't take charge of the Den Chiefs - just help them to earn the award. There is no reason in the world that any Den Chief, other than not serving for a full one year, shouldn't earn the Den Chief Service Award.

CalicoPenn

Your son could not participate in the Ordeal (it's much more than just participating in a ceremony at the out of council summer camp because the Ordeal must be completed, per OA Policy, within one's home council's Lodge.

The Scoutmaster should have informed your son and all the other elected Scouts about their election if they were going to miss the Call-Out Ceremony (It sounds as if it is the Call-Out Ceremony your Scoutmaster was going to surprise him at). Your son, and all the other Scouts have one year from ELECTION (NOT Call-Out) to complete the Ordeal. You need to ask your Scoutmaster to find out from the Lodge when the next Ordeal will be held. The you need to get your son up to that Ordeal - for the FULL Ordeal - he won't be able to go through the ceremony without going through the rest of the Ordeal.

The Lodge MAY hold a fall Ordeal weekend (most Lodges do). It is generally a weekend of service at one of the Council's Scout Camps - it may be a relatively local camp - or may not (My Lodge holds it's spring Ordeal at the Council's Summer Camp - a 4 hour drive North - and it's fall Ordeal at the local weekend camp - a 45 minute drive Northwest). It is highly unlikely that the Lodge will do an Ordeal weekend at your Council's fall camporee - the Lodge members will be too busy leading their own units, and having fun at the camporee.

Forget about the Call-Out ceremony at this time - get those boys (assuming more than just your son was elected) to the next available and convenient Ordeal opportunity. If they haven't completed the Ordeal by December - they will all have to stand for election again. Don't delay - call your Scoutmaster and light that fire now. The Lodge has set the Ordeal schedule for the rest of the year - unfortunately, if that Ordeal weekend at that camp that is 180 miles away on the weekend of Grandma's 80th Birthday is the last one of the year, he'll need to go to that (and be there when every thing starts - not pull in in the middle of the day of the ceremony) or he will not become an arrowman this year.

CalicoPenn (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

I think the "evolution" of Scouting from woods based to urban based in the 70's was a reaction to population patterns - that it happened after the "counterculture" was just a coincidence. For most of the countries history, the majority of of lived on farms and in rural areas. After World War II this pattern started to change. In the 1960's, this change was becoming even more evident. By the early 70's, the population was increasingly urban and our population was starting to increase tremendously. In the 1950's, the US population stood at around 150 million people. In 2000, the US population stood at around 280 million people - and increase almost double in 50 years. It took over 150 years (based on beginning of US Census taking) to reach 150 million people - it took a third of that time to add almost another 150 million people.

Prior to the 1970's, the majority of people lived in rural areas. In the 1970's the majority now lived in urban metropolitan areas - just slightly more than 50% and was continuing to trend to urban (which included suburban) living. That trend towards urbanization continued. By the 1980's, around 60% of us were living in urban metropolitan areas. In the 1990's, it was about 70%. According to the 2000 US Census, a whopping 80.3% of us now live in urban metropolitan areas - and it's still trending upwards. Will we reach 90% at the end of this decade? I'd like to say it's unlikely and that it will stabilize at about 85% but the indications are clear that for the foreseeable future, the USA will be a country where Urban values will hold sway.

I remember going through those changes to the BSA program in the 1970's - from a marketing perspective, it made a lot of sense. THe BSA adjusted their program to where the people were, and what their realities were.

As a patrol leader, I read ideas about taking my patrol on train trips to the woods to go camping for a weekend. In my area, had we gotten on a train, we would have been heading into downtown Chicago - no where near any campable woods. Other suggestions were to get permission to camp at the woodlot on the edge of town. The edges of my town were host to houses, industrial buildings, shopping centers that were in my town, and in the neighboring suburban towns - we had not woodlots we could go to - and the forest preserves were off limits to camping, and not safe anyway. First Aid was all about tourniquets, and fancy splints, etc. for in the woods - but in my town, a phone call brought an ambulance in less than 4 minutes. By the time we got a splint on someone, the ambulance would be there, and the Paramedics would be removing the splint we made anyway. The changes were in reaction to these new realities for most people.

Did that pendulum swing too far at the time? Probably - it could have been a lot more gradual - but the BSA was correct in not ignoring what the reality of the "marketplace" was.

This all relates to the idea of American Values too. The "traditional" American Values were set in the our rural heritage - where everyone in an area was generally the same. As your out and about with your Scouts this year, I challenge you all to really look at how the rural areas in our country were settled - Wisconsin has a great outdoor museum - Old World Wisconsin - that does a great job in showing settlement patterns. German settlers settled with other Germans. Swedes settled with other Swedes. Etc. Etc. Etc. That rural sameness was a sameness in one area, not neccessarily the whole. Now, it is the Urban Areas that are still being "settled" but not by people who are all the same. There is a diversity in the current "settlement" (or should I see "continual resettlement") of Urban Areas of the US that hasn't been matched by any rural area in the US, or anywhere else in the world (with the possible exceptions of London, France and the large Canadian cities) and that diversity is the new driving force of American Values. Before anyone states that different groups are populating different parts of our cities (in other words, bringing up explain "Chinatown", "Little Italy", etc.) - that is true - BUT - the difference is that there isn't 20, 30, 40 or more miles separating these groups - they may live together in a small enclave within a large city, but they do interract with each other on a daily basis.

It is, IMO, the change in our population centers that is the root cause of our cultural clashes. Those that are clinging to some sense of "traditional values" are currently on, and likely will be on, the losing side of that clash for some time to come - if it hasn't already been permanently lost. Increasingly in urban areas, being athiest or being gay is not being seen as immoral. Being discriminatory - even if it is legal - is being seen as immoral. It will be a hard row to how to convince people who believe that discrimination is wrong and immoral that there can be caveats to that stance - that discrimination is wrong except that you can discriminate against (insert your favorit whipping boy).

CalicoPenn

Nope, holding elections at one period per year isn't bogus. In fact, the OA encourages Lodges to hold elections during one period per year, and recommends that they be held before summer camp.

Lodges choose the time of year for elections, and most lodges schedule the elections for the late winter/early spring season, sending election teams to the units during this time. Some good reasons for doing this is that most opportunities to complete the Ordeal start in May and run through September. Hold your election in October, and you have a long time to wait until the next Ordeal opportunity comes up - though candidates have a year to complete the Ordeal, the ideal is for the candidate to complete it as soon as possible - not to have to wait 7 or 8 months before they even get the chance. From a Lodge record keeping perspective, holding all elections in one short period of time also ensures that they have trained, qualified election teams available, and they they don't miss a unit when it comes time to hold elections. Lodges then only need to send out the appropriate letter and form once per year. Of course, Lodges have the option to do elections throughout the year. I can see this being an advantage for Lodges with lower population densities and large geographical areas to cover (something like Montana which I think has one council and therefore one lodge)where getting a few election teams around to units during one short period of time could be problematic logistically.

A Lodge is being smart when saying it no longer wants to hold elections at Summer Camp, but in the spring before camp instead. Why? Because the election requirements state that 50% of all active youth members of the unit MUST be in attendance in order to hold an election. If you have a unit with 40 active youth members in it (and this is Youth as defined by the OA - which includes Assistant Scoutmasters under the age of 21 - not Youth as defined by the BSA; and active per the OA also includes a college student who may be away at school but is still registered and still takes part in some activities when he is home - like attending a unit meeting, or going on a camp out) you need to have 20 of those active youth members at camp in order to hold an election. It is far easier to get those 20 to attend a meeting on a Tuesday night than to make sure you have enough going to summer camp.

Elections and Ordeals must be held within the home Lodge, with very limited exceptions that have already been pointed out. Call-outs may be held by an OOC lodge. I would be hesitant to do so and the only reason I can think for doing this is if a candidate is going to miss his in-council call-out (because the Lodge only does them at summer camp). The experience I have in my Lodge is that chapters do their call-outs at the Spring Camp-o-ree, but the neighboring Lodge does theirs only at Summer Camp (with a very impressive ceremony - I went to that summer camp (OOC) as a lad. Its important to note that a formal Call-out is not neccessary for a candidate to take part in his Ordeal. He is a candidate immediately upon election - not upon call-out. It is preferred that the candidate be called out - either at summer camp, a district camporee, or at least in a formal ceremony (which can be held at a Troop meeting, or Court-of-Honor - heck, it can be held on a unit camp out around the campfire one night, by OA members of the unit if needed). The Call-out ceremony is to publicly recognize that the lad was elected by his peers and is now a candidate for the OA. I've even seen call-outs where a ceremonial team member stated that the following candidates are not present at the ceremony but are called out as Ordeal Candidates by the Lodge/Chapter, then the list is read.

Trev - the policy on out of council Ordeals seems to have been changed sometime in 2005 or 2006, In the 2004 GOA, there is a listed procedure for completing out of council Ordeals - it was the same policy that was in existence when I was a Lodge Officer (talking in the hand mumble) years ago. The latest & greatest - the 2006 GOA has the policy change. I'd sure like to know what the impetus for that change was.

Calico

Scott,

I'm sure it has something to do with the use of liquid fuel.

But - I have to tell you - I laughed out loud at the Coleman Lantern quip! Thanks!!

Calico

Its ocurred to me that we're all missing the forest for the trees here. Yes, this article is critical of the BSA, is full of anecdotal evidence, has a specific slant to it (and I see that slant as being critical of the BSA not for the 3 G's or any other "political" reason but for its seemingly lack of concern for safety) - but while folks are focusing in on such issues as the 3 G's and if it's appropriate to the article (I agree with LongHaul - for the point this mention is making, it certainly is in context), or whether it's being unfair to volunteers/scouters, or whether Ms. McGivney has an agenda, or what, if anything, is lacking in BSA training, we're all missing the biggest point. And that is...

Ms. McGivney wrote this opinion piece AS A PARENT of a potential Scout. It's clear to me that her biggest agenda seems to be making sure that the activities her Scout-aged son get involved with are safe. The fact that she readily recognizes that her son might just make a great Scout should have us salivating over a new potential recruit. Instead, she's giving us a rather salient viewpoint on what some parents may very well be thinking about the BSA at this time. She doesn't seem opposed to the BSA because it doesn't let the three G's in (she uses the athiest and gay issues to point out that it's rather hypocritical to claim that it is impossible for the BSA to force 47,000 "chapters" out there to be safety conscious when the BSA is forcing these same 47,000 units to ban athiests and gays). What she's opposed to is the apparent lack of concern for safety in the wilderness.

Here's the biggest picture of all - this is all about PERCEPTION. We can argue until the cows stop giving milk about whether what she is saying is true or not, or contextual or not (hard to argue that it isn't factual, except for that whole "chapter" thing) and it doesn't matter. What matters is her perception, and more than likely many other parents perception (she just has an opportunity to talk about it in a national magazine)of the BSA. I've mentioned it before - it doesn't matter what we think - it matters what potential members think. It matters what PARENTS like Ms. McGivney think. Getting a boy excited about the program is only half the battle - to win the war, we need to win over the parents.

A good example of perception. According to a BSA professional, "We...do not consider ourselves an outdoor or survival training organization". And maybe it isn't - BUT - the perception of most people is that the BSA is an outdoor and camping organization. We see it here when Ms. McGivney says the statement that the BSA isn't a outdoor training organization would make more sense if the BSA were playing more kickball instead of all the camping it does. How many here have the perception that the BSA ISN'T an outdoor training organization? Not many who are teaching their Scouts outdoor skills, I imagine.

There is talk here, and on another spinned off thread about training for the outdoors and what folks are doing to be prepared - we all seem to have a great handle on it - but do our professional staff spokespeople? The BSA Director of Camping states that the PRIMARY training on the outdoors is from the Fieldbook and other BSA Literature?? How many of you would be comfortable letting your child go on a canoe trip with leaders who have never been in a canoe but have read about it in books? Not many, I would suspect. Perception!!!

This article tells me we've lost Young McGivney because we've lost Ms. McGivney. How many other, silent, Ms. McGivneys are out there? How many other boys out there won't be joining the BSA because their parents have the same concerns that Ms. McGivney has? The more I read the article, the more I get a sense that she has laid out a blueprint for the BSA on how to re-establish that confidence in the BSA that she (and likely many others) may have once had. We need to stop being so defensive every time we see a "negative" article about the BSA and start paying closer attention - both to what folks like Ms. McGivney are telling us, and what our professional staff are saying about the BSA.

Calico

In all the discussion of what skills one needs to take youth into the woods, the big one that is missing is the one that we should have been learning starting with our parents and continuing forward. For simplicity's sake, most call it Common Sense - but anecdotal evidence suggests that so-called Common Sense isn't so common after all.

My undergrad degree is in Environmental Education/Outdoor Recreation. Not only did I learn advanced outdoors skills, I learned how to teach them, and how to lead groups safely into the woods (do you know who is often called upon to teach certain outdoors skills to the military? Civilian contractors with degrees in Outdoor Recreation - because they usually are most familiar with the latest techniques and equipment - and have spent far more time doing these activities than folks in the military (not dissing the military - just pointing out different priorities in folks lives - military personnel don't often get to climb rocks, for example, every day or every weekend - it may be something they do just a few times per year)) My degree and experience would mean squat, though, if I didn't also have the "common sense" to know that climbing above treeline in a thunderstorm (as an example) is just not a good idea.

There are plenty of training opportunities both inside and outside of Scouting that helps one be better prepared to lead youth into the wilderness. Obviously, some are more apt to take advantage than others. The real question is, what is missing from that training - does it make certain assumptions about what people should already know (aka Common Sense) and therefore passes right over some knowledge?

Lets take a closer look at some of those anecdotal stories that folks are all atwitter about being presented in an Outside Magazine opinion piece (sorry, I know I'm cross-pollinating but they seem to be related to this thread).

5 Scouters electrocuted at National Jamboree when the pole of their tent touches an overhead electrical line. "Common Sense" tells us that we should never set up a tent with metal poles (or frankly, any poles) under an overhead electrical line. Yet this tent was being set up under an overhead electrical line. That makes this tragedy perfectly preventable, and even more tragic because it was preventable(side note - not blaming the Scouters for this - as I understand it, an outside tent company was hired and they sited the tent - though I question why an experienced Scouter would not have had a "wait a second - is this really safe" moment). But maybe there was no common sense - did anyone in training say that tents shouldn't be set up under electrical lines? Maybe not - since it's not that common to be setting up camp near electrical lines in the first place, and maybe the assumption was that they should have known without being told.

Numerous stories about Scouts "wandering off" and getting lost in the woods - there seems to be a recurring theme - they aren't getting lost on a trail from one place to another - they mostly seem to be getting lost after wandering away from camp. My question is Why?? Is the Buddy Method no longer being taught/adhered to anymore? When I was a Scout, you didn't go anywhere without your buddy around - not even the Kybo (your buddy didn't go in with you, but you certainly walked to it together). If you were working in the Axe Yard, your buddy (or someone elses - it was perfectly acceptable to trade as needed - as long as the trade was made) had to be present. Washing dishes - buddy needed to be present. When I was 14, I joined my school's Cross Country team - I wanted to run every morning in Summer Camp - and had to find a buddy willing to get up early and run with me in order to do so. The biggest tragedy of these lost Scouts is that this should have been preventable.

I've got quite a few friends from my college who are park rangers/naturalists in National and State Parks who tell me that they cringe when they hear the term "I (am/was) a Boy Scout/Scoutmaster" This is all anecdotal so take it as you will - but the general impression these professionals get is that Scouts/Scouters often times aren't as open to instruction and suggestions because they are already "experts".

I've experienced this phenomenon myself at a BSA National High Adventure base - there is a significant minority out there that do have this type of attitude. Some things I've heard: "I'm an expert canoeist because I own a canoe and paddle on the lake at my weekend home all the time (said just before training on how to canoe through whitewater rapids and 5 foot lake swells). "You're splinting that broken leg wrong because thats not the way the Red Cross taught it to me 15 years ago" (said to this Wilderness EMT/Paramedic who just finished canoeing 30-miles to tend to this lad and faced a 30-mile upstream canoe ride back to the nearest road and ambulance). "See this plant? This is Poison Ivy so you want to stay away" (said while standing in a patch of Poison Ivy while pointing to Virginia Waterleaf). "That mountain is less than a mile tall - we can easily hike up and back before dark" (said at around 4pm not realizing that a flat one mile that can be done in 20 minutes is not the same as a vertical 1 mile that may take 3 or more hours to complete - one way - depending on the trail).

We need more than just skills training. We need training in "common sense" (which becomes common when we are exposed to it over and over and over again), we need to make sure we aren't glossing over what we think is obvious (so what if they've heard it 50 times before, a 51st time won't hurt), and maybe some training on humbleness (is that a word?) - we all need to be humble enough to be able to take suggestions from others who probably know a little something something about things that we just aren't aware of.

CalicoPenn

Don't forget:

7 to point out that the G2SS prohibits Scouts from climbing ladders to change a light bulb

3 to state that the G2SS is just a set of guidelines and since the prohibition of ladder use isn't in bold face type that it's perfectly ok for a Scout to climb a ladder to change a light bulb

14 to insist that the light bulb changing program be followed exactly

27 to say its okay to tweak the light bulb changing program just a little bit

9 to wonder where the patch a Scout earns for light bulb changing proficiency is placed

18 to ask if Cub Scouts can earn the light bulb changing patch

34 to ask if there is a knot available for light bulb changing

99 to debate the merits of clear versus frosted bulbs

16 to delve into the technical aspects of wattage versus voltage

and 1 underpaid janitor to actually change the light bulb.

Calico

Go to your Chartered Organization Representative NOW and tell him/her what is going on. Either the COR will support you or won't. If you get any indication of any less than full support from the COR, then this is your sign that it is time to move on. Talk to the key leadership (Scoutmaster, key committee members). If you don't have their support it might be time to move on.

This parent can hold as many "no confidence boards" as he wants - they just have no meaning unless that COR gives it meaning. This so-called no-confidence board can't remove you from your position, nor can the committee. It can only recommend to the COR that you be replaced - this is why it's important for you to talk to the COR right away. Hopefully you will have the support of the Scoutmaster and other key leaders - makes it much easier for the COR to tell this so-called "no-confidence board" that while their input is appreciated, there will not be a change in leadership.

Calico

Interesting article and even more interesting responses. As a species, we tend to react pretty defensively when our particular ox is being gored. No one has said that anything written in the article is untrue. The anecdotal "blatherings" (don't you just love that term) are well documented cases, and not just merely the "heard it from a friend who heard it from a cousin who heard it from a neighbor" type of anecdotal evidence that is considered a major flaw in any good journalistic or scientific article. The bringing in of 2 of the 3 G's effectively calls into question the assertion by a spokesperson for the BSA that it is hard to enforce requirements in a volunteer organization - perhaps more effectively than if she had brought up enforcing requirements for advancement (more people are aware of the ban on the 3 G's than on the requirments it takes to get Eagle).

This is an opinion piece, and what is interesting is that she makes common arguments from the other side - and those are certainly valid arguments. More importantly, she isn't taking cheap shots at volunteers. The thrust of her concerns seems to be more towards the professional staff and their risk management policies. Did any of us know before this article that the BSA was a member of the committee for Wilderness Risk Conference? Is anyone else as surprise as I am that they are no longer a member of that committee? Is anyone shocked that the BSA has refused to provide data that could prove useful in maging risk in the wilderness? I'm not - they seem to be quite secretive and have a "circle the wagons" mentality about certain things. The anecdotal evidence in the form of documented news stories is made even more powerful because the BSA hasn't done a good job of showing that there were, (For Example Only - of how such statistics could put things in perspective) - 15 million camping nights by scouts and leaders last year and only 150 lost, seriously injured, or killed scouts and leaders in the same period.

I've been in some pretty scary situations myself in the wilderness - no matter how well trained and how well prepared you are, the more time you spend in the wilderness, the more likely you will face scary situations. I've gone to bed on a clear night with no signs of any impending weather problems only to wake up when a falling tree dropped less than 5 feet from my tent in a thunderstorm with 50 mph wind gusts. I've climbed mountains on clear, sunny days only to have to retreat in driving sleet storms. I've stepped over logs only to hear a heart stopping rattle come from behind me. We can never fully protect ourselves or the lads we take care of in the woods from every thing that can possibly go wrong and my reading of this article doesn't lead me to believe the author is suggesting that it will. Rather, my take is that the author is saying that there a some basic tools that seem to be missing - and the BSA isn't as proactive as it could be to make sure their volunteers get access to those tools.

Calico

ps: I can't help but notice that already there was at least one comment about the "liberal" media in relation to this article. Help me out here, I'm trying to determine how an opinion piece that basically takes the BSA to task for not doing enough to help their volunteer leaders gain skills needed to take kids into the woods safely is liberal.

What can a Council do to a Troop that does not attend the Council's summer camp? Only one thing - refuse to recharter the unit - a short sighted move no Council would ever want to make. Other than that, the answer is "nothing". There is nothing in the charter, rules, regulations, policies, procedures, etc. etc. etc. that declares that Troops must attend their own Council's summer camp. So your troop should feel free to attend the camp of the Boy's choice. Hopefully, your SM & CC have the gumption to stand up to whomever is pressuring them and tell that person/those people to, politely, go scratch. To add a little sugar to that sour taste, perhaps the PLC would be willing to offer up a written summary of just why they find the out of council camp to be preferable/superior to the in council camp.

Calico

In my experience, I've noticed that lads are more likely to "play" with makeshift hiking staffs found along the trail than with permanent hiking staffs. Finding a stick on the ground seems to energize a lad's imagination (the stick becomes a sword, a gun, a Bo, etc.) while a permanent hiking staff is most often given the status of "Tool" and is therefore treated with the respect one gives one's tools.

Certainly, if the play fighting is getting out of hand, we adults need to step in. The trick is trying to determine when play has overstepped its bounds. Rather than keep butting heads with the other leaders, I think I would encourage the lads (and the Troop) to develop their own personal, permanent hiking staffs. They can be carved, decorated, etc. (there are now plenty of state and national parks with hiking trails that are adopting the European hiking staff medallion program - medallions shaped in such a way as to enable them to be permanently attacted to a hiking staff as a rememberance of ones hike) which will instill even more of a sense of care. You'll still have the occasional flip of a staff (I still do it myself when walking) but no one is likely to try an all out battle with a staff they own and decorate.

ScoutingAgain - please tell us this wasn't the end of the story - that the lads just got another hiking staff and continued the game, or that you quietly (or not - I suspect I would have blasted her full bore) confronted the other Scouter and explained that this was a time-honored game learned in a Scout Camp (and if I'm not mistaken, this game was once featured in the Boy Scout Handbook in their physical fitness chapter - this is certainly a game that sounds like it would have come right from Baden Powell's handbook) and retrieved the stick.

Calico

Good Evening, Anne,

I checked the National Park Service website for the St Croix Riverway and this is what they had to say - in red letters on their "river levels" page:

"Notice: Water levels are at near record low levels on the St. Croix and Namekagon. Paddlers will need to stay in river currents to find the deepest water and use caution to avoid rocks, tree limbs and sandbars. Wading may be required to move between shallow spots."

For the section you plan to canoe, they add:

Interpretation of gauge readings:

Depth in Feet Canoe and Kayaking Conditions

Below 4.4: Conditions are challenging. Avoid Kettle River Slough Channel - stay on Wisconsin side. Too shallow for small motors above Paint Mine Campsite. Canoeing from Riverside Landing to Nelson's Landing is good. Nelson's Landing to Soderbeck Landing is challenging with many exposed obstacles. Some walking may be required.

(I redacted the rest of the interpretation numbers for various depths since the river levels are around 3.25' which means the rest aren't needed).

So, the Park Service is saying there are record low levels on the river, that river levels below 4.4' present challenging conditions, and links to a site that confirms a current gauge reading of about 3.25'.

Yes, the river is quite low. Now to answer the question - is it TOO low? And the answer to that really is up to you - it can be done, it will be a challenge, it could possibly mean as much walking along the bottom of the river dragging the canoe behind you, as actual paddling time. A good outfitter won't rent out their gear if the river was impassable, or if canoeing was impossible - the potential cost of damage to their gear would be a bit much.

I would say that if the outfitter is still renting out the gear for this stretch of the river, that it is canoeable - but still be prepared for challenges such as having to walk through areas that are too shallow - stay to the deepest part of the channel and you should be ok - but if the goal is to spend as much time paddling as possible, this might not be a good time to go. Again, it's really up to you to decide if the river level is too low.

Calico

Great accomplishment - congrats to the lads, their parents, and their leaders.

In my opinion, it will be important in this ceremony to make sure each new Eagle Scout is recognized individually - that they each have an equal share of the spotlight all to themselves. This could be done by calling up each Scout, and his parents, individually, have a presenter introduce the Eagle by talking about the Scout's trail to Eagle and then present the Eagle Medal to the Scout and the parent pins to the parents. This could also be an opportunity for the Scout to present an Eagle mentor pin to his mentor, should he so desire. It would be great if each individual Scout had his own presenter - maybe have his mentor introduce the Scout - rather than share a presenter - do the Scouts share the same mentor or do they each have a different mentor?

As a "group" activity, how about having the Scoutmaster lead them in the Eagle Challenge? Someone else can read the Eagle Charge earlier (maybe before the individual presentations). For greater impact, have the Eagle Challenge read (and responded to - there is an oath the lads will repeat) right after the individual presentations - the Eagle Challenge ends with the speaker announcing them as Eagle Scouts.

Calico

Lots of other "stuff" is starting to roll in on this - issues with UC's, etc. so trying to get back to your original question, with your further information.

The Scoutmaster can certainly refuse to be "interviewed" (ie interrogated) by the EBOR. In fact, the Scoutmaster SHOULD refuse to this interview. The unit leader introduces the lad to the Board of Review and MAY choose to sit quietly in the corner if he desires - but he does not participate in the Board. He may be called upon to provide some clarification to a point, but he isn't interviewed.

The Scoutmaster's statement of introduction is all that the Board should need to hear from the Scoutmaster. If the Board attempts to interview you, politely decline, stating that this is the candidates Board of Review, not yours. If the Board insists, ask if your refusal will affect the Boards decision - if the Board answers yes, inform the Board that a negative decision based on your refusal to be interrogated by the Board (beside any basic clarification questions) will result in an immediate appeal to COuncil/National - where such a decision by the Board will likely be overturned, or cancel the Board and demand a new Board of Review be formed of people who understand the process and procedures.

To echo Beavah, if, upon entering the Board of Review, you see that "Dick Dunderhead" has been seated, immediately postpone the Board and request that a new Board be formed - and explain why you will not allow your Scout to be reviewed by said dunderhead.

Calico

Sorry, Vicki - your lodge's election rules are not in compliance with National OA Policy. National OA Policy on elections is stated quite clearly in the OA Guide for Officers and Advisors. Anything that deviates from this is "local option" and there is no such thing as "local option" when it comes to OA election policy (except for where elections are to be held - note it's where, and not how).

Your lodge rules state that a boy must be in attendance at long term camp in order to be elected to the OA - this is simply not correct per National OA Policy. The policy is that there is a requirement for long-term camping nights to be included in the total camping nights - 5 nights out of the 15. This does not mean that someone needs to be in long-term camp when they are elected - only that within the two prior years, they have been to a long term camp. Any youth member who has met the eligibility requirements is eligible for election at the troops annual election - which can be held (and usually is held) at troop meetings. A youth member candidate does NOT need to be present when the election is held. According to National Policy, 50% of all eligible voting members of the unit must be present at the election - eligible voting members include all those 18-21 year old ASM's that have been away at college - as long as they have participated in at least one Unit activity, they are to be considered active and therefore eligible. If you have a unit with 60 boys in it and only 20 at camp, an election cannot be held - this is why it is strongly recommended by National OA that elections be held at troop meetings. If your Lodge wishes to hold elections at camp, they are certainly welcome to do so - they just can't require candidates to be in attendance at the time of election, nor can they hold an election for a unit that has less than 50% of its eligible voters present.

Your lodges by-laws also talk about the election of adult members to the OA. There is NO election of adult members to the OA at any time, by any one - not even at the local troop committee level. Per National OA policy, adults are recomended to the Scout Executive for induction into the Order of the Arrow. A committee may come to consensus, but they are in no way required to hold any elections.

Your lodges by-laws talk about out-of-council elections - per OA Policy - and this is in italics in the guide for special emphasis, elections MUST take place within a troop or teams HOME council - no elections may be held by any lodge for an out-of-council unit - not even with "permission" from the home lodge.

Your lodge has a rule about Brotherhood eligibility that is also not in compliance with National OA Policy. The lodge has a camping requirement since one's ordeal. National OA Policy has NO additional camping nights required for Brotherhood (or Vigil for that matter). The lodge has taken it upon itself to add to the requirements - they are not allowed to do so.

National OA Policy regarding eligibility for and conduct of elections is available in the Guide for Officers and Advisors. Handily, this guide is available as a pdf file online, without a need to a password. It is the 2006 final version, which is the latest version. The link is: http://www.main.oa-bsa.org/resources/pubs/GOA-2006-Final.pdf

CalicoPenn

Vigil Honor Member

Former Lodge Vice Chief

Former Chapter Chief

Lakota Lodge 175

(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

Hillis,

As I first started to reply, my thought was very much like yours - it's meant to prevent the use of illegal feathers - and since the lad is a legal possessor, the rule wouldn't apply to him. The I read the rule again - a little more closely. The rule is as I quoted it from the Guide for Officers and Advisers and is thus pretty clear. NO feathers, talons or parts of federally protected species of birds may be worn or used in Order of the Arrow. On other sites I found while looking into what others have had to say, I noticed that some state it as "No illegal" - which is as I recalled it when I was a Lodge Officer (back a few half dozen years ago). The current edition of the Guide, which is a policy document of the OA, drops the word illegal (if it was there, as my memory seems to insist it was).

With that little change, even legal possessors are unable to use feathers, talons and parts of protected bird species in the OA. As I stated, I'd be tempted to bend this a bit, but I suspect it was implemented to prevent bad press (ie - OA Members arrested for possessing Bald Eagle Feathers) and misidentification of perfectly legal feathers (either protected feather held by a legal possessor, or excellent imitations of the real thing) by wildlife conservation officers.

At the local level, there may be some kind of understanding about the use of protected species feathers by legal possessors. I would, however, be hesitant to take this rule at face value and expect that all will be right with the world because one has the proper permits, if I were attending state, regional or national OA events.

Calico

"For those working on the Astronomy Merit Badge, there will be a Full Moon viewing at 9:00 PM at the shower house"

Kahits,

I can tell already that you are also going to make a great addition to the chapter/lodge teams. How do I know that? This sentence:

"As for the drumming, I am hoping to help form a chapter drum group, which does not exist right now, of OA scouts. At conclave it was only adults who were doing the drumming, and that should change, if the boys are interested."

Its refreshing to see that someone gets it - that the youth should be doing the drumming (I often see the adults doing the drumming at ceremonies). Passing the skills, and the responsibility, to the boys would be a fantastic contribution!

Starting with the boys in your troop is also a great idea - in many cases, dance and drum teams in many lodges and chapters started at the unit level to get things going. Eventually, other folks will want to join in.

Calico

Congrats to you and your son and welcome to the clan.

I'm glad to hear your son talking about how he can use his skills to assist the chapter/lodge, and that he's already thinking of the next step (Brotherhood).

The first thing to determine is what is the style of regalia that his chapter/lodge dance team uses. If its similar to the regalia your son already uses, then he should be set. If it isn't, and he wishes to be part of the dance team, he might want to create a separate OA dance outfit to match what his brothers in the OA will be wearing. He should talk to the chapter/lodge chief (I use both terms because some lodges have chapters and some don't - I'm unfamiliar with your lodges set-up - if you have chapters, start at the chapter level) about his interests and skills. Given your location, there is a strong possibility that there are other Native Americans who are also part of the dance team, and while they may or may not dance Northern Traditional, still have skills that equal (or surpass) your sons. Your son may find that as he joins the dance team, his skills have surpassed the other members of the team and may find himself teaching others. Either way, it could be a great learning opportunity for your son (and you, if you become part of the drum team).

If I were the chapter chief, I might turn to your son to be a "soloist" as it were at ceremonies (especially here in the Chicago area) and encourage the use of his already existing, and authentic, regalia. Only one way to find out, though, and that is to talk to the Chapter/Lodge Chief.

The short answer to the question of whether your son can use his eagle feather bustle is, unfortunately, no. The long answer is that OA policy is "no feathers, talons or parts of a federally protected species of birds may be worn in Order of the Arrow dance competition or may be used in demonstrations, displays, workshops or ceremonies" (from the Guide for Officers and Advisers - 2006 edition, pg. 28). There is no exception for any person who may possess and use such items legally, such as your son. Personally, I find it to be a shame that legal possessors aren't exempted (and would be very tempted to bend this policy on a local chapter/lodge level), and the solution would seem to be a simple matter of adding the word Illegal (ie - no illegal feathers, talons or parts...) which would have allowed your son to use his eagle feather bustle, but, I'm sure that for simplicity sake (and to prevent arguments over interepretation), the policy stands that no one in OA, legal possessors or not, may use eagle feathers. If he joins the chapter/lodges OA dance team, and they use bustles, he'll probably have to use a cheap, imitation bustle just like everyone else.

As for the use of the gun in the ceremonial dancing - I doubt the chapter/lodge would allow it. I know mine wouldn't. I don't think the BSA would look too kindly on it either. Bow & arrow, or spears, or a club, or a coup stick - depending on the dance team, probably ok - dancing with a gun, even if disabled as your sons is, isn't "traditional" (yeah, I know, it is - but tell that to people with a romanticized version of history), and isn't likely to be considered very conducive to the BSA's policies on gun safety.

CalicoPenn