Oak Tree

Our church youth group camps with youth and leaders sharing tents - with the boys in one large tent with the adult male leader, and the girls in another large tent with the adult female leader. So there is more than one 'American' approach. Some of the kids are in both groups. It can be a weird experience as an adult to move back and forth between the two groups.

As described to me by a (very) highly placed source, the big picture effect is to "get the red out", which is consistent with Kudu's post. I think this does partially help with Jeffrey H's concern about being a walking billboard.

By 1949 the requirements looked like this: 1. Demonstrate a general knowledge of the district within a three-mile radius of the local Scout headquarters, or his house so as to be able to guide people at any time day or night to points within this area. 2. Know the population of the five principal neighboring towns and cities as selected by his Guide or Counselor. Demonstrate direction for reaching them from Scout Headquarters or his house. 3. If in the country, know the breeds of horses, cattle, sheep, and hogs owned on the five neighboring farms; if in the city, demonstrate directions to tourist camp and to five places for purchasing food supplies. 4. Demonstrate how to direct tourists from his home to gas, oil, tire and general auto repair service. 5. Give telephone number, if any, and directions for reaching the nearest police station, fire-fighting apparatus, Court House or Municipal Building, the nearest County Farm Agent's office, doctor, veterinarian and hospital. 6. Know something of the history of his community and the location of its principal places of interest and public buildings. 7. Submit a scale map, not necessarily drawn by himself, upon which he has personally indicated as much as possible of the above-required information. We can see the easing of requirements had already begun. You only needed to know a three mile radius :-) The camping merit badge at this time still required 50 nights of camping, so it was just the early edge of the slippery slope. But in general, while the wording was updated, there was little significant change between 1911 and 1949. By 1952 the badge disappeared. Orienteering appeared in 1973.

I've not had to do this personally, but the troop in the past has removed boys from PORs. You wouldn't be denying him Eagle - just delaying it (unless he's about to age out). Seems like a delay is a reasonable consequence in this situation.

Hmmm, the address looks complete to me. It's not a live link, but when I cut and paste it into the address line, it works. But let me play with html and see if I can do better: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=146678&p=1 And here's the thread before that: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=145781#id_146663 To summarize my position: we get about 300,000 new Boy Scouts each year, and we average about 50,000 Eagles per year. Therefore, on average, a boy joining now has about a 17% chance of earning Eagle. The question of why is an interesting one. I like allangr1024's hypothesis that an increased number of adults leads to more "Eagle mills". I'm not sure it's because of two-deep leadership - I'd also attribute it to smaller family size and a general societal shift that dads should spend more effort on their kids. It is also the case that some of the merit badges are objectively easier, with some examples in one of the above threads.

Here's one of the threads where we dealt with this subject in (painful) detail. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=146678&p=1

There is no official national award for 50 miles for Cub Scouts. You can certainly make up troop awards, and I would also be fine with presenting a Cub Scout with a 50-miler patch if they completed a 5-day, 50-mile trip. But I don't think National would want to make up an award to encourage that - it would not be generally age-appropriate.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1997924/

#7 - Tiger Cub Den Leader knot Black and orange on yellow background with orange border. This one always jumps out at me when I see it on a shirt. The colors are very different from the other typical knots.

Letting Cub Scouts play with a .357 clearly isn't safe. And that's the reason we shouldn't let them do it. In all of these discussions I'd rather see the focus be on how to run a safe program than on how do we keep from getting sued. It's good to know that even if we do something wrong, BSA will cover us. But that doesn't mean I want to go do something wrong, or that I'd say "no problem" to russian roulette. I like the kids I'm working with and the last thing I want to see is for any of them to get hurt.

I'd say that camping as a Webelos den was one of the best things we did. Gradually increase the boys' responsibility, so that when they do cross over, they are well-prepared. I've looked back over our retention, and the groups that did the most camping have the best retention. It's not clear that it's causal - it could be that people who want to go camping are already more likely to stay in Scouts, but we certainly noticed how easily they slid into their roles in the troop. I doubt I could get the Webelos parents to go camping without the boys, but we do try to have the one joint campout during which we spend a lot of time with the parents away from the boys.

There are a couple threads going on right now that have morphed into discussions about insurance. I guess we're just a litigious society. But boy, the topic comes up a lot more here than in real life. My observation that any thread can turn this way still holds, but I should definitely have given it a different name, analogous as it is to Godwin's law. Not sure I can give credit to jeff, though. Just for fun, I looked back over some postings from the past year. Since a dutch oven conversation can turn to liability, I figure pretty much anything can. But there are also a number of threads that start right out that way. There are 278 separate forum posts in the last year that include the word insurance. Question: what size [dutch oven] should i get? Leads to: Let a Cub turn around with a flaming marshmallow and leave a scar on another cubs face and see what happens to your BSA Insurance. Question: Any suggestions from the expericenced Commissioners [about how to deal with a non-responsive unit]? Leads to: So the sage advice here is that I let a unit that is in trouble do things that continue to put the unit and the CO at risk without saying anything? Question: Id appreciate any advice [on how to deal with a parent who shows up reeking of alcohol]. Leads to: As a Registered BSA Leader, should anything happen to a child, (He stumbles and falls on a child), you would not be protected by the BSA insurance, Question: Why should we use tour permits? Leads to: I am sure we were told at Basic Scout Leader Training and at Woodbadge that you must file a tour permit to be covered by BSA insurance. We were further told that if you stray from anything written in the Guide to Safe Scouting, you would not be covered if anything bad happens. Question: Should I have offered the same invitation to the boys that didn't show up that was offered to the ones that did? Leads to: Something bad happens during an activity where a tour permit is required and you don't have one, you could find yourself all alone. Starting question: I'm worried I'll get sued sooner or later. Question: Can someone tell me if I am understanding the rules regarding horsemanship activites with Cubs? Leads to: This is what I was trying to convey to CM with this whole issue that you can't do said activity if you do not follow guidelines set forth by BSA, and that he would be the one liable. Starting question: I know that the Young Eagles have done some things together with scouting groups in the past. I have heard that the paperwork/liability aspect is enormous and complicated. Starting question: A question arose from a new leader of this crew about being covered with BSA liability insurance. He wanted to know where it said that as a registered BSA leader he was covered by this insurance. Starting question: 1. A Baloo trained person is required to attend Pack camp outs. Pack submits a Tour Permit without the required Baloo person. The Council incorrectly issues the Permit. Something "bad" happens on the trip. The Tour Permit can be "retroactively denied" by the council and then the BSA insurance would NOT be in effect. Starting point: spreadin' a lot of liability fear does real damage Leads to: Are you saying that the BSA lawyers are going to back me, even though the unit signed a permit that said they cannot caravan? Starting question: What do you do if your BALOO trained leader is ill? Leads to: If there is no BALOO trained person at the event for the duration of the event it can't occur or it has to end. The liability issues would then fall on the members of the unit if something occured. Question: What should I do with a dad who wont supply his drivers license number for the tour permit? Leads to: If the Committee Member and Tour Leader's signatures at the bottom of the form attest that all the drivers are legally licensed and insured automobile operators, then the Committee Member and Tour Leader are liable. I suspect that if I went back year after year, I'd find the same thing. I looked for a couple: From February 2006 (the thread that first got Beavah to comment on the topic): The accident insurance and liability insurance covering the pack and your CO could be void if the pack knowingly violates the GTSS age appropriate guidelines. From January 2002: I thought tour permits were only needed for activities where auto-transportation is involved. Its part of the insurance release, isnt it? I feel safe saying that part of this concern could be alleviated through clearer documentation. It just strikes me as odd about how much we focus on this issue. Has anyone here actually been sued as a Scout leader?

"In reality there are 2 sets for 2007" Exactly my point. Why is this the case? Maybe my question is just rhetorical. I can hypothesize one answer...that the supply division had already made up the Quality Unit 2007 patches before the program changed, and so they decided to go ahead and sell them rather than take a total loss on them.

You're right, I am combining threads in my memory. This topic seems to come up on oh-so-many threads. The thread I gave you was the one where I pulled the same quote off the same web site and we discussed it. The thread with Eamonn's example is http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=165740

Again the insurance goes up in flames... I'm starting to think there's a version of Godwin's Law for these forums. "As a discussion on scouter.com grows longer, the probability of an admonishment of the potential loss of BSA insurance approaches one." Can you give me an example of someone who got sued and had to pay because he let Cub Scouts cook and it somehow went horribly wrong? I think I'll stick with common sense. More on topic: Our area recently had a burn ban, but we were still allowed to use charcoal.

Beavah, Yes, ok, I'd love to have that data as well. Saying "we've had five drowings in Scouts in the last ten years, and here's what caused them..." would be very effective eduction. For the lawsuit stuff, yes, I get your point. I don't really care how they were settled (who won). What I want to know is, were there any cases where the volunteer and/or CO actually got sued and had to settle, and if so, what did the volunteers do to cause the BSA not to back them?

Gold Winger, I hope you don't perceive us as 'piling on' - I know that's not my intention. I think I'd be happy to have you as a good UC as a friend of my unit. Recently I posted the exact same quote about 'intentional acts'. I find the council's explanation a bit implausible - because by their definition, almost every act will be intentional. I'd venture a guess that many (most?) of the injuries that occur happen because some safety policy was overlooked. As a follow up, I have asked multiple lawyers in our units, and they've given roughly the same interpretation of intentional that Beavah did here on the forum - that 'intentional' means that you intend the outcome. Eamonn gave an egregious example of behavior that the BSA still covered. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=166499&p=1 I am at a loss to explain why councils explain it the way they do - and if I were a CO, I would not be reassured by that explanation on the council's web site. I continue to wish for a list of all cases that were brought against the BSA, and we could see which ones they backed and which ones they didn't. That could at least end some of the hypothetical nature of the discussion.

Any common sense interpretation of the term 'retention' would match Venividi's. But our UC also explained it to us as Gold Winger describes. The idea of getting units to set their own goals may sound good on paper, but it makes the award meaningless. Some units may set really high goals and strive hard to meet them. Other units set very minimal goals. And then the implementation of the award ends up with all these nonsensical questions about retention or whatever. Our district commissioner says they are going to help units reset their goals right now for 2007, as many units set them unrealistically high. But resetting the goals now seems like an exercise in bureaucracy. Does the district get rewarded if more units achieve the award?

In the parent thread, it was stated that the Quality Unit award is gone, replaced with the Centennial Award. This is my understanding as well. So my question is, why are they still selling Quality Unit 2007 patches? On scoutstuff.org, you can buy either the Quality Unit 2007 patch or the Centennial Quality Unit 2007 emblem. I've told my troop that the 2006 patch is still current until we earn the Centennial Award, and that BSA has replaced the Quality Unit program with the new program. But the boys see some Scouts from other troops wearing the Quality Unit 2007 emblem, and they've asked me if those Scouts are therefore illegitimately wearing that emblem. I think I said something like "My understanding is that there's no way to earn that patch, but perhaps they were told something different." But it left me curious. If there is no way to earn the patch, why sell it?

I'd be curious to know if it's authentic, but in a way, I don't think it would really matter to me. If BSA wants to make policy, they have to publish it somewhere other than in inter-office memos.

The problem with all analogies is that they are imperfect and can be taken too far. Laser tag is neither spider webs nor gas, although both of those descriptions do help illuminate how different people look at the situation. We've recently beat the insurance question almost to death, and while I am not a lawyer, I don't believe that laser tag is putting the unit nor the CO at risk. But seeing as how you do/did believe that, I can understand why you'd want to speak up. But to take your other point - on doing double-duty - you "explained that this wasn't a good thing to do." Really, I don't want my UC coming in and telling me how not to do things. I agree with you that it's not ideal to do double-duty, but if I were a UC, I'm not sure this is the first thing I'd fix. In fact, I don't think I'd try to fix anything unless they asked me to. You said they've been whining that they need a commissioner. Do you know who specifically has been asking for one? Have you talked with that person about what they'd like a UC to do? I'm going to bet that they could just go buy the Centennial Award patch without your approval, so that's probably not it. :-)

Yes, we've had the whole camouflage discussion before. I don't see where it's prohibited, either - but I'd love to see a source. I don't consider the prohibition on military uniforms to cover this - I think of camouflage as hunting clothes based on where I grew up - and regardless, it seems quite apparent to me that the entire BSA uniform line is an imitation of a military uniform. My interpretation of that statement is that you can't make the uniform sufficiently military that you could go impersonate an actual military person. (No danger of that with the current uniforms.) I also don't know any packs that require the pants, although we do have a few boys who wear them, and would never think to prohibit them. We (council) tried to hold an experienced uniform sale, but not enough old uniforms were offered up. I'm sticking with live-and-let-live on this one.

1. I've been active at all levels of our pack over the years. All our dens basically do the same thing meeting-wise. 2. Den meets twice a month. 3. Pack meets once a month. 4. We generally do four campouts per year, including one in the summer. During the summer we also do hikes, a picnic, a baseball game, and we encourage day camp and overnight camp at the district/council level.

My answer is in line with hotdesk's. Certainly there are many troop/patrol activities that do not require tour permits, and we'd count those activities. The requirement for something to be a patrol activity in my mind is that, at a minimum, the entire patrol has to be invited. Merit Badge work - no. Not unless the troop or patrol really did it as a group. If they decide that the troop will go ice skating on Saturday because they're working on that merit badge, then that would count. Merit Badge college - no. Not unless the patrol really did it as a group. Troop JLT - yes, normally I'd count this. PLC - no, this is a meeting. Troop meeting - anything that happens on the regular troop meeting night is a 'troop meeting'. So it wouldn't count, regardless of the activity.

I think that question is on the final exam of Scoutmaster school. Where is the pesky line? I ask myself some of the following questions when I'm trying to find that line: Are the people doing the planning learning anything about how to do it better? Or does it appear that this level of performance will continue indefinitely? Are the majority of boys getting nothing out of it? Are any boys getting discouraged about attending the meetings? I like to steer the boys away from failures where the whole group experiences the pain but where the group as a whole can generally do nothing about it. In this case I would certainly sit down with the SPL and re-evaluate whether these plans are realistic. If the Scouts aren't up to doing effective instruction, then I'd have adults help and/or lead the instruction.