Oak Tree

The number one mistake I see among new Scouts is to pack too much stuff, or too heavy stuff. The BSA Fieldbook lists 25% of your bodyweight as a good guideline. This can seem pretty hard if you're trying to put in all kinds of equipment, "just in case he needs it." Heck, it can be hard to keep the weight that low for some of the smaller Scouts regardless. Don't carry two-pound flashlights. Get a headlamp (they're quite cheap at Wal-mart). Have a light pack and a light sleeping bag. If you're going in the cold, it's true that you don't want to skimp on having warm enough equipment, but really consider whether you need every item that goes into the pack. We frequently have boys who struggle with every segment, and who are tired every 100 yards down the trail. Even after we've done some preliminary checks on the backpacks, we can be stunned at what gets slipped in at the last minute. Don't bring cans of soup. Don't bring enough food for a football team. Don't bring three changes of clothes for the weekend. Light, light, light. New Scouts will enjoy it so much more if they can successfully keep up with the group without feeling like their lungs are going to explode.

Oh, yes, if I was taking the thread off on a tangent - sorry. That's not what I meant to do at all :-) OGE - your point is well taken. I'd add one more suggestion - if someone responds to your position, but restates your position in a slightly different fashion, you don't need to go nuts and assume that they are maliciously misrepresenting you. A: I feel like my existence is meaningless. B: Why do you think your life has no meaning? A: Did I say 'life'? NO - I said 'existence'! Stop putting words in my mouth!

I guess we do it as an informal version of the more official process. Look around, see who the best candidate is, and ask him. Usually it's the committee chair, along with another couple of respected members of the adult leadership, who decide on the candidate. And it's no surprise to anyone, because the candidates are all people who are currently active with the troop. Same thing holds true for picking a CC or COR. As a unit leader, I've picked several CCs and CORs, even though that's not the official direction. But typically, it's a consensus among the most active adult leaders as to who should take on which role. Pack378 - you can certainly ask your council to rerun the background check. And if you have reason to ask them to do so, I'd be pretty confident that they would do it.

He could probably just go ahead and act like he was part of the other council for most purposes.

Ah, FScouter, I'm not sure you quite have the hang of the smileys yet. :-) The intentional creation of a rude statement, with an appended smiley as a supposed get-out-of-jail free card, just doesn't end up passing muster. It still, in fact, comes across as rude. Which I guess is the point that you're trying to make about other posters, but the thing is, the other posters are actually saying things in a friendly way - I'm sorry if you don't see that.

Here's the difference, at least in my mind. If a group signs up to play baseball, but only knits, and doesn't actually show up for games, the league will actually disband them, because there are certain expectations. The league probably won't let them play if they don't show up in uniform. If the BSA actually disbanded units that didn't wear full uniforms to summer camp, then yes, I'd agree that full uniforms are an essential part of Scouting (or pick whatever program topic you want - uniforming is just a handy example). Now sure, if you never actually do anything, then I guess I might agree with you that merely being chartered isn't enough to really say that you're 'doing Scouting'. But you are certainly officially a Scout. I've seen Venturing crews that appear to use virtually no aspect of the BSA program. But they're doing Venturing because it's so flexible. I'm just not sure I see the need to be so rigid with the Boy Scout side. And yes, if we're talking about really egregious examples, then fine. But most posters here aren't talking about having a knitting club and calling it Scouting.

We have several large packs and troops that limit enrollment. It hasn't created a PR nightmare. The most common way that troops do it is to limit new Scouts to the ones from their feeder packs. Now, I can see why Barry's group had a problem with this approach (no feeder pack), but for the troops that have a solid pipeline already coming in, there can be a real desire not to get any more dens. What can happen is that an entire den comes to visit, and if they like the troop, they all pick it. If you already have two or three dens from your feeder pack, and then you pick up another two dens, it can make for an overwhelming number of new Scouts. I'm with Bob White that sometimes you just have to have limits. But I do agree with Barry that I don't want to see them being real aggressive.

I'll take the pledge. I'm always disappointed when the experienced forum members drive off new posters by blaming them for not doing Scouting correctly. Sure, there might be times when people go off the reservation. But as long as BSA charters them, they are in fact "doing Scouting", and I trust that most everyone who takes the time to post really does have good intentions.

In addition, another reason why wind chill can be inaccurate is that it is calculated based on how exposed skin perceives the temperature. In very cold weather, there is rarely very much exposed skin, and anyone who is well-prepared will be wearing windproof clothing. So I agree, it is mostly the actual temperature that is relevant. And I agree with the other posters. It's not common to cancel events for everyone, but if you are not well-prepared, it would be a miserable and even dangerous situation for you, and it makes perfect sense to sit it out.

Well, you can certainly ask for confirmation from your professional staff. But the word 'laser' has definitely been removed from the official on-line version of the G2SS. That seems like it must indicate something. I'm sure it's not because laser tag has declined in popularity and the restriction was no longer relevant. So I tend to trust the given on-line explanation, even if it is unofficial. Plus, the explanation doesn't really say anything, anyway, other than that they decided to remove the word, which is clearly true.

Ok, since they intentionally removed the reference, I'll go ahead and assume that they now are indicating that it's no longer prohibited. My reading of the word 'firearm' would mean 'a device that fires a projectile'. Since a laser gun does not fire a projectile, it is not a firearm. It may resemble a firearm, but that does not make it a firearm.

It seems to me that the Venture patrol idea has certainly been de-emphasized, but they haven't gotten rid of them. You can still buy the VENTURE strip for the uniform.

The smiley face was invented at Carnegie Mellon University in 1982. It was originally intended to indicate that a statement should not be taken literally - that it is a joke. Over time, though, the smiley face has also come to indicate that the statement is being made in a friendly fashion. Thus, I took the smiley face here to mean that while Beavah's statement that there is no official position titled "Temporary Patrol Leader", it was not something he intended to argue about. More of a friendly tweak to Bob White who normally seems to be very precise about his terminology. Now of course, all patrol leaders are temporary. And some are more temporary than others. But there is no POR patch that says "Temporary Patrol Leader", while there is one that says "Troop Guide." And while The Scoutmaster Handbook does say you could hold more frequent elections, it doesn't indicate that makes the patrol leader into any special type of patrol leader. He's just as real as any other patrol leader, as far as I can tell from the wording. And of course, if I wanted to further tweak Bob White, I could point out that the language of Scouting says not to capitalize the terms "patrol leader" or "patrol" and that there is nothing officially called the "Troop Leader Council". :-)

Brent, The way you do it sounds pretty good. We likewise do the two ceremonies and could give someone the opportunity to cross the bridge without getting the AoL. We did hold the application one time. Then you get into questions - does the boy get to have stuff signed off in his book? Or is he constantly being singled out as not yet officially being a Boy Scout? I actually had a boy in tears over having this distinction made, and I decided that sticking to the letter of the law wasn't worth it to do this again in the future. As for the 'trustworthy' part, I'm going to go with a Scout is kind. This gets back to our long-running discussion of whether it's better to follow the spirit of the law or the letter of the law, and I think by now I've made it clear that I'm a spirit-of-the-law kind of guy.

I don't personally use Scoutnet, but my experience with my council is that they will take a 10-year old fifth grader and register him as a Boy Scout whether or not he has the Arrow of Light. The computer program could be written any number of ways and I can only speculate - but because of the flexibility that is required, I'm guessing the tool does not prevent this type of registration. I know that my council does not prevent it.

The BSA is not going to prevent you from registering these boys. They'll take kindergartners and register them as Tigers. They will take fifth-graders and register them as Boy Scouts, whether or not they are 11 or have their Arrow of Light (which they often can't accurately report anyway). They will let you register first graders, who are repeating first grade, as Wolves. There are any number of special circumstances where there could be a valid reason to bend the normal rules (another example - special needs), and the system is quite flexible. I say to err on the side of the boy.

I'm with RememberSchiff. The lesson the boy should learn is that he doesn't get the AoL if he hasn't earned it. But I really dislike the no-man's land in between March and June where a boy is effectively too old for Cub Scouts and officially too young for Boy Scouts. Hanging around the pack often isn't a real option. There's no den left. Depending on when the boy's birthday is, he may or may not be eligible to join without the AoL. I don't like the accidental punishment for boys who are younger in the grade. And, based on what I've seen from National, I think they would err on the side of keeping the boy in Scouting. I'd interpret this rule as having 'complete fifth grade' meaning 'complete fifth grade to the point of crossover.' This is similar to the question of what to do with boys who are held back in school. Technically they should repeat their Tiger year (or whatever year), but that doesn't seem like the right way to go from the perspective of the boy.

I have always encouraged individual ownership on this one. As the requirement is written, it seems like it's wanting one person to write the script and serve as emcee. We have enough courts of honor and campfires that it doesn't generally get backed up very far. And encouraging individual ownership does give us a good supply of boys who want to run these things. That said, I think your plan is fine for your circumstances.

I've noticed this discrepancy as well. BSA says that the chaplain is "usually an adult member of the clergy." That may be their intent, but I'm doubtful that it's the typical case. The quartermaster has a committee equivalent - the equipment coordinator. But we don't call the Scout an aide. I think the same thing could be true for the chaplain. Call the Scout the chaplain, and call the adult the, well, hmmm, not sure what title would really work. "Spiritual coordinator", "Religious leader" - maybe - but it does seem like those titles don't work great and "Chaplain" is the most natural title. But clearly we could get along with some other title. I suspect the real reason is a desire not to trivialize the position. Religious leaders are typically quite thoughtful and are generally respected by the other members of their community. Not so easy for a boy to pull off. Having an adult chaplain is a reminder that the job is a serious and important one. It's not always quite natural for a boy to capture the aura of the more typical religious leader. At least, that's my theory.

Yeah, now you've done it. :-) Search on the word 'insurance' in 2007 posts and you'll see many conversations on this topic. Many, many conversations. Way too many conversations. To answer your question in brief, no, I do not think it would play out as you have described. Here's one conversation to look at: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=150912#id_150912

I've never even seen a district patch. Our district does have a logo, but no patch. I think it would be a nice stripe to add underneath the council patch to show where you're from, but if so, I'd prefer that to be an authorized change.

In my experience, most of these things are written the way they are because there are a ton of people who mistakenly believe that they possess enough common sense to make good judgements. Yeah, I know what you mean and I'm sympathetic to this point. Everyone believes their judgement is above average. We had this discussion recently with regards to the Eagle application process. People kept wanting to add steps and checkpoints in the process to reduce the likelihood of someone screwing up and showing up for the Eagle BoR with a substandard package. But in the end you reach a point of diminishing returns. You're adding paperwork for 99 people in order to help the 1 who doesn't have enough sense to do it right in the first place. I think it's the same thing here. You can get overly prescriptive with those who have good judgement, just to protect those who don't. And in the end, most people realize they need to make judgement calls anyway. I'd prefer to see the G2SS acknowledge that up front. Most troops do drive after dark. Our troop is going skiing and is going to stay one night in a giant room that includes other groups. Do we demand separate sheeted off areas for adults and Scouts and an entirely separate room for women? Our pack is going to an aquarium for a sleepover. I'm not sure what the aquarium provides, but I'm betting on one big room. Do we ask for another room as well as some sheets and strings? I'm thinking if we just ask everyone to change clothes in private (or not at all), we'll be ok. One large room for Cub Scout packs doesn't seem like the situation that the G2SS has in mind in the discussion of dormitory arrangements. I'll go with the spirit of the law on this one.

I'll echo some of the above comments. Our troop has a mixture of Kelty and Eureka tents. They have the advantage of being relatively cheap and, I suspect, being sturdier because they haven't shaved off every last ounce. I personally would only consider two-man tents, with two doors and two vestibules. I'd stick with the backpacking style - it's good for both front-country and back-country camping. I would not get the smallest sizes - some of our larger Scouts need a roomier two-man tent.

Actually, you can banish the moms. We stayed on a ship that in fact requires the pack to banish the moms to the luxurious officers' quarters while leaving the dads and boys in the enlisted area. Works ok for confident Cub Scouts, but not so great for boys who don't want to be that far from mom. The part that didn't really make any sense to us is this requirement from the G2SS: Adults and youth of the same gender may occupy dormitory or single-room accommodations [...] Adults must establish separation barriers or privacy zones such as a temporary blanket or sheet walls in order to keep their sleeping area and dressing area separated from the youth area. The idea that we would put all the Cub Scouts on one side of the room to sleep, and have all the men on the other side, using a bunch of sheets to separate us, just seemed pretty nonsensical. I understand you need a place to change clothes, but beyond that? This doesn't seem like a reasonable approach to sleeping in a large open room. I'm with Beavah and the common sense approach, and I do wish the G2SS had a little more willingness to defer to good judgement. My favorite quote from the G2SS: "A responsible adult supervisor, who understands his or her responsibility and the elements of safety, can exercise discretion regarding certain procedures while maintaining safety." I'd just like to see it applied to the whole document.

Can a pack get too big? Yes. But how big is too big will vary with the pack. When a pack gets too big, you end up with a variety of symptoms. It's hard to keep everything organized. Pack meetings need to be well-scripted or they turn into chaos. You can't give boys as much individual recognition in front of the pack. It can be hard to find campgrounds. It can be hard to store all the equipment. The meeting room itself might be a limitation. It's hard to be heard over a large group so you always need a loudspeaker. etc, etc. Once a pack gets too big, things will start to fray a bit around the edges. People will get dissatisfied, and the pack will shrink to a size that people are happier with. There are several other factors at work, too. Some people will just like smaller packs. It can have much more of a family feel. But a large well-organized pack can have other advantages. The biggest packs around here are around 120 boys (3 dens of 8 in each grade). That's bigger than I'd like, but they're obviously doing something right.