clemlaw

Yes, that's what I was getting at. I'm just not sure that "strong" is the best word to describe it.

The actual distance for the qualification is somewhat arbitrary. If a Scout passes the test, it should be obvious that he could keep swimming another hundred yards if he wanted. If there is any doubt about that, then he probably didn't pass. That's the way I interpret the word "strong", but I'm still not sure it's the right word.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I agree, I would have failed someone who did all or part with the dog paddle. I read "strong" to mean that it needs to be one of the "official" strokes the whole way, and done correctly the whole way.

I was just saying that he doesn't need to going full strength the entire distance. Swimming slowly, as long as he's doing it right, is still "strong" as far as I'm concerned.

It's ambiguous to me, because one way of being "strong" while swimming would be to swim fast. But IMHO, a kid shouldn't have to swim "fast" to pass the test. But he does have to swim well. And to me, swimming well means that he keeps up whatever "official" stroke he's using the full distance. If he gets out of synch, doesn't swim straight, isn't breathing when he's supposed to, etc., that wouldn't qualify as "strong" in my book. And it should probably be an automatic disqualification if he reverted to the dog paddle for any distance.

It sounds like we probably agree--I probably just didn't explain myself very well. I definitely agree on erring on the side of caution.

Well, I can only speak of my own experience 30+ years ago. And I am definitely not "typical". I'm not a typical adult, and I wasn't a typical Scout. Frankly, I'm a little bit weird, but I offer this as one data point.

I was there partly because my parents thought it was a good idea. They just kind of pointed me that direction by signing me up for Cub Scouts, and I never really had any good reason to resist.

And the other part of the reason was that I enjoyed most of it, and generally had fun doing stuff.

Now, those are the typical reasons. In my case, which might be unique to me, there was a third reason. I was also there because, in some ways, I did _not_ enjoy it. I was a Scout because it gave me an opportunity to be misearble! This seems like a paradox, because I just said that I enjoyed it.

Well, both were true. When I went to camp, part of me didn't want to be there. Yes, I did fun things while I was there. But frankly, I would have rather just stayed home. Which is better, sleeping on the ground, or sleeping in a warm bed? Which is better, having to get up and cook your own breakfast, or having mom make breakfast?

I did not like these things. Staying home was better! Camping was miserable!

But before you protest too much, note, I did not stay I stayed home because camping was miserable. I said that I want camping _because_ it was miserable!

I was out doing these miserable things, but most of the other kids my age were not able or willing to do these things. So I proved to myself that there were some things where I was better than they were. And this was only possible because I did _not_ enjoy it.

Yes, I suppose I ought to have some quality time with a psychiatrist. But the truth is that the main reason I was a Scout was because it gave me a chance to be miserable.

So, in general, Scouting should be fun. But there should also be a small amount of misery involved. The misery isn't there to "build character" as is often supposed. Instead, the misery should be there because there are probably a few other Scouts like me who want a little misery, just for "bragging rights". 90% fun and 10% misery is probably a good mix.

>>>>Remember the wording in the test says "in a strong manner.

Well, I agree with you that it doesn't pass the smell test.

I'm sure there are other rules that would be violated, but the first one I can think of is that the BSA uniform is not to be worn while selling any commercial product. So at the very minimum, if he wants to make this presentation at a meeting, he'll need to wear civilian clothes that night.

I'm guessing that he'll argue that he's a world class expert on the subject, which may or may not be true, and that he simply wants to share his knowledge, and not sell his products. If that's the case, then he won't have any objection to handing out advertising from his competitors, rather than his own. I wouldn't object if he did that.

Even if there's not an actual problem, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety, and he should avoid doing this. For example, a few weeks ago, I sent out an e-mail to my Tiger parents, and I mentioned a certain book, and gave a link to it on Amazon. I have a website where I earn a few pennies a month by getting commissions when people click on my Amazon links. It would have been very easy to put the link in my e-mail so that I would have earned a commission if someone bought the book. It wouldn't have cost the buyer anything.

But IMHO, that wouldn't pass the smell test. I sent them the link because the book was interesting, and I didn't want even the appearance that I sent the link so that I could make a few cents off it.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think the U.S. Flag Code says one way or another.

The Flag Code does specify where the Union should be when a _flag_ is displayed on a wall, in a window, or hanging over a street.

It does not specify the orientation of a flag patch, and a shirt is neither a wall, a window, nor a street.

Apparently, the Army has a regulation which specifies that the blue field is oriented toward the front of the shirt. Thus, on the right sleeve, the flag should be "backwards".

http://www.usflag.org/flagpatch.html

The Flag Code states merely that "a flag patch may be affixed to the unfiorm of ... members of patriotic organizations", and makes no reference to where or in what orientation.

The Army regulation does not apply, because Boy Scouts are not part of the Army.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

Actually, when I wrote my post above, I hadn't read the question very well, and I thought you meant passing the BSA test to be signed off as a swimmer, for purposes of going into the deep end at a BSA event.

I realize the test is the same, but if they're doing it _only_ to pass the requirement for the pin, I guess I would show a little bit of leaway. If the parents said that Junior had swum a hundred yards, then I guess I would take their word for it.

On the other hand, if they said merely that Junior was _able_ to swim a hundred yards, then that doesn't meet the requirement. He has to actually _do_ it. If they can't think of a specific time when he actually swam that approximate distance, then I would say that he hasn't passed yet.

For example, if there's a requirement that says he has to take a five-mile hike, this is not an academic exercise where someone determines that they are capable of walking five miles. They have to actually _do_ it.

I don't think the requirement is asking for _the_ three ways in which the eyes work together. It is asking for three of the many ways in which they work together.

So a good #3 would be that the eyes track together while following an object. To demonstrate this, you can move a finger back and forth in front of the subject's eyes, and everyone (other than the subject) will observe that the two eyes travel in unison.

>>>>"My boy is a good swimmer." ""I could pass that test easily."

>>>Would you care to come to my District and find the volunteers to handle a test out?

I don't have the G2SS in front of me, but I seem to recall that the first requirement on the test for both levels is to "jump into water over your head".

Presumably, if a Scout signs up to take the test, then he can probably at least dog paddle back to the dock, even if it turns out he's not able to pass the test. But as far as I can tell, there's no requirement for any kind of pre-screening.

So it seems to me that there ought to be at least one certified lifeguard present while the test is taking place, to pull out that Scout who doesn't even know how to dog paddle.

I need to think about these things. One of my new Pack's upcoming activities will involve swimming, and as far as I can tell, I'm the only one who's ever heard about buddy checks, ability levels, or the G2SS.

That must have varied by Council as well. My 1969 Cub Scout uniform definitely had two separate pieces of fabric. The one on top said "Minneapolis" and the one below it said "Minn". I seem to recall that even small suburbs had their own city strip.

I always wondered, and never figured out for sure, whether the city name was where the scout resided, where the unit was chartered, or where it met. In most cases, those were the same city, but I never figured out what happened when a scout crossed a city boundary to go from his home to his scout meeting.

Right now, my son lives in one community, the pack is chartered by a church in another community, most of our meetings are held in a third community, and the vast majority of the other members live in a fourth community. So the Council patch does avoid a lot of confusion.

I've seen red and white council patches (as opposed to city/state strips) on e-Bay, but they definitely weren't used in our council. The name of the council didn't appear on our shirts until the multi-color patches showed up.

Now, take my advice for what it's worth. I've been away from Scouting for about 30 years, and my current involvement is as Tiger Cub Den Leader. That means either that I'm out of touch, or else it means that I'm looking at this as an impartial outsider. You have to decide which it is.

But my first question is whether this troop is worth saving. I don't know what the minimum number of youth required for rechartering is, but I suspect that it's a pretty small number.

And even though you're still above that number on paper, you're already below that number in reality. Back when I was in Scouts, if a Scout hadn't shown up to any activity for almost a year, we would have said that he had "dropped out". If he showed up again in the same re-charter year, he would have seemlessly remained a member. And if he had showed up the next year, he would have been welcomed back. But in general, everyone came to everything, and if someone stopped showing up, the reason was that he had dropped out of the troop. Certainly people were absent sometimes, and there were a few activities that weren't intended for the whole troop. But we didn't have the "cafeteria" method that seems to take place in a lot of troops these days. Again, maybe I'm out of touch, and that's the norm these days. But IMHO, I would say that these kids dropped out of Scouts.

So without those two, you have a number of Scouts that the BSA doesn't recognize as being enough to form a troop. It's nice to have a vision for the future, and to believe that this will someday be a viable troop.

But if there are so few Scouts that the unit is unable to recharter, the the question I would ask is what value can this Troop deliver to its other members, right now?

Are there enough Scouts, right now or in the forseeable future, who are active enough to form one patrol? It seems to me that if there aren't at least about six Scouts who attend most meetings and events, then this group has already ceased to be a Boy Scout Troop, and the remaining members would be better served by finding them a viable troop somewhere else.

Again, maybe I'm out of touch, so take my advice for what it's worth. But it seems to me that you're about to embark on a thankless job that is perhaps best left undone, if things are truly as bad as you make it sound.

I think it was about 1970, plus or minus a couple of years.

I'm pretty sure that when I joined Cub Scouts in 1969, it was two red strips that said "Minneapolis Minn." When I joined Boy Scouts in 1972, it was a Council patch.

Or maybe it was my brother's Cub Scout uniform. He was six years older than me. But I remember we had some uniform(s) in the house with the red strips. In any event, the council patches were relatively new at that time.

>>>>>Now some will say, ABSOLUTELY very useful.

Yes, being a Cub Scout as an adult is actually more fun than it was as a kid.

Oh, maybe that explains why my Tiger Leader salary check has been so delayed!

Thanks for the link! They have a nice collection of merit badges of varying difficulty. They also have a nice selection of "trained" patches, such as "untrainable".

http://www.boyscoutstore.com/spoof-custom-patches/

I assumed that the intention was that it could be used to induce a mild guilt trip if necessary. Very few parents are going to check the "no" box. Perhaps it's more than check the "I use illegal drugs" box, but still, it's probably uncommon.

So when calling a new parent to help out with something, it's a good way to start the phone call: "I see you said on Junior's application that you were willing to be an active scout parent. We need some help next week with ....."

If they checked the "no" box, you can still make the phone call. You just need some other opening line. They're not going to be "active", but they can still help out next week with .....

I don't know if that was the exact thinking behind it, but I certainly wasn't going to check the "no" box, and here I am, the Tiger Den Leader.

Shhhh. Don't tell the secret like that. When I go somewhere in a canoe, people think I'm "roughing it", but in reality I can bring along pretty much all the creature comforts I want.

You're going to destroy the mystique.

Some of us protestants also have a top-down approach, which sometimes goes by the name "sola scritura".

It also seems to me that it's somewhat counter-productive to send scouts to a class, unless it's one of those relatively few occasions when a classroom setting is the best way to get the material.

I can really only think of two occasions when I was in Scouts when I was sent to a "class", and one of those wasn't even really part of the Scouting program. We were all strongly encouraged to take a Firearm Safety class. It wasn't run by the troop (it was sponsored by one of our charter organizations, I think). I think it was a requirement to shoot a .22 at camp, but I'm not positive. In any event, a classroom is probably a good way to drum into the kids the importance of a book full of safety rules, before actually doing the activity.

The other "class" I took in Scouts was First Aid Merit Badge. IIRC, we had First Aid requirements for both Second Class and First Class, and those were generally covered at troop meetings. A couple of times a year, our "theme" for the month was First Aid, so we generally had those covered. This was in those dark days before the EDGE method had even been invented, but that was basically what we did.

First Aid Merit Badge was done as a "class", which was conducted by a parent in the troop who was a firefighter. Again, there was specific knowledge that had to be imparted, and a classroom is probably the best way to cover those parts.

Perhaps there are a couple of more that I'm forgetting, but those are the only "classes" I remember from Scouting.

My religious award (which no longer exists by the same name, as far as I can tell) was not part of a class. It was handled more or less the same way a merit badge is (or is supposed to be) done. Upon deciding to earn the award (probably after a few nudges by my parents and/or troop leaders), I called the "counsellor" (the senior pastor), and I met with him several times in his study. (Pastors didn't have "offices"--the had "studies". )

Now, my troop was not connected with any church, so there were a wide variety of denominations represented. So at any given time, there would not have been enough scouts working on one program to constitute a "class". So it's understandable that if the CO is a church, and there are many members of that one church of the same age, it's going to be a lot easier on the religious leader to do some of the work as a group, if not a class.

It seems to me that any church or ecclesial community has an obligation to all of its youth to propagate the faith. And presumably, at the very core of that obligation is to teach its youth what that faith is, and what the church believes. And chances are, having "classes", whether they're called "Sunday school" or "catechism" or "confirmation" is a big part of the best way to do that.

But that obligation is owed to all of the youth, not just those who happen to be enrolled in Boy Scouts or some other organization that is independent of the Church. (Unless, of course, you require all youth to join that particular orgainzation.) If the church is serious about this obligation (which I assume they are), that means that this important duty is being fulfilled with respect to all of the youth. If the rest of the youth of the church are not being properly instructed in the fundamental beliefs of the faith, or if there are parents whose understanding of the faith are at odds with the church's true teachings, then this is a problem that goes far beyond anything that Scouting can fix. If the reason of the youth (and adults) in the church truly is not being properly formed, then there need to be classes for everyone, not just the ones who happen to be enrolled in Scouts.

Scouting should be fun, not just an extension of the school day. Sending kids to "camping merit badge class" wouldn't be fun. Sending them camping would be fun. And in the process of learning how to camp, they will learn a lot of valuable lessons in their life. This will enrich the "book learning" that they should be getting in school.

It seems to me that the religious awards can be the same. If the church is already fulfilling its obligation to its youth, then they should already be getting the "book learning" about their faith. A Scout is reverent, so that means that in scouting, we can enrich that faith by providing opportunities to live that faith. That can mean a lot of things. It can mean service. Wasn't it Jesus who said, "do a good turn daily"? It can me sharing faith with parents or others--even if that faith, right now, is imperfectly understood.

I'm not familiar with the Catholic religious awards. In fact, the one I earned as a Youth now has a different name, so I suspect other things have changed. But the award I did earn as a youth did not take the place of the normal faith development offered by my church, and I suspect the RC ones were not intended to do that either. Just like Scouting itself, it gave me the opportunity to enrich that faith by doing activities that non-Scouts might not get a chance to do. And very little of what I did could have been done in a classroom.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

Oh, yes, I know it's officially part of the uniform until the stroke of midnight on the Scout's 18th birthday.

I'm just wondering whether it's customary for Scouts to wear it after they hit the higher ranks. It's been a long time, but I don't think we really worried about it back in the day.

In general, we had fewer adornments to worry about. As far as I remember, everything you needed to know about where to put things on the uniform was contained inside the back cover of the Handbook.

Just out of curiousity, do Boy Scouts typically wear their Arrow of Light badge throughout their time in Boy Scouts? I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure I stopped wearing it after I outgrew my first Boy Scout shirt. I don't think I bothered putting it on (ok, ok, asking my mom to put it on) my new shirt. It seemed more like a Cub Scout thing to me.

Like I think I mentioned above, I was kind of surprised to learn that there was an adult knot for it. I do wear it as a Cub Scout leader, because it shows that there's something they're working on now that they'll carry with them into adulthood. But if I get a new shirt when I'm a Boy Scout leader, I doubt if I'll pay the $1.49 for a new one.

I'm impressed with surveying. It looks like there is no alternative option other than going out and doing an actual survey. And it says the scout is supposed to use modern equipment and techniques, so chances are, they're going to have to borrow those from an actual surveyor, which means that the counsellor is probably going to be an actual surveyor.

For archaeology, the "mock dig" looks like it could leave a lot up to the counsellor's discretion. Presumably, he or she would decide whether the Scout is really "unable to work in the field or in a laboratory".

But yes, those two are good examples of the "difficult" ones that I was thinking of. Good to see they're still around.