Oak Tree

I've got a group of boys who would absolutely love the opportunity to camp in two feet (!) of new snowfall. I'm envious of the opportunity.

nldscout, You can of course interpret the guidelines according to your best understanding. I have not been to the National Scout Jamboree and don't know what their requirements are. I would agree that you can ban parents who can't swim from coming canoeing with you. But I do not believe the rule would allow you to ban parents who can swim. The spirit of the rule, as I understand it, is to make sure there is no perception that we do anything secret at any of our meetings. In my mind, this would explicitly mean that parents are indeed required to be allowed to observe a PLC. I may make a rule that they cannot speak, but I would feel it to be inappropriate to ban them from observing. The quote comes directly from the G2SS, and I think it's a good one, especially for dispelling some of the concern around OA. I'm only interpreting it in the way that makes the most sense to me, and when they say that "all aspects of the Scouting program are open", then I presume that they really mean all aspects. That would include things like PLC, OA, water outings, summer camp, etc. I'd apply some judgement as to when a particular trip might require advanced notice, or specific skills or fitness levels, or even limiting based on numbers.

I remember some great experiences of going off exploring through the woods. It's hard to feel like you're exploring when you're on a trail. When I was a kid, there were lots of woods all around. The deer did far more damage to the woods than a few kids roaming around. Our Scout troop took a topo map and set out for a destination. We got lost, of course. But eventually we came out on a road and worked our way back. My brothers and I would regularly set out in the woods. Most of the time we didn't get lost, although there was that one time... (but again, we came out on a road and worked our way back). My dad would take us out in the woods. Hunters do this all the time. I do think that it can be a very different experience, going off trail. National forests, state game lands, there are lots of places that allow this. Nowadays I would at least take a GPS, even if I didn't turn it on until I was lost. Wildernes Student, I had really kind of forgotten about that amazing feeling you write about. I haven't done it in a long time.

In light of Greg's post, I will back off a little. It is indeed probably best to assume that these leaders are doing the best they can and trying to put together the best trek that they can. I can see the leaders deciding that they really want to have four adults, for any of a variety of reasons. The main thing I see that's wrong here is that a boy would somehow go away with the idea that he was browbeaten out of going on the trek. That's not good. We don't know what really happened at the troop meeting (or wherever), and I'm sure it can be tough to make the decision about who gets to go. But I would really try to avoid having anyone think that they'd be able to go, and then asking them to step down.

Down and Derby is a fine movie, but it take a long time to watch. But certainly having something there to grab people's attention is good. I've seen packs do videos of their activities - or even a video of a collection of still photos. Also getting some type of big backdrop - a banner, a tri-fold display, something to make you look organized is good. We would set up a tent and have a fake campfire sitting there. Make your pack look active and fun. At these activities I generally found that we were selling the parents, not the Scouts - although it can't hurt for the Scouts to have fun.

Yes, normally boys work on the religious award on their own through whatever religion they practice. It certainly wouldn't hurt to ask the leader a friendly question about it. If the boys are different religions, it's not going to be easy to pull that off in a group.

Vicki - yes, you're correct, of course, in that troops may very well decide that two adults per car is a safer way to go. I was guessing that this wasn't the case in kahit's case, but more the good-old-boy network that he described. My comment was just meant to point out that Pack212Scouter's statement about "BSA Standards" was not actually a universal BSA standard. kahit - I feel really bad for your nephew. It's hard to imagine a troop running this way. You don't really ask a question in your original post, so I'm guessing you were just venting. Fair enough. There's little you can do about it, anyway, and I think that you're on the best approach you can find by looking into the alternatives. You could always take him along for a mountain trek if you spend a week at Philmont Training Center. That's a pretty good back-country experience.

nldscout, you can in practice tell the parents that they are banned, but you can't actually do that within the BSA guidelines. All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders. from the G2SS

Maybe they could take a week-long training class at Philmont Training Center. Or stay in Cimarron. They could visit Philmont every day, see the museum, buy more stuff at the trading post, attend the worship services, visit Capulin volcano, hike the several front-country trails - the more I think about it, the more fun I could have. But I agree it would be unreasonable to ask the adults to do this if it's their first trip to Philmont.

GNX Guy, thanks for posting about your experience. I appreciate it and would love to see more posts like this on the forum about what people are doing and how well it works for them.

Yes, you can't actually completely ban parents. But you can certainly act as if they are banned, by having a separate parents' meeting in the next room. And you could actually tell her that parents are not allowed to talk during the meeting. You can decide for yourself if it should include Skipper and Mates - but I would normally say no, that you are part of the registered leadership and would expect to be there. I would sit down with her privately and tell her what the deal is.

Kudu, That's an inspired post. But no, wait, tell us how you really feel about it :-) Joni, we don't have any WB leaders active in our troop right now. We've had a couple in troop history, and they were good solid leaders with nothing like the problems you describe. I do see some people that are something like that at the Roundtables - it seems like after some people have been in the program long enough, they do start to clump together in an old boys' club. I do give them the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume that they do want the best for everyone. It's just that their perspective may have changed somewhat over the years.

I think that setting a deadline is a fine idea. For our pack, we don't require a deadline. We just get an estimate from each family and buy food appropriately. It may depend on how many people normally come and how flexible you can be. We usually do only one pack meal and just ask for three dollars per person at the meal. If it doesn't come out exact, it's no big deal. We'll supplement with popcorn money.

The troop may very well not feel comfortable sending fewer than four adults. It's hard to know without knowing a bit more about the trip logistics and the troop dynamics. It was certainly handled very badly. No way would I let more boys sign up than could go and then make some of them back out. But you do not require two adults per car.

I'm with jblake - it's not clear that you can change the SM. And you may be setting yourself up for frustration if you make it your main goal to do so. I think the best way to get a SM to make any incremental changes is for you to let him see that you are helpful, that you support him, that your ideas have merit, and that you're his friend. Maybe then you can work with him to jointly talk about the vision for the troop. But that's a very long term project.

All of the above suggestions are good. But to answer your subject question, yes, I would say that you are overreacting. We havent taken any group dynamics disaster prevention/ preparation classes and it just seems a lot more complicated then getting medical release forms, buying a first aid kit and telling them to bring water I certainly have taken lots of boys on hikes with this level of preparation. I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that. Certainly a 5 mile hike does not require any group dynamics courses or disaster prevention classes. Take them, and have a good time. Sure, think about what you're going to do in order to have some fun, but I wouldn't spend much effort worrying about disaster scenarios.

My last link doesn't work right, because it needs to know where you came from. It's here: https://www.doubleknot.com/openrosters/Calendar.asp?OrgKey=1305 Or you can get there from the Occoneechee Council main web site at http://www.ocscouts.org

I agree with Lisabob that you want to stay on the good side of your CO. In times where I've wanted to use my judgement to decide whether some particular rule is critical, I've always found it a good idea to talk with several people. If you're worried about what your CO would say, then talk to them and see what they recommend. I've found that while people inside the BSA can get really hung up over these policies, people a bit more removed can sometimes just shake their heads and put things into perspective. I've taken BALOO, and I've stayed on an aircraft carrier, and I don't think that the first helped me with the second. I've never been asked for a tour permit in all the camping I've done. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe you have any liability based on failure to complete a permit. Still, doing as willhi1979 suggests and looking around for a BALOO course is a good idea. Most councils have their training calendar on their web sites. There's probably a BALOO course somewhere in the area. The Occoneechee Council training calendar is here: https://www.doubleknot.com/openrosters/Calendar.asp It looks like their next BALOO course is on March 29. But you might be able to find others that are sooner.

Well, yeah, that's what I figured. I'm just telling you what our OA election team told us.

Our OA election team specifically recommends putting boys pictures on the ballot. They also told us that it would be ok if the Scoutmaster said that the new Scouts were not eligible to vote. Boys just need a majority of those who vote, not a majority of those present. I wasn't sure if this was quite by the book, but it seemed like a very practical rule. We solved the problem by having the OA elections prior to crossover.

I've had a couple of my ASMs express frustration with the election procedure to the point of saying that we needed to find a way to change the election process. They were frustrated that one boy didn't get elected. But in talking with the Scouts, I am convinced they voted against this boy for very valid reasons. This particular Scout acted perfectly around adults, but behaved in a different fashion when it was only the boys. I'm ok with the election process the way it is - I think the boys can make valid judgements about who gets elected. This year we've had our election and I know the result, which hasn't been announced yet. I think the Scouts did a fine job of discriminating. If a Scout is unable to convince the other Scouts that he is a good example of living by the Scout oath and law, then by definition, he isn't deserving of being in the OA.

Calico, I trust your statement that national policy is to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, but I was curious if you know if that is documented anywhere? I think the legal decision will turn on the question of whether or not a subsidiary is in fact a separate entity.

Looks like WVCubDad and I were posting the same thing at the same time. The book is publication 13-550 (I'm looking at the 2002 edition).

If you are running a BB-range, you really ought to have a copy of the book Shooting Sports for Cub Scouting. That book has a diagram of a range. The specific answer to your question is 500 feet from the control line, spreading in a 30 degree angle to each side.

We've camped on an aircraft carrier and I can assure you that no one asked for any evidence of Baloo training. I'd be really surprised if that were to happen. I can't imagine why the aircraft carrier would care. I can believe that your Scout office would care, I just can't believe that the carrier people would. I'll agree with Eamonn's and Lisabob's suggestions. But I can also tell you that I wouldn't let this cause the trip to be cancelled if you can't find someone. You've obviously been camping a bunch of times without a BALOO-trained person and survived. This trip would be the same.