codger

Love the idea of being around for the next 30 years! Thanks, guys.

Hello. I'm Codger. I'm not a teenager - far from it.

I'm pushing 50, but feel like 30.

I believe in the Scout Law. All of it.

I don't back down to bullies, because I remember a time in my long ago youth when a boy and girl on my bus was bullied, and I felt ashamed I did not have the courage to intervene on their behalf. I won't repeat that mistake.

I identify with the old Boy Scouts of America - where kids earned their badges, parents trusted each other, society trusted Scoutmasters, and nearly everyone tried to do the right thing. Today, nearly everyone does the "me" thing - what's in it for me and mine. Bullies thrive in an environment where society views the bully and their target as both "victims" of the "system" - because when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. The number one cause of the spread of bully behavior is that society punishes the target who fights back or stands up to a bully just as much as the bully. "Zero Tolerance" in many cases equals zero responsibility, because the authority figures do not wish to identify an aggressor.

Well, this thread is interesting for what the posters DIDN'T suggest - that a group, such as Boy Scouts, can add to the dialog about kids that are bullied is this:

Membership in a group (Scouts) where the members are made to feel valued and valuable is the best insurance against a child that feels so alone in the world and vulnerable that they consider suicide.

Simply put, if a child feels valued by his or her peers and family, they are less likely to consider suicide as a response to the inevitable bully. Almost all of us have been victims of harassment and bullying at one time or another, and how we react depends on our sense of self esteem and belonging.

Another factor is peer support - I would encourage Scouts to stand up to bullies AS A GROUP. If a bully picks on a single kid, and the kid fights back, we have the possibility the bully still prevails, or that both bully and victim are punished for fighting (under the assinine "no tolerance" policy). But I have yet to hear of the bully encounter where 4 or 5 friends, scouts, etc. have stood up to the bully and protected the victim where it has not gone well for the victim and poorly for the bully - and I am not talking about a group that beats up the bully, only prevents the altercation.

Here's the final update on the actual campout:

We camped Friday evening in beautiful, warmer than seasonal weather, and were delighted to enjoy ham and cheese omelets for breakfast. Then we made 6 quail habitats (large brush piles) on various areas of the property. After lunch we worked with two conservation officers to spread food around the shelters and put out 50 quail, distributed evenly among the shelters to establish coveys in each of the habitat locations. The boys worked hard, and had a great time. They especially enjoyed watching me get hit in the face by two flushing birds as I bobbled a release! It was cool to hear the birds start calling after the release to form up their coveys.

After that, the older boys taught scout skills and advancement to the younger ones, and we enjoyed a dinner of ham steaks and my home made biscuits slathered in butter that I baked on a reflector oven. Wow! Everyone hit the rack early, and had a great time!.

Here's an update. After a meeting with the SM, SPL and ASPL, we agreed that the troop will still camp at the site on the weekend in question, but the SPL will adjust the program to teach the boys other skills for the upcoming camporee/competition. We decided I would take the SM, ASM and SPL (who is the SM's son) to the property to pick out a couple of likely campsites last saturday morning. I brought my son (First Class) and the ASM brought his son (First Class) at the 9am time, but when we arrived at the SM's house to pick him up, no SPL. The SM stated his son was still asleep, and would not attend.

I decided to go anyway, since I wanted to salvage as much of this situation as possible, but realize that this SM's concept of "boy-led" does not involve his son being accountable for anything. Big problem.

We went, picked out a campsite, and met some of the club members. The Club Secretary, who is very enthusiastic about us using the property, even asked us to take an hour during the campout to participate in a state conservation project. They asked us to make quail habitat on the property - the state is trying to reintroduce native quail populations in several zones, including ours, so we will set up habitat for 5 coveys to be ready for the state to stock. Way cool, and the two First Class Scouts loved the idea, so we'll do it.

The campout is scheduled for two weekends from now, so I will let you know how it goes.

Thanks for the replies, folks. Mostly I just needed to vent. I did find some suggestions helpful - such as involving the SPL in the process to secure the use of the land. The difficulty was in developing the program, where none of the scouts could conceivably have done that, since they never were trained/exposed to any type of rustic camping, or survival situation. These are very suburban/urban scouts, who never really ventured off a trail or into unknown areas at all. This situation is common in boy-led troops - if the boys don't have the ability to develop a program, the adults need to do that in order to teach the skills. Or else new topics/skills cannot be introduced - if no boy understands what's involved, they cannot develop an effective program event.

Boy, I just got burned by my SPL and SM.

Last Fall, my troop PLC decided to hold a Wilderness Survival Campout to learn the skills and practice for the merit badge. I (committee member) volunteered the use of 500 acres of woods and fields nearby (Central NJ) that my hunting club uses (in March - after seasons close). I presented in writng and in a personal presentation to the hunting club and received permission to use the property, and even to make primitive shelters using cut or fallen natural materials - can't do that on public land. Got permission. Got club members to volunteer to help out too.

So, I developed a plan for our two ASM's and me (the three of us are ex military or Eagles) to teach the boys survival skills, cooking without utensils, making a survival kit, basically showing them how to complete the requirements. None of the boys (and only 2 or 3 of the committee members) were capable of teaching these skills, so I emailed an outline of my plans to my SM and CC two weeks ago, with a program for the weekend that I thought would be fun and memorable. I even incorporated ideas from this forum -see topic "killing for food, not hunting" - but without the killing part, as Central Jerseyans are not comfortable doing that. Our plans did not include any "gung-ho" stuff - just make a primitive shelter, do the requirements, that's it. We are 3 weeks away from the campout, and last night at the meeting my SM informs me the boys decided to cancel the program and instead use the weekend to prepare for another scout cometition later in spring. Apparently, they are no longer interested in wilderness survival. What a waste of time for me, and loss of face among my fellow hunting club members who graciously extended their hospitality. As for my SM, I think he is most comfortable taking the easy way out - just do what the boys want. The SPL is taking the easy way out too - he can just go over the same old fire building, etc. for this other competition and not reach for anything out of the ordinary. The capper was a comment from the SM that they really are not comfortable camping at this site (although I made it clear I would show them the land anytime before the event) because it is not an "official" Scout camp. I guess it doesn't have platforms for their tents, so they might have to sleep in 500 acres of woods on the ground? I cannot believe these guys call themselves Scouts. I see my enthusiasm for volunteering will just be diminished further.

Guys: Like Narraticong, I, too, attended KMSR as a boy, and now am very sad that it comes to this - closing the camp. Here are some observations:

A summer camp program is not only nice to have for a council, but is in my mind the NUMBER ONE priority of a Council. NOTHING else a council does has as much impact as the summer program. Central NJ Council has neglected this for years, since before the merger 10 years ago. Literally, we can get everything else our Council does by internet delivery system and email - except a camp.

The septic system problem mentioned in the letter is 100% the professional staff mis-management. The fact is they spent thousands building a new comfort station only months ago. If the septic system was not up to the task, where was the engineering firm/municipal inspections/contractor specs and oversight that could have prevented us from wasting all the money on the building - now we have a new building that sits unused because the septic doesn't work? That is gross mis-management by the professionals.

The reason the troops do not attend is that despite having one of the most beautiful lakes in the state (Lake Ashroe) and a great natural setting, the Council allowed the facilities to run down. I camped there in October with my Cub Pack, and was appalled at the unclean, unrepaired state of the other latrines. The camp is flat out unsanitary. Other toilet facilites were stopped up (clearly clogged for weeks or months before our visit), latrines had their frames rotting away, toilet seats ripped loose or missing, beaver-chewed siding on the latrines. I swear that most of the latrines at the campsites have been there since the 1970's. Not a bit of evidence that anyone with a power washer had been there in the last decade. Staff clearly had not even visited our site's bathhouse (with showeres and laundry) in weeks, because there were several sinks with water running 24/7 that could not be turned off. What a waste.

Beyond that, the other "camp" our Council has (Yard's Creek Scout Reservation) is in equally bad condition - and has none of the natural beauty that Lake Ashroe has - and it has limited access because a power generating station controls the access road, and every visitor must show ID to even visit! The best plan would be to sell YCSR and use the money to upgrade KMSR. Why this wasn't obvious years ago, I'll never know. Again, professional mismanagement.

Frankly, I am so disgusted with my Council's lack of management savvy, that if they do away with KMSR, they should do away with the Council and save National the overhead. What do we need these clowns for?

I know what EAmon is talking about. I am the CC of my youngest son's Pack, and a committee member of the Troop with my oldest 2 boys. I own a real estate brokerage in the area (don't mention the real estate market in the last 2 years!) and can only agree with the post. In the past year I have paid for full page ads in the Pinewood Derby program, bought popcorn, bought pizza, baked goods for the bake sale, drove the Troop trailer on 4 campouts, paid for campout fees, patches and food, uniforms, and gear. The FOS thing bugs me because it seems that it is the volunteers that wind up paying again. Last weekend I went to my council camp event for the Cubs, and they paid for porta-johns installed right in front of the new "comfort center' that was OUT OF ORDER - paid for by FOS contributions. The old guys are going out fast, and the new corporate types just cannot seem to get it together without piling on the paperwork, the regs and the scary CYA training designed to protect no one and satisfy the lawyers. Soon I'll doubt anyone at Council can tie a bowline anymore without gloves to prevent a splinter from "stray fibers" in the hemp rope.

I, too, was a bit disappointed in the quickness of some members of this forum to jump to the conclusion that OMH was lying when he posted the first time. While I wasn't born yesterday, and don't automatically assume everyone tells the truth, I do give folks the benefit of the doubt until I KNOW they are lying. It is obvious some here cannot.

More importantly, we took (I am assuming)an oath to be TRUSTWORTHY as socuts, and should, then TRUST others that have or will take that oath, until we have evidence (not supposition) that they cannot be trusted. We can take it from OMH that he was stopped while in possession of coke. We don't know he USED it, or SOLD it to others. Frankly, anyone who has a $100.00 bill in his wallet is in POSSESSION of coke, according to statistical analysis of our nation's currency. Let's cut him a break until we know more, not suppose more.

Finally, my kids don't go off on outings where other adults I do not trust are the only leaders. I trust SOME of my fellow SM's, ASM's, Committee members, and don't trust the rest with temporary supervision of my kids. Why do other adults take the BSA's "vetting" process as a good proxy for their own supervision and judgement?

Another thought on the overweight leader phenomenon: it is my opinion that the men and women who are most likely to be Scout leaders have the following attributes:

-Strong home life, where families are served home-cooked meals on a regular basis

-they come from cultures where gatherings of friends and families involve serving meals

-they tend to put service to others ahead of personal goals like individual fitness

-they tend to live in suburban and rural neighborhoods where walking is not the primary transport mode - the auto is.

At the same time, those thin people tend to come from a demographic that involves:

-a culture of "me-first" -so they work out for their own self image

-an urban environment that does not involve car commuting

-an upper income bracket that pays for personal trainers, image consultants and the like.

In short, rich, thin folks tend to be less likely to volunteer to be Scout leaders, and are more likely to spend more time helping themselves versus others. Note these are not hard and fast rules, just observations.

My wife and I, too, immediately picked up on this - we have our Chief Scold Executive and other senior Scolders, I mean Chief Scout Executive, telling the VOLUNTEERS we are not up to snuff, when the PAID PROFESSIONALS cannot adhere to their policies and pronouncements. I say we all get together and send a cheesecake from each unit to the headquarters for the BSA leadership to pig out on! Let's make a statement that until they walk the walk, they can keep their opinions of our health to themselves.

Well, I see two possibilities here. If Council overrides the Troop and awards the Eagle over the Troop's sincere objections, there is a very good chance that it did so not because the Troop was at fault, but that the parents of the boy made a huge stink, and Council leadership caved for political reasons on a 'marginally qualified" boy. It is not unheard of that the mere threat of litigation from helicoptor parents is enough to somehow convince Council staffers that the boy is more deserving than he is. In that case, it seems the right thing to do is plan a modest COH and present the award.

However, it is also possible that the parents of this boy were so obnoxious (the SOB comment to the SM) that no reasonable SM volunteer should be expected to smile and make nice if the parents have made it personal. Let the parent throw their own da-- party.

The most important observation on this issue is that despite the obvious support of the driving public, the State of Connecticut does not feel that the Scouts perform a needed service to the community. If they felt the service was in fact needed/desireable/of value, then they would find a way to make it happen, and then tax it!

The only lesson to be learned is that the State does not value volunteerism, and volunteers should stay home. What a sad time we live in - we'll all be worse off for it.

It seems to me that if National is going to prohibit unsupervised campouts across the board as is rumored, then they should at the same time change the Scout Law. If a boy is NEVER allowed out of the adult's sight, we sure don't need TRUSTWORTHY scouts. They will have nothing to be trusted with.

By the way, I have been at various times in the same (and only) District as a Cub, a Boy Scout, a JASM, Committee Chairman (of three different units), Treasurer of a Pack, husband of a den leader and more since I was 8 years old. In otherwords, well known to several generations of scouts and Scouters. But sometimes I feel the BSA doesn't trust ME, with the intensity of the YPT mandates, etc. Soon we'll be told we must have video surveilance on all outings and meetings if this keeps up. Sheesh!

Well, I'll relate a time when my scoutmaster saved our troop from an ugly incident BECAUSE he brought a 6-pack of beer on a campout. He was a great Scoutmaster, very reliable and responsible, and NOT an alchoholic.

We were camping by the shores of a lake, in a forest, with no other people around for miles. Late in the night, we were gathered around the campfire, when a DRUNK redneck came driving fast through the woods and skreeched to a stop right in front of the fire. He exited the truck and shouted for us to "Get out of the road - stop blocking the road". He threatened to run us over if we didn't move. Our quick-thinking Scoutmaster calmed him down, pulled him aside, and offered him a beer by the fire! We were all astonished, because we had no idea the SM even HAD beer with him!

The lunatic calmed down, had a snort, and told some great stories about the lake and growing up in the woods there. Ultimately, he slept it off by the fire, and left the next morning without a hitch.

I was mighty glad the SM had that 6-pack!