Oak Tree

One other annoying feature of caravans can be when they pull over half-on and half-off the road, to wait for the second half of the group to catch up. Our troop used to caravan until a few years ago - it was just presumed that was the best way to keep people from getting lost. Switching to a non-caravan style was actually quite freeing, though. It made things so much easier. Most of the cars do have GPS's in our troop. We have had an occasional person get lost, but with maps and cell phones, they've always found their way.

DeanRx, I think we'll have to politely disagree on this one. I could just as easily say that if the BSA meant "Learn the meaning", they would say "learn the meaning." But they said "Learn the Promise." I find on these forums that people are very quick to jump on the "you can't add to the requirements" bandwagon, when in fact it has to be up to the person signing off on the requirement to interpret what the requirement means. At any rate, I agree that the parents are Akela. You as a leader do set the expectations, and you want to work with everyone to make sure that they feel things are reasonable. You want the kids to have a good time, and you also want them to get a sense of satisfaction by accomplishing something, earning awards, and being recognized for it. If you're doing that for the kids in grades 1-3, you're accomplishing plenty. One of the most essential tools for any leader to have is a good sense of judgement. That, and some great interpersonal relationship capabilities. Use those to decide what's the right action in a particular situation.

HiLo - that's interesting data on Australia. So that means the decline was particularly steep for the years from 2001-2005, and then things started growing again. Do you have any idea what might have precipitated the drop in membership? Was there any particular announcement, policy change, operating change? For a drop that steep, there has to be something driving it. Likewise, any idea on what might have changed in 2005? Was it just that everyone who wanted out was now out? Or did some improvement happen? As Merlyn points out, we can't ever really know what the cause was with certainty, but there certainly could be some pretty good clues. And, while we're at it, let me ask a couple questions about what we call "youth protection" rules. Do you have restrictions on who can tent together? Same gender only? Any particular rules for gay Scouts (I'm presuming not). Was there any particular date when girls and/or gays were admitted to membership?

It wasn't an issue for me. All my Tigers memorized it with no problem. I think you put too much credit in the BSA in terms of the precision of their choice of wording. These are just ordinary people doing their job. They may have just chosen the simplest way to say it for first graders. As for whether the other three definitions could apply, it just doesn't seem a natural use of the language. Sure, we all bend definitions and interpret to our advantage sometimes, so I could see it as a possible argument - but I'm not seeing a natural interpretation for those other example sentences of having the promise be the same general type thing as a skill or language (skiing or French) something to be ascertained (the truth) a habit/mannerism (patience)

They have a number of classes on their calendar. http://www.bsamuseum.org/news/calendar.html

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33618-29.pdf It's not exactly a requirement, but it's one of the "Quality Criteria" by which commissioners evaluate how a unit's doing.

skeptic, you might check out bsalegal.org. You say, "it [the ban on gays] has never included youth" From bsalegal.orgBoy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scoutings values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.The first few sentences seem to imply that homosexual youth would not be able to be members, but the final sentence clearly states that at a minimum they couldn't be leaders. You also say the ban on adults is on "avowed Gays". The ban isn't just on avowed gays, though. It's also on "known gays". "a known or avowed homosexual does not present a desirable role model for the youth in the Scouting program." You also say that "It would not be nearly the problem politically that it is if it had not become the PC agenda of a few "avowed" individuals, most of whom were never actually involved in the first place. " This is not apparently true for the Dale case which was the big test case. He was quite involved and it's not surprising that he was chosen to be the test case. Even if it were the fact that most of the test cases were from non-engaged individuals, how is that a good basis to make policy? Individual units would presumably select only good, engaged leaders. Why do you think the BSA would need to have a national ban?

HiLo says, "In Australia, where girls and gays are welcome members, Scout membership is growing at a very healthy rate." From the Scouts Australia web site, where they have their annual reports for the last eight years. Division20012008Percent declineJoeys (6-7.5)8447515739%Cubs (7.5-10.5)275382013527%Scouts (10.5-14.5)214481705620%Venturers (14.5-17.5)6423418535%Rovers (17.5-26)3347230431%Total Youth672034883727%Groups (units)2126166822% This does not appear to be consistent with "growing at a very healthy rate". HiLo - can you elaborate on what you meant?

Merlyn says about Scouts UK, "They had the largest increase in membership in 22 years in 2007". He and I are both quoting the same data. Membership grew by 2% in 2007, after a roughly four-year plateau and an 18-year decline. It's possible that it's just a statistical anomaly. It's also possible that everyone who was against the changes has now left, and they are now going to start growing under the new rules. Scouting world-wide is up over 28 million, it's highest ever. So despite the declines in Canada, the US, and the UK, it's doing well elsewhere. I have no idea what the policies are compared to the growth rates.

On the one hand, we've got arguments about how nothing would have to change. On the other, we've got arguments about how it would devastate the membership. Let me play devil's advocate on both sides. Lisabob - you said, in what I interpreted to be an argument that no real new rules would be needed for YP reasons, "But even so, our society expects people - gay or straight - to be able to control themselves. Otherwise, there's no reason for men to stop themselves from raping the first pretty girl they see. Hey, not the guy's fault, he couldn't help himself. Right? Wrong. (and the same holds true in the other direction)" and you added sexual behavior of any sort is unacceptable at scouting events. My question for you, and for anyone who says the rules don't need to be changed, is whether or not the same argument would apply to letting boys and girls tent together? If not, why not? How would having two gay guys in a tent be different from having a guy and a girl in a tent? Pint - you said it made no difference what so ever with regards to how the introduction of gays in the UK affected membership. The decision to accept gays was made in October 1997 (according to some semi-reliable source on the internet). In 1998, the membership was 579,451. In 2006 it was 446,350. Now granted, membership had been falling since its peak in 1989, but the admission of gays coincided with an increase in the rate of decline. (1990 was when they made the decision to admit girls). Eamonn - you say "I don't treat [girls] any different than the boys." But surely this isn't true when it comes to sleeping arrangements, is it? skeptic - "we would likely see BSA fairly quickly be decimated." If you were to take "decimate" literally, it means to reduce by 1/10th. Boy Scouts is already down more than that in the past decade, despite sticking to its positions. Does it really seem like a good idea to argue that we don't want to change because it will cause membership loss? Something is causing the loss now. Brent - you argue that gays don't respect, nor do they live by the ideals and values. Can I ask, whose values are you talking about? Where should the BSA be getting its values from? For everyone who is worried about losing members, how do you propose dealing with what Eamonn points out? That is, "Nearly all of the older Sea Scouts I have talked with seem to hold the opinion that the BSA not allowing homosexuals to be members is not right." Isn't that to eventually have an impact on membership? For those who see it as a moral issue, I get why you say BSA should hold its position. For those who see it as a practical issue of losing members, is that really a good argument? Should the BSA really do something that is perceived as unkind and intolerant, just to keep members?

Sometimes we're just arguing semantics. But I would say that an NFP is not a business, per se, by the more common definition of a business. By a wider definition, sure, you could say it is. business noun the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit. a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern. So an NFP is not a business, by definition (at least, by that definition). With a more generic definition, sure. Commercial, industrial, or professional dealings But more to the point, businesses run differently. Sure, they do some things the same, but by and large businesses very much focus on making a profit for the shareholder. NFPs focus on something different. They do focus on making enough money to sustain operations, but they have some other vision. In the BSA, the professionals appear to focus very much on membership numbers. Hence they keep LFL, rather than just spinning it off, which is most likely what a business would do. I mean, why keep it? It doesn't seem to contribute to the core vision of BSA.

As I was reading Calico's posting about how lesbians might be the only acceptable leaders, I decided it might be interesting to do a follow-on to the "what would change if girls were allowed" thread, and ask the same thing about gays. What would have to change about the program/rules if gays were allowed in? I mean to have this be an actual discussion of what program items (or youth protection rules) might have to change. But I put it in the Issues & Politics forum, because I can see it will likely wander there anyway. Ground rules: I'm not asking if you think it should happen. I'm not asking if you'd quit Scouts. You may presume that anyone (either gender) caught harassing a Scout would be dismissed from the program. You may presume that rules of normal society still apply, and you won't be forced to listen to gays describing their conquests any more than straight people describing theirs. If we allowed gay leaders, what would possibly have to change? Anything? What about gay Scouts? If we won't let male and female Venturers tent together, would we allow two gay Scouts to tent together? If we won't allow males and females to shower together, would we allow gay Scouts? (This was actually the biggest issue I remember from my discussions as a youth - guys not wanting to shower with gay guys. Seemed to get about the same reaction as asking women to shower with men.) Maybe it's not such an issue because we're mostly heading toward one-person showers anyway. So it's a given that there would no doubt be lots of politics and LDS issues and so forth - but what do you think would actually have to change about any part of the program? I'll be curious to see if we can do this politely and without wandering into lots of prejudices or stereotypes.

Guy, I suspect that if I were to watch you run a Tiger den, or you were to watch me, we would detect very little difference in how we actually behave or work with the Scouts. I would say that testing and recitation by yourself in front of a pack is way over the top. I might let a Tiger do it if he really knew it and really wanted to do it, but no way would I demand a shaky kid get up and do it by himself. It was Dean, not you, who said that making them memorize it was adding to the requirements. You did say something that I took that way, which was There is absolutely no mention in the handbook about setting a unit-imposed standard on anything. I took this to mean that setting the standard of memorization was a unit-imposed standard (i.e., adding to the requirements). You ask, "where does it say that learn = memorize?" I guess you might be asking rhetorically, but as for whether learn means memorize, I thought I was just using what appeared to me to be the plain meaning of the term. The requirement doesn't say to learn about the Promise or to learn what the Promise means or to learn of the Promise, it just says to learn and say the Promise. So where does it say that learn = memorize? Pretty much any dictionary, I'm guessing. From dictionary.com learn -verb (used with an object) to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience: to learn French; to learn to ski. to become informed of or acquainted with; ascertain: to learn the truth. to memorize: He learned the poem so he could recite it at the dinner. to gain (a habit, mannerism, etc.) by experience, exposure to example, or the like; acquire: She learned patience from her father. The only one of these definitions that appears applicable is number 3. How would you define learn? You might be right that there's some normal usage I'm just not thinking of, but any place I can think of where someone says "Learn X", where X is some specific body of words, they mean to memorize it. So I really didn't think I was stretching to create the definition - it was just my natural interpretation.

Geez, you guys are sure quick to jump on Pint. I'm glad he posted the story - it's a reasonable thing to call to the attention of the forum. Why does he have to have a point? My assumption was that his point was "Here's a story that you all may find interesting."

I've had two sons in Tigers. We did a radio station with the first. It was pretty empty - pretty much just the manager and the DJ, but he really had to talk on the radio live while he was also talking to us, and lots of cool equipment. He let us talk into the microphone, although not on the air. With the second son's den we did a local newspaper that publishes once a week. We just had the one reporter there but she did a great job showing us around the whole place, doing some sample printouts, etc. Both were great.

If you put a tent up on it, he'd sleep on a pile of hay.. I've done that. Not as far-fetched as the song might make you think...

I absolutely agree - the whole point from the kids' point of view should be to have fun. And we had fun memorizing the promise when I was a Tiger den leader. And the kids had no trouble doing it. But when parents asked me - "Does this really mean he has to learn it?" - I would say, "We can't change the requirements. What do you think 'Learn and say' means?" The same goes for other requirements in Cub Scouts - yes, for the first three ranks the parent is Akela. But they generally take their direction from the den leader and you have a lot of influence on it. I've had parents ask me if going camping meant their son really had to sleep outside, or couldn't we just sign him off based on other things he had done. I was never in a hurry to get awards for the kids. Take your time, have fun. Don't rush it. Don't burn yourself out or burn the kids out. In general I didn't change the requirements, either, just to award badges. For the Pledge of Allegiance, you're right, they don't get tested on it. But they don't get a badge that says "I have learned the Pledge", either. If they were to get a badge, I'd expect that they had actually done it. I'm not sure I get where you say this is adding to the requirement. The requirement is right there - "Learn and say". There's no rush to get the Bobcat badge. So all I'm saying is to have fun and enjoy your time with the kids. But in doing so, I personally wouldn't tell the parents to change the requirements.

"I place any Boy Scout Troop in this second category [as a group that will be looked at as qualified under the tax code whether or not they have applied for qualification.]" Again, not official tax advice, but no, that is not correct. A Boy Scout troop is not a legal group - it will take its tax-exempt status from its chartered organization. Churches are indeed automatically tax exempt due to the U.S. Constitution. Quoting the IRS, Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Ok, this is from a Webelos Scout, not his parent, but he just asked the other day and there's no active thread on Scout statements. "What is the Aquanaut badge for? Do you have to tie knots underwater?"

Well, I'm not trying to defend the current standard, nor advocate for another one right now. I'm just postulating a reason why National may have come up with the current definition. In the situation I'm imagining, let's say a Scout has been active all along. He wasn't all that interested in getting ranks until he realized his 18th birthday was approaching. Say the troop has a standard that to be active you have to attend 50% of the campouts. But this young man is on the high school football team, and has conflicts in August, September, October, November. The troop down the street doesn't have the same standard for active, so he'd be Eagle in their troop. I can imagine how the discussions could get nasty.

I think there is value in teaching the young kids that there is something to be gained by meeting a standard. They get some sense of accomplishment from actually doing it. If they see the other kids all getting rewarded for not meeting the standard, they learn that they don't actually have to try all that hard. Look, there are all kinds of times when Cub Scouts get rewarded for doing their best, and don't have to meet any real standard. And that's fine with me. But we're talking about the Cub Scout Promise. It's the one basic thing they're supposed to learn, and it's not that hard. Is there any real harm in not making them learn it? Probably not. Not any more than in not holding any Scout to any other standard.

Ok, say you were in charge of the national committee responsible for coming up with a definition of active. What would your definition be? You can use your own troop's definition if you think it would be suitable for all troops everywhere in the U.S. to use.

I am going to guess that the primary thing that National is trying to avoid are constant divisive appeals from Scouts/parents who didn't meet some particular troop's definition of active. I would just guess that this is where the rule came from originally. With different troops all defining active differently, I can see lots of complaints of unequal treatment. Or arguments about why the standard was unreasonable for their particular Scout. I'm imagining that this could get especially testy during the final six months for Eagle, when a Scout may be approaching 18 and have tons of other stuff going on, and not be all that excited about camping out with a bunch of 11 year-olds. Unless Boy Scouts did something like Sea Scouts, and defined a specific national standard, I think the unequal treatment argument has some merit.

In Balding Eagle's original post, these are not "standards", they are simply "traits of successful camps", and not meeting one doesn't mean that the camp should be closed, it just means that "something needs attention." Sounds reasonable. There are similar lists of traits of successful Scoutmasters, traits of successful troops, traits of successful den leaders, etc. We're not talking about firing everyone who doesn't meet every one of the traits, just giving a way to evaluate how things are going. And the Area News section of the NER web site is now empty.

Barring exceptional cases, my answer is yes, the Cub Scouts must memorize it. It says "learn and say", and it's not that hard to learn. Make it fun, repeat it some number of times, give them hints on how to remember it, and they can pretty much all do it. I agree the motto is "Do your best", but it's my opinion that for most kids, doing their best to memorize the promise means that they will... actually... memorize... the... promise. First grade Sunday School teachers give rewards for memorizing Bible verses, this isn't any harder.