eisely

There is a scout high adventure base in either Montana or Idaho on (if I recall correctly) the Salmon River dedicated to Whitewater Rafting. This is base is run by a council, not national. You might be able to locate information through a web search, or even through Scouter.com. Chances are there is someone there who could advise you on Whitewater Rafting generally, even if you don't plan to go that far afield. When I drove by this place two and half years ago, it looked very intriguing. I don't think 12 and 13 year olds are too young for this particular activity, provided there is a qualified guide in each raft.

I grew up in Missouri and I didn't think your endeavor encompassed the area of interest to me. Good luck with your efforts. It sounds like fun.

Please define "Mid America Council" I grew up in the mid west and this is unfamiliar to me.

In response to the previous query, the information below is copied from the website of "planetout." While you may find the source objectionable, this is the most complete statement of the final bill that I have found. ________________________- Bush signs education bill By Ann Rostow, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network SUMMARY: President Bush (news - web sites) signed a landmark education bill into law yesterday, getting mixed reviews from GLBT activists. President Bush signed a landmark education bill into law yesterday, putting the executive stamp on a series of over 300 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, hashed out over the last two years. The Act is revised by Congress every five years, although that interval has just been changed to once every six years. Leaders of the gay community were pleased to have mitigated some of the damage that lurked in the House version of the bill. During negotiations between the House and Senate, the conference committee took the teeth out of two amendments, and most importantly for the GLBT community, retained funding for a series of programs that help schools learn ways to fight hate violence on campus. Those programs, begun in 1994, were cut by the House, but restored in the final bill. One problematic amendment in the House version would have required students to get parental consent before making use of any school health service, including counseling and advice or treatment about sex. And written consent would have been required before students would be allowed to fill out surveys on risky behaviors -- surveys which the GLBT-advocacy group Human Rights Campaign points out are essential to planning programs that address the needs of gay youth. In the revised version, although parents may bar their children from access to health services without their permission, parental consent is not mandatory. The most controversial amendment to the bill as far as the GLBT community was concerned, was, in fact, something of a red herring. A version of an amendment originally proposed by North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, R-N. C., would have withdrawn federal funds from any public school that discriminated against the Boy Scouts in response to the Scouts' anti-gay policies. From the start, Helms' amendment was gratuitous -- schools are already barred from this type of viewpoint discrimination by virtue of the federal Equal Access Act. But because the amendment singled out "sexual orientation," and because it added the additional punishment of losing federal funds to the existing punishment of a federal lawsuit, HRC and others advocated strongly for its demise. The final version of the amendment deleted the specific reference to "sexual orientation," and essentially reminded schools that they may not discriminate based on viewpoint against the Scouts or other legitimate groups that seek access to their facilities after hours. But schools nonetheless remain free to withhold sponsorship or special deals to the Scouts or any other groups. Gay rights leaders fear that this distinction may be lost on some school officials who might find the amendment confusing.

All of Mike's advice is very sound. The one thing I would add is the necessity for training hikes with loads where the scouts, and adults, can be observed. Often people have unsuspected orthopedic problems that surface under these conditions. Often there are solutions for these problems and these can be worked out before a serious trek is undertaken. I have found the most difficult and stressful thing to be going downhill on a difficult trail with a load. Several years ago our troop sent two crews to Philmont. A scout was allowed to go who had not participated in any of the training. It turns out he had big problems with his hips and was in agony for the entire trek. His dad went along too and knew about this beforehand. It got rather ugly. One also wonders about the doctor who signed off on the kid. There is no substitute for training hikes after everybody has done their individual training.

I guess that I am less surprised at the different treatment of ages in different programs when one comes to understand those programs. Scouting as a movement is quite diverse. It would be nice if these things were stated clearly and simply in one place. One just has to pick up on the different rules as one encounters them and go with the flow.

Fellow senior member, I don't know how senior you really are, but by most measures I am probably more senior than you by the proverbial country mile. Nevertheless, it is always worth noticing when a senior member reports this kind of news. In my case, I would probably get reported to the Mayo Clinic or some such for scientfic study. Congratulations again. Let us know how it goes.

The problem of stacked patrols for competitions is probably as old as competitions in scouting. In other words this problem is probably older than all the participants in this forum. The problem of patrol structure is an ongoing but related issue. In my perception this first became a problem about ten years ago when national introduced the idea that new scouts should be segregated in a separate patrol during their first year in scouting. This idea was heavily promoted at the time and there are some units that still do this. Personally, after ten years as an adult in scouting, I think it is a bad idea. There are a lot of ways a unit can accommodate the needs of new scouts without buying into this solution that creates more problems. I would rather see patrols of mixed ages with new boys integrated immediately into the existing patrol structure. At the other end of the age spectrum, many units struggle with creating satisfactory programs and structures for their older scouts. My sense is that few units successfully operate fully integrated patrols spanning the full age spectrum. Coming back to the issue originally raised, one solution at the district level is to have patrols compete in the same events, but only against patrols similarly structured. One could have new boy patrols compete against new boy patrols, gung ho patrols of older scouts compete against other gung ho patrols, and so forth. But this gets terribly complicated.

Or perhaps, "good young Bob."

This appeared originally on "Bowsite", a web site dedicated to bow hunting. There is one hint at the apparent hoax that I noticed but ignored. That is the statement at the end that the gun season is limited to shotguns. Naive trusting soul that I am, I thought it too good to pass up.

Requiring ALL PARTICIPANTS, not just youth, to pass the BSA swimmer test is a requirement, unless you have a qualified lifeguard in the canoe or raft with the person who doesn't meet the test. I have not run into a weight requirement by an outfitter, but age minimums are common. Any such requirement by an outfitter would likely depend on the difficulty of the reach to be traveled. This is something you have to ask about, unless the outfitter volunteers the information. You need an affirmative response from the outfitter concerning their policies. While one wants to accommodate everybody in the unit to the extent possible, the agenda should not be set to meet the needs or preferences of one scout. This is true for everything.

I personally have never experienced a scout showing up for a BOR in no uniform whatsoever. I think the situation described was handled entirely appropriately. sctmom's analogy to a job interview is also one that has occurred to me. BORs, done right, are good preparation for this part of life. Dressing appropriately is part of that.

Mike, You should be worried. The council should be able to return the approved permit to you. There are several possible explanations: (1) the faxed application was never received, (2) the faxed application was never processed, (3) nobody understood that a portion of the processed permit was to be returned to you, or (4) the council is so inept that it is not capable of getting a permit to you. I have dealt with this in a variety of ways. When mailing in the permit I mark the envelope on the outside in bold letters "tour permit application" in the hope that it gets to the right person. I also enclose a pre adressed postage paid return envelope so that the person processing the permit can immediately put my portion in the envelope and get it back to me. This has always worked, but one needs to allow a few days. I process the permit in person most of the time these days. Fortunately our council service center is only a 20 minute drive for me. I don't know how people in the other end of the council do their permits. I have not relied on faxed permits. If I were to do this, I would use a cover sheet requesting that the approved permit be faxed back and I would give them the number in big bold letters.

Scouting does not follow a consistent policy with regards to 18 year olds in conventional troops. Here is my understanding on a variety of aspects of this issue. In a scout unit one is considered a youth member until age 18. In a boy scout troop the only position available for a registered member between ages 18 and 21 is that of assistant scoutmaster. I can't speak to venture crews and sea scout ships. Maybe somebody can respond on that point. For order of the arrow purposes, one is considered to be a youth member until age 21. Members between the ages of 18 and 21 would appear to be eligible for election by all the youth in the unit. If you have somebody in this category, you would do well to contact your chapter (district) OA advisor on this point. If a registered member between the ages of 18 and 21 cannot be elected alongside other youth, then they would have to be elected by the unit committee. For purposes of crew makeup for Philmont, a member is considered a youth until age 21. This is important because Philmont has occasionally imposed caps on adult participation. If there is a restriction on the number of adults in a crew, then one needs to know what is considered adult versus youth. For most outings, and 18 year old is considered an adult for the "two deep" adult participation safetey requirement. At least one adult must always be 21 or older. For some types of activities, both adults must be 21 or over. See the requirements in the Guide to Safe Scouting. Confused? You are not alone.

shemgren, I started this thread because I was curious about how units dealt with patrol level activities with regard to tour permits. Does your troop have separate patrol activities, and if so, when do you get a tour permit for such?

slontwovvy, Good suggestion about having some of the boys speak to the parents. This would require some preparation so the boys involved are comfortable with it.

Are you talking about rafting as a day outing or as an expedition? There is no reason that younger scouts cannot do river rafting. I presume that you would do your rafting through a commercial outfitter with qualified guides in each raft. There is no minimum age requirement in the safety policies of BSA. There are a variety of other safety considerations that do exist in the policies and you would do well to understand and adhere to these. Any commercial outfitter that is any good may also have minimum age or weight requirements. I am a good canoeist, but I have been rafting only once as part of a family adventure. Putting scouts into canoes by themselves is probably more dangerous than rafting with a qualified guide, and more work too. I would suggest that you find some reasonably close outfitter who can handle a day trip, rather than build an expedition around something nobody seems to have tried before. If most of the scouts in your unit want to do a little rafting, then you should put it on your calendar. Those who do not want to go can do something else.

I share Mike's distaste for "competition patrols," although I can't quite condemn the idea put forward by OGE. My sense is that at most camporees I have seen, most of the patrols are in fact patrols created to attend camporee because there may not be enough boys from the established patrols attending. One does need a minimum critical mass to compete. In the situation described by alexiv, the older scout patrol already exists, and it is a matter of accommodating the younger scouts. Not really knowing all the facts of alexiv's troop, it is hard to judge. In my mind existing patrol structures should not be disturbed, unless there is a clear reason to do so.

This could be a hoax. When I went back to where I found it the story had disappeared. A perfunctory source of Associated Press items also could not locate it. Still there is some entertainment value.

ozemu, This is a forum concerning boy scouts, not girl scouts. That would not prevent any boy scout unit from picking up on your appeal, but you might have better luck with a forum for girl scouts, if there is one. G'day

Congrats. Not bad for a Senior Member.

This has nothing to do with scouting, other than the fact that PETA doesn't like scouting. So it is fair game, so to speak, to post this interesting tidbit about PETA's attempt to thwart Ohio's deer hunting season. Run Bambi run! ________________________ PETA Attempt to mess up hunters - backfires PETA Fails in Attempt to Thwart Hunters Assoc. Press (Columbus, OH) If you are familiar with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), then you are aware of the fact they will do almost anything to protect animals. This year's efforts to save Ohio's deer from the annual statewide gun season has backfired. For safety's sake, hunters in Ohio are required by law to display at least 400 square inches of hunter's blaze orange on their person when in the woods. Capitalizing on the fact that hunters do not usually shoot orange, PETA recently bulk purchased blaze orange vests and have been affixing them to live-trapped deer in Youngstown suburbs. According to PETA spokesperson Katie Reese, a total of 405 vests were successfully put into circulation prior to this week, with additional specimens still being caught and vested. Youngtown entrepreneur Guy Lockey, of Guy's Outdoors has spit in the face of PETA by offering rewards for the returned vests this week. Hunters who can successfully bag a vested deer can pay $5 for random and biggest animal awards. As of Tuesday, 308 of the vests had already been recorded as bagged with most of the hunters registering for Mr. Lockey's drawing. "It's so easy, you can see them coming a mile away" said one first year hunter after checking in his first spike buck. ODNR officials are worried that the poorly thought out plan by PETA might get somebody shot instead of saving the deer. "Hunters have turned their plan upside down, we're just hoping that nobody gets hurt and are hoping that none of the vested animals get tangled in brush" said an unnamed ODNR official. "PETA has really outdone itself this time." Ohio's statewide gun season is open to shotguns only and is scheduled to close on Saturday.

The original Helms proposal was modified by amendment, and I think I read that those amendments weakened the provision. However, beyond that I can't say what happened. The more important legal foundation for fighting such attempts by local school districts in particular to exclude scout units from facilities is the precedent established in Broward County in 2001. This precedent could be invoked right now. We will have to wait for the US Department of Education to promulgate regulations implementing the Helms provision, and that may never happen. It certainly won't happen soon. This is not to say that the Helms provision is useless. It does provide additional leverage in these kinds of disputes.

alexiv, In your particular situation, I would think that equity for the older scouts would mean to let them compete as they are presently constituted. Your thread raises a very deep question or patrol composition generally. There is no perfect answer, particularly when it comes to competitive situations such as camporee. A very high powered troop in our area does not allow its first year scouts to go to camporee at all. As far as I know, their patrols are not organized by age cohorts or by tenure in scouting. Nevertheless the policy of not allowing first year scouts to attend competitive events has the effect of stacking the patrols somewhat with respect to other troops. This troop dominates at camporee. It has gotten to the point where our boys don't even want to go to camporee any more. So there are various aspects to this question for which there are no clean answers.

The following also comes from the Guide to Safe Scouting concerning the two deep adult leadership requirement. _____________ Two-deep leadership: Two registered adult leaders, or one registered adult and a parent of a participating Scout, one of whom must be at least 21 years of age or older, are required for all trips or outings. There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, when no adult leadership is required. Coed overnight activities require male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA. _____________ Note that there is an exception for "patrol activities" and that "patrol activities" are undefined. I interpret this exclusion to mean patrol meetings in someone's house. If a patrol is going on an outing such as a hike or excursion requiring transportation, I would think a tour permit would be required. The language in the previous post only refers to "units" with regards to tour permits, and units are understood to mean cub scout packs, scout troops, separately chartered venture crews, sea scout ships, and explorer posts, not patrols or dens. (Did I leave anything out?) I readily concede that there is an ambiguity in the written policies. That is why I put up the original thread on this subject. Personally, I would always default to getting a tour permit if there is any doubt in my mind as to the requirement.