Stosh

I would think (being a basically lazy person myself) that taking off all those diamond patches just to sew on the new tan one is kinda sewing overkill. Take the blue shirt, pack it away with all the patches in the scout's memorabilia bin and start fresh with a new tan (2 sizes too big) and wait for the Webelos patch. Once they get the AOL bar, then sew that on. Then one only has to take off the Webelos patch and replace with scout rank as he earns them. Far simpler in the long run. Like @qwazse mentions DON"T DO THE BADGE MAGIC thing. Obviously as the boy progresses, he will need to be able to take off the old badge and put the new one on. Learn to sew, it's not all that hard and if it's not on perfectly straight, it tells me 1) he's sewed it himself or 2) his mother can't sew either. I always opt for #1. Yes, I have taught scouts to sew, it's not all that hard.

I do think this is about the same time that Exploring went the way of co-ed. I spent a lot of time organizing co-ed Explorer Posts in a council. They were generally a General Interest Post (all the former Explorer post fell under this category) and Explorer Posts of interest along the lines of Hobbies and Careers. In the late 1990's they went with Learning for Life (Careers) and Venturing (Hobbies and General Interest, aka High Adventure) So in fact the BSA had it's roots in co-ed starting in the early to mid-1970's.

Explanations on up votes is just as important as down votes. If one has to give a bit of an explanation it helps the poster know whether he/she is actually contributing something of interest. It would be helpful to know what that something is.

Because volunteers for the American Red Cross are interacting with people on probably the worst day of their lives, they need to be trained and trained well. 90% of their training is on-line for those that want that route and classroom or Webex for those who can fit it into their schedule. Like YPT, there's no real need for most of the hands-on part of training. One can do all the First Aid and CPR training on-line and then devote an hour to come in a prove your practical skills part of the course. They REQUIRE training before they will put the volunteer in the field to work with clients. One doesn't just walk in, say they want to volunteer and then get on a plane headed out for a disaster somewhere in the US. I have spent from 8:00 am to 10 pm for three days straight Tuesday through Thursday in training..... TWICE in the past 12 months, That doesn't count the 97 hours of on-line training I have done sitting at home in front of the computer. Yes, I'm retired, but of the thousands of ARC volunteers, I'm in the minority. Oh, and by the way, all the training, hotel rooms and meals are paid for by the ARC. They mandate training and they don't expect the volunteers to be paying for it. Anyone know how to help a blind person through the buffet line? I do, I've had training for that. How about a lost child needing to be connected to relatives following a disaster? I've had training for that, too. How about what it takes to prepare and deliver meals out of the back of a truck to hundreds of people three times a day? I've had training for that, too. And by the way, all that training was done on-line which I took sitting in my Lazy-Boy in the evening. The reason ARC can do the occasional free seminar training for the high end training is because about 90% of the other training is being done on-line at no cost to the ARC.

It kinda negates the Charter, and as far as I can tell the political trend for gals is to get the BOY Scout Eagle, not the Scout Eagle, not the same brand, not the same thing in the minds of those getting it.

A negative ding without an explanation is like a punch in the nose by some stranger walking down the street.... maybe he didn't like what you were wearing and just disagreed. Otherwise, wipe the blood off your nose and spend the rest of the day trying to figure out what that was all about. While I have spent time with the green arrow, I use it for what I would consider an excellent point made or some thoughtful explanation on a subject. Maybe a green arrow for some well researched information that moves the discussion along. I do not use the red arrow very often and when I do it is because the discussion has gone beyond normal dialog into personal attacks. After 11 years I have dinged less than a half dozen times that I can remember. I do, however, receive red dings along the way and that is my signal to stop all conversation with that person. That has occurred only in a few instances. (when in doubt, read my signature line. It's there for a reason.) As long as the numbers increase, I will assume that my contributions to the forum are worthwhile to those indicating it with an upvote. Once that trend reverses, it will be easy to assume my comments are no longer needed on the forum and I can find other ways to fill my computer time. I can easily see the lurkers staying in the weeds if anything they might want to contribute is being judged up or down by every other member on the forum. I for one did not know there was limits on the number of clicks one can do on an arrow per day. I generally give out when someone has done well. I have used the report button only when discussions get on a personal level. I don't think it's necessary to be vindictive with the red arrows, too. I have used the green arrow on occasion when there has been a slip of the finger and someone got accidentally dinged, or someone ran out of green arrows and said so on the comments they provided. So, no, not all arrows I use indicate any sort of judgment on comments being made, only on the intent behind the comments or the research, thought or benefit to the forum. I have been a moderator on a number of different forums and everyone runs their "rules" differently. I have stayed the longest with this forum because I get a lot out of it, it has enforced rules, and I enjoy the interaction between the different scouters and scouts. If that changes, everyone is free to find other options for their time and efforts.

Not having girls in THEIR troop is not the same as not having girls in the BSA. That was not one of the options. The "ding" you gave Col. Flagg was uncalled for. Yes, the boys could have opted for no girls in THEIR troop, but then they have to alter all programs beyond THEIR troop. No girls in THEIR troop is not the same as no girls at camporees, no girls at summer camp, no girls in the Boy Scout program was not one of the options that Col. Flagg was pointed out.

My Ex was a school teacher and of course she was responsible for creating test questions and she learned an important lesson on the first test she created. Just because one creates a test question does not always mean one's answer is wrong just because it answer what YOU wanted it to be is not what they put as the answer. Be careful of what you think you know is what you are asking. 1) A zoologist is a scientist who studies ________________. Of course we all know the answer to this question is "hard".

's recommendation makes sense. As long as all the boys do the same thing (pick the easiest) no one will even know the difference.

BSA whistle, old single tone, British dual-tone scout whistle. All work just fine.

All PL's used to carry a whistle for patrol communication. Now they just scream like banshees on steroids. Have a kid get lost after dark it's like a flock of geese settling in for the night. And as a side-note, it doesn't go unnoticed by other campers within a five mile radius either.

Sure does. There are even those that speak out against using soap that destroys all skin bacteria, even the good ones. In that case, a dip in the lake is better than soap in the shower.

Welcome to the forum! I was at the Centennial Jamboree.... be prepared for long walks and lots of heat. Make sure your boys have plenty of water and good boots. If there's a band playing at any of the programs, bring along ear plugs.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=44865739&nid=148 https://www.ksl.com/?sid=44845642&nid=1419&title=family-hopes-for-best-prepares-for-worst-for-teen-after-accident-at-scout-camp And this is just one news site in Utah. What else is going on that isn't making big news?

In 1993 when I was Web DL, I finished up my boys with AOL prior to them turning 10.5 years of age, the age at which the boys could cross over. It was left up to the boys when they wanted to cross over to Scouts. Some did when they were eligible, and others waited for their buddies. It wasn't a big deal for the Scout troop in that they would take on scouts anytime of the year regardless of any prior scouting experience.

In order to retain aspect I saved my .png at 79X100.and it took it. I know for a fact that it was not 100X100.

I have another question, no opinion, just a question. If one is making a CSP for a defunct council, are they planning on wearing it or just using it as a trade item? I don't know what the official stand is on wearing a CSP. I do know one can wear historic CSP's for their council, but in this case the council doesn't exist. I wear a 1960's era historic uniform on occasion and I wear the appropriate patches for that era. That uniform sports a community strip not a CSP. The OA patch is historic and the name of the lodge was changed due to the sensitivity to the native American issue. I'm not making any insensitive political statement, but it was what was worn on that uniform at that time. It's the same lodge, just a different name. Now that isn't the same as trying to wear a CSP for a council that no longer exists and never, even when they did exist, have that CSP as a historical reproduction. I don't think anyone is going to throw a fit over this, but they might raise an eyebrow or two along the way. I don't know for sure what the official policy is, but I would assume (and we all know where that can lead) that BSA frowns on wearing CSP's that aren't in line with the council one is registered in. Just my thoughts....

Avatar works if one were to make it small enough. Go to Windows Paint. Open picture. Maintain aspect and custom size down to 100 whichever size is larger. Save. Go to profile. Change picture. Browse the file to upload. Upload. It worked for me.

I'm sure the 5th grade boys enjoy the kindergarten boys as much as the seniors in high school like hanging out with the 6th graders when they get to Boy Scouts.

Alright folks, pay attention, THAT is what a smoke shifter looks like.

Training, training, training! One of the best protections against such abuse is knowing where one stands with the program. As Chartering Organizational Representative (COR) you ARE the authority to correct problems such as these. But unless the others in the program know this, it's an uphill battle and one get's handed their head in their hand. You should have known better! Yeah, right. Now you tell me. When you registered as COR, they should have told you exactly what that entails. It's not your fault, but training could have gotten you off to a better start. We as scout units need to continually harp on training and making sure our volunteers are taken care of an protected so these things don't happen. Sorry you got stuck in this situation, but it's a good lesson to learn. Get trained, and then take the bull by the horns and make sure things like this don't happen regardless of what others may say. The only thing that trumps it all is what BSA says. As COR get good people in place, train them, and get this unit back on track if you decide to stay. Everything you do to clean up this mess is for the boys and that's all that counts at this point.

Oh, by the way, DON'T THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, just think OUTSIDE. That's were we need to start.

I agree with @qwazse on this one. I really don't think the issue is co-ed as much as it is quality of program. Girls will be turned off for the same reasons the boys are now. The lack of helicopter scouters was a big draw when it came to adventure when I was a scout. If the troop didn't have a program planned for a weekend my buddies and I had free, we dumped the uniforms and went anyway. Parental approval trumped the BSA policy anyway. If they said, "Have a good time," we did. We may not have had our uniforms on, but we did everything according to the way we were taught in Scouts. Now, all the scouters are whining about helicopter parents and in turn do the helicopter scouter troop method instead. All the parents say, go have a good time, call if you have a concern give us a call, so then the boys in the patrol dump the uniforms and go camping for the weekend. End result, the SM refuses to give them "credit" because it wasn't a scouting activity. Going camping IS A SCOUTING ACTIVITY. But the national policy works against the boys having the adventure they were promised when they signed up! Yes, I promote age based patrols and if a patrol of 16-17 year olds, who are all old enough to drive to the campground want to go camping without adults, why is BSA standing in their way? They are entrusted with a $20,000 car, but can't be trusted to behave themselves in the woods? I'm thinking they could get in more trouble driving there than once they get there. Until BSA puts real adventure back into the program, things will not get any better. Watered down skill sets and lack of opportunity are two of the biggest challenges facing the program today. Reading some of the early literature of the BSA, having boys go on a two week outing into the woods in a desolate place and having the SM show up half way through for a day to see how things were going seemed to be the norm. If we are preparing these boys to be adults, it would be nice to let them try out what they are learning by proving their adult skills before they are 18 and have to use them 24/7/365. Only in America do we have adolescence that run from 12/13 years of age until 40 in some cases. Otherwise at 18 we dump them on society, a kid one day, Happy Birthday, you're an adult the next. Where do they go to learn how to be an adult, if not BSA? No many kids pick up adulthood through osmosis as our society seems to suggest.

Welcome to the forum @Robynatk, unfortunately this is not a unique situation. Embezzlement of youth funds over the years is an ongoing process. Unless safeguards are in place to discourage the temptation, it will continue. I have participated in small claims court a few times myself and it's always a messy situation. Nothing sells newspapers than finding out about some "honest" scouter ripping off their unit. Unless the people are 100% behind the Scout Law and Oath, this will eventually happen. A lack of moral character is always a problem, yet certain systems can be set up to reduce the possibility of it happening in one's unit. Too many units assume the best in people in the BSA. It's unfortunate they don't always prove themselves to fit into that category.

As a former pastor, I can assure you no one fights dirtier than churches. They hold the best grudges and rumor monger better than anyone out there even those promoting Fake News. I attend church just about every Sunday and haven't held church membership in over 30 years. WAY TOO MUCH DRAMA, not enough ministry going on.