Hunt

We recently heard from the Council (National Capitol Area) that there are still youth spots open for this summer's World Jamboree. Somewhat to my surprise, my son wants to go so I dropped off an application and deposit last week. Does anybody know whether there are still a lot of spots?

A note on backpacks--a growing boy can outgrow those too. If possible, wait before investing in one, and make sure it fits really well. If possible, buy it from a local outfitter who can help you pick one that fits. For what it's worth, my son's internal frame pack worked well for him at Philmont.

I wonder if this is more likely to happen with boys who are attaining Eagle rank just before turning 18--they're getting ready to go to college, and may be transitioning out of scouting (as youth, anyway). They may be focussing more on what's coming, and thus as less interested in the COH than they might be if they had another year or two of high school, and thus another year or two in the troop as youth members.

We have been facing similar issues. Recruiting has been very difficult, but we have had a trickle of younger boys keeping the troop afloat. I continue to think there are some benefits of a smaller troop, and it is a better fit for some boys. Still, there comes a point when you simply lack critical mass...that comes, I think, when you can no longer offer a decent program. Signs would be cancelling many of your events because there aren't enough scouts or leaders, inability to get enough people to turn out for Eagle projects, meetings where only a handful of your boys show up. Folding a unit is a painful decision; the crew associated with our troop is not be rechartered this time around because of insufficient interest by youth and no adult leaders--it was still very difficult to come to that decision.

My observation is that for many, if not most, BSA units, the idea that the CO runs the program is, at best, a polite myth. In fact, I would venture that if BSA required more training, orientation, or actual obligations by COs, that we would see a substantial exodus of COs. It would ultimately lead to the greater rise of "Friends of Troop XXX" as the CO, which would really just be the Troop Committee in another guise. Maybe that would be better, I don't know.

I don't know if it's good or not, because I don't know much about the California Supreme Court. If that court rules that the leases violate the California Constitution, then BSA will lose the leases--if not in this case, in another one brought in state court. On the (somewhat) bright side, that would have no binding precedential effect in cases in other states.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has sent the San Diego case to the California Supreme Court to request answers on how California's constitution would affect the case. See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFD0CB543718A429882572480051DDAF/$file/0455732o.pdf?openelement Two of the three judges felt that the plaintiffs had standing to sue; a dissent argued strongly to the contrary. I predict that ultimately the case will go to the Supreme Court, which will throw it out on standing grounds, and the plaintiffs (or some other plaintiffs) will have to start over. In the meantime, it appears that the Boy Scouts get to stay in Balboa Park and Fiesta Island.

Well, we don't really have enough facts, but lets just assume for a second that both of these individuals are over 18, and that they are formally engaged, and that everyone, including their families, knows that they are engaged. Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to have a club that they can't both join simply because they are engaged? If you were this girl's parent, would you feel more comfortable sending her on a camping trip with a group that included her fiance, or a group that included other young men? In both cases, there would also be an adult female leader along, and the engaged couple would presumably not be allowed to share a tent. I guess I agree that the rules seem to require this, but it just seems to be courting disaster to create a coed group in which people just over 21 are not permitted to "fraternize" with those just under 21. We're talking about college-age people here.

Note that some of the Tenderfoot requirements require activities be done with the Scout's patrol. These clearly can't be satisfied as a Webelos Scout. Was there previously an actual BSA rule or policy that supported the practice of having AOL boys cross over as Tenderfoot?

It seems to me that a charity would have to be pretty darn unhappy with the Scout's work to refuse to sign off on a project, because if they don't, they can pretty much forget about getting more Eagle projects. For example, in the other thread, someone mentioned that a Red Cross chapter might state an expectation that a blood drive should collect 40 units, and what if the drive only collected 30? If the Red Cross declined to sign off, that would be the last Eagle-project blood drive they would have in that area.

For anyone who wants to continue the cancer research funding diversion, here's an interesting article: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v92/n2/full/6602321a.html This is a British article based on British research funding--note that as in the US, there is about twice as much spent on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer research. This article looks at a bunch of different cancers, and compares the money spent on them to the average years lost from the cancer. Interestingly, as I understand the article, it suggests that for both breast cancer and prostate cancer, more is spent than for other cancers when compared to the years lost from cancer deaths--and more is spent for prostate cancer than for breast cancer by this measure. The article suggests that several other cancers, included cervical cancer and melanoma, are significantly underfunded by this measure. The sad truth is that money for medical research is not distributed through a scheme that tries to maximize benefit, but through a political process. I'd be curious to see if this kind of analysis has been done for US research spending.

"Tossing a Scout a piece of rope & asking him to tie a required knot for rank can be one way for the BOR to ensure the signed requirement is valid." I could be, if that was what the BOR is supposed to do. But, again, BSA says: "This review is not and should not be an examination or retest of skills learned. Rather, it is an attempt to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals, both in the troop and outside of it. The board should get a sense of the importance that the Scout attributes to Scouting in his home life, at school, and in the troop. It also shows how the Scout perceives the troop and its adult leaders." It seems to me that there is a pretty significant divide here on what a BOR is supposed to be like. There are some people who think that a BOR focuses on scout skills, giving the scout the opportunity to "show his stuff" or to prove that he really satisfied the requirements. There are others who think that it is a different kind of conversation, and is primarily designed to look at the broader issues of the scout's participation in scouting and his commitment to its ideals. I suppose it could be both, but I think running the boy through a bunch of scout skills (especially if they are skills that were required for a prior rank) detracts from the atmosphere that is conducive to a more general, friendly conversation.

"First let me say that this is not directed AT Hunt, I seem to be in opposition to her views in other threads as well, it is directed at the condition she brings to light." I don't know why you think I'm female...I'm not. It's my experience that in many troops the committee members tend to know the boys and the program pretty well. Most of them are parents, and many of them are active with the troop. Since the BOR is not supposed to be a test in the first place, I think it can be an advantage to know the boy, because then you know what to talk about. I suppose it would be nice to have people on the committee who were knowledgeable about Scouting and scout skills, but who weren't heavily involved in the program--they could be a good quality check on the program. But for my son's troop, and I suspect many others, this is simply not the reality. We're more likely to have the problem of committee members who don't have much experience with Scouting, and don't really know what to ask about, until they get some experience and training. "I guess I'd like to be known as an adult that expects 100%. Who wants to be known as easy? "Ah, give it to Mr. Jekyll to sign off on, he's easy." I think you cheat a kid when you do that. It gives me no pleasure to refuse a Scout promotion but even less to pass a boy and have him think the whole program is a bunch of male bovine soil. They come to be challenged. Nothing in the world is better than the "achievement smile". That's the look you get when the whole thing comes together. That's golden!" But remember that we're not talking about signing off requirements. We're talking about the BOR, which takes place after the requirements have been signed off. I agree with you that no requirement should be signed off unless it's performed 100%, and that's what I insist on, for example, as a merit badge counselor. But I still maintain that the BOR is not supposed to be a challenge--it's supposed to be a friendly conversation. (It can be less friendly if there are significant problems to discuss, of course.) To me, the best BORs are when a boy gets praise from a group of adults he respects.

A lot of elderly men contract prostate cancer, but die of something else--in fact, if you live long enough, there is a very good chance that you will get prostate cancer, but it probably won't be what kills you.

Personally, I oppose rope-throwing, because it's contrary to what a BOR is supposed to be about. Rope-throwing is, in my opinion, a symptom of adults emphasizing that they have the power. But, if I accept OGE's idea that you can throw the rope, it seems to me that there are two likely reasons that the boy can't tie a bowline today: 1. He never learned to tie it in the first place. If this is the case, the problem is with the troop's sign-off procedure. Of course, if a boy admits that he never actually fulfilled a requirement (even though it was signed off), I personally would suggest that he go do it and come back for another BOR later. 2. He learned it, but didn't use it enough to remember it by the time the BOR came around. This problem (if it is a problem) is a problem of the troop's program. Scouts should practice skills by using them. I suppose I can see how BOR members who don't know the scouts well might focus in on details like whether a scout can tie a particular knot. If you know the boy, you are not likely to focus on something like that--either you know he's a good, deserving scout, or you know that there are more important problems to discuss.

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to ask the Scout to repeat the Scout Oath, tie a bowline or demonstrate first aid." I don't have a problem with asking the scout to repeat the Oath, but I disagree with respect to retesting skills. I would urge everyone to take a look at the resources CNYScouter linked to above--they make this very clear, and they give a good explanation of what a BOR is supposed to be like.

Another way to think of breast cancer v. prostate cancer would be to consider the number of years of life expectancy they cut off--because PC kills mostly older men, the impact in terms of life expectancy is much greater for BC. Also, prostate cancer is one of a number of diseases of old age; if one of them doesn't get you, another one will. Or to put this somewhat cynically: no treatment saves anybody's life; it just prolongs it. Eliminating prostate cancer would have only a modest effect on life prolongation.

"It was cabin camping." Well, alrighty then. I was just airing my peeve that the field uniform is not all that well adapted for the field. The new zipoffs are a step in the right direction (although you'll need a warm layer under them). I wish there was a better way for scouts really dressed for cold weather to look like scouts (aside from buying really expensive BSA outerwear. Perhaps some kind of vest...(kidding!)

"I was basically told last night that in our district, that a BOR is not allowed to "fail" a boy for any reason! What do you all make of this??" Clearly, that's not what BSA policies say, either. However, it may be that the person meant that decisions to "fail" a candidate will virtually always be overturned on appeal--probably because those "failures' are virtually always based on retesting. Or maybe they just mean that you shouldn't use the word "fail" when what you really mean is that BOR will have to continue at a later date when some issues have been cleared up. Obviously, a BOR can't pass a boy for rank if they discover that there has been some mistake in the requirements recordkeeping (i.e., we once had a BOR for a boy who had not done all the requirements for the rank yet--I think there was a mixup with the SM that was nobody's fault, really--that boy didn't exactly "fail" the BOR, but he didn't get the new rank that night, either.)

"He put his neckerchief back on and that patrol stayed in class A's all weekend long." These boys were wearing the BSA field uniform all weekend at a winter campout? If it was cold, I hope they had appropriate layers under and over the uniform, because the uniform itself is not really designed for that purpose.

We hear about this 1-year rule so often that I wonder whether at some point in the past it was a BSA rule. Personally, I love it when a boy wants to finish up a MB, even if it's really old--maybe especially when it's really old.

"When Barack Obama can look at me and not see a White man I will be able consider him as Presidential material." It seems to me that this a case of (ahem) the pot calling the kettle black. To a degree, I agree with your point with respect to politicians like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton--their core issues are civil rights and minority interests, and thus they are hard to take seriously as candidates that will represent everyone. I don't see that in Obama, at least not in terms of what he is doing and saying on the national stage. Also, although I know Obama self-identifies as black, when I look at him I see somebody who is multi-ethnic, which I think may give him an outlook that would be very helpful in a national leader. He's kind of like the Tiger Woods of politics.

"In most cases, quotin' a rule at people (and perhaps decrying their actions) really isn't helpful, eh?" I agree with the part about not decrying people, but I simply don't agree that quoting the rule isn't helpful. I have seen numerous examples on this very board of people who wanted to know and understand the rules, and others who needed to know them. As I've said repeatedly to persons who thought it was enough to quote the rule, it also helps to explain why the rule is important. "But safety wasn't worth spendin' time on. They had that wired, G2SS or no. Yeh see, Safety is the principle, G2SS is one possible mechanism to get there (and a relatively poor one at that). If they succeed at the principle, dat's enough, eh?" Well, no. While you may think their violation of BSA's blackletter safety rules was trivial (ie, playing lasertag), BSA wouldn't agree. It's one thing to impose more stringent safety rules, but to ignore non-optional safety rules reflects a lack of respect for the organization that I find unacceptable. Again, would you make the same argument if they felt they were following the "principle" of advancement but switching the required merit badges for Eagle?

Could it be that while the overall number of Scouts has dropped, that the number of Scouts who are highly active, interested, and invested in the program has increased? In other words, perhaps the boys who drop out or never join are the same boys who, in the past, would have been in scouts because there was nothing else to do, but who would never have advanced that much.

"Anyway, to reiterate, I would like to know when following rules became a charactor defect?" I would say that a level of skepticism about authority is a part of the American character. Characters who skirt the rules (or the law), but who are good at heart are common in movies and literature--think of Han Solo in Star Wars, for example. Or the Bill Murray character in Stripes. The Jack Nicholson character in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." The doctors in MASH. Or Sgt. Bilko. Ferris Bueller. Even Beetle Bailey. It's a fantasy of freedom, or of sticking it to "the Man," I guess--but I think it's a mistake to ake too much of a virtue out of it in real life.