Oak Tree

The 5 gallon portable toilet. http://www.amazon.com/PORTABLE-TOILET-Outdoor-Camping-Recreation/dp/B0012Y29QQ I'm not taking one of those on a large group camping trip. I don't even want to read review on Amazon about how well the thing works. I do actually own some variation of this that I've used on a family camping trip, and it does make certain members of the family more comfortable with the idea of going to some back-country location. For Cub Scouts, though, the two main features we look for are some type of provided toilets, and for a convenient water source. I don't think we've ever violated a reasonable definition of 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, or 11. In addition to not always following number 9 (300 ft to toilet) and 13 (showers), I do think we may have camped somewhere that was a "pack-it-out" location (violates #3), somewhere that didn't have a shelter (#12), and somewhere without enough picnic tables (#14). I also think we've camped in places that were not disability-friendly (#8). It's a judgement thing. Some camping trips meet all of those, and other times we are a bit more adventuresome toward getting off the beaten path. Know your pack.

twoeagles, as you apparently are already pretty clear on, this is not a legitimate requirement for an Eagle project. It is clearly adding to the requirements. There is no minimum of Boy Scout labor. Now, can they force him to comply? No, they can't really force him (or you) to do anything. They can indicate that they won't sign off on his Eagle project. You can go to your District Advancement Coordinator, or your Council Advancement Coordinator, or to your unit commissioner, or COR, or IH. You can go to your DE or your SE. Your son could also switch troops. Or he could register as a Lone Scout. Or he could write in something like "The rest of the troop will mow the church lawn while the project is being carried out." All depends on how much he wants to stand on principle and how much he just wants to be done with it.

Right - that's a good reason. Sometimes on the forum I'll tend to generalize a problem and comment on various theoretical aspects of the situation. But people don't deal with theoretical problems on a day-to-day basis; they deal with actual events. For your pack, in the situation you describe, it's not a good idea to do the canoeing.

Yeah, you've got to love the mandatory shower requirement. That would rule out a majority of the places that our pack has camped. Showers are nice, and we always try to make our first camping trip every year at a place with showers, but the Cub Scouts sure don't seem to miss them when we go elsewhere. The other requirement that is commonly violated is the 300 feet to the restroom rule. Many state park sites don't meet that "requirement." When our pack camped at our rustic council camp, the council gave us a spot about a half-mile from the port-a-john, and there were certainly no showers. The idea of saying these things are mandatory just seems to get people to roll their eyes. It's not really mandatory, and you can't be sued :-)

Scoutfish, there are some very lengthy discussions of insurance on the forum. If you bring up Beavah's history of postings, you can find some pretty convincing (at least to me) descriptions of how it works. I also searched out a number of insurance policies as well as court cases to see how they worked, and if you look at my history of posts (or search for insurance in my posts) you can find various threads on it. The only items explicitly not covered, according to all of the documents I could find, were intentional and criminal acts. One court case covered homeowners insurance. The teenage kid of the owner had gone through the house when the power was out, and he and his friends lit matches to light the way, and then dropped then. Not surprisingly, one of these started a fire and burned down the house. The insurance company argued that the kids intentionally lit the matches and dropped them, so they shouldn't have to cover it. But the judge ruled that the kids did not intentionally burn down the house, and so the insurance company had to pay. Beavah also suggests that there may be exclusions on the master policy, like skydiving. Most insurance companies have some exclusions - like acts of war, or nuclear accidents, or terrorist attacks. I would guess, based on no inside information whatsoever, that the BSA's insurance company has similar things. Do you think your auto insurance company will refuse to cover you if you are intentionally exceeding the speed limit? Or if you leave the car unlocked with your keys in it? Or if you run a red light and hit someone? How about if you intentionally run a red light because you're in a hurry? I'm neither a lawyer nor an insurance agent, but the whole point of insurance is to cover you pretty much regardless of the circumstances. It seems like virtually every single car accident involves some violation of the law - driving too fast for conditions, say. At any rate, I can't see any way that declaring an event to be a non-BSA event would ever help you with insurance. If you don't think it's a good idea, don't do it. But avoid it for the reasons JoeBob lists - because you don't want the kids to get hurt. Or avoid it because you want to set a good example.

Depends a lot on the precision of the question. Every council patch? Every OA patch? Every patch ever available for a National audience? Every camporee patch from every district of every council?

Our district is doing these at the district camporee. Why not? It's going to be in April 2010. National better have it fixed by then, but if they don't, I think we're fine going with the preliminary requirements. It is really stunningly disappointing from an organizational perspective that the official information isn't out there. Can't some one person at National just jump in and fix this?!?

I think the admonition to give the SM a break is a good one. Not that it would have anything to do with the fact that I'm a SM. :-) It's good advice for people who deal with other volunteers, though, too. I try to assume that when people are doing things differently from how I would do it, they still are doing the best they can. If they are a parent who is dealing with their children differently than I would, I still assume that they have the best interest of their kids in mind. If they are just blatantly failing at their job, I don't assume that they want to fail. I try to give them all a break. Now, I may try to convince them to do things differently, or I may try to inspire them, or get them help, or figure out the most effective way to deal with them. In rare situations I may try to figure out how to remove them. But I've found that blaming people just doesn't buy me much. As the SM, sure, I know the buck stops here. Do I like for parents to give me the benefit of the doubt? Absolutely. Do I think it will always happen? Clearly not. But it's not just a purely random thing how people react to my decisions. It depends on what type of relationship I've built up with them, what communication I've given them, how they've seen me deal with their son in the past, etc. The harder I work behind the scenes, the more breaks I get. (True for both "Give him a break!" and "Since you've got this one, I'll take a break.") My thanks to everyone who volunteers.

In my opinion, it definitely looks better if the thread matches the patch.

artrjk, Why isn't that right? It's not like we're trying to get around the rules, we're just giving families some time. But more to the point, can you show me some evidence for your position "If you advertise the event thru the Pack/Troop then the whole event is a Pack/Troop event." I don't want to blatantly violate the rules, but I've never seen that one. Scoutfish - the insurance argument isn't a good one. First, based on all my advanced internet learning kindled by Beavah, I'd say you're covered by BSA insurance regardless. Secondly, even if you were right, then why would someone bother to try to get around the rules? If you're going to get sued either way, you may as well call it a BSA event and hope they'll stand behind you.

I'd say the trend goes that way, but not to the extreme that you're noticing. Demographics: Ethnic involvement: 75% White, 11% Black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Asian, Other 1%. (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/whatwe_engage.htm) That's quite close to overall U.S. demographics (census via wikipedia) Race Percentage Number White alone 75.0% 228.2 million Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, of any race 15.4% 46.9 million Black or African American alone 12.4% 37.6 million Some other race alone 4.9% 15.0 million Asian alone 4.4% 13.4 million Two or more races 2.3% 7.0 million American Indian or Alaska Native alone 0.8% 2.4 million Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone 0.14% 0.43 million As kids grow older, I do observe a trend toward more self-segregation. I think in the younger grades the parents tend to just pick a local pack, but as the kids get older, they are more likely to pick a troop where the Scout feels more comfortable. That's the way adults appear to pick the neighborhoods they live in, too, at least as a statistical observation.

It's not just a Cub Scout principle - it appears to apply fairly universally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Brent, Our council does own camps. The camporees happen there, but we rarely use them otherwise. The pack has camped there maybe once in five years. State parks generally provide a better experience. I realize they are subsidized too, but really, from the pack's point of view, it would be just fine if the council didn't own any property. I certainly don't see a good reason why Cub Scout parents should subsidize Boy Scout parents if it's Boy Scouts who use the camps most. I'd really prefer that summer camps be self-sustaining. If we want to use donations to hand out scholarships to the less well-off, then let's say so. But why collect FOS from everyone just to give everyone a discout at summer camp time? Our troop typically camps out of council for summer camp. Hopefully that camp is charging us what it costs them to run the camp for us, because they aren't getting any donations from us otherwise. One of the main reasons Scout camps are cheaper is that they don't have to pay all the volunteers that show up to help run the camp. Every group of kids brings their own adults with them. Also, we sleep in tents. A Scout store should be self-sufficient too, at least in our council. As long as the store is busy enough, the markup should cover the operating expenses of the store. I really don't know what all the money goes for. I can guess, but I don't know.

You really ought to talk to your DE. Call the council office, tell them you want to talk to someone about starting a troop, and they should be eager to help. Here's one council's overview: http://www.circle10.org/site/c.owL1KgN4LxH/b.1680773/k.7A19/What_is_the_procedure_for_starting_a_new_troop.htm

boomerscout, can you elaborate? From scouting.org (emphasis mine): While a First Class Scout, serve actively 4 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop): Boy Scout troop. Patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, senior patrol leader, Venture patrol leader, troop guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, den chief, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, bugler, junior assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, instructor, troop Webmaster, or Leave No Trace trainer.

Like IM_Kathy's pack, our pack will do the same thing. If we're camping at a state park, we might list pack activities in the morning, and say that 1:00-4:00pm (or whatever) is family time for you to do whatever you want in exploring the park. If a family chooses to rent a canoe, that's their choice. We've even done campouts that are all family time. We camp together, but you're on your own for activities.

Dry cleaning removes Badge Magic in my experience. My son had a red vest in Cub Scouts, and we attached all of his badges with Badge Magic. As he outgrew the vest, we wanted to remove all the patches and put them on a larger size. We put the red vest in a mesh bag, and had the dry cleaner run it through. It came back as a bag full of patches and a nice clean red vest. Worked great for that.

Yeah, I find that pretty hard to believe. They must be allocating all of the DE salaries to program, and not fundraising. But in practice, the DEs have to spend a pretty good portion of their time on raising money. As a Cub Scout leader, I hardly ever saw any benefit from being part of the council. It was hard to listen to the FOS presentation, when even as Cubmaster, I couldn't possibly see how the council was spending anywhere near $120 on each of my Cub Scouts. Really, the only time we came in contact with the council was at den leader training sessions, and those were run by volunteers. Now, I realize that there is real value to having a framework in place, and someone making sure that training sessions happen, and having someone to report any serious issues to. The DE did go to schools and give presentations that drove a bunch more Scouts our way. Our troop has a little more contact. We go to camporees (all planned and staffed by volunteers). I've had a few times when I've talked with our DE on topics that couldn't have been handled from National. I'd really like to see an honest breakdown of a DE's time over a year. I would guess that fundraising is the largest chunk of time, possibly followed by time spent recruiting/starting new units.

Themis, The official answer would be no, you can't retroactively tell a Scout that the time he was serving as POR didn't count. You can quite legitimately do what Lisabob's troop is doing. I realize there isn't much theoretical difference between them, but I don't think it's really fair to a Scout to have him thinking that his time is counting, only to later find out that it's not. It does seem legitimate to hold them to some standard, though.

Officially, troop guides are not a member of the patrol that they are the guide for. In practice, though, they are often treated as if they are. I would say that the most correct answer would be that they do not wear the patch, but I wouldn't see any harm if they did.

Additional permission slips are not necessary. There may be various reasons why you want one, but there is no such requirement that I've ever seen - can you point to one in any Scouting literature? Furthermore, it's not clear what the actual penalty is for not filing a tour permit. Councils can set their own rules for when they are supposed to be filed, but from all the previous discussion on the board, I've never seen any official implications of what happens if you don't file one.

Guy - I did send you a PM. I don't know if that feature is working or not. I think you're making a fair point - commenting that your own troop doesn't feel like it's doing Scouting any more. That's really a different comment from when people say that other troops aren't doing Scouting (although this case isn't quite so bad, since E-Mtns clearly doesn't agree with what his troop is doing either.) I've seen troops use the troop method, just as Kudu has. All of the quotes above about the importance of the patrol method are good. But most troop leaders are doing the best that they can, and I'd rather encourage them to do better, and not claim that what they are doing is "not Scouting". Using the troop method may not be ideal, but it's still Scouting.

Scouts can earn the motorboating merit badge at some summer camps. So jet skis seem to be more a matter of degree. I think that I'd avoid them, though. In a motorboat you always have an adult with you. It depends, as always, on how things are implemented. With enough safety margin, it might work ok. We do let Scouts shoot shotguns.

I would go with the theory that it's not a beverage and I'd bring it in a separate container. I wouldn't object to it, but I wouldn't think I'd encourage it, either. It all might depend on the adult and how it's presented. If you're doing some great gourmet meals as an example for the Scouts of how to think bigger, then that could be great.

Aaaack! It's been awhile since I've seen the claim that other troops are not doing "Scouting", and I'd humbly suggest this is a pretty harsh accusation to make. Also, the Boy Scouts of America clearly says (by the fact that they provide a charter) that the troop is, in fact, doing Scouting. They may be neglecting one of the methods. Troops do, to some extent or another, favor one method over another. Is that a reason to pick up and leave? Look at your experience with the whole program, see what your son is getting out of it, and realize that other troops aren't going to be perfect, either. Troops evolve. They may be doing a troop method now, but they might move toward more of a patrol method. It does depend on the vision of the leaders, and if you are a parent who is going to be closely associated with the program, it's very helpful if you and the Scoutmaster aren't completely at odds over the way things should work. But the idea that just because they are neglecting one method means that they'll neglect them all...that is just not the way most people work. Leaders tend to focus on the aspects of the program that they think are the most important.