Oak Tree

We had the boys stay in blue until the Blue and Gold banquet of their Webelos I year, at which point they typically earned the Webelos badge. Keeping the blue uniform let them have a little while to wear their Bear badge and all the arrow points that they earned in third grade, but then we switched to the oval Webelos badge. And yes, I know it's not "official" or "required" - that's just the way we parents decided we'd do it for our den. A new boy joining in 4th grade would go straight to the tan. A boy who grew quickly might move to the tan earlier, if he was bursting the buttons on his blue uniform. But a den does look good when they all look the same.

I think there are about four options with regard to worship services. 1. Hold none. Trevorum - "Why not let families handle religion ", John-in-KC - "stick to its premise that the family is the responsible agency for faith" 2. Hold an interfaith service, more or less according to the training listed here. 3. Hold a denominational or religious specific service. John - "Heterodoxy is not good." 4. Take the Scouts to a service at a local church / religious institution. The problem with option 1 is that we typically are in camp on Sunday mornings, when the boys normally attend worship services. From scouting.org "Every troop going away for a weekend needs to plan to conduct or attend a service in keeping with the 12th point of the Scout Law." The problem with option 2 is as John describes, and if you have Scouts plan the service and tell them not to mention core elements of their religion, well, you get complaints. The problem with options 3 and 4 is that normally not all members of the troop are of the same religion. So you could do these, but then let some boys not participate - and that can generate its own complaints. I think the right answer depends on your CO and their attitude towards the issue. And if at all possible, you need to let people, both Scouts and parents, know up front what the troop does in this regard at the time that they join the troop.

Beavah - just FYI, I believe that WildernesStudent is actually a "she" - so it would be "all of her compadres are WFR certified".

GaHillBilly, I think something got mangled in your post. When I follow your link, I find that #6 is in bold 6. Never fuel a stove, heater, or lantern inside a cabin; always do this outdoors. Do not operate a stove, lantern, or charcoal grill in an unventilated structure. Provide at least two ventilation openings, one high and one low, to provide oxygen and exhaust for lethal gases. Never fuel (example: all liquid fuels, charcoal. etc.), ignite, or operate a stove, heater, or lantern in a tent. and #3 is not 3. Both gasoline and kerosene shall be kept in well-marked, approved containers (never in a glass container) and stored in a ventilated, locked box at a safe distance (a minimum of 20 feet) from buildings and tents. Keep all chemical fuel containers away from hot stoves and campfires, and store below 100 degrees (F). Your point is still valid, but I was having a hard time following your examples (when both numbers listed the same text) :-)

The advice contained in the training module seems to match what I see happen in reality. And it does seem reasonable to think about those things when planning an Interfaith worship service. The bigger problem I see, is as John describes. Some Christian denominations are not happy with this plan. The idea of asking their Scouts to regularly plan worship services that leave out all distinctly Christian elements is not always a winner. Chartering organizations are free to decide that their Scout units will not use interfaith services, but will have denominational or religion specific services. That does risk offending the non-Christian members of the troop.

Scouting Mom, I think you summed it up pretty well. That matches my interpretation. My only minor follow-on: we do use a written permission form, but that is not actually required.

Mark - Squelch, squelch, squelch. The squelch button is your friend. When applied to Bob, it acts as a pretty effective condescension filter. That said - I do remain very disappointed in some of the tone on the forum recently. Threads are being closed. Mark is leaving. Posts are being edited by staff members on a highly increased frequency. I wonder if there is any point of commonality in all of this. Hmmm. Maybe. I just can't put my finger on it.

GaHillBilly, I agree with you that it's frustrating not to get definitive answers on these topics, and I myself can't provide them. In the Cub Scout Leader Book (I'm looking at the 2005 printing) it lists six reasons why you should file a Local Tour Permit. It does not list insurance as one of those reasons. It seems to me that if a LTP actually affected insurance, this would be the perfect place to list that. I'm sticking with the theory that the permit does not affect the insurance - but I can't point to a document that specifically says that.

I find the best, most reliable source of easy projects to be local parks. They always have an almost infinite backlog of projects that they'd like to tackle, some of which require no special skills or equipment. It also ties in nicely with the outdoor method. Another easy source of projects is our church.

As near as I can tell, the Assemblies of God wanted a version of Boy Scouts that was explicitly Christian, so they created Royal Rangers. Hence, it is indeed very similar to Boy Scouts, and I can see why someone might think that things transfer over. But I don't believe that BSA recognizes them in any fashion, including giving them special transfer-in capabilities. Could you transfer rank in? Not legitimately, no. You have to earn the BSA ranks while you are a registered Boy Scout. You would be bringing in a lot of the skills, but it's still going to take around a couple of years to complete the time requirements for Eagle, at a minimum.

I've seen it done a couple of ways. One is to just let them talk amongst themselves and see if they come up with a consensus. I've seen that happen. If that doesn't happen, you can have them vote on it. A simple vote is straightforward enough. Although, if you want to try to make it more fun, you might also try some emblem single-elimination tournament, or an emblem "Survivor", where they vote them out one at a time. You could also ask them to list what characteristics they would look for in an emblem (fast, strong, tastes good, whatever) and then have them go through the emblems looking for that characteristic.

Like so many other districts, ours seems to have no idea which of its leaders are trained. There's certainly a difference between "top unit leaders" and "direct contact leaders". I don't think we'll ever have all of our assistant den leaders get trained. Around here it seems like most CMs and SMs are trained...but I don't have a good feel for those smaller, more invisible units. The people I never see may very well not be trained. Thirty percent doesn't sound unrealistic to me, especially if we're counting assistant den leaders. But I would think the records show an overly low percentage, because they are frequently not up-to-date. Becoming a trained den leader is fairly straightforward - I'd guess the percentage is higher. Becoming a trained ASM takes quite a bit more time - hence I wouldn't be surprised by a lower percentage there. Our pack tends to run over 80% trained for DLs and CMs. Our troop is probably closer to 30%. Our committees are far lower.

I've talked with Scouters on the regional level who have said that they've revoked memberships for inappropriate behavior that did not involve police reports. I find your council/district's position to be a little bit hard to believe. They are a private membership organization that can set their own standards, and they can ban threatening behavior. That said, it's not really your problem any longer. You've told the new Scoutmaster about it. He can decide what to do at the troop level. You've told the district/council about it. They can decide what to do at their level. What more do you want to do? If you're really concerned, file a police report.

And in another highlight of BSA editing (all quotes from scouting.org): Question: Can merit badge counselors coach their own sons or close relatives (for instance, a nephew)? Answer: Yes, but only if the young man is part of a group of Scouts who are all working on the same merit badge. This answer does not seem fully consistent with other places I've seen, which would not suggest this particular restriction. Also, the web site indicates that the Scoutmaster picks the counselor. Your Scoutmaster will give you the name of a person from a list of counselors. So a parent doesn't just decide they'll do some particular merit badge with their son, sit down and do the requirements, and have their son hand in the card.

That's a good question, Lisabob. We debated this some. The venture patrol would certainly be a simpler approach. I can tell you some of the reasons we've found a team is different from a venture patrol. For one simple point, the boys get to wear distinctive shoulder loops. As small as this is, it sets them apart from the younger boys, and the orange loops have been a big hit. Another advantage, in my mind, is that Varsity starts at 14, whereas the venture patrols start at 13. I know you could do the venture patrol at 14, but the book actually says 13. In our troop, that made for a more effective age differentiation. I've observed that some venture patrols that overlay the ordinary patrol structure end up not doing much. By adding a bit more distinctiveness to the group, I hope to use that as encouragement to get them to plan more activities. Seems to be working ok so far. This is a subjective thing, I know, but there are little subtle things all along that set the Varsity Scouts just a small bit apart from the rest of the Scouts. They have a few of their own awards. They have another strip on their uniform, and a "V" on their merit badge sash (after they earn the "V"). There's an adult leader with orange shoulder loops who works primarily with the Varsity team. Some points I'm not sure matter too much, but are still some potential differences: They can hold their own OA election. They can have more positions of responsibility that count towards advancement. They can, I think, make a separate submission for a Philmont lottery. They can have their own unit flag, and earn their own unit awards (quality unit, national camping awards, etc). The DE is happy that we started a new unit. The team also has the theoretical option of splitting more apart from the troop if it somehow turned out that looked like a good option, whereas a venture patrol can't really do that. Not that that's a likely scenario, but who knows? Anyway, I realize that most troops go for the venture patrol option. The second most common choice around here is to have a Venturing crew that's dual-registered. Some of the bigger troops in our district have done that. Maybe I just like being different.

pack212scouter, I think we agree on many points. The person in charge is responsible. You should make sure your kids are being safe. The BSA has come up with policies that generally represent a safe course of action, and it's normally good policy to follow them. I agree that the BSA can remove you as being too high of a risk. I disagree about the "better safe than sorry". Well, maybe. It depends on what you really mean. The safest thing to do is not to go on any activities. I choose to go on activities and use good judgement in managing the risks. Sometimes the G2SS doesn't cover the situation and we have to add our own rules or be more restrictive than the G2SS. Sometimes the G2SS rules don't seem to apply so we choose to use our judgement in deciding what makes sense (e.g. we take the risk of a clothing malfunction in a pack sleepover at an aquarium.) I've heard your statement from others that BSA would not have to assist you if you were violating the G2SS, but probably would anyway. But I just don't understand how that can be the case given the way insurance works. Also, the US government has made you immune from negligence lawsuits in your role as a volunteer. I hear things like this all the time at training sessions - they aren't supposedly about this topic, but the conversation often comes around to insurance and liability, and it all comes with all the backup material that every other Scouting myth comes with (i.e. none). And the actual rules are different depending on who you talk to. I just wish people would spend their time trying to figure out how to be safe, and less time worried about some hypothetical lawsuit that they may or may not be immune from. If I had a kid get hurt on my watch, I'd feel terrible about the fact that he was hurt. I don't believe I'd be in any danger of getting sued, but I'd still feel terrible. I'd feel bad, whether or not it had anything to do with the G2SS. Beavah's position is consistent with what I observe, so I'll stick with that. I do wish that there was a course on this topic at the University of Scouting, and they had an actual syllabus with real case studies - I think that would go a long way toward removing any doubt about what the real policy is. I personally suspect that they don't want to teach a course like this, because they don't want to encourage any bad behavior by telling people they'll cover them. Maybe if people think they'll get sued for not following the rules, they'll be more careful to follow them.

Yeah, picky, picky. I thought it was a cool acronym, though. A web search seems to indicate that people pile up arbitrary numbers of z's in using words to onomatopoetically represent snoring/sleeping. There are a bunch of unusual z words here: (the sound of an electric field, a zipper, a sudden hissing movement, an insectlike buzz, or lightning) http://www.oneletterwords.com/consonant/tome.php?letter=z&start=47

"It is incorrect to say that you can use Varsity Scouting in a troop." Well, technically that's true. And technically you can't do Venturing in a troop, either. But lots of units do so in practice. Oh, the Scouts are officially dual-registered (or triply-registered) and there are officially two separate units, but for all practical purposes, the team or crew is treated like a venture patrol within a troop. The numbers of Varsity Scouts are relatively small, and, I suspect, overwhelmingly LDS. I did talk with one LDS unit here that used the program, and they used it within their troop program and dual-registered all of their boys.

It is conceptually a separate program, just as a Venturing Crew is a separate program. However, the couple units I've known who used Varsity Scouting did so within a troop, kind of like a Venture Patrol. That's what our troop is doing. I think you could achieve some of the same results by doing a Venture patrol, or a Venturing crew, or a Varsity team. They each have their own advantages and disadvantages. If you do it within a troop, then a Varsity team is very similar to a Venture Patrol in terms of what you can do - typically you might encourage three or four separate "high-adventure" activities in a given year. Varsity does start at 14, which is one year older than the venture patrol. In my experience, that's a plus, as it gives the older Scouts a little more separation from the younger ones.

ZZZZS: Zavod Za Zdravstveno Zavarovane Slovenije (Slovenian Council for Health Insurance)

Is this like saying "if you knowingly were violating the speed limit, good luck getting your auto insurance to cover you"? (Hint: they will still cover you.) The BSA insurance says that it covers you for everything except intentional and criminal actions. Can you point to a case (any case) where the BSA refused to cover someone because they didn't follow the G2SS?

We're looking at getting good quality backpacking gear that can also be used for general troop camping. In my opinion, it's not really a good idea to have patrols do their own fundraisers. I'd say the troop should fund all the equipment as troop equipment. The VP Scouts are members of the troop, just like everyone else, so it's reasonable for the troop to buy the equipment. And besides, the younger boys will soon enough get their chance to be in the VP and use the equipment then. I don't think the boys can do a fundraiser as a VP and then claim that they personally own the equipment. Not so long as the fundraiser is done in the name of Scouting. If they just go out and earn the money themselves, though, "outside the realm of Scouting", then they could buy whatever they want as their own equipment. In our troop a lot of the older Scouts who are most into high adventure already have a lot of their own equipment like this anyway. I think our older Scouts could do a backpacking trip with only personal tents and stoves. But as we look at some of the younger Scouts moving up, we do want to be ready with some troop equipment that could be used for this purpose. All of our troop tents are backpacking tents, but we definitely need to get some new stoves and cookware for this purpose.

As with most exercises in mocking other sets of people, it's much easier to do so when you don't have direct personal contact alongside of them. We have several lawyers who are fathers of kids in our units, and they are great people. They are helpful just like the rest of the fathers, and they provide lots of free legal advice when asked. They've generally been better donors than the average. Sure, we all hear the stories about the unethical lawyers - but that sure doesn't apply to the ones I know.

I personally think this is great. Philmont has it, our Scout camp has it, why not at some state parks? The coverage area will be pretty small, though. You might need to go park outside the park office. I think it's soon to be a moot point anyway, with most people soon being able to move to some type of cellular coverage. It's hard to believe that we ever survived in the past without instant communications available in all locations, but once you have it, it's hard to go back. It's fun to go back, and it's good to get away from it at times, but it's not always convenient to do so.

Ok, here's one more rule that's a pain. Our summer camp is offering a pistol shooting class. Only Venturers are allowed to shoot, so you have to show proof that you are registered in a crew (or ship, presumably). So if one of my Scouts wants to take this class, I can go find some crew leader who will let me sign up my Scout as a paper-member of his crew. How does this make any sense? Why does being a member of a crew make it ok for the same boy to now shoot pistols? In general, I don't like that there are separate rules for Venturers than for older Boy Scouts - or even more so, for Varsity Scouts. Why can a Venturer hunt, but not a Varsity Scout?