acco40

In ten days, we are going to go to North Manitou Island (National Park). We are going to bring a "camp stove" - in reality as BW indicated, an efficient water boiler! The crux of the problem is that the MB counselor, the only one with a vote so to speak, possibly dedicated the requirement approval authority to others. For myself, I read requirements and take them literally. "Do the following: Cook for your patrol a trail meal requiring the use of a lightweight stove." Now what constitutes a trail meal - the content or the location? What does cook mean? These simple questions have been debated! For me - trail meal is defined as a meal eaten on the trail. Cooking - involves at least two ingredients and the application of heat.

Argh! Dual post.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Get the parents of all of the boys together (not the boys). Announce to the parents that you learned in training that in order to deliver the best scouting program to your son and theirs, the den size should be no more than eight boys. Then announce that you will choose eight boys to be in your den. They will need to step up and pick up their end of the bargain. Be firm. I've seen dens operate in the 10 - 15 range and state that it works. It may work but it works better with smaller numbers. Stick to your guns.

Do the volunteer positions of the "Key 3" (District Commissioner, District Chair) exist on a one year basis, at the will of the SE, or what? In our district, there seems to be an unwritten three year tenure rule.

At our summer camp two weeks ago, one of our Scouts took the camping merit badge. To complete it at summer camp requires LOTS of prerequisites. One boy bought a dehydrated meal to cook. He cooked it on a camp stove and shared it with the adult patrol. He was crushed (mom has put a lot of pressure on him to complete the badge, i.e. don't come home without it sort of thing!) when I, the Scoutmaster said it did not fulfill the requirement. One, he did not cook it for his patrol. Two, a trail meal to me is a meal eaten on the trail. So what we did was arrange for a hike later on in the week. He and a few of his patrol mates, along with two adults, went on a short (two mile) hike, stopped in the middle, cooked a meal and shared it with his patrol. I then signed off on a note for his MB counselor.

I'm no expert but both appearto be wearing a helmet to me.

The Cubs greatest influence is his parents. And, I've had many a Cub who wanted to join our troop but the parents didn't want him to continue on with Scouting for fear that it had too much "involvement" for them.

We had to make some "adult" decisions at summer camp last week. We had three leaders stay all week, myself and two others along with 21 Scouts. A few leaders came up Sunday/Monday and a few Thursday/Friday/Saturday. One of our Scouts signed up for the Hiking merit badge. Alas, although published in the Summer camp leader book, the class was not really offered. However, he wanted to go hiking on the trail around camp (maintained by the OA). No other troops had anyone interested. I was told he needed two adults to accompany him. So off went that Scout and two of my SAs. Around lunch, one of the Scouts taking "finger carving" (i.e. woodcarving) cut his finger. It wasn't very serious except he began to show symptoms of shock seeing blood exit his finger (dizziness, sweating, nausea). I treated his finger, had him sit down, and after a few minutes took him to the medical outpost. Therefore, for a brief period of time - no adults in camp. Nothing became of it but it was something that I try to avoid. We experienced 95 degree heat and high humidity for a few days. One of our Scouters went into heat exhaustion/stroke. We gave him fluids, cold shower, shade, rest, etc. but he kept going in and out of his "normal" state so we called for medical attention. After a brief stay in the hospital, IV fluids, A/C, etc. he was okay. We learned to watch out for adults on blood pressure medications (diuretic), allergy meds (anti-histamines hurt fluid retention), and anti-biotics (more sensitive to sun exposure and if individual is infected, has lower defenses and higher basal temps). Our Scouter was using all three.

IMHO, outdoor skills are the least important tools a SM needs. How to teach leadership to the boys is much more important. The outdoor skills is just the icing on the cake. Now, if that is the case, having skilled outdoorsmen on an outing, either parents, SAs or youth for that matter is important.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Regardless of official policy I've talked to many blacks about Scouting today. I think they are still under represented. But think about Scouts from a black perspective. It is group that is predominantly white, goes camping off in the woods, and lights campfires and sometimes (although not much anymore) has secret rituals. This may conjure up images of KKK rallies, lynchings, etc. I know it is a stretch but sometimes ignorance can play havoc with perceptions. Scouting units usually reflect the geographical makeup of where they are located. In the USA, we live in a highly segregated country. Personally, where I live, the metro-Detroit area, is one of the most segregated communities that I know of. It is a shame.

Barry, it is our "job" to worry. That is what parents do. And as my late mother told me, once a mother, always a mother, even to 40 year old "kids." I remember a phone conversation I had with my grandmother once. She was about 95 and in ailing health. My mother was in her early sixties and I in my early thirties. My father had passed away about five years earlier. Anyway, my grandmother was worried about her daughter (my mom) and told me to be sure to take care of her. The funny part was her comment about how my mom was getting older and couldn't do as much as she used to any more. So there you have it, even at 95, she was still a mother worrying about her youngest daughter. I am the father of two teenage boys (they are not quite "evil" just yet) ages 14 and 13. However, my ten year old daughter (going on 18) already has heated battles with her mother about clothes, makeup, etc.

"Much of the success of training volunteers is within the volunteer themselves and their attitude and willingness to learn." But the corollary, the success of the youth leaders is NOT within them but all of their success is due to their trainers (i.e. Scoutmaster)?

Brotherhood - Chippewa Lodge #29 (Best in all OA) who is the proud father of a Brotherhood Scout (oldest son) and had my younger son called out last week.

Hey Beave, put you foot on the ladies thumb.(This message has been edited by acco40)

I used to fly many years ago. All private aircraft are required to have an emergency locating tranmitter, ELT, (I forgot the name, someone help me out) on board. These "go-off" when the plane experiences high g loads (i.e. a crash) and can be activiated manually. They transmitter a signal so downed aircraft can be easily located. They have been around for over 30 years so I'm guessing the cost is not very high. Can anyone else shed more light on this topic?

So coffee is non-addictive? As a non-drinker who sees the effects of those who go without, I disagree. Drinkers crave it, withdrawal symptoms appear - and it is proclaimed non-addictive? And Ed, I guess bad habits are reserved (before dinner) for adults only? Just kidding. As they say, if we didn't have our vices, living may become intolerable.

All MLB teams have a batting coach - not all players hit the baseball with equal aplomb! The same can be said for Scout troops. The majority of posters on this forum are adult leaders and I think that some take umbrage with the slant that training is a panacea for all the foibles of youth leadership. Can we all work to be better trainers for our youth? Yes! Is bad leadership always the fault of the trainers? No. That said, the proper adult response to poor leadership from the youth is not to pull out the hook but to intensify our efforts for that leader. However, it can be frustrating when the boys don't try and meet us half way.

BW, although I don't disagree with your post, I think the original poster asked the question from the perspective of a patrol member - not as a Scouter. Therefore, what should a patrol member (who is NOT responsible for leadership training) do? To advise him that, if the BSA program was followed the problem shouldn't exist, or some similar advice is a little too esoteric for a disgruntled 11 year old. I stick by my earlier advice.

I think the Supreme Court got this one right. Think about it. The arguments for and against (at least by sane people) was that religion should not be promoted by the US Government (con) but also that the ten commandments are part of our Judeo-Christian heritage and the basis of our laws (pro). So the crux of the decision is that display by the "state" as a historical reference is okay, as a religious symbol is not.

Below are NOT my words - but I generally agree with their content. They are from Warren Apel. ______________________________________________ I know you're all upset about the attacks on America. But responding by removing freedoms is a very drastic and wrong direction of your efforts. Peaceful protest is NOT a threat to America. When you allow terrorists to convince you that you need to crack down on freedom -- they have won. I respect the flag as much as any of you do. Believe me. I don't burn it. I don't plan to. But I don't want to see peaceful American citizens thrown in jail. And I don't want to see the current situation used as leverage in a debate that ought to be conducted rationally and logically. Seriously -- if we are going to modify the constitution and remove part of the First Amendment, we need to think that through -- not act out of anger or fear in the heat of passion. We don't need an amendment to the constitution. We need to show the enemy that we will not stoop to their levels. In America, we don't put people in jail for protesting against the government. That's what they do in Afghanistan, China, or Iraq. Here's my solution to the dilemma. The main cause of flag burnings since the end of the Vietnam war has been protest over flag burning laws. Flag burners in general are not "Anti-American." The people who want to "protect the flag" have incited more flag burnings than anyone else. So. Keep the law the way it is. Now and then someone will burn a flag to protest a war, or a law, or something. We should be strong enough as a country to accept criticism and allow some people to offend us now and then.. The only alternative is to crack down on it. Modify the constitution. Start putting people in jail. And as soon as we pass that law, thousands of people will burn the flag peacefully and in public, to show their disagreement with that new law. And they will all have to be imprisoned. Isn't that a horrible prospect? 1 -- The word "desecration" implies that the flag is sacred, and the government (separation of church and state) can't say that something is sacred. 2 -- Passage of this amendment would result in peaceful protestors being arrested for making political statements, something that happens in China, Iraq, or the former Soviet Union. Not something that happens in America. 3 -- The Boy Scouts burn flags -- it's the only way to respectfully retire them. So when a protestor gets arrested for it, it's not the BURNING that they're being arrested for. it's the thoughts in their minds at the time. In America, we shouldn't arrest people for their thoughts. 4 -- People who DO burn the flag in protest do it for one reason more than any other protest of anti-flag-burning laws. If you want to "protect the flag" the best thing to do would be to leave things the way they are and allow a handful of disrespectful people to desecrate a flag now and then. If you pass that law, I will guarantee thousands of flags burnt in protest. 5 -- If I was arrested under the new flag burning law, the first legal argument I would make would be one of selective enforcement. The same equality-philosopy that says you can't go around only arresting Mexican-Americans when you want to enforce the new speeding law works against flag burning laws. If they arrested me (a political writer) but they let the thousands of people with little flags improperly displayed on their car windows go, they are discriminating against my political beliefs. Hundreds of thousands of people desecrate the flag daily in the US, but only a handful would be singled out for their political belief under the new law. This makes the "flag burning law" absolutly unenforcable. Either they would have to let me go, or they would have to start putting EVERYONE in jail.

"My main concern is that we not lie to scouts to get them to do what we want." Hear, hear - I agree! We used to have an adult leader (SA) who was always quoting Scouting "rules" to prop up his beliefs. The problem I have is when I hear such statements as "no coffee for youth" and hear that it "came from National" - what are my resources to verify the authenticity? When I hear it at summer camp and a Scout asks me about it I have two choices. 1) Repeat what I heard - "Sorry, Johnny, but the National Council has stated that youth are not allowed to drink coffee at summer camp." 2) Tell the Scout - "Well Johnny, I have no idea if the Summer Camp director is blowing smoke or if it really is a rule but he stated that no coffee drinking is allowed by National." I wouldn't consider "1" to be lying, but it may be false. The second alternative, number 2, sounds awkward and breeds mistrust IMHO. I have current G2SS, The Scoutmaster Handbook, and other guides but much of the rules I learn about are folklore so to speak (i.e. - a scout may not sleep in his tent alone). I'll say this, National either doesn't put out many "rules" or they do a darn good job of keeping it under wraps.

This debate reminds me of the debate on gun control. Should individual "rights" (and I use that term loosely) be trampled for the safety/sanity of others?

Hey, any adults out there ever work for a "pointy haired boss?" If your patrol leader is falling down on the job, step up! Attend your troop meetings to get info. Ask the APL and PL about holding PL meetings outside of troop meetings. And - best of all, learn to use the power of the ballot box effectively. SR540Beaver - I don't believe other Scouts should be discussed during a SM conference.

Sorry, I've been away at summer camp - what Supreme Court decision is everyone referencing?

Scouting has intentionally blurred the lines on certain requirements. We have all seen the debates on this forum concerning the meaning of "Be active in your troop and patrol for at least X months", "Demonstrate scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life", "serve actively X months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility", etc. Each SM may have a different interpretation of these requirements. Who is the gatekeeper for these? The SM? The BOR? It should be both with IMHO, weighted more with the SM who should have more contact with the boy than committee members. So let's say a SM has made the interpretation that a Scout has met these requirements but the BOR (Eagle or not) does not. In that case - the BOR should do its duty - give specific and written notification why it feels the way it does.