Stosh

Maybe the councils/national ought to pull their heads out of their butts long enough to consider an annual, one-two hour, refresher course that gets everyone up-to-date with the most current ideas coming down the road rather than dumping the whole truckload on everyone and treating them like they don't know anything. I can visualize this now. All the new up-start scout leaders with the latest and greatest book learnin' are going to teach the 30 year veterans how to run a scout program? Am I the only one that sees "stupid" written all over it? I have often wondered why no one ever did a refresher course, there are a lot of organizations, even volunteer ones that require so many hours of continuing education to maintain their certification. This one-two hour program could be offered annual at University of Scouting, at Roundtables, special evenings, etc. and gives everyone a heads up on all the new developments in scouting. I hold training patch and training knots for Cubbing, Webelos, Scouting and Venturing. There's no way I'm starting over. You can have the trained patch, but does that mean the beads and knots go too? It'll never happen and if it does, I will find more worthwhile ways to waste my time. Stosh

Hospitals and businesses that have training facilities have large rent-free rooms. If your council camp is located in your district, that offers facilities. Stosh

Better yet, teach the boys that there are no half-way zippers. Either it is all the way zipped open or all the way zipped shut. Anywhere else, one is begging for zipper repairs. With that rule, I have seen tents last 12 years and still going strong. The only tents that have had zipper problems are on the tents where the boy does not fully open/close the zippers while trying to crawl in. The plastic zippers are not expected to last that kind of stress. No one would expect a zipper to last if every time they opened it they did so by grabbing the material and pulling the zipper apart. Well, crawling into a half opened tent door is doing just that. Stosh

As a former EMT-A I do not carry any OTC medications for any of my boys. I carry my own prescription drugs and that's it. When I took over SM of my current troop I went through their troop first aid kit and threw out all medications. The committee was upset but when I showed them that all the meds were at least 4 years beyond their expiration date, the discussion faded away. I may know what fresh drugs may do, but I don't have the foggiest idea what expired drugs do. Stosh

Having been in these kinds of situations, I know what to expect, but one must also realize that with two deep leadership of BSA policy, nowhere does it say one of them has to be a first responder or medically trained. On any given weekend of all the units in the woods, how many have medically trained personnel on the trip? And how many of the participants of these trips carry Epi's? Hopefully the boy/scouter can get to his meds in time, if not...?????? So goes the dilemna! Stosh

Why would anyone with an Epi pen tell anyone else in the group that they carry one in case they get stung by a bee? Surely this information is totally irrelevent because these other people can't do anything about it anyway! I guess it's just their way of saying if they get stung and can't get to their Epi pen in time, they're going to die right in front of your eyes and there's nothing you can do about, so don't worry. Yep, makes sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if one waits until the person is "dead" before administering the Epi, there's no circulation to send the med's to the swollen areas so it's too late at that point anyway. Stosh

G2SS states: "Units are not authorized, under any circumstances, to use a cannon or any other large-bore artillery device." This of course doesn't mean individuals within a supporting organization can't use a cannon. The ironic part of this whole thing is the lack of understanding on the part of national to make a rule such as this. Any individual manning a large-bore artillery device in the CW hobby MUST be nationally certified by an accepted school of artillery in an appropriate artillery unit. Without full certification the whole battery is not allowed on the field at most events. Out of all the branches of reenacting it is by far the safest place in the hobby. Mounted scouts with a handgun and 3' sword need no certification of any kind to participate, nor does an infantryman with an 18" bayonet. Even without gunpowder the blades are a huge safety factor! Having checked with my Council who in turn checked with National there is nothing forbidding a certified artillery Civil War unit from having crew members as participants in it's battery contingent. I can only speak from a CW hobby perpective. If this is the waiver you are referring to it is very easy to obtain if proper certification and training is provided. The only problem with crew members is that no one under 16 can obtain certification so these members have to take on other duties other than manning the gun until they are old enough to get nationally certified. I have a crew that encompasses both infantry and artillery (cavalry is far to dangerous for me to consider!), and I know my artillery boys are the safest on the field, both in terms of being dangerous to others and being in a dangerous situation themselves. Stosh

This past weekend I had a similar situation. A Webelos cross-over on his first Camporee... showed up all packed, in full uniform, and yet in tears because Mom or Dad couldn't go along. I visited with the boy and I gave the boy 10 minutes to make his choice because we would be leaving at that point. I then went to his PL, explained the situation and suggested that he consider taking the boy as his buddy for the weekend. He did that, the boy accepted with the assurance that the parents would stop by on Saturday to see if he still felt the same way. We had a major storm roll through, it rained and blew heavily, the temps dropped down into the low 30's and I was seriously worried about hyperthermia in the whole troop. In the morning they all got up and began drying things out. At noon Mom showed up but the boy wanted to stay. Saturday night the sky cleared and the temps dropped into the upper 20's with a major frost. When we got home, and his Mom came to pick him up, he wouldn't stop talking about all the fun he had had. 16 boys attended the event, 4 were not Webelos cross-overs. I put my tent up away from the boys as Kudu suggested and split out the patrols as far as the space allowed and everything went just fine. I have found over the years the more adults "oooh" and "aaaah" and "poor Billy" the situation the more the kids get worked up. Leave them alone, and let your PL's do their job. Just make sure the adults camp together and not with their kids! Stosh

On the other hand a non-trained person is not held to the same level of competence as a paramedic or EMT. Every state has a Good Samaritan Law to protect those who would follow a legal definition of what a reasonable person would do in that situation. If an Epi was in the pocket, as a former EMT-A, no longer certified, no longer at that level, I could quickly figure out a way to assist even an unconscious person to administer their Epi. And while the average person can take comfort in knowing that only very few people die each year from bee stings, the one case in front of you as you look on, pushes that statistic right out the window. Somehow I wonder in a situation like that if one would be sued for doing too much or not enough? I guess if I'm going down for the count, I'd rather be sued for trying to do something than not doing anything, at least I'd sit in prison with a clear conscience. Stosh

- Firing a weapon (albeit blanks, it still puts out 20'-30' of flame) in an area that is not designated as a firing range. - Supervised by someone other than range master. - Firing a weapon while someone else stands in front of them, and with someone also firing inches to the left and right of them. - Aiming in the general direction of another person. (elevated aim 1-2' over the heads of the "enemy") - Handling blackpowder directly. Along with carrying 2600 grains of blackpowder wrapped up in paper. We have added many requirements on the Crew that do emphasize practices that are far more strict than those of the hobby, but do not interfere in the reenactment processes, i.e. each boy has to be able to demonstrate proficiency renewal every year regardless of experience, carry hunter safety certification, and will be ejected from an activity with the slightest of miss-step along the way. BSA is aware of these issues, as are the parents of all the crew members, as well as the boys themselves. These rules apply only to the safety of boys doing an infantry impression. Those dealing with cavalry have the added risk of carrying a 3' saber and handgun (blackpowder) as well, and artillery which handles 1/4#-1/2# of blackpowder with every discharge of the weapon. These issues apply to Civil War era reenacting only. Stosh

As far as group dynamics I don't see the difference between patrol autonomy and cliques. Camping apart from one another, competing against each other, developing it's own patrol "personality" is all part of scouting. Just ask a WB graduate what patrol they're from and why it's better than all the rest. The PLC consists of only one person from each patrol that meets to coordinate inter-patrol activities. It functions as a clearinghouse of ideas and cooperation between leaders only. If patrol A wants to do something different than patrol B, fine, if A wants to invite B along, fine, if not, fine. If it's boy led, let the boys lead. If the esprit-de-corps of the one patrol makes one wonder if it's a clique, it probably is and it's not a bad thing. Stosh

Pack212, I have a military reenactment Crew and there is no way we can operate under the accepted regulations of National BSA. National has exempted us so as to conform to the accepted safety and procedures of the hobby and not BSA. As president and commanding officer of the Crew's CO, I don't really have much option. I am training boys to handle leadership in the hobby, not the crew. We are very successful with what we do, but we are not any glowing example of how to run a normal Venturing Crew. Stosh

I have often found that uniforms make or break the esprit de corps of the unit. In my Venturing Crew, uniforms are not optional. The wear them, wear them correctly and wear them completely, or don't bother showing up. This approach is totally inappropriate in the Scouting program, but as a totally adult directed unit, there's no room for discussion. And by the way, after 10 years, I haven't had anyone question the policy. I have charter members that have continued on in the program into adulthood, so we must be doing something right. It may be a PR gimmick, but in many respects it works quite nicely. Never said it was a bad thing. Stosh

Maybe like Bob's comments it was removed because it had nothing to do about wearing the uniform, the topic of the thread. Instead of off topic questioning the quality of adult leadership, it might be better served to actually address the topic of the thread itself. In spite of the style in which it is written, the comments themselves are all valid. Identity, logo, and such are all valid marketing ploys/gimmicks for product recognition. No entity out there is going to want that image tarnished, questioned, or portrayed in a way that would cast a negative light on the organization. Surely one of the major reasons boys don't wear their uniform is the image that has been created over the years. No one can thus argue that BSA will go to great lengths to protect that image and apply rules that pertain to maintaining that image. All this falls under the public relations departments of all businesses including BSA. It has already been established that the wearing of the uniform is not required for the individual member of the organization so any wearing of the uniform under the strict rules of the organization could easily be interpreted to show a reflection on maintenance of a positive logo/image for the organization. Also the uniform as a logo of the organization gives instant recognition as to the connection to the organization. The average person walking down the street will see a boy in a t-shirt and jeans, but they will see a Boy Scout when they see the uniform. Again instant product recognition. No one can deny the monitary benefit to the organization gained by the sale of uniform and uniform like merchandise to it's members. It has been shown over and over again, brand recognition is maintained by constant exposure in the marketplace. The organization gains no such recognition when the boys do not wear the uniform. And the last paragraph addresses not only that which is allowed by the organization, but also the flexibility allowed and often practiced by the individual parts of the organization. A large majority of units may adhere to shirt only in their practice, but it is tacitly condoned by the organization because a shirt alone is better than nothing. And of course with the uniform being optional, this whole discussion is a moot point. Maybe that's why it's easier to comment about the one making the post rather than address the issues. Stosh

The wearing of the Scout uniform can be summed up by viewing it as a Public Relations gimmick on the part of the BSA. If it makes the organization look good, wear it, if it may cause the organization embarrassment, then don't. The uniform is not a requirement for the individual, thus it is there only for the organization's benefit, i.e. sale - profitability, and image - public relations. The Scout stores offer these items for sale for the purpose of supporting the program with added income that enhances the bottomline financially and doesn't necessitate the additional burden of more fund-raising. If the group decides, one doesn't need to wear the whole uniform, just the shirt, everything else is unnecessary. Any cheap tan shirt from a discount house, of course, will also work because the uniform isn't necessary to begin with. Stosh

I say just wait until you get two more knots and then you don't have to worry about it. :^) Stosh

Gee, there ya go messin' it up. A troop can be boy led yet not patrol-method and it can be patrol-method and yet adult led. Too often there is not a distinction drawn in this area very well and unless the boys are running autonomous patrols and everyone else (including interfering other boys)keep out of the process, it's really not a truly boy-led, patrol-method program. Stosh

With the majority of units out there breaking the scouting rules on this issue on a daily basis, I'm sure it will eventually bring the whole organization to it's knees sometime within the next 100 years. Until then if a unit expects their scouts to look like scouts while doing a scout's eagle project, so be it. There's probably not one council out there that's going to ever bring this issue to light let alone fight it in a court of law. To date, how many units have had their charters pulled for doing eagle projects in scout uniforms? Please cite me an example of national ever attempting to enforce this rule to the degree it actually makes an affect on scouting activities. Stosh

"Given the right adults...."???? Doesn't sound like boy-led method to me. Too often we think boy-led works only if the boys do what the adults want them to do. For once I agree with BW. Let the boy's decide and unless it's an issue of safety, adults stay out of it. The only thing I'm interested in when these processes take place is an answer to the question: "What did you decide?" Remember, coaches don't play the game. Stosh

Gotta love the tradition, but I don't think there's anything written about taking corners off of Toten' Chit cards. When I see a boy doing something unsafe relative to the card, the card is tossed into the fire or torn up. I don't see why it's necessary to tempt fate 3 more times before someone takes it seriously. In 20+ years of scouting only one card went into the fire by my hand. The boys know the rules, respect the safety. On the other hand, I have seen PL's tear up cards and other Troop Officers as well. There's nothing wrong with having a boy retake the training when it is evident he didn't learn it well enough to be safe. Taking corners off is just another way of saying safety isn't important enough to know how to do it right first time, the second time the third time, but we will get serious the fourth time. I teach my boys there are no second chances on safety. Card's gone! Scouting may be a game, but safety isn't. And by the way, I hold that standard for all scouts, not just those in my troop. I've taken some heat over the years from SM's who play the 4 Corners Game, but until that scout retakes the course or the SM reissues him one on the sly, I know that scout is spending time thinking about the problem. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

It may be more beneficial to refer to all the comments made by an individual rather than taking bits and pieces out of context. Wearing a uniform to/from and event will not soil the uniform no matter what the activity may be. I can in fact go to a pool party wearing my uniform, change into swim wear, dry off afterwards and put my uniform back on to go home. All this and never get my uniform wet. I find very few Eagle scouts supervising, directing, inspecting, instructing etc. during the course of his project that would get his uniform all that soiled. Now if he's going to pitch in and do the work rather than lead and supervise, then maybe he ought to change clothing and then rethink his leadership style. And as far as the clothing making the man vs. his actions make the man, I hope the man coming down the street with a gun in his hand some dark night has a police uniform on or I'm in a lot of trouble. Clothing, especially a uniform gives instant recognition and assumptions about the person that would not be evident otherwise. I stand by my comments. Without a moment's pause if I needed help and there were two young men standing about, one in a Scout uniform and one not, I will always ask the Scout first. Stosh

If one looks closely at the "rule" a daughter can attend a Venturing event as long as she is accompanied by her parent/guardian. That means she wouldn't need to be registered as a scout leader "to get by". An adult Boy Scout leader means nothing at a Venturing activity if that person is under 21. If they are registered as a Venturing crew member, regardless of any other standing in the BSA program, they are a Venturing crew member at a Venturing event. In the example cited, she would need a female chaperone over 21 for her to go, but she can go because her parent is going, and not because of her dual registration. Remember it does not specify that the parent has to be the same gender as the crew member. In this grey area of Venturing, i.e. 18-21 year-olds, regardless of any other issue, the BSA adheres to the crew members as youth regardless of their legal standings. In Scouting a 14 year old cannot tent together with a 20 year-old, but in Venturing they can. Stosh

I've been known to be in error, just ask my ex-wife. However, I have learned that no matter how hard I try, I sometimes come across differently than I originally intended. When I go back and read a posting, what is said can be taken in different views depending on the reader, not the writer. Now, there are some of the forums that will always read a negative, challenging slant to the posting and will conclude differently than another who will read a positive slant. What I have learned over the past 12 years on forums is that I have no control over how people choose to read my, or anyone else's, posts. I do attempt to reference more in the third person on the forums because often times it does take the edge off a comment and I try to assure the reader as to whether my comments are facts or opinions. There are a lot of interpretations involved with different perspectives we all share and many times the clarity isn't evident on the forums. We just don't have the time to give long explanations to an idea in the same way we would in a face-to-face conversation. There will always be a percentage of those who fall into certain categories of forum members, i.e. lurkers for one. It's up to each member to decide for themselves what "personality" they are going to be. Therefore, if one thinks I'm wrong, so be it, but just remember, that same comment may spark for someone else a bit of insight that will in fact help them in their particular situation. If I am wrong, that's ok too. It's what makes me human and after 20 years in scouting, there's been plenty of those who have pointed out the errors of my ways and so if there are those on the forum who think the same, take a number and I'll get to you as soon as I can. Stosh

More often than not we as adults try to get the boys INTO their uniforms and now we have others trying to keep them out. Sorry, I have my boys wearing their uniforms as much as possible. Traveling to and even (any scout event) and traveling home. At the event they are to lead by example, that includes uniforms. Like I tell my boys, when I look around I like to see Scouts, not just boys, and it's the uniform that makes that all possible. The clothing makes the man. Stosh

A lot has to do with the relationship between the adults and the perceived goals of the troop. I am a SM who has a excellent CC (former SM of the troop). He's works with the adults (including me) and I work with the boys. We don't cross over and interfere in each other's "domain". However, BOR's are where these two "domains" come in direct contact with each other and as coordinators of both we need to be on the same page. It is not a requirement for Scout rank to have a BOR, but my new boys all have one anyway. This serves two purposes. 1) It gives all the new scouts an opportunity to experience a BOR before they "count". That means the boys go in with a more relaxed feeling, no pressure, just so they get their feet wet talking with the adults on the Board. And 2) it gives a chance for the adults to work through any problems/questions they may have conducting a BOR. The PL of the boy and I sit in on and observe the BOR at the Scout level. It's not an official BOR so there's no rules being broken. The PL and I review with the boy afterwards on how he thought it went and the CC and I review with the adults how they thought it went. A huge amount of hassles are avoided using this unorthodox system. Has it made a difference? We have all new adults this year except for the CC and one ASM parent. Feed back from the CC has been along the lines that he has felt the Scout BORs are on what used to be par with the FC and above level of scouting. The boys are relaxed, focused, and articulate. Hopefully this iniitialzation process will instill in the boys a relationship with the adults that carry through the rest of his scouting BOR's. Stosh