Oak Tree

mbeyke, Welcome to the forum! You are correct that having a parent or guardian present for each Scout is the preferred option, but it is not strictly required. The quote from the G2SS is "In most cases, each youth member will be under the supervision of a parent or guardian. In all cases, each youth participant is responsible to a specific adult." Oak Tree

I'd like to thank fling1 for posting the guideline text on the other thread. "The BSA recognizes that youth in various parts of the country develop at different rates. These guidelines are designed to demonstrate the mainstream of youth capabilities. "For instance, Cub Scouts may be involved in winter camping in Alaska, where cold-weather activities are part of the culture. On the West Coast and Gulf Coast, surfing may be appropriate for Boy Scouts. In the Northeast, youth begin playing street and ice hockey at an early age. "Because of the varying development rates among youth, these activity guidelines are flexible and should not be perceived as requirements or rules. They address the mainstream of youth abilities while allowing for exceptions for Scouting units and groups based on the consideration and judgment of unit, district, and council committees and boards." So this would seem to make it pretty clear that winter camping is not expressly prohibited, as has been stated earlier in this thread. If your boys are prepared, you can do it. But if you don't know whether it would be a good idea, you probably shouldn't do it. Make sure you have a clue first. Oak Tree

I've really enjoyed Kahuna's posts, and I'm sorry to see him go. But I do know what he means. I'm sometimes sorry to see the way the forum responds to people who ask for advice, and instead get told they really ought to be following the rules. It's a lot easier to ask for this kind of advice in a small group, I guess, rather than posting to this group where there are almost guaranteed to be people who are going to stick strongly to the party line. But I also know what he means about the topics involved. The topics that come up on this forum regularly are very different from the ones that we deal with on a regular basis in our physical space. At least they are for me and my units. I have yet to deal with gays, atheism, council misbehavior, or Wiccans in my years of Scouting. Whenever there's a question about how to apply the rules, a couple adults get together and make a quick judgement, and it never comes up again. But here there are a lot more negative topics, and many more of the normal topics end up with more disagreements than would happen in real life. I knew that when I started to participate, but I decided there was enough value here to make it worthwhile, and that was even back in the days when it seemed like every thread ended with a Bob and Ed flamefest. Oak Tree

We have a number of Jewish boys in our non-Jewish pack/troop. So I can anecdotally confirm that part of the story. Scoutldr, I doubt that many of the other groups you mention have suffered a 75% reduction in membership. In fact, I'd be very curious to see the numbers for conservative Protestant religious groups, or for LDS units. Maybe even Catholic units. All units suffer from the overprogramming effect, but I'm sure if affects some much more than others. Oak Tree

Hunt, I like your list. It reminds me of the old joke about the group who numbered their jokes. Every time this topic comes up, I could just say "Disobey 2 and 3". And FScouter could say "Obey 5" (it might be more convenient if you had given the two lists unique numbers). And the new guy could say "Disobey 7", and we could say "That's not a very strong argument the way you type it." I think your lists cover most of the reasons people bring up, or the arguments are some combination of the reasons you list. But I'll list a couple other potential reasons for the disobey list. #8 - Following the rule will cause one person to be singled out/embarrassed (I've seen this happen, in a case where #5 (inconsequential) also applied, in my judgement) This might be similar to #1 (unjust), although it's not that the rule itself is unjust, it's just that the penalty for breaking the rule is unjustly out of proportion. #9 - Other substantial negative consequences to following the rule (maybe, in Cub Scouts, one family's tent collapses during a rainstorm in the middle of the night, and they move in with another family who has a large tent.) This might be a version of #6 (inconvenient), but just calling it "inconvenient" may not capture the effort/consequences of following the rule. When I hear "inconvenient", I think that someone is just trying to avoid some work, but the effect of following the rule might be more than that. Another example might be when a pack is going camping, but their one BALOO trained individual gets sick on the day of the trip. Following the rule may require cancelling the trip, affecting the plans of dozens of families. That would be more than inconvenient. And if there is another capable leader ready, the consequences of violating the rule may be too small to matter (a version of #5). #10 - it's the spirit of the rule that matters, not the letter of the rule (maybe allowing a couple who has been together for 15 years, but isn't technically married, to share the same tent) #11 - there is an overriding reason of a health or safety emergency (often comes up in these discussions, but is non-controversial in reality, as everyone tends to agree it's ok to break a rule to save a life). Possibly a subset of your #2. #12 - the rules suck all the fun out of the activity. (maybe the rule is you have to listen to a one-hour safety lecture before firing a bb-gun. Or, at a local camp-o-ree, here are the local rules, which were thought up by someone who seemed to have no experience with actual Scouts) #13 - the rules, as written, appear to be bizarrely complex (say, doing a flight plan with all its details, for a program run by Young Eagles). This is also the effect that the local "Camp Nazi" had on some of the parents in my pack when she came by at the camp-o-ree and ran down her checklist of all the rules we were supposedly violating. That's all for now. Even though I'm clearly on Beavah's side of this argument, I do agree with AvidSM that the best default option is to follow the rule. Oak Tree

I can't speak for Hunt, but the way I interpreted his comment was that allowing girls in would make the program feel the most different. It could sure have an impact on the interpersonal dynamics. I think that allowing gays or atheists would have very little impact on what a typical unit looked like, or felt like, but allowing girls in would have lots of effects, some of them obvious, and some of them more subtle. Oak Tree

I've actually had this conversation with some parents in my pack. They all came down on the 'use common sense and judgement' side of the fence, rather than on the 'do things by the book regardless' side. Some of the people who write the rules may be very knowledgeable - but that's not a given. And even so, they seem to be writing the rules to try to deal with worst-case situations. If my conditions are considerably better, it may make sense to apply a different set of rules. I hesitate to give examples, since they always seem to sidetrack the conversation, but I'll forge ahead anyway. For example, if only two boys are swimming, do I really need to do buddy checks? If four dads are swimming with their four sons, do we really need two lookouts and a rope at the ready? If I have a beginner swimmer in a lifejacket on calm water and his dad willing to canoe with him, do I really have to say no? If there's no one else on the waterfront, can I approach the staff for a discussion? And so forth. Sometimes you do enforce the rules just for the sake of making the rules consistent. And other times you recognize that good judgement is more important than rules. I could always ask the question about following the speed limit again. Anyone here want to claim that they and all their family members always obey the speed limit? And if you don't, and you knowingly exceed the limit, why do you think it's ok to break that rule, but not others? That rule is presumably made by "someone with far greater experience and knowledge than you". Oak Tree

I would say the simple answer is no. I'm not aware of any requirement that the A&S requirements be completed during one year. We certainly did not require that in our pack. Oak Tree

Living in the south, I too have wondered about the definition of 'winter camping'. We've done some January camping with Webelos, but we've never camped in snow. If you took the definition literally, it would be permissible to camp on December 15th in Wisconsin, but not ok to camp in 80 degrees in Florida in early March. So once again I would put it a big vote for using good judgement. We've had great fun camping with our Webelos in the cold, but it normally only gets down to the twenties, and we've only taken some pretty experienced and prepared 2nd-year Webelos. If you're prepared, camping in the cold is fine. If you're not prepared, it makes for a miserable experience. You have to judge what would be fun for your boys. Oak Tree

BSAChaplain, Pretty close. This one is Fifth Edition, Second Printing - April, 1949. I love looking at it - there are many aspects that are recognizable, but so many things have changed. The rank requirements for the first three ranks (Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class) are almost entirely different. Cut your own tent pegs. Describe how to make a one-man latrine. Stalk another Scout. Know Morse code. Bird Study was a required Eagle merit badge. There are 111 merit badges in the book, compared to the 121 today (and I agree - was Composite Materials really the best of all the available options for a new merit badge?) Of the 111, sixty-six of them no longer exist with an identical name. And of the 45 that still do have the same name, only four remain substantially identical: Athletics, Bugling, Hiking, and Sculpture. And of these, only Athletics has the same actual requirements (and even here, the wording has been simplified a little.) As I look through them, I see various patterns to how things have changed. - The requirements are written at a simpler grade level. - We now have lots more "talking" and less doing. - There are a ton of goofy new safety requirements (e.g. Basketry, Surveying). - The old merit badge requirements were more to the point - they were shorter and didn't involve anywhere near the number of requirements and options, and they generally started out with the main task. E.g. for Hiking, the old requirements had the hikes as requirements #1 and #2, whereas they are now #5 and #6. - There was more actual activity, as opposed to tests or demonstrations or descriptions for the counselor. E.g. survey actual property, operate farm machinery, drive a car. - It was less politically correct. You've got to love the Stalking merit badge. The Safety merit badge included "Demonstrate with a modern gun..." Swimming included "swim silently for 50 ft", which has military overtones in my mind. The general trend is that many of the badges have gotten easier, and become more academic. Camping went from 50 nights (!) to 20. The bicycling trips got shorter. Scholarship used to require your being in the top 1/3 of your class. Reading went from 12 books to 6. Dog care went from 6 months to 2 months. The required stamp collection is much smaller. I only noticed one merit badge that got substantially harder, and that was Cooking. It used to be a simple introductory level badge that involved cooking one relatively complex meal for 4, but now involves cooking at least 9 meals. And just to really show a difference, here are the diseases that had to be described in Public Health: 1949: tuberculosis, typhoid fever, diphtheria, malaria, hookworm, Rocky Mountain spotted fevel, tetanus (lockjaw), and rabies. 2006: tetanus, influenza, syphilis, hepatitis, emphysema, AIDS, encephalitis, meningitis, salmonellosis, Lyme disease, herpes, and lead poisoning (source - meritbadge.com) Oak Tree

We do often have parents who stay for half the week. I don't believe there are any checks that they are officially registered leaders, although that may be a technical requirement somewhere, and most of our parents are registered as committee members anyway. Our ratio has probably been between 3:1 and 5:1 over the past few years. Oak Tree

I likewise have no recollection of such a merit badge, although I claim far from exhaustive knowledge. The Girl Scouts do have council-specific merit badges, but I don't think I've ever seen one for the BSA. Blacksmithing is now an option under the Metalwork merit badge. I love looking through my dad's handbook - it has so many out-of-date merit badges Automobiling Bee Keeping Beef Production Bookbinding Cement Work Citrus Fruit Culture Dairying Farm Home And Its Planning Farm Layout and Building Arrangement Farm Records and Bookkeeping First Aid to Animals Foundry Practice Fruit Culture Grasses, Legumes and Forage Crops Hog and Pork Production Masonry Nut Culture Pathfinding Pigeon Raising Poultry Keeping Rabbit Raising Seamanship Taxidermy not to mention all the other awards that have changed names. And reading through them, you sure do get the (accurate) impression that times are a lot different. For Life Saving - "street clothes" include "shirt, tie, and coat". Some requirements are a lot easier - Bird Study has gone from 40 birds down to 20. But you didn't ask about any of that. Thanks for the opportunity to go off on a tangent. Oak Tree

I thought Beavah's reply made perfect sense, but I did get a chuckle out of NJCubScouter's imagery. The politics of Scouting are naturally extremely important to a high percentage of the population, and you need to be debate-ready at a moment's notice. Well, maybe not... I do agree that it's useful for fgoodwin to post the articles here. It's interesting to see what all's being written about Boy Scouts. And every now and then, someone does bring up something. Oak Tree

The rules are indeed stringent as listed, and in many situations, totally impractical. They seem to presume that you are in charge of the swimming area and no one else is using it. And that works perfectly well, at, for example, Boy Scout camp. At a state park with areas already marked off, and possibly with lifeguards, the rules just make way less sense. Under the pool swimming section, there is a phrase that I find appropriate for most all situations: "A responsible adult supervisor, who understands his or her responsibility and the elements of safety, can exercise discretion regarding certain procedures while maintaining safety." They are specifically saying that in a swimming pool, the rules can change. I think that's also true of other areas where other groups are in charge of the swimming area. One thing some groups do, including our council, is to say "Parents can use this time to take their own children swimming/boating, under the parent's responsibility." But you should at least read the rules in the G2SS and go from there. Oak Tree

Lisa'bob, I'm with Beavah. Look around at your options for this one particular boy, and try to do what's best for him. If it's true that he does have a strong set of friends still back in the pack, and no real friends in the troop, and you perceive that the only likely way he'll stick with it is to go back to the pack, I'd let him. That presumes that the pack wants him back. If the troop won't let him be a den chief, you could always suggest that he register as a Lone Scout, and he could be a den chief that way. I'm a big fan of common sense in these situations, and I agree that the advice to "tough it out" is not the right advice for some subset of the population. Oak Tree

Trevorum, Your opinion may be that their marital status does not matter, but that is not what the BSA says. From the G2SS: "Male and female leaders must have separate sleeping facilities. Married couples may share the same quarters if appropriate facilities are available." I don't know what the GSUSA says. Oak Tree

There is no national policy on this. It's just going to be a troop decision. In this situation, you'll get to test how tactful you can be. And, as the others have said, going through the CC may be your best option, if the SM isn't really approachable on the topic. But I agree with Beavah - you don't know if this is going to be an ongoing problem, so before you complain, think about what you'd really like to have happen. Oak Tree

I'd love to take some vacation to do this with my son and his friends. But I guess I don't represent everyone. I'd let them go as a group of friends. You don't have to do merit badges as a Scouting activity - you work on them individually. You'd have to use judgement, naturally, in deciding what seems ok for your own son. But I don't know why they'd need to ask for permission from anyone other than their parents to do this. And it does seem very similar to the above-mentioned patrol activity, where no adults are required. It doesn't even seem like it's against the spirit of the rule. The G2SS doesn't say any more about what patrol activities do not require adults. If they are on maintained trails, and they have cell-phone coverage, this should be a pretty safe activity. Oak Tree

Under item 7, you say to use towels to keep the water soaked up. I've found that using a sponge for this purpose works great. You can even find special 'tent sponges' made just for this. And as an enhancement to number 12, you can get a waterproof sleeping bag. You seem to have hit most of the high points, though, even though some of them can be a little hard to follow in practice entirely. So while following those rules, have you still gotten wet in your tent? Oak Tree

No teams in my area, either. How many teams are out there? Are there some national statistics? It seems like a fairly non-utilized part of Scouting. When there are teams, how do they work in practice? Is it basically an LDS church league? Oak Tree

The "no white gas" rule is another BSA urban legend, as far as I can tell. What the G2SS actually says is: "Use compressed- or liquid-gas stoves or lanterns only with knowledgeable adult supervision..." The term "white gas" does not appear in the G2SS. Incidentally, the G2SS is on-line, so you always have a G2SS handy if you're posting on the forum. http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/toc.html Oak Tree

There is no limit, but there should be. Same with belt loops. The idea of earning a belt loop multiple times just strikes me as non-sensical. A boy who plays on a sports team could get about 20 belt loops every year. And the idea of completing an elective every night just seems totally out-of-step with the point of the program, which is to get boys to try a bunch of different things. At least, that's my take on the purpose. Our pack won't award multiple belt loops, and I wouldn't count multiple electives, either. Tell the parent that if they want the award that badly, they can go buy it at the Scout store. But in a friendly way. I've found that parents are quite agreeable if you explain the reasoning behind your decisions. Oak Tree

P.S. It's 11:37 Eastern right now on Sunday, 3/12. I too am unable to edit my own posts, or perhaps I just don't know the magic incantation. Oak Tree

Lisa'bob, I've had the same experience. In all the families I've talked with about recruiting, none brought up politics or scandals. Now, that may be in part because I'm only talking to people who are intentionally attending a Scouting recruitment effort. I do suspect, though, that there are some people who have decided not to participate, and never show up at the event, because of some of the issues. It's quite complex to identify the weight behind any of the potential reasons why membership is dropping, so all we can do is to hypothesize. But as you say, the scandals have to be unhelpful. I think having ongoing controversies isn't a good thing, either. Oak Tree

Acco40, I'm actually not in favor of the federal government forcing the states to do things that way, either. It would seem to me that they aren't allowed to make the federal law because of the Constitution's giving of that power to the states, so they shouldn't be allowed to do an end run around the Constitution either and effectively make laws that they aren't allowed to make. But that's a bit of a separate issue - it's an intergovernmental squabble, as opposed to dealing with rights reserved to the people. I read the decision, and I'm reminded why I didn't want to become a lawyer. They give a lot of consideration as to when the government can attach strings and what kinds of strings it can attach. In general, they seem loath to permit discrimination based on viewpoint, but they will permit discrimination based on membership policies. In doing so, they appear to be consistent with other decisions, so I believe this decision will probably be upheld on any further appeals. Berkeley is not interfering with freedom of speech, which the courts would likely protect, but it is interfering with freedom of association, which seems to get somewhat less weight. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the government controlling so many things with the level of $$, but that's the way of the world today. Merlyn, now that I've read the decision, I agree with you that the Sea Scouts raised a number of specious arguments. So couldn't someone have just created a new organization - The Berkely Marina Ship - with a non-discrimination policy? That group could have the same expressed purpose as the Sea Scouts - teaching sailing, seamanship, engine repair, electrical repair, woodworking, and teamwork. Kids in Sea Scouts could be in both groups. Oak Tree