acco40

I agree Beave but for some addiction to food, drugs, alcohol, sex, whatever, is just as difficult for others and they struggle with it. My only point is that many of us are quick to judge others on some points of the Scout law (morally straight and duty to God seem to be the hot topic buttons de jour) but heaven forbid if one someone judges another on physically strong. Again, as "run of the mill" Scouters (UC, SM, SA, CC, MC, etc.) our job is not to judge our fellow Scouters. That is the "job" of the CO and national office.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Again, look at our oath. Physically strong should contain no less and no more emphasis than morally straight, duty to God, etc. However, why all the "cut the obese some slack" comments but very few "cut the morally un-straight some slack" comments? Your chartering organization made the call on who they deemed fit to be leaders. Our job, as fellow volunteers, is to work with those leaders and try our best to deliver the Scouting program to the youth. Now, this reminds me of the joke that everyone may serve a purpose, even if that purpose is to be a bad example.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Yes. It is called the IRS (i.e. tax deduction).

I'm not overweight, I'm just too short for my ideal weight! Seriously, as Boy Scout leaders we have taken an oath to keep ourselves physically strong. Now, like most simple statements there are many interpretations to this. At Philmont I met an overweight Scouter (via both the BMI, fat calipers and scale metrics) who firmly believed that since he had physical strength (he could bench press and squat much weight) he was in his eyes "physically strong." Others interpret the Scout Oath as a pledge to try hard to take care of their body - eating nutritious foods, getting enough sleep, exercise regularly and avoid harmful drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and anything else that can harm your health (i.e. too much bacon). Now if you feel a fellow Scouter does not live up to the oath, any part of it what do you do? You should deal with all aspects of the oath equally. Not honorably doing ones best duty to God, keeping one physically strong or mentally awake or morally straight are all on par with each other. The Scout Oath does not prioritize (just like all eight methods are equally important). The best ways to deal with obese Scouter, IMHO, is to make sure nutritious, low calorie food is available on outings and meetings and to make sure your unit's program provides ample opportunity for exercise. As the public service announcement states, "A waist is a terrible thing to mind." (This message has been edited by acco40)

For those who believe that the SPL should never attend a committee meeting I have a question. Who presents the annual progam and to whom is it presented and at what venue?

Den Chiefs are like Scouters, some are great and some are not worth a bucket of spit. Be aware that Den Chief training is available to Scouts and as a Den Leader, I would expect a Den Chief to be trained or at least willing to be trained in the immediate future. Also, some SM see the Den Chief program as a first step in learning leadership skills. If so, you tend to get a fairly green boy when it comes to leadership skills. I'd politely ask a SM if a prospective den chief has ever any other leadership position in the troop - PL, SPL, ASPL, APL, etc. As a den leader, one way to really dampen the enthusiasm of a den chief is to not give him any real leadership tasks. Make sure you don't use him as a personal assistant to take attendance, make copies, clean-up, etc. Also, if you use the denner program, make sure you understand the different duties and responsibilities of a den chief vs. a denner. If you tend to run your den meetings with multi-adults (as opposed to a den leader exclusively), make sure all of the adult leaders understand the den chiefs role. The last boy in our troop that was a den chief was not given much, if any authority or responsibility by the Webelos Den Leader. No assignments. No tasks. Every once in a while he would just ask the den chief to "tell us about Boy Scouts." To most den leaders unfamiliar with the Boy Scouts, youth led is a foreign concept.

Nice tone, BW. On rare occasions, as SM I have invited the SPL to address the committee on certain issues. When that is done, he makes his comments, entertain questions if any and departs. I think it is very awkward to have a youth in attendance and then ask them to leave. On a similar note (maybe I should have started a related thread?) I wonder how many district roundtables are adult only and if any of you attend roundtables where SPLs are encouraged to attend. I know that roundtables are viewed as supplemental training and sometimes issues are discussed that some feel are not appropriate for the youth leaders. On the other hand, the vast majority of our meetings deal with troop meetings (how they should run, ideas, games, etc.), outings, etc. and other topics that are directly in line with what an SPL should know. Since we don't have an SPL type roundtable monthly meeting I'd welcome some form of supplemental training for SPLs. I know that the primary source of training for the SPL should come from the SM but having other sources available, as an option for supplemental training, could not hurt.

(from the Central Florida Council) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance This coverage provides primary general liability coverage for registered volunteer Scouters with respect to claims arising out of an official Scouting activity with the exception that the coverage is excess over any insurance which may be available to the volunteer for loss arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle or watercraft. This insurance is only available while the vehicle or watercraft is in the actual use of a Scouting unit and being used for a Scouting purpose. Coverage is more than $15 million for bodily injury and property damage. Because of the high limits, volunteers should NOT be placed in a position where their assets are jeopardized because of a negligence liability claim or lawsuit. The insurance provided unregistered Scouting volunteers through the BSA general liability insurance program is excess over any other insurance the volunteer might have to his or her benefit, usually a homeowner's, personal liability, or auto liability policy. There is no coverage for those who commit intentional or criminal acts. (from Cascade Pacific Council) Effective March 1, 2001, the Boy Scouts of America broadened its liability insurance coverage for all volunteers. Previously, the liability insurance coverage was on a secondary basis (above/beyond the limits of whatever personal insurance you might have carried, usually a homeowners, personal liability, or auto liability policy.) Now Scouting volunteers will be covered on a primary basis from the first dollar of lawsuit with respect to any official Scouting activity. Liability coverage arising from automobile claims will continue to be covered on a secondary (excess) basis. Up until now, only the chartered organizations had primary coverage. I hope this news is helpful when recruiting new volunteers that may have concerns in this area. (from Longs Peak Council) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance This coverage provides protection for the Council, all Scouting professionals and employees, Scouting Units, chartered organizations, and volunteer Scouters (whether or not registered) with respect to claims arising in the performance of their duties in Scouting. Coverage is more than $15,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage. The insurance provided to Scouting volunteers through the BSA General Liability Insurance program is excess over any other insurance the volunteer might have to his or her benefit, usually a homeowners; personal liability, or auto liability policy. There is no coverage for intentional or criminal acts. By providing insurance coverage to volunteers on an excess basis, BSA is able to purchase higher limits. Because of the high limits, volunteers should NOT be placed in a position where their assets are jeopardized because of a negligence liability claim or lawsuit. (from Warren Zevon who no longer needs insurance coverage) Well, I went home with the waitress Just like I always do How was I to know She was with the Russians, too I was gambling in Havana I took a little risk Send lawyers, guns and money Dad, get me out of this I'm the innocent bystander Somehow I got stuck Between the rock and the hard place And I'm down on my luck I'm down on my luck Now I'm hiding in Honduras I'm a desperate man Send lawyers, guns and money The **** has hit the fan Send lawyers, guns and money...

Scouting has aims. Scouting has methods to achieve those aims. The aims can be achieved without using all of the methods, but that would not be Scouting. I don't think anyone would disagree with the above. Now, what does "required" mean? I think that is where BW, Ed, and others struggle. If a troop has a policy that "Scouts pants are not required" most agree that the uniform method is not being followed the way the BSA program is laid out. But what are the consequences? Are the leaders BSA membership pulled? Does God strike them down? Are they incarcerated? Does that troops value to the boys become worthless? And OGE, your original question could very easily have been rephrased as simply, "Who believes that the Methods of Scouting are required?"

Hey wait a minute Uncleguinea. Aren't you adding to the requirements for membership? The adult application asks for a DOB but not a deceased date. I know that the signature might be a problem!

"Trail to Eagle" and other such merit badge camps are not intended to be a replacement for troop summer camp. That said, the purpose of a summer camp is not to accrue merit badges.

One of the risks the BSA took in holding the Jamboree on a military base is that the home security "color code" could very easily change when visitors and even anyone may enter or exit the base. While I think it was a risk worth taking, it is a risk none the less.

Okay Mr. Hoighty Toighty. Go to the following: https://scoutnet.scouting.org/Jambo/default.aspx?ctgy=PRODUCTS&C2=ACCESSORIES&C3=ASOCKS&C4=&LV=3 and you will see that the socks under question ARE listed under accessories and then socks. Yes, in the paper catalog they may be listed under apparel, as I clearly stated in my earlier post, but on the web site it is listed under accessories. Please retract your statement that I was wrong. On page 2 of the catalog (paper copy) The official National Jamboree uniform consists of: Scout shorts/trousers Scout visor cap or Jamboree cap Scout shirt, short or long sleeve casual Scout khaki web or leather belt Scout socks (official red top) Jamboree neckerchief Jamboree neckerchief slide So yes, the socks are referenced as I said (well almost, I stated Boy Scout socks (red top)). So again, please apologize for calling me in error. Doesn't the view get mighty blurred on such a high perch? (This message has been edited by acco40)

Ed, I'm sure it was a tongue in cheek reference by Merlyn that Mr. Adams (Douglas N. Adams aka DNA) is not an American citizen and therefore could not be a member of the BSA. :-)

The hypocrisy that I see is that the BSA feels free to require a uniform for their event (National Jamboree) but forbids a unit/district from requiring a uniform for their events - troop meeting, troop outing, district camporee, etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Bob, you don't have to explain the uniform method to me or make condescending remarks about leaders not knowing what is the uniform. The socks I'm referencing in the catalog are made of Sensura polyester but are marketed as socks, not sock liners as you mentioned (you may have erred and thought I was referring to the thermolite sock liners?). The socks are listed as "Boy Scout Premium Activity Sock." They are white with green/red/green border on top. The red border is at least twice as thick as the very thin green borders surrounding them. They are listed under "accessories" and not uniform. The National Jamboree catalog uniform description lists as the official uniform "Boy Scout Socks (red top)." Now, the difference in an activity uniform and the field uniform is NOT the socks so if the BSA labels an item as a "Boy Scout Premium Activity Sock" I can see how a mother without the years of training and high intellect of a BW may mistakenly believe that it was kosher to wear as part of the activity uniform and ergo, the field uniform. Please Bob, in the future cut some of the great unwashed who are not as knowledgeable as you on the ways of Scouting some slack.

Could the same logic be applied to a troop meeting? A troop outing? A COH? A BOR? Heck, Scouting itself could be construed as "special" and if one wants to come and "play the game with a purpose" to wear the uniform. I just see a teensy weensy bit of hypocrisy in the BSA attitude with uniforms. My most recent firestorm that I had to put out was with the mother that ordered five pair of white socks/red top, straight out of the Jamboree catalog, and having to relay our Council Jambo committee response that they were not allowed at the Jamboree. Their reasoning, it was listed under apparel and not uniform attire.

Praire_Scouter - I was asking the latter, what happens if a Scout arrives without his uniform shirt. From your answer, I would say that instead of a requirement you have an expectation that the Scout arrive with his uniform shirt. With my engineering mind, that is a big difference. Tonight, we are having a PLC and for some reason the boys seem to think that the uniform doesn't apply at PLC meetings. I've got more work to do!

My oldest son earned his Life rank four months after turning 12. He is now four months shy of 15 and a Life Scout! I neither sped him up early on nor slowed him down later on. Right now he is an Eagle project and about two merit badges away from earning Eagle. Knowing my son, another 17.999 yr old Eagle will getting his wings in about three years! :-)

For all of you that "require" (your words not mine) a subset of the field uniform such as, Prairie_Scouter, eagle90, etc. I have a question. How do you require it? What are the consequences if the boy does not meet your troop requirement on uniforming? Now, Bob White a question for you (or anyone else for that matter). I agree that proper uniforming is an expectation for Scouts and Scouters. How can the national council "require", again their words, not mine, a specific uniform for National Jamboree attendance? I understand the DESIRE, mostly for the positive publicity it sends, but don't they violate their own policies by making uniforming a requirement for National Jamboree attendance? {I'll ignore all the extra rules they add that don't need to be there because they are covered by the Scout Oath and Law :-) }(This message has been edited by acco40)

I just bought a pair of Wolverine boots (made right here in Michigan) for $10 at Dicks. Really more of a work boot but not bad for hiking and the price was right. I also own a pair of Nevados - again cheap but not bad. I have a problem with real big calves and small feet (high arches). Any shoe that goes mor than an inch above my ankle is either way to loose in the foot or way to tight around the leg/calf. I have a real nice pair of Red Head boot (from Bass Pro) Eagledad mentioned that are great for winter but after a day of wearing them my leg is sore for a week. What I have never been able to find is a good thermal boot/shoe (I live in Michigan) that is NOT above the ankle. Most go high for snow protection but with my weird anatomy, I can't wear those type of boots very well.

Maybe God has given man free will in much the same way as Dilbert's pointed haired boss gave him employee empowerment (i.e. you have to wear the "I'm empowered" button!).

In the USA we tend to confuse being physically fit with being slim. There are many trim individuals whole are in very poor physical shape and some rotund individuals in excellent shape. Look at resting heart rate, cardiovascular ability, lean muscle mass, etc. California schools use aerobic fitness, body composition, abdominal strength, trunk extension strength, upper body strength, and flexibility as indicators of physical fitness. I remember at Philmont last year I brought up the idea, similar to what Prairie Scouter mentioned, that everyone seemed to be judgmental about the "morally straight" with no emphasis on "physically strong." I got an earful from another Scouter that believed the "physically strong" phrase was literally just that - strength alone. In his eyes, it had nothing to do with physical fitness per se. Amazing.(This message has been edited by acco40)

To earn a merit badge, a Scout needs to satisfy his merit badge counselor that he has met the requirements for that badge. Therefore, the burden of "which" requirements fall on the MB counselor, not the Scout. That said, as a MB counselor, I know that the official requirements for each MB (and rank for that matter) are listed 2005 in the requirements book. Therefore, I buy it each year.

OA has no age limit but due to the camping and 1st Class requirement tends to "lop off" the 10 - 12 year olds for the most part. Many of the boys relish in being in a Boy Scout activity that has an age spread somewhere in the 13 - 20 range rather than the 10 - 17 age range. Sounds somewhat like what Boy Scouts USED TO BE!! Some do look at Venture and OA as versus the troop but in reality it complements the troop.

I should learn to never attempt to answer for others but ... If one postulates that God is all knowing, He (or She if you prefer) has knowledge of what you will do. For some, they feel this is predestination, i.e. no free will. For example, using logic, if God knows what we will do, what we will do is already determined (or else how would he know) and therefore our actions have already been determined. Now some, including me, believe that God is all knowing, we (humans) have free will and that we (humans) can't begin to comprehend God in all our (lack of ) wisdom.