walk in the woods

Both you guys stay to the right then during rush hour. .

Until recently Pathways to Adventure was four Chicago area councils (Chicago Area, Des Plains Valley, Calumet and Northwest Suburban).

Lakota surprised me as well. I've only been their once but thought it was a nice piece of property. A little swampy on the one end but nice none-the less. And much closer than Adventure Camp. I was really surprised about the desire to take operational control and/or ownership of Adventure Camp in Rochelle. @@T2Eagle, there was a study done on WI camps (http://www.scouting.org/home/outdoorprogram/properties/region%20and%20area%20maps/wisconsin.aspx). I don't recall any financials in there though. I'd have to look again.

Not unexpected but for your reading pleasure. http://pathwaytoadventure.org/media/upload/camping%20recommendations/PTACCampResolution.pdf

Sweet. We used to have one of these in Illinois but the names of the political bosses kept changing so often it was too hard to keep up .

GSMNP isn't too far from Chattanooga. I can't speak to the campgrounds but hiking is good and there's a Lodge Factory Outlet store nearby .

I've also heard liberal clergy use this argument to justify abortion. It can't be murder if it's not a person, right?

I'd even go farther to say we have institutional disrespect. Just this week my place of employment put the US flag at half staff due to the all too early passing of an employee. I'm sure he was a nice guy but not cool. Even those entrusted with the power to order the flag to half staff use it too frequently IMNSHO.

I suppose the objectivist might argue the only intercooperation that matters in a society is the exchange of value for value. Thus, each person is free to pursue their own selfish interests regardless of the interests of the other which results in a cooperative and functioning civil society. Dominance only occurs when some members of the society make claims on other members of the society without providing some value in exchange. This behavior results in strife and collapse of functioning society. Kind of like when folks refuse to participate in fundraising but expect to have full access to all the program the fundraising provides. But hey, who's to say which moral code is best. .

Not necessarily if your moral code is based on objectivism. In that case the highest good is the individual happiness and social order is the result of selfishness, no?

Works for the Navy.

Also removed the word Boy from the cover of the handbook and the uniform.

A few years back a young man in Iowa defaulted a wrestling match in the state tournament because his opponent was female. He stated 'As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa.' He was alternately pilloried for being chicken and applauded for being a gentleman in various media outlets. There have even been papers written complaining that boys making these kinds of decisions are intentionally limiting girl's ability to compete and basically arguing that we need to deconstruct masculinity (http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1471&context=nlj,). Ultimatley, that's what this debate (and women in combat roles) is all about, deconstructing gender roles. One of the other currenly active threads is bemoaning the lack of outdoorsmen in the BSA. I suppose it's not too hard to connect the dots.

you say that like it's unusual.

Defining the core business (mission) is even tougher I suspect and is at the heart of this particular debate. 4-H for example has apparently decided their core competence isn't agriculture but rather youth development. There's still ag in the science part of the program but there are many different curriculum choices for the kids, including things like robotics. (FWIW, 6million youth, 612,000 adults, 3500 pros. BSA has 2.4 million youth, almost 1 million adults and how many pros?) Anyway, if our core business is youth development through the outdoors then we should focus there, if our core business is youth development by any means necessary then we should probably be looking at expanding programs. Question is, what business are we in?

I hope you were being sarcastic with the "not worthy" bit. If not, for the love of Pete, please stop; "not worthy" and "not qualified" are two different things.

How many times have we read stories on these forums that end in something like "my daughter is twice the outdoorsperson than half the Eagle Scouts I know." That would translate well to the field. Last time I looked Venturing was the fastest shrinking of the three traditional programs.

And carter looked like a nub wearing the yellow booties in the control room when nobody else donned them. I worked in Navy and commercial nuke power for 10 years and never observed such a thing.

Or maybe we should adopt the LDS model and move scouts into Venturing at 14 instead of having a program/age overlap. Then again, I like the group model better than the current charter model.

Kind of digging Creek in the active celebrity chief scout role

Do a quick google search on Olbermann and George W. Bush then tell me this is anything new.

Maybe our challenge, as far as getting adult leaders engaged (which I think was your original question), is we don't apply this principle to adults?

Which occurred after the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in the mid 70s.

Yes! Whether I agree or not this is exactly the kind of assumption challenging we need to do to reverse 20 years of declining membership!

This is the challenge and it's where tradition (we've always done it this way) bumps into reality (to paraphrase, We have to operate in the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be). Like it or not we're dealing with helicopter parents, kids who aren't used to being outdoors, middle-schoolers who aren't used to independence. We can either adapt to that reality or as our current membership numbers show, continue sliding into oblivion. Ultimately, we have to train both the boys and the parents in independence and I think our CS/BS transition is just too abrupt. Imagine if we had a specific program to develop Q's definition of First Class Scouts. More parental involvement accepted at the beginning, easier transition, less shock. Instead of asking parents and boys to adapt overnight, the program develops parents who are willing to let go as they build trust in the leaders and boys who are ready to be first class scouts. No merit badges in the middle-school program, just scout skills and fun. Hiking and camping with our buds, learning to be independent and parents learning to let go. I mean, this is the school model we're currently working with, no? Grade school kids have a single teacher (a mother surrogate), Middle Schoolers have multiple teachers, but no real input into their schedule or classes, more exposure to organized sports and clubs. HS kids get to exercise even more independence on courses, clubs, etc.