GernBlansten

I grew up in Colorado Springs. An extra day in advance of Philmont there would be great. Lots of stuff to do, including going to the top of Pikes Peak by car or train to help acclimate. CS is about the same elevation as Philmont base camp and about 3 hours north by car. Pikes Peak is 2000 ft higher than the highest point at Philmont too. Albuquerque is cool too.

Something is wrong here. You have a mother who is claiming to be a physician, who has a child with serious medical issues, illegibly filling out a medical form so other adults can care for her child. Color me skeptical.

Twocubdad, that's a great analogy. Personally, I think the requirement should be scrubbed. Its just too subjective. You can't expect equal rigor on the requirement from unit to unit. So its worthless. Just drop it from the book. Replace it with some more WB management stuff, something really objective.

This wasn't hazing. Hazing is a ritualist right of passage. This was retribution. Pure and simple. Don't confuse the two.

Our unit faced similar pressures. Ours came from our CO. We meet Tuesday nights. But the church also gives space to the AA and Women for Sobriety the same night. Then they wanted to the church band to practice in the sanctuary that night. We still had our meeting room, but Tuesdays were a busy night for the church. So it was recommended we move to Thursdays. We could have full run of the church. Nobody wanted to change. Tradition, I guess. Now we have to hold our COHs at another church because the sanctuary isn't available on Tuesday nights. Never heard of a unit meeting on Sundays though. might work, but most families view Sunday's as their family day.

The straight dope. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0616091camp1.html?link=rssfeed

It might just be the planetary alignment. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_re_us/us_odd_naked_hiking

Just try to imagine being in a unit that shares the same resources with the unit these guys came from. The victim was from another troop. Would you want them banned from council events and camps? Or at least closely scrutinized or supervised for a period?

Beavah brings up a interesting point. What are the ramifications to the CO and the unit? It certainly warrants an investigation on the unit culture and leadership selection judgement of the CO. I guess the council could revoke the charter as a way for damage control and put other units on notice to take leadership selection seriously.

That's not hazing, its criminal assault. I noticed one was an Eagle scout. I know their membership has been revoked (justfied), curious if this will settle the myth that Eagle scout rank can be revoked too. Also curious on the races of all involved. The picture of the adult perp reveals his ethnicity. But they were retaliating on a racial slur by the victim. Was the victim a minority?

Is it our goal to try and get these older scouts to attend summer camp with the troop, or go to one of these programs where they are separated from the troop for the week? A couple of years ago, we did a standard summer camp for the younger scouts. 3 older scouts came up with us but did a high adventure climbing/backpacking trek the camp offered. We never saw them the entire week until check out. It was like they were never even there. They loved it. But I can't say they did summer camp with the troop. Bonding with the younger scouts didn't happen. The camp also offers a program for older scouts where they come back every dinner and camp with the troop. Leave in the morning for program stuff. Not very popular amongst our guys.

Kinda reminds me of the Ford Mustang. Everyone knows an early Mustang. Icon of the early American muscle car. Anyone see the orginal "Bullitt"? But Ford decided in the mid 70s that it need to change. They put it on a Maverick frame, put a small motor in it and took away all its muscle car appeal. It became a Mustang in name only, it was just another economy car, and not a very good one at that. A couple of more facelifts, and pretty much, the Mustang was just not that appealing. But in 2005, Ford went old school. Went back to the original Mustang roots. Put in a hot V8, styled it like it was back in 1969, and it was an instant hit. Chevy and Dodge followed. So the question I ask is BSA following the same pattern? They had an exciting program that youth wanted to join back in the 60s. They "revamped" it only to lose its core followers. Then spent the next 30 years massaging the program to regain the losses. Is this new BSA the new Mustang? Or just another failed attempt to find its footing?

Put yourself in the 15/16 year old boots. You have been to summer camp for 3 or 4, possibly 5 years in a row. Been there, done that. You ain't interested in earning any more merit badges. Your parents might, but you just spent a winter and spring in school and you have no interest in doing classroom work anymore. You also have no interest in spending any time with a bunch of rowdy 11/12 year olds, especially if the adults expect you to deal with them so they don't have too. They just irritate you just as you did the older kids when you were that age. The camp offers a program for older scouts, but you still will spend lots of time with the rowdy kids. What are your options? Go to camp and deal with everything you don't want to do, or hang with your friends around the house, playing video games and hanging at the mall trying to look cool? I'm not offering a solution, but a careful observation having been a 16 year old 30 years ago and having the equivalent of a doctorate observing a newly minted 16 year old.

Moving Tenderfoot to cubs just makes sense considering the path scouting is taking. Outdoors skills are taking precious management theory time from Boy Scouts. Now we can spend more time on WB style leadership development instead of that dirty, icky woodsy stuff. And for the poor scout who wasn't a cub, well, is he really going to use those outdoor skills in real life? Probably not. Not like your indoor leadership skills.

The donation cannot be made directly to the scout or the CO. It is to the benefiting organization. If they, the benefiting organization, are a non-profit and provide the donor with the proper tax information, they can deduct it from their taxes.

I poke fun at EDGE and WB because like most management seminars I've attended in my professional life, they use acronyms and lingo to re-package age old ideas and resell them as something revolutionary and exclusive to the program much to the awe of the attendees. There's nothing wrong with EDGE, but to think its some new, innovative method to teach, well Duhhh! My daddy used to say, see one, do one, teach one. He didn't go to WB, take a management seminar or was even a boy scout. Just a humble butcher. But he knew EDGE. Just didn't have the fancy lingo.

Yeah, can't be too sure how much of that gay fruit is hanging from our family trees can we?

Yes, E.D.G.E. is a re-marketed Show/Teach/Do that has been a core to human learning for millenia. But because it has a catching Acronym and is taught in WB, it has special significance. My first exposure to EDGE was in TLT training in our unit by a freshly minted WB'er. My silent thought bubble just said, "Well, DUHHHH!"

I see Brent. This is like 1984. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Power. Conservation is exploitation. Cheney says everyone "should get a shot at that" but is against marriage equality.

Pssst Brent. Cheney and Obama are on the opposite ends of gay marriage debate. Weird, isn't it?

[sarcasm] Glad to see they are really drawing in those future business managers with the new EDGE requirements. [/sarcasm] Actually glad to see the LNT requirements. Even though LNT doesn't fit in the conservative lexicon very well, it is a key to preserving the very laboratory we use to develop the best kinds of citizens. I wish they could also figure out some fun/adventurous requirements to add too.(This message has been edited by gernblansten)

We recharter in early Feb, before any crossovers. I can understand if the DE is trying to get a grip on crossover retention. If that is his goal, then a request for a list of crossovers from troops would be more appropriate. How can auditing a pack or crew roster accomplish this anymore than his offical Scoutnet list?

Beavah's rules make the most sense. Most boating/lightning incidents occur in open water, away from trees where you are the tallest object and easiest path for discharge. Most fatalities occur in open boats without cabins. If you detect lightning and are in open water, move towards shore. If there's shelter on shore, move to it. Lightning is lazy. Try not to be the easiest path of conductivity. Being on the water isn't necessarily the worst place. Being the tallest thing for hundreds of yards around is. I've heard the 45 degree rule too, baring any contradictory evidence, I'd follow that too. I seriously doubt the material of the canoe or raft (rubber/wood/aluminum/plastic) will have any significance on the likelihood of a strike. Urban myth is that the rubber tires on a car make you safe. Actually, its being surrounded by medal that makes you safe. A Faraday cage. Gives the energy a path around you. With the amount energy discharged, materials have two choices, conduct or vaporize. BTW, sailboats also make a great Faraday cage. I know personally. We were racing on a high mountain lake when a sudden storm hit us. We took a bolt to the top of the mast. Instantaneous shock and awe. Which traveled down the shrouds to the hull and keel (we had properly grounded our shrouds to the keel bolts). I was at the helm. The smell of ozone was powerful. A quick check to the integrity of the hull showed no damage. Another boat in the marina was not so lucky. A bolt blew a hole the size of a golf ball through the hull and sank her in her mooring.

Part of the crossover packet we give cubs has a registration application. If they decide to join our troop, they must present that. We then batch them up and take them down to council and register them. If they don't join, we don't receive the application. Why on earth would we allow them to "join" without processing the application? Why would we wait until the following February recharter to add them? I assumed all units operate like this. So our official council roster will be the one we give the DE. Maybe I just have no tolerance for silly work.

Help me out here. If a scout crosses over, registers in my unit, but doesn't show up again, how is the DE gonna know that based on the roster I submit, or the one he already has access too? Little Johnny Crossover showed up for one meeting, submitted his paperwork and we never heard from him again. Happens all the time. The roster I give the DE will have Little Johnny on it, at least until next re-charter. Is the DE gonna sit down with us and go through the roster scout by scout? Perform a role call at every meeting? Call every scout on the roster to verify they are still active? I just don't see the value. THe DE already has our official roster based on re-charter. He also has every feeder pack roster in the district. I can sympathize with the DE if his goal is to maximize crossover retention, but auditing a units roster isn't the way to do it. If he is trying to see who was a cub and isn't a boy scout, he already has all the information at his office.