packsaddle

Yeah, that was a temper-tantrum. I feel much better now. I have a special place for bean counting and counters and it isn't in my heart. John-in-KC, I remember it well. Our patrol did at least as many 'patrol activities' as there were troop outings, probably more. We actually had separate patrol meetings other times of the week, went on hikes, fishing, camping trips, biking, swimming, chunked rocks off the Mountain Island Dam spillway (oops probably shouldn't mention that)......

Aaaahhhh, that feels better now. So look at it this way: if we just pretend to take this seriously and simply conform to the new 'rules', this could keep their attention diverted or occupied for a long time while they slap each other on the back for that job well done. Just think of how much mischief they could have done elsewhere if they hadn't been occupied by 'tour permits'. I say try to hold their attention. Do it right. Compliment them, maybe even ask them if these bean-counting exercises could be improved even more. That might actually 'save' something for the boys in another part of the program.

"and if anyone is they're not goin' to listen to a detailed read of page 17 the way we poor scouting bureaucrat-addicts are, eh? So in truth, there's really no need for National to get into it. The folks who are uncomfortable with patrol method/outings shouldn't and won't do them. Da folks who are comfortable with patrol method and outings will continue to do 'em responsibly. There's no need for a least-common-denominator "rule" or definition. But if yeh insist on one, da office rats are goin' to think in terms of a rule that fits a NSP full of 10 year olds, and we'll be left with all of Boy Scouting dumbed down to that level." This is perfect logic and first rate pragmatism. I like it. I could not begin to improve on it. I begin to feel ill when I think about the form-hungry nature of bean-counting bureaucracies like National. Good Grief! The reason that we volunteers keep getting all this bean-counting stuff piled on is because we respond to it and take it seriously. This sends a message to the bean counters that THEY must be doing something productive and they can actually measure it because, hey, look at all this paper the volunteers generated when THEY ordered us to jump to it. So THEY are free to conclude that their success could be even larger if they piled on some more. And then the bureaucracy tends to swell and swell with more and more forms and finally becomes engorged until the bean counters are practically having a bean-counting orgasm. Then they can finally lie back and smoke a cigarette, savoring the after-glow of a 'job' well-done. So here's how to break this dog from sucking eggs: We file tour permits out the ying yang. We pile it on. We meet the deadlines and then demand performance from the bean-counters. Nag them about the deadlines. Call them often to ask about the status. Give them exactly what they asked for. Make their 'dream' into a nightmare. They asked for paper: time to dump it to them.

Yes, this is one of the 'down sides' to PWD. And I agree with the sentiments most of the posters have communicated so far...stick by your guns if those are 'the rules'. This district used those rules and for the few years that I was the person who weighed in PWD cars for the district derby, I applied them without exception. Yes, there were some fathers whose machine shops had custom-fabricated mirror-finish-smooth, perfect axles, with hidden lubricant sources, etc. They had always won in the pack competition and they were disqualified if they violated the district rules. It takes a thick skin to withstand their disappointment but the rules level the playing field a bit and I also advocate sticking with them. I have heard of districts where the 'cheating' was so rampant that at weigh-in ALL the cars were practically drenched in silicone lube so that everyone had the same 'advantage'. I am proud to say that most of the boys in the pack that I served never saw this kind of thing, except those who had placed in the pack derby. I think that the best that one of the boys from this pack ever did was place second overall at the district and I'm fairly certain his father had done most of that work...at least it conformed to the specs stated in 'the rules'. I agree that shortening the wheel base should produce no advantage. Nevertheless, that is out of spec. One problem I did notice for several years was that the slots in the kits (this pack gave the kits to all the boys in the fall so all of them had the same raw materials) were often 'out of square' and the wheels would not track 'true' if mounted in the original slots. In those cases we sent the kits back and exchanged them for ones that had proper slots.

JoeBob, in the case of the split, you run them again and again until someone wins more times out of an equal number of races in each lane. Alternatively, you can add a new bracket and advance them both, waiting until the end to do all the repeats.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Welcome to the forums! I'll predict that you'll get as many preferences as there are replies so my advice is to try them on and wear whatever you like best. When these topics were discussed in the past, I seemed to stand alone in liking the old scout long pants but I held my ground and those indestructible polyester monstrosities will continue to drape my frame until I 'grow' some more. By the way, I suspect that 'growth' is code for something less flattering. If so I sympathize. Anyway, just pick whatever is best for you and don't worry about what the herd is doing. That's my 0.02.

As little as 1.97 new on eBay: http://catalog.ebay.com/Down-and-Derby-DVD-2006-/50878146?_pcategid=11232&_pcatid=1&_refkw=down+and+derby&_trkparms=65%253A12%257C66%253A2%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A4026&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

When I was CM we always had a great time at PWD. The pack wasn't huge, around 30 contestants, and we ran each age class separately - double elimination - and staggered through the day. Each 'heat' involved three races in which the best two out of three was the winner. The loser went to the other bracket to go through elimination again. This insured that every car ran at least 6 times. Then after the winners were decided for each age group, we did it all again with ANYONE who wanted to race in the 'All Pack' competition, usually just the winning cars but sometimes the others would 'fine tune' it and try again. We used a two-lane home-made track with Boy Scouts (two of them) judging the finish line. At the same time, the moms and sisters would sell cookies and hot dogs all day with the funds going to the pack. I never fielded an angry parent. There were disappointed boys but most of the time, after seeing the competition, they vowed to try harder the following year. One of the 'hits' was having a parallel competition for the best design (usually the weirdest), also judged by Boy Scouts. Some of the boys didn't even think about winning on the track and instead turned their creative skills to the design. We put all the brackets onto a really big flip chart with a page for each age class. We gave a 'bye' to the odd car, initially determined by pulling a name out of a jar. The car in the 'bye' bracket would run three times to insure that every car ran the same number of times and the boy was allowed to take someone's non-competing car as an opponent. We switched lanes in the first two runs and flipped a coin for the third lane choice. After everything was done, before the track was taken down, we let the boys just race their cars against anyone they wanted, with extra weight, less weight, wheels missing, pretty much anything goes. To me PWD was one of the highlights of the year. Not just the race itself but also all of the preparation, including the anticipation as the race neared. We had a couple of weekend 'tune ups' and weigh-ins and this was a chance for the dads to show off their tools, swap tips on speed with all the boys (with the caveat that they had to share) and the single moms got to exploit all those testosterone-charged tools and that expertise for their sons as well. Those nights were social events for the boys but also the families. It was exhausting for me but it was a heck of a lot of fun. I really miss the cubs. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

That book is a great memory from my own youth. Thanks for mentioning it.

I almost missed this by BadenP, "It is not so much the card as the administration of the program and the database of information that would have to be maintained for this purpose. With the federal government having continuing problems with hackers getting into sensitive and top secret databases already I would hate to see yet another database out there with sensitive information that a hacker could easily break into." I could agree except I happen to know that when it comes to protecting sensitive information, the STATES are hardly the 'gold standard'. They actually sell personal info to direct marketers in some cases. From my comparative work with both states and feds, I'll take the feds any day on security issues. My personal experience is that the federal government is a model of efficiency and competence compared to the states. I've seem them both from the inside.

drmbear, I had a similar experience (minus in-laws) in the Urals back in 1995. Sadly, my ethic had no effect on my companions. Now the vodka, cognac, and beer...that's another story. Stosh, I think I agree with your description of the conflicts (perhaps ironies or hypocrisies) in the way society makes natural resource decisions. This scientist has been frustrated by this stuff on many occasions and every chance I get, I point out that EVERY species on that island paradise I love so much is invasive (except those that have evolved on that island - and there aren't many of those). The kinetics of climate change are slow in comparison to the land developer. So where an ecosystem can adapt (google 'Complex Adaptive Systems' and read some of the papers in the journal, Ecosystems), to change that occurs on a time scale which allows populations to 'move' (they don't really unless they're migratory - rather their reproduction is differentially more successful in the adjacent habitats), industrial deforestation (for example) is way too fast for ecosystems to adapt. Something similar happens when invasive species are introduced in such large numbers over a short time. An individual invasive species might be introduced 'normally' at some infrequent interval but human actions have sped this and facilitated hundreds of such introductions over a very short time. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced that absent man, even after what we've done, the ecosystem can do nicely, even if the elms, ashes, chestnuts, passenger pigeons, etc. never re-emerge. The tough part is that 'absent-man' thing. We don't exactly want that to happen, at least I don't. So the question is one of balance or 'sustainability' (another term that I sometimes criticize). And so far, as a society, a 'balance' is not necessarily something that we've understood, predicted, or even planned, much less managed. When it comes to stewardship of natural resources, we haven't exactly covered ourselves with glory. I'd sure like to see that improve. And when the public thinks it's ok to take an 'every-man-for-himself' approach to resource management, I'm not optimistic.

"Besides, I look pretty silly in pink" I'd like to be the judge of that, got any photos? SeattlePioneer, I can respond to specifics if you can share those. Otherwise I only have my own knowledge of the problem of invasive species. Since this is within my area of expertise, I'll respond to the examples given by Stosh. Zebra mussels have cost industry $millions so far, no good controls in sight. Their worst impacts so far are in the Great Lakes region but they are spreading elsewhere. Clarification of the rivers did not remove the nutrients so the deeper penetration of light has indeed opened them to nuisance growth of plants. Indeed, their ability to selectively feed has enabled toxic algal blooms resulting in fish kills and impaired waters. I do agree...they are likely here forever. I would not say it is a good thing. The invasive insects or fungi killing our forests are not replacing those trees. When the chestnut blight wiped out the American chestnut, in terms of nutrient cycling an existing forest tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) filled the role of the chestnut. But tulip poplar does not produce the mast crop of chestnuts that deer, turkeys, and other wildlife had utilized prior to the blight. While the ecosystem does get along in spite of it all, it is permanently different. I could not argue that the chestnut blight improved the ecosystem. Could you? More importantly, it is different in ways that we did not expect, could not predict, and may not understand how to manage. The wooly adelgid is wiping out the hemlocks in our forests. JoeBob, how do you feel about all that dead timber along the banks of the Chattooga and throughout the rest of the region? Anyone think that's a good thing? There is no tree replacing their ecological role so far...we really have no idea what will happen in response. We do know there suddenly are huge numbers of dead trees, little different from having been sprayed with species-specific herbicide. Everyone OK with that? Duckweed (assuming reference to 'common duckweed' - Lemna minor) is native. Perhaps Stosh can be more specific - common names can mean many things. I could give you better examples for your argument but I tend to agree with the assessment that these things DO become part of nature (naturalized). The trouble is the speed with which we have introduced these exotic species. If there were ever aspects of life that most people would agree are desirable, I think they would include understanding our world and control of our lives. These invasives are inherently agents of loss of control. To shrug them off by stating the geologically correct fact that most species that have ever lived are extinct is to say, in essence, that extinction is just fine. Lack of understanding is just fine. Lack of control is just fine. I can accept the reality of these introductions. I don't accept, on the basis of no evidence, that they are benign or that we gain some modicum of understanding or control as a result of their introduction. We don't. In fact, I predict that one day there will be a migratory waterfowl who takes a wrong turn and lands on a Southern lake infested with one or several of the dozens of invasive snails. And a schistosome or some other parasite may take hold as a new invasive that will cost us big$$$ in treatment, management, and perhaps...lives. But I suppose that will be OK because, after all, it is still part of nature. The natural resource agencies are charged by the public to manage what? Natural resources. When a private citizen decided it would be great to introduce lake trout into Yellowstone and thereby hasten the potential extinction of the native cutthroats, and for sure huge cost to the taxpayer in trying to control the situation, that private citizen did nothing less than what someone did putting fish into remote lakes. In both cases they have usurped the responsibility of a state agency or perhaps violated a state law that gives that decision for natural resource management to a state agency. In the case of Yellowstone, it most certainly was a violation of federal law. Is anyone in this thread saying it is acceptable or even desirable to violate state laws? Is anyone saying that the decisions to manage wilderness should be left to whatever haphazard actions are committed by those individuals who can take those actions? I hope not. It violates the LNT ethic...but I think it violates much more than that.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I agree with Beavah on this. But I think JoeBob was musing about the thoughts boys might have with regard to certain specific issues that we've all heard about before. Canoeing across the Okefenokee, my companion chose to 'hold it' for many very uncomfortable days rather than to squat in front of everyone over a portable device. Those are the rules that we agree to, part of the terms that allow us into the swamp. Agree to it or don't go...it's a choice. I view LNT more in terms of opportunity. Following the LNT ethic means that I can go off trail into backcountry areas to enjoy that solitude and then leave with no trace of my visit. It means that others like me can do this as well and as long as no trace is left, we can all enjoy that same experience. It is the opportunity that none of us may have if we all don't follow LNT. In this sense, to me LNT is a selfish act that protects all of us as well as the wilderness. What's not to like about that? SeattlePioneer, fess up now...are you the one who introduced lake trout into Yellowstone Lake? They ARE bigger fish than the native cutthroat trout. Do you think this was a good thing that someone did?

For the 14 year old, I would recommend the smaller version of a 'stockman' with three blades. I've been carrying my old KaBar stockman since 1973, the full size version, they're made by nearly every reputable manufacturer.

OK, I'm getting the impression that this thread is going to fester all the way until the primaries are over. Egad!

I'm tempted to move this one to Council Relations. Anyone think that's a good idea?

Scoutfish, speaking for myself personally AND for this unit, I'd have to say we always go camping just to go camping. Yes, sometimes we do other stuff but the trips go regardless of other motives and are for the sake of getting in the outdoors, listening to that stream at night, telling those stories, hearing the quiet sounds of the forest, and all the other great things. I do it solo as almost a matter of religious reverence. And I go with the unit and we make the camping trips to expand on the experiences from the last trip, to see new places, hear new streams and sounds, and then share those 'war' stories around the campfire. Thanks for this thread. BTW, about that early wakeup...it's called 'old age'. Have a nice day.

I have several photos of my father and his brothers back in the early part of the last century. The youngest boy was wearing a gown (what most of us would call a 'dress' these days). Not that this has any relevance other than to illustrate how many things have changed since that time, some for the better (Kudu would agree, I suspect, that the virtual eradication of many diseases is a good thing). I like cub scouts. Nevertheless I just have to enjoy a good laugh when Kudu states his position on the cubs. I think he's wrong but I do appreciate the fact that he is out there to state that view and then is 'up to' defending it mightily. Same for some of the things he states about scouting. Actually, I remember being a scout, more in line with the spirit of Kudu's view than with current practice. So I am very sympathetic with his view, envious a bit...and wishing to be able to go back to those days. I am also glad that he puts into practice - that which he preaches. The boys in this unit, or in this area for that matter, would benefit from some of those things. Most of them would likely turn away but there would be a few whom I am sure would embrace the Kudu way. Somewhere along the line, the leaders and parents in this area have made the decision that the programs as they deliver are the ones they want for their families. This is a reflection of current society and its illusions. And that's just the way it's going to be. I hope I get to stumble upon Kudu's boys out in the wilderness someday. I will gladly hold that image in my mind knowing those boys are getting many of the memories that I have...and then I will melt quietly into the forest to savor them. Happy New Year

Lisa, have you forgotten Phyllis Schlafly? She is still available.

'Cryptogam'???? Beavah, I have to thank you. This is the first time that I've read that word ever on Scouter.com and actually the first time I've seen it used by anyone in recent times except in a beginning botany course or something...and then just as part of history. Nice. It felt reeeaaaalllyy good. (You did apply it in a context I've also never seen.) I see the LNT ethic as more practical and necessary in areas of greater intensity of use but I would like to see it everywhere. I also agree with Beavah about the desire to pretend to be one with the wilderness. I too have seen plenty of campsites and trails in this region cut to pieces by mountain bikes, horses (even worse), or denuded of low growing vegetation and even leaf litter and pockmarked with fire rings and piles of wood ash. With respect to, "But from what I've been able to see so far, we did a better job of "leaving no trace" back before those words were invented." I remember well the ethic in which we cut living trees to create temporary shelters and other constructions for every campsite we visited. It was one part of pioneering or scoutcraft back then that I questioned as a scout but was taught as the correct way to conduct oneself in the wilderness. Today I'm strongly in support of the LNT approach, perhaps not in all its manifestations, but definitely in the intent. But this isn't confined to the Eastern areas with close proximity to hordes of users. In the back country of Yellowstone I was also disappointed to see strings of horses and people in the back country being led by out-of-park outfitters in numbers way over the written limits. In some places the trails were cut to mush by these hooves making simple backpacking much less pleasurable and in some cases downright unpleasant. The campsites were littered with items that no backpacker I know would ever carry into these remote sites. And along the Pacific Crest Trial or elsewhere in the Cascades I've seen similar examples where LNT would have been a nice thing. So in my view, LNT would be a really nice thing to apply everywhere if people would actually do it.

Answer: things are NOT really this bad. Yeah, I also have a tough time with some of the things you listed but when I was CM, when some of those things would intrude into my thoughts, all I had to do was to make a quick glance at those beautiful (ok, maybe they were dirty) smiling faces on the boys being boys and I could easily set all that other stuff aside and focus on what was most important: the cubs, fun, learning, the outdoors, and the community. Like UCEagle72 said, the best stuff is local.

Perhaps this thread should have been titled, "The Jerry Springer Show".

We have burning bans once in a while but not so often as to limit an opportunity to learn how to properly build a campfire. It also helps to have a CM who just loves to build campfires (and then fiddle with them until it's really annoying, LOL). But even with burning bans in place, the home fireplace is still available. If watching my wife's wretched attempts is any indicator, that's a good place to practice. Also, I sincerely hope that the Slack-jawed Troglodyte sticks around. Just for the moniker if nothing else.

Being the neo-Luddite that I am, we went the other direction. Spent a Saturday with the dads and cubs building our own out of plywood. Cost less than $100. Then we employed boys from the troop to judge the finish line - in full uniform (they were paid in snacks and salutes from the cubs...plus they were allowed to bring their old cars for display and 'practice' runs). Just two lanes, but the pack was small so it worked fine even with double elimination and final overall pack championship runs. PWD was an all-day family event that was one of the best ideas ever to come out of the program.

Tiger Den was the one thing I never did while I was with the Cubs. But I suspect that they will be as much fun as the other ages so I say go with your gut. I've read enough of your posts to believe that you have good instincts and react well to challenges. Have at it. Just don't set yourself up for burnout later. And IF you can get a good Tiger leader (or any other good den leader for that matter) take those gifts with gratitude and enjoy being CM.