Stosh

"MOTOR-POWERED WATERCRAFT REGULATIONS No other motorized or mechanized equipment (including pontoon boats, sailboats, sailboards) is allowed. All other lakes or portions of lakes within the BWCAW are paddle-only. Motors may not be used or be in possession on any paddle-only lake. Motor-powered watercraft are permitted only on following designated lakes: LAKES WITH A 10 HORSEPOWER LIMIT On these lakes, the possession of one additional motor no greater than 6 horsepower is permitted, as long as motors in use do not exceed 10 horsepower. Clearwater North Fowl South Fowl Seagull (no motors generally west of Three Mile Island) Sections of Island River within the BWCAW. LAKES WITH A 25 HORSEPOWER LIMIT On these lakes or portions of these lakes, the possession of one additional motor no greater than 10 horsepower is permitted, as long as motors in use do not exceed 25 horsepower. Basswood (except that portion north of Jackfish Bay and Washington Island) Saganaga (except that portion west of American Point). Fall Newton Moose Newfound Sucker Snowbank East Bearskin South Farm Trout LAKES WITH NO HORSEPOWER LIMITS Little Vermilion Loon Lac La Croix (not beyond the south end of Snow Bay in the U.S.A.) Loon River. " http://www.bwcaw.org/rules.html Until the website changes, I would suggest sticking with the official comments from the people themselves. Stosh

" 10 says that the President can modify rules or customs at a whim. So if the DOD wants to wear their flag backwards, they can because the Prez. okayed it. " And so it proves that for the military they do not have to adhere to the recommendations of the civilian Code. I can't imagine how one could explain it any better. Thanks for the quote. Stosh

And of course the current "Code" has been modified many, many, many times since its introduction in 1924. In inclement weather, a man does not take his hat off and hold it in his hand that is place on his heart, it is only lifted up hand held "hovering" over his head while off, but still offering protection from the weather. Originally men used to stand at attention and only women placed their hand over their heart. So there is no tradition, not even in the Code itself. Military in uniform do not say the pledge, they merely stand at attention. Yes the Code does reference this "exceptions" as exceptions done by the military that differ from the "Code" that is acceptable to civilians. The Code does not set the standard for the military, it only references places where it is different than the standards for the civilians so when they see them civilians will understand. That does not mean the military adhere's to the civilian flag code of etiquette. At one time there was a great debate on putting the replica of the flag on a postage stamp and how it would be desecrated by the postal stamp. Obviously the flag is no longer revered today as it once was in the past. And the Code still does not "allow" for patch and pin replicas of the flag so it's rather irrelevant where they are "worn". One can sew it on a back pants pocket or they can sew it on their sleeve. It makes no difference. Stosh

In our troop, boys earn the POR's whether they wear the patch or not. If I have a boy that busts his butt doing QM work for 6 months while his buddy with the patch slacks off for 6 months, the boy that does the work gets the credit. Leadership is demonstrated activity, not something worn on a sleeve. Stosh

One has to remember that tradition and Code are often two different animals and what people do is still another. If one were to go back to the original intent of the flag they would realize that much of the code is of no consequence and people can do anything they wish. With that being said. The army has it's way of doing things, other branches their way, and civilians from every walk of life have all sorts of different ways they do things too. The Code is nothing more than a codified meaningless piece of legislature that people sometimes use to appease their own ways of doing things and offers them some sort of feeling that they are somehow "doing it right". If the flag is to fly free as a symbol of "free"-dom, the Code originally stated that the flag or it's representation should be flown, not worn. So this whole discussion of flag patches is a moot point when it comes to flag etiquette. If one knows the history and the Code, one can find examples daily of how people have no idea that there is any sort of tradition when it comes to our flag. To pretend there is a standard, is pretty much a waste of time. And yes, even the Code states that the US Navy, when asea, during worship services, has the religious flag FLYING above the U.S. Flag. So, yes, the military does it differently. And it's only long forgotten tradition that perpetuates the many myths of the US flag. The Stars and Stripes refers only to the historical flag that had 15 stars and 15 stripes. Old Glory never had 50 stars. And the Betsy Ross flag did not have a circle of stars in the union. But like all great urban legends and myths, they die hard. The only thing that rings true over the years is that historically, the flag carried far more significance than it does today. Stosh

The US Flag Code was set up for civilians to understand what is acceptable practice to show appropriate respect for the flag. The army does not adhere, nor ever has adhered to the US Flag Code. As a civilian, I wouldn't consider the army as an appropriate substitute for US Flag Code. Stosh

One does not need heat to dehydrate food, all they need to do is remove the moisture. Paper furnace filters, a box fan and a couple of bungy cords and one has a majorly cheap food dehydrator. Been using it for years and works just fine. Just need a little more time, but the food is not cooked, it's dehydrated. Stosh

In the 70's they used to spit on military personnel in uniform. Not cool to look military. Now it's come full circle and it's cool to have a military uniform. Until the public makes up it's mind, someone's going to make a mint selling uniforms. Why shouldn't BSA cash in on the fickleness of the public? Stosh

Depending on one's dictionary they are using bullying can fit into many categories/definitions from intimidate, persecute, mistreat, browbeat, harrass, cruelty, overbearing, threaten to hurt, frighten, quarrelsome, badge, domineer, or tyrannize someone forcing them to do something they don't want to do or forcing them to do something you want them to do. So, to what degree is acceptable in the BSA program for directive leadership? How many SM's have ever used the phrase: "Or else..."? The reason there's bullying in the BSA program is because how it's set up to function. A certain degree is acceptable and somehow the boys have to figure out where the arbitrary line is that they can't step over. Stosh

When one thinks in myopic linear terms, it is often very difficult to come up with good field cooking. In a microwave world, it is so easy to think in terms of boil water and rehydrate supper when backpacking. Ever think in terms of how much weight could I carry if I didn't take a tent? If I didn't take the back pack stove would I starve? If I only heated rather than cooked, could I use solar instead of fuel? "It's so hot out today that a body can fry an egg on the sidewalk!" Well, people, it's true. Once one gets to think in multiple terms rather than just, "What's for dinner?" some creative things can happen. Stosh

One has to overcome a lot of societally acceptable behavior to train up leaders in today's world. But the trick is training them properly and if one uses certain tactics, the only recourse, even for the trained boy is to bully. We often don't realize that as we instruct the bully in the skills of better management, behavioral modification, task completion, goal setting can all be abused and distorted until one goes from an untrained bully to a well trained tyrant. I'm thinking this may not be a good thing. To think a true tyrant can't learn to better cover his actions with acceptable language and manipulation methods really doesn't teach leadership as BSA would like to see it accomplished. Does Eddie Haskill bring any examples to mind? Some of the most effective bullies I have met tend to be exceptionally charming when there's a need to be. Can a group bully itself? Yep, they do it all the time and it can happen in a boy-led program. It's called peer pressure and this as well can be both positive and negative. Initiation rites is a classic example of how groups can bully themselves. To think this can't happen in a scout group only emphasizes the magnitude of some SM's inability to see the obvious. Stosh

It might be better if one didn't pick a bullying mom for an example. Child: Why do I have to do this? Parent: Because everyone in the family has their part to do to make it a family. This is your part, and I have mine and Mommy has hers, etc. And just because adults teach kids to be bullies doesn't make it anymore acceptable. We reap what we sow. Stosh

Good question, but it's going to lead to some strange answers. I think there is an ideal troop and it is different in each troop. What works for me won't work elsewhere and vise versa. Big troops can't operate the same way as little ones and vise versa. So yes, there is/are many ideal troops out there doing it right, given the conditions in which they work and with the personalities of the adults and youth. Those that have problems can be an ideal troop because it offers the boys the challenge of fixing it. Those that don't have problems could be an ideal troop too. I think the first thing one has to do is define "ideal troop". That will mean different things to different people. After all, if it wasn't for the boys getting in the way, I'd have an ideal troop too! :^) Stosh

You have it right ITS ME. When someone is given a directive to accomplish a task from the "higher ups" the only recourse many have is to simply bully. When the SM dictates to the SPL, who dictates to the PLC, who dictates to the PL, who dictates to his members, bullying is going to happen somewhere along the way. The BSA org chart mandates a certain amount of at least, mild bullying just to operate. When did a CM ever dictate anything to a DL? The cub model of organization works, the boy model does not. Stosh

Gotta stay with the thread. 97% of the boys Eagle 97% of the youth serve in leadership roles in churches 97% of the youth serve in Student Councils, NHS, etc. as well as 4-H GSA and many other leadership opportunities as well. On the resumes it looks the same. There are more than just Eagle that measures success for the youth in different programs. While Eagle may carry universal understanding, which another poster who worked in HR says doesn't carry as much weight as it once did, there are other opportunities for leadership than scouting. Student council, NHS, etc. Yes, natural leaders rise to the top in all the youth activities, and yes, only about 3% make the top. Scouting is no different. And if only the 3% are being considered, then how prestigeous is Eagle on the resume than the National Merit Scholarship with full-ride college potential. I know of no college offering a full-ride scholarship for getting an Eagle. Even the military only bumps a person one pay level, where NMS starts one out at 2nd Lt regardless of how many nights of camping they may have attained, if any. Success/leadership is measured in many different ways. Scouting is but one. Stosh

That's not always true, I have kids in my church youth group that can put down on their resume that they have served actively on their church council. That carries weight. Maybe not as much as an Eagle scout, but then it still shows initative beyond just hanging out. Stosh

I've been gone for the weekend, so I'll add a little adendum to the discussion. Lisabob: a year and a half ago I was pretty much where you were except I didn't have a boy in the program, so that adds an additional element for you. However, I was majorly frustrated with how the troop was being run that I was an ASM for. I did some checking around and was offered a SM position in another troop that sincerely wanted to have boy-led, patrol-method and were willing to offer me carte blanche on getting them there. The former SM's son was the biggest bully of them all and was THE major reason for the troops problems and so I started there. I had a number of boys quit, but this boy stood toe-to-toe and defied the changes. I laid out a description of what boy-led, patrol-method was and said it would happen in a servant leadership emphasis. I said the boys could do anything they wanted that resembled a scout program as long as they did so from a servant position. There would be no bosses in the troop. The PL's were given one "class" in how to run their patrols, "Make your boys look good, whatever it takes, because when they look good, you look good." I said I would do everything in my power to do it for the PL's as well. It took about 6 months of rough road and some "heated" discussions with the boys, but I have my "worst" scout as my strongest ally. His whole focus now is boy-led, patrol-method and has insisted that all the PL's get training both in the historical methods as well as the current methods. They are still struggling, but the bullying is non-existant and the boys are beginning to work as a team in their patrols. Now, I don't know if you'll be so lucky as to get a troop that will give you a similar opportunity, but they are out there and many are desparate to have a chance at it. It might be difficult to move to another troop with your son, but if one knows there is a chance for something good down the road, it might be an option for both of you. If it means doing some extra traveling, it might be worth it, I travel 15+ miles each way to lead the troop I have and the gas is pricy, but its part of my contribution to the program and don't regret one penny. Having your boy take on a Venturing Crew may or may not be the answer because they vary as much as Troops do. Whereas I use boy-led, patrol-method for my Troop, I run my Crew as a "dictator" and make all the decisions. Yet at the same time, I continually develop leaders in a totally different environment. The vision, goals and expectations of the two programs are quite different and this is what the boys want. The church youth group I chaperone is totally run with some scouting overtones, but altogether different. A good leader is a servant to those he/she are called to serve. If they don't serve, then they are of little or no value to them. If it was my place to offer a suggestion it would be: talk to your boy and find out what he wants. What's his vision, goal and expectations for whatever program he decides to pursue. Then either find or create that program. There are a ton of other boys out there looking for exactly what your boy wants. Talk to them, get to know them and then start working for them. I work as an administrative assistant for a general manager of a very large corporation. Whenever I am asked what my job is, the answer is simple, I make my boss look good, because when he looks good, I look good. Once the boys figure this out some very good things begin to happen and they begin to realize how effective that process is. Bullying just doesn't build leaders, it builds tyrants and the last thing a young adult will do is follow a tyrant unless he is forced to. It's time to create an environment of everyone looking out for the other guys and when that happens, they all begin to take on some good leadership skills. My 2 cents worth and I do offer change with that. Stosh

I just can't seem to figure out why anyone would think it a bad thing that a man of unusual ancestral background, amidst racial overtones, as he arises from the turmoil of an economic crisis, with oratorical eloquence and personal charisma, under the banner of national socialism, consolidating all governmental powers with the help of extensive media support be a threat to anyone. Stosh

As I have mentioned in other posts, I have had just about all the training available in scouting and yet this year's U of Scouting is the first time in maybe 10 years I have been asked to teach. I attribute it to desparation because the course schedule was rather weak. I taught one class and sat around taking repeat course for the other 5 sessions. I use to teach Webelos outdoor many years for the council and have taught SM Fundamentals multiple years as well. I teach an open class for anyone wanting DC training for the council boys. MB's? Yep, do my share of them as well. If training is going to be mandatory, they had better start turning over some stones and digging up some of the better teachers out there. In their zeal for the passing of the guard (WB21C) they have pretty much blown off an entire cadre of scout wisdom available to them. It works both ways and it would seem the councils haven't yet figured that out. Stosh

I asked about WB21C and thought maybe I would go through the training part to get a feel for the new program and was told it wouldn't count unless I did the ticket too. Does that mean I have to turn in my beads if I decide to take the program? If not, can I wear my WB necker when I train instead of the one for the newbies? It's kinda tough to have put in 20 years with BSA trained in Cub Basics, Webelos Outdoor, SM Fundamentals, Crew Advisor Basics, WB, University of Scouting BS, MS and working on PhD, current with Safe Swim, Youth Protection, and they consider me not trained. Kinda is embarrassing to sit through classes that one once taught. So in fact we have the caste system of the Trained Elite, the Not-so, But Kinda Trained and the Untrained Untouchables. I guess I'm a little more worried about BSA losing good leaders rather than units with untrained leaders. They could end up doing a pretty good self-inflicted wound along the way with such attitudes. Don'tcha just love this scout politics stuff? Stosh Stosh

But the real question is: are we making history or repeating it? Stosh

Wisconsin has a ton of rivers and many of them are easily accessible for boys' outings. May I recommend the Brule and the Flambeau. Both excellent to give the holder boys a challenge and the younger boys a thrill. Also there's the sea kayaking out of northern WI in the Apostle's Island area or over in Door County. You're close enough for BWCA as well. Just ask around, everyone in the area has a favorite, mine's a tossup between Brule and Flambeau. Stosh

Naw, I got everyone beat at creepy. I generally wear an Australian drover's coat (black) with the expedition hat (dark green) and at night I rarely carry a flashlight, going with natural lighting instead. Well, in order to keep the kids from flashing their lights in my eyes I generally step off the trail when I meet them and wait for them to pass. If they happen to catch a glance a me standing there, I can assure you no Girl Scout can ever beat out the screams these boys can put out. Stosh

As long as it's a no harm situation, then it shouldn't make any difference if the scout won't stand up, won't salute, won't take his hat off, won't tuck his shirt in or buttoned up, or anything else that someone might think is respectful as long as the scout doesn't do any of these things with disrespect. Yep, I can live with that. After all personal liberties are at stake here. And as far as that is concerned, why teach flag as a requirement? Surely as long as no disrespect is intended, one can wad the flag up and stuff it in a brown paper sack and break less Flag Code recommendations than if he wouldn't take his hat off. Gotta love this thread, it has so many twists and deviations that one could go on for years and never come to any resemblance of consensus...and everyone would be correct. Stosh

As others have pointed out, each person makes up their mind as to what is respectful and does it their own way. "Full-uniform" is whatever the troop wants it to be. Saluting is whatever trips your trigger, and the flag code is of no consequence, so what difference does it make? So whether it says, those in uniform, indoors stand mute at attention during the Pledge, no one does it anyway, so no big deal. Wear whatever hat the SM wishes because only his opinion counts in the long run. End of discussion. :^) Stosh