Narraticong

I agree that it's more important to know what the boys want from camp. And as first year campers, they don't have a clue either! It's proably a good idea to have a pre-camp parents meeting early on in the process to let parents know what they can expect. If the focus of your troop is advancement, then parents and Scouts might expect a bunch of merit badges. If your focus is on outdoor adventure, then they should probably expect things along that line. In other words, the tone of expectations should probably match the tone of your uaual troop format. I had a similar experience as Twocubdad, during my first months as a Scoutmaster. As she dropped her son off to go camping with the troop for a weekend, a Mom was all made up and excited about heading off for a weekend at the Casino. That was when I first realized I was in some cases running a baby sitting service! I was mad for a little while, until I realized that just like the Mom, I was heading off for a great weekend, too! I just have a little diffrent idea of what is fun...

BadenP, I don't think I said we should give up. My idea is that if we are truly to participate in a global economy, then all must abide by the same rules, or the playing field needs to be made level, handicapped, so to speak. America has done the right thing and added pollution controls, fair wages, safety regulations to our industry by our own choice. The Chinese have chosen not to do so. If we feel strongly that the restraints we put on our industry are good and necessary, then we must expect the same from China and all producers of goods. One way to ensure this is to tax imports from non-complying countries until it becomes prudent for them to comply. Doing so wil likely have one of two effects. It will price China out of the US market, thus leaving a niche for American manufacturers to fill, or it will cause China to impose the same restraints on their industry as are on American businesses. In either case, we will pay more for those products. No way around that. As to refocusing our model, are you suggesting something other than Capitalism? It would seem our economy has always been based on and thrived on, the populace having a desire for the latest and greatest anything. Computers are certainly not a necessity of life, but the competition among manufacturers over the past 30 years has resulted in many amazing and sometimes lifesaving machines. Much of that creativity was driven by profits made selling PC's and Macs.

Please refer to the third post in this thread. The lid is now off the can off worms entirely. Twocubdad, please let me know just which "God" you refer to in your post? And just who's version of his plan are you referring to? My Christian faith is clear that there is only one God and a quick reference to the 10 Commandments reminds me that I shall worrship no other God. There is no "commonality of faith", except among those with the same closely held beliefs. I think this explains where John and I are coming from. As he and I come from the same denomination, we share the same beliefs in who God is. Thus, we can have a very meaningful shared expereince. That would certainly seem to be preferable to a more generic experience. At my Scoutmaster's training we learned how to run a "proper" Scouts Own service. It had Bible verses- all from the Old Testament. I guess someone thought this might appease folks from several backgrounds. Well, to me, no Gospel means I am denying Jesus. I find that offensive and would just as soon not participate. The fact is, my personal faith, and the proper practice it requires, is more important to me than respecting or tolerating the faith of someone else. Therefore, rather than offend you, or be offended by you, I will quietly choose not to participate in a watered down generic service whenever possible. I will much prefer to worship with those folks who have a similar faith.

Goldfox, it sounds like the Scout run BOR functions just like many adult run BORs I have seen! I wonder where they learned it from? So the problem is really with the techniques used, not the membership of the Board. Same as with adults. Kudu is right on target. Hillcourt had it right, and still does. The man was a genius and when Scouting moved away from his methods, the program became watered down. There has been much discussion here lately about Scouting needing to adapt to a changing society. I think this is a prime example of it moving in the wrong direction since 1972. Ken

Yes, John and I are in agreement on this. More specific to a particular faith is always more meaningful. I have been to many watered down generic Scout's Own services that left me feeling totally unfullfilled. Perhaps it is best at a District event to provide a slot of time during which various faiths may hold a religious service. Members of the various faiths will be responsible for organizing and running their individual service. If members of several denominations feel comfortable worshipping together, then they can work on the service together. If the given time slot does not work for a particular faith, the event committee can do their best to accomodate them. Perhaps this should be part of the pre-event planning. But each faith also needs to try to accomodate the event, also. I really don't see a need for their to be a grand "Scout's Own" get together for the entire event. By nature the really don't meet the beliefs of many faiths and in the end probably offend the beliefs of many Scouts who are devout in their beliefs. If your Council has a Religious Relations Committee (I serve as Lutheran representative to ours), contact them for help and advice. We really are nice folks who have learned a little about various faiths through working together. We can help you avoid a few pitfalls and perhaps help provide a more meaningful worship experience for your Scouts. Ken

Well, actually, Scout 2 had fathered a child by the girlfriend of Scout 1 even though he was her cousin twice removed. Two years ago in preschool Scout 1 had run over Scout 2 with a Bigwhell and Scout 2 still bears all three plastic tire tracks. The girlfriend of Scout 1 was riding on the back (illegally without a helmet) of the Bigwheel at the time. All families involved are embroiled in multi-million dollar litigation amongst themselves and all have sued Tiny Tots Daycare. I think that's all the other facts you need for now... Geez oh pete...where does this story end? When I was a Cub, FU probably stood for "Funny Underwear".

Not saying a word...just watching the worms slither out of the slowly opening can.

These are Cub Scouts. Meaning boys under 10 years old in most cases. We really don't know all the circumstances, either, do we. "Scout 1 threw Scout 2 on the floor of the school bus" is all we know. Seems like everyone assumes this was done with malice. It's been a long time since I was that age, but I seem to remember a lot of "roughhousing" (a term I do remember from my Scout days!) going on. Boys at this age are really finding their way through life. They do things they shouldn't. They hurt each other. They get into fights. Like it or not, it's all part of growing up. Today we all seem to be lawsuit happy. Every perceived offense calls for a pound of flesh, plus another third pound for the attorney. Seems like the boy was punished, though I'm not sure a punishment was necessary. Maybe an "I'm sorry" would have been enough. But the parents expect more. By golly, their son got stitches, that boy has to pay! As a Scoutmaster, more than once I've found that the innocent victim isn't really so innocent.

It's easy to target American Industry as not being "state of the art". But think back to the last Olympics in China and remember the pollution was so thick the athletes had difficulty breathing. In America, we have done the right thing for the past 40 years and have tried to curb industrial pollution. But that is not accomplished without tremendous cost. Worker safety is also greatly improved. But again, not without cost. All of these things add up. Until the far eastern countries compete with us on a level playing field, America will not be able to grow our industry. It would cost us all more money, but I would be willing to consider an import tax on all of those good brought into the USA from countries which do not have the same safety and environmental laws as we do.

Made in China for BSA is a tough pill to swallow. But I bet much of our gear has been coming from over there for years. We are just now seeing it in our uniforms. I'd rather see made in the USA, but I don't know enough about these products to suggest whether that can be done economically. As to the salaries of the executives, I know all of our Council professionals have taken a 15% pay cut. That's more than I have been asked to do at my job, so far. Corporate donations are almost extinct. FOS is way down. So, I'm not sure just where we expect BSA to come up with this money. I'm not sure what National employees have had to contibute, but I imagine they have been asked to take some sort of cut. For now, I'll keep looking in thrift shops for uniform parts. We'll keep passing down uniform parts to new Scouts. I won't blame BSA. I'll just find a way to get things done. It will get better!

It wasn't the "leadership" who suggested the boy may not have taken the test. We were a brand new troop and barely had "leadership" at the time! Troop was almost entirely Tenderfoot or less. The test took place at summer camp and was the normal BSA test for "Swimmer". It's arrival day at camp, the boys are all excited and none of them are charged with monitoring who passes and who doesn't. I don't think the boy went back to the lake the rest of the week. He's not a "high energy" type kid. The subject of whether he passed the test came into play after we were home from camp. He was part of our camp T-2-1 program, but they do not mark the swimming requirement on the sheets returned to the Scoutmaster. When we asked who passed the Swimmer test he said he had. Again, we expect he is telling the truth. But a couple boys suggested he might not have. Of course, they were also excited and involved with their own test at the same time. After much consideration, we decided to take his word. It was our first year at Summer camp, so yes there are lots of things we will do better this year. Your question of safety is a valid one. The boy passed Second Class Swimming in a pool just fine. So I am pretty comfortable he is a capable swimmer. I think he may just have not taken the test at all. I find some boys just do not like to swim in a lake. In a pool they are just fine. But retesting would have been the smarter move, in the end. By passing him on the test, I was trying to impress the importance of his word upon this boy. It was explained to the other boys why I was doing so (quietly) and they understood. I believe it made an impression on them also.

Our troop does every BOR and SM by the book. But if there is ever consideration that we should do things right, meaning youth leaders running T-2-1 BOR's, I'll be the first to sign up. As to Beavah's point about it being prudent to assume that the boys are not always trustworthy, I find that to be very sad. A Scout is Trustworthy. Not sometimes, not when it's convenient, not just when someone is looking. When a boy puts on the uniform, raises his arm and repeats the Law, I do not "assume" he is trustworthy. I (and everyone else in the troop) must EXPECT he is trustworthy. Do boys break this trust? Everyone of them does at some time. And that is the great thing about Scouting. We fail, we pay the consequence, we learn from our failing, and we start again fresh. The other boys learn to forgive. They learn the value of a man's word is all he has. That is something sorely lacking in our country today. If we tell a boy he "should" be trustworthy, but then put all kinds of checks in place to makes sure he obeys the rules, we are telling him we expect him to fail. We encourage him to find a way around the checks. If we say, "I trust you" and then go about our business as though we really do, we encourage a boy to succeeed. Those times he does fail our trust will result in a deep felt remorse. It's not an easy thing to live by the Law. But nobody ever said it would be, did they?

I agree on Scouts signing off on T-2-1 requirements. Other than Scoutmaster Conference and Board of Review, I really don't want adults signing off on anything for T-2-1. Boy Leadership. That being said, we had to have adults sign off for the first year our troop existed, because we had no higher ranking Scouts. Now, that responsibility goes to the PL's and other Scout leadership. I'm also on board with the concept of Scouts making up the BOR for T-2-1. Train them, give them the tools, then give them the responsibility. As to adults signing for their own sons, why not? If we have entrusted an adult with a position on our committee or as an ASM or SM, should we not trust that person to do things the right way? As I see it, there are only 12 rules we need to obey to run our troop. If an adult leader (or youth leader) is Trustworthy, there will be no favoritism. If a Scout or parent perceives favoritism by a leader, it needs to be examined and dealt with. The assumption within a troop absolutely MUST be that every member is Trustworthy. By making rules to guard against potential improprieties, we are then just asking for them to happen. As SM, if I say something is so, then it must be. If a Scout tells me something is so, then it must be. If either one of us is not telling the truth, it will come out in the end. We had a boy say he passed his swimmer test at summer camp last year. No record was provided by the camp. Several other Scouts said they don't think he really did. But I took his word for it. And he therefore earned First Class. Did he or didn't he? I'm not totally sure. But I do know that he is going to camp again this year and will have to take another swim test. If he passes, fine. If not, he will have a very embarassing question to answer during his next Scoutmaster Conference.

Interesting that Mr. Obama wants to tell the automakers what vehicles they need to produce. More fuel efficient, smaller cars. In other words, he will by default tell the consumer what we will purchase and drive. But the consumer does not seem to be agreeing... When gas prices were through the roof, all those little cars were selling quickly. But now that the price of fuel has settled down a bit, the consumer has gone back to purchasing those gas guzzling SUV's and trucks! Look around at storage lots and they are filled with those cute little fuel efficient cars. Automakers have found themselves with a severe overage of them. People are buying bigger again, at least for now. You may ask what happens when gas prices go up again? My answer is that I will once again pay more per gallon, but I can probably make some extra money by pulling those little tiny buggers out of snowbanks during the winter with my big gas guzzling Dodge Ram!

The federal government needs to just stay out of our lives in general. No welfare, no block grants, no pork, no loans, no health care. There is nothing run efficiently by the federal government. State and local governements are better suited to manage public affairs. But government in general has exploded to really become "Big Brother". None of the welfare programs ever instituted have ever led to anything but more welfare and a sense of entitlement. The auto companies begged the feds for help. The answer should have been no. But since they agreed, of course they get a say. But they also now bear responsibility. I'm afraid the only way out of this mess is a complete collapse (bankruptcy) of our federal governement and then the realization that we need to go back 250 years and simplify.

Lots of good ideas. I will pass them along to our newly functioning PLC! A couple of folks mentioned parents not understanding the "organized choas" of a boy run troop. We had four W2's and Dads visit last night. They are visiting eight troops in the district. The boys had a good time, but I don't know if we will meet what many parents envision as a "good" troop. Our boys choose to wear Class B uniforms for most meetings- they go outside and are active and get dirty. We don't have much fancy ceremony with saluting and "ATTENTION!" being shouted. What our visitors saw last night was a 12 year old 1st Class PL leading a class on backpacking, with gear and chalboard diagrams. They saw four youth leaders being presented their "Trained" patch. When one of the Webelos didn't want to go outside for a game, they witnessed a 14 year old Scout lag behind the rest of his buddies to encourage the younger boy to come along. They saw the boys go outside to play without direct adult supervision, and then saw them return back to the meeting at exactly the directed time. In other words, they saw a young, developing, boy led troop. We focus more on fun and adventure than on spit and polish (though those have a time). But I think a lot of parents don't "get" the importance of boy leadership until they give it a chance. We actually have had great success with boys transferring into our troop from other units. We have a couple of older boys who just were not doing well in their original units, but have really blossomed in our troop. I think we are gaining a reputation for this. While not actually recruiting from other troops, I guess it is another alternative for gaining boys. Our soon to be first Eagle Scout is a transfer. Next week we have our first SPL election, and the winner will likely also be a transfer.

I'm one of those guys who believes the methods outlined in any handbook written by Greenbar Bill are the right way to go. Adult run, Troop Scouting, is just not as effective as boy run, Patrol Method Scouting. There is just not a valid argument in favor of the former. Our troop has used the Patrol Method since day one with six boys. In the beginning the adults had to take more of a leadership role because the boys didn't know anything. Two years later with 17 boys, we have two solid Patrols and will elect our first SPL. Adults now more often take a back seat. And the boys are prospering and taking ownership of the troop! We camp and use knives, axes, and saws, oh my! We don't ever play soccer! We say the Pledge of Allegiance at every meeting and say Grace at meals. I recently received a Handbook from the 1930's as a gift (35 years before I was in Scouting). It has tales of knights, pioneers, cowboys, and all sorts of adventure. Compare that to our curent handbook and it's no wonder kids think Scouts is "gay" or for "losers". I want the boys in my troop to experience the same things I did as a Scout. Not so I can relive my youth. But so they can experience the fun and adventure of Scouting as it was meant to be. Yes, society has changed drastically in the past 40 years. But there are many of us who believe a lot of those changes were not improvements. There are many of us who refuse to compromise our beliefs just because much of society has chosen to compromise theirs. This is by no means "living in the past". As an example, I believe cell phones, Ipods, Game Boys, etc. can have a place in the enjoyment of the outdoors. But everything in it's time and place. If you want to say "Tap-Out", who cares. Your actions will define the words in the end.

Just to pick a little more... My 12 year old son has studied Martial Arts for six years. He especially likes training with weapons. He is an expert in the art of Bojutsu. Guess what that is? A hardwood stick approximately six feet in length and 1.5 inches thick. Sound at all familiar? Put a hiking stick in his hand and he can take out three attackers before they can nock an arrow! On the other hand, to him a bow and arrow are no more than sporting tools. It's all in perception.

Hand carved bows and arrows would no more be a weapon than the pocket knives used to carve them. An object only becomes a weapon when we use it as such. I think most boys (and apparently a few girls) of a certain age probably made similar bow and arrows. And like the one Judy fondly remembers, few of them probably worked well enough to be considered a weapon! Boys crave adventure, just look at the video games they play. Carving bow and arrows might just provide a little bit of fantasy adventure for Webelos age boys. Take the opportunity to work on carving skills. Maybe learn how to make a bow string (it's pretty simple). Teach responsibility and good judgment with a lesson on only shooting them at targets. I see lots of potential with this idea. Some may make a case for the shooting sports rule. But I doubt these home made bows would really meet the criteria. Neckerchief slides and hiking sticks are nice, safe, uncontroversial ideas. But s steady diet of that sort of thing will surely chase your boys away. A great read is "The Dangerous Book for Boys". I think I have the title right. I recently received a BSA Handbook from the 1930's as a gift from a dear friend. It is chock full of adventure tales. Stories of knights and frontier adventurers run throughout. Scouting was clearly sold during its pinnacle years as a source of adventure for boys. Sadly today, BSA is selling soccer.

Knowing full well how to conjugate the word "mitigate", I prefer to "antagonate". Particularly those who feel a need to define everything for others!

Last year at a Council event, our Taurus tents made it through wind and rain strong enough for the local authorities to sound sirens and advise taking cover. While we watched tents in other troop sites fall down and blow away, ours stood firm. A couple leaked a little bit, mostly due to younger Scouts not setting them up just right. But all in all, they did better than any other tent I saw weather that storm. They will do the job for you.

mitigator- one who mitigates. Tending more toward antagonation, I am still not a mitigator.

I will admit to being both a conservative and a Lutheran. But, to the best of my knowledge, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a mitigator!

I love the idea of a "North Face Count". To go along with that, keep an eye on the Range Rovers you see in parking lots. Almost everyone seen climbing into their Range Rover will be wearing North Face fleece! That might deserve double points. Anyone ever see a Range Rover that had muddy wheel wells?

Interesting theme running through this thread. Many folks seem to believe that a particular name equates to quality. As an example, The North Face did once upon a time represent quality outdoors gear. But some time ago they were bought out by a larger entity. Today, hardcore backbackers often consider The North Face gear to be overpriced yuppy stuff. My $5 closeout fleece functions as well as those $150 fleeces. Alps has lower overhead. No brick and mortar stores. Family run. It's my opinion that there gear is of better quality than anything else at their pricepoint.