packsaddle

If those were the terms of the agreement, then the city isn't necessarily bound to give a reason, just a year's notice. Sound familiar? NJ's right, we reap what we sow. BSA should get over it. I agree with littlebillie on the discrimination comment. The circularity of rejection of discrimination being discrimination reminds me of time travel. Maybe that should be 'SPACEious'. Merlyn, you and NJ really ought to spend more time on the things about which you agree. That's the place to start in order to resolve your differences. Y'all play nice, now.

I was about to start a similar thread...I've been thinking about you and everyone in the Outer Banks-Chesapeake area. I hope for no loss of life, no injuries, and minimal damage. Good luck.

kwc57, you're trying to scare us, aren't you?

Uuuuuggghh! You got me, twocub.

safer watermark methods, what are they?

mschwartz, I would like to see that party trick.

Dancinfox, In biology we often remind persons that your question occurs for many species. And that, in fact, paternity is always in doubt (until you do the DNA stuff). I suggest: Science. 1976 May 28;192(4242):908-10. Human handedness: a partial cross-fostering study. by Hicks and Kinsbourne. This should work as a place to start your search for a scientific answer. There is much, much more.

Bob White, you stated, "The Council and District can only make training and support available the quality of the program rests in the hands of the integrity of the individual leader." I quite agree up to the point where the Council and District DO NOT "make training and support available". This leader knows what is supposed to be in place, as well as what the program should be. But I am a lone voice and the Council and District seem to be satisfied with the status quo of troops fending for themselves. New leaders adopt the status quo from the existing majority and Council and District quietly acquiesce by accepting advancment accomplished with unregistered, untrained counselors. I see the Council and District as part of the problem.

Bob, The last time I saw a Carbon tet fire extinguisher was over 30 years ago (and my lab has extinguishers all over the country). But you're right, I suppose that 50 years after their production stopped some could still be lurking in closets. I think another reason for singling it out is that using carbon tet to extinguish a fire can produce HCl and phosgene gas, a really toxic compound (G2SS mentions this in 'fire extinguishers'). I can understand all this. But why is it listed in section IX, "Sports and Activities"? In that section is a list of actual activities (skating, judo, caving, cycling, ...and then 'carbon tetrachloride'?) It seems oddly placed. But boys are likely to experiment with anything they can get their hands on (I sure did back then) and the other carbon-chlorine compounds are available and do many of the same things. (one of the reasons, incidentally, I don't allow anyone to put plastic in a campfire) I suggest that G2SS should address hazardous materials in a generic manner as well as for specific materials, perhaps in its own section. Do a search for 'hazardous material' in G2SS and see what you find. I was surprised. But I stumbled onto another thing that was also puzzling. G2SS states that "...public school transportation vehicles are not subject to CDL rules when transporting students...". This was news to me. Do I have an obsolete version of G2SS? I am looking at the one at www.scouting.org. I went back and read my CDL manual to learn where I went wrong. However, in this state at least, CDL rules most certainly do apply.

Can anyone satisfy my curiosity as to what caused them to single out carbon tetrachloride as a restricted compound? I know it's a poison. So is chloroform and a myriad of other compounds. So why single out carbon tet? Is this especially available, more than other compounds? I don't have a problem with the policy, I'm just curious. Dsteele, can you work your magic here?

Dsteele, that made so much sense that it even felt good. I couldn't agree more. Maybe even for the squirt guns. But you must admit, clear unambiguous statements of policy are better than the other kind.

When I was a scout we had huge troop water gun fights. And now we all earn a living by sticking up 7-11s (need to remember to list this on the 'what do you do?' thread). Bob White, so it was your 'opinion', h'mm...that sure clears up everything for me. With regard to the air rifle thing, G2SS makes a distinction between firearms and air rifles by mentioning them specifically and separately, but with equal standing. "The Boy Scouts of America adheres to its longstanding policy of teaching its youth and adult members the safe, responsible, intelligent handling, care, and use of firearms, airguns, and BB guns in planned, carefully managed, and supervised programs." In my 'opinion' (the opinion that I serve? h'mm maybe it IS mine!) BSA considers firearms and other things with barrels and projectiles to be different, but under the same restrictions. (I'm still struggling with particle beam weapons. NJ, they look more like something out of Ghost Busters...and we sort of act that way too, when playing with them) To use a different example, G2SS is also restrictive with regard to chainsaws and powered log splitters. Because BSA makes no mention of other powered implements (say, backhoes, trenchers, or jack hammers) it is possible for one person to have an 'opinion' that such are ok for use by boys because they are not specifically listed - and another person to disagree. If BSA would clarify such restrictions with a statement of principle as well as their specific examples, these arguments would not end but I think there would be fewer of them. At least we wouldn't be bickering over whether or not it was permissible to 'point' a bow an arrow at someone...just because it is neither a gun nor a firearm. The principle would work there quite well. Probably for those jack hammers too.

Bob, It was your interpretation "not want to be associated with pointing guns at people" that I couldn't find in the wording, but thanks for repeating the wording for the umpteenth time. I think that you need to take some time and consider NJ's good suggestions.

Bob White, read it again. It says 'firearm' not 'gun' and then it parenthetically includes things that are not firearms. It is your interpretation (result of reading between the lines) that BSA's intent is "not want to be associated with pointing guns at people". While I agree with this sentiment I also note there's nothing like that in the wording. Do you really think BSA is mostly worried about being associated with gun pointing, as opposed to the risk of an injury from a projectile (particle beams aside)? Which of these options do you think would carry the greatest liability risk? Acco40, I'd prefer a photon or two any day instead of a hunk of lead.

Don't worry, Fat Old Guy, I doubt anyone will ever threaten you outside the verbal arena. As for me, I mostly worry about hidden wasp nests, not much worry about self-defense from people. But flying stinging insects, man, those are tough!

beaver1onit, I agree with your sentiment on the 'MB mill' phenomenon. To answer Bob White's suggestion and to address your concern, I note that I have, indeed, made proposals to correct this problem. When I started as a naive leader, I tried and tried to get something going. I volunteered to organize it. I wrote letters. That was 4 DEs ago. Nothing. My conclusion: They. Don't. Care. To further complicate things, once troops get in the habit of being MB mills, it is a difficult habit to break. My view is that without direct, forceful action from above (meaning Council) nothing will change. The council could break this with a stroke of a pen. They are aware of the situation, they have the means to correct a problem, and they do...nothing.

Ed, In this context I guess I view 'unacceptable' as synonymous with 'prohibited', at least in effect on troop activities. Do you see this differently? Perhaps I am missing something in the interpretation. Bob White, I can read the wording as many times as you like but 'reading between the lines' still seems necessary for its application to activities that are not specifically mentioned. I agree with NJ that the wording could be clarified. I think he was just making a point with the flashlight analogy.

We're just starting out so we're really starting small. But we plan to overcome this by combining forces with several other troops in a single crew. Sure hope it works.

Yep, that's the way I view it too. That's the way I knew it as a scout. Decades later I am still shocked and dismayed that the boys don't have such a MB program. It doesn't exist here. Here no such training or recruiting is done, not at least in our district. No list of registered MB counselors, no place for the boys to turn to at the district level (not sure about the council). THAT's what puts the pressure on the troops: the lack of such district resources requires each troop to create their own mini-MB program. These programs consist of a few parents doing multiple MBs as unregistered counselors - for their own boys, not for other troops. A waste of time and a loss to the boys who do not benefit from the program you describe. I agree with you.

We have gone both ways but I encourage the troop not to do MBs at troop meetings, there's plenty of better activities. Unfortunately, our district (Council?) doesn't have a MB program so the troops are left to their own devices. This factor places a lot of pressure to include MB activities in some troop venue. I keep hoping for a real MB program...

OGE, I salute your son. Outstanding! Sorry, not much experience on this topic.

I'm a righty. Write right Eat left but I can go either way if there's enough food Wood carve (whittle) right Throw, bat right Rifle, archery right Best side kick left Lead either hand Vote for the best candidate

NJ, I'm getting a good laugh just now. I say that down here once in a while and no one has any idea what it's about. The third paragraph did have me a wee bit confused. The whole paintball, etc. thing is something I fight all the time. The G2SS is clear on these activities but around here this stuff is rampant and I am constantly denying permission for such activities by the troop. I do take issue with the wording, though. I have always understood that the term 'firearm', according to my Webster's, included "any weapon which expels the charge by the combustion of powder or other explosive; especially, such a weapon small enough to be carried, as a pistol, rifle, etc." Or to pick further nits, nothing was specifically mentioned about air rifles nor, for that matter, water pistols. Does anyone seriously think that it is acceptable for the boys to shoot bows and arrows or sling shots at each other? I suppose a stickler for detail might try to make that argument. I understand the intention but the wording could be improved. As it is one must read between the lines: Anything that shoots or launches a projectile must not be pointed at another person. Inclusion of laser tag (no actual projectile) as a prohibited activity implies that anything that has the appearance of a firearm also must not be pointed at another person. Any other thoughts?

Safety is always first. We can lose (forget) lunch but without the safety gear we don't go. Getting ready is not that involved. They take a towel and extra clothes to change into after the run, lunch (ziplocks inside tupperware inside waterproof bags - no glass, no cans, only plastic if possible) hats, sunscreen, water, trash bags, water shoes, maybe a waterproof camera or two. I make them wear t-shirts with their swim suits. They are usually glad I did that around mid-day. Some wear the zip off pants over their swim suits (I do too). Aside from the safety afloat stuff, we follow all that and make pfd and helmets mandatory (worn, not carried) on any river with rapids. For flat-water rivers we don't require helmets but we still require pfd to be worn. Beyond that, knowing the boys and knowing the water is next. For whitewater, boys don't really have to know how to swim although I prefer it. The current is usually too strong or turbulent to effectively swim anywhere they are likely to fall out of a raft. I have a good feeling for the limits of their capability so we try to aim for experiences that don't involve needless risk. Knowing the water is something that you can hire in the form of a guide. But if you execute the trip yourself, someone, preferably more than one must know the section you're on, the rapids, and what the conditions are for the particular water level at the time of the trip. In rafts, we provide on the water training for the boys. We put in at a calm location and run them through all the basic paddling skills, turns, ferrying, eddying, etc. Reading the water takes more experience so we put at least one experienced person in each raft, or let the experienced raft lead the way. We stop at each rapid (even the easy ones) and scout it. This gives the younger guys some idea of how to judge the best route, how flowing water behaves. Better yet, we let some other craft pass us and have a little fun at their expense (learn from their mistakes). Sometimes this is so much fun that we want to stay awhile and watch the show. Unless someone is meeting you at the take-out, extra time is needed to drop off vehicles left at the take-out. This requires more than two adults on the trip. Two to stay with the boys and gear at the take-out while all the rest of the drivers travel up to get their vehicles. Allow plenty of time for all that, some trips can really take a long time because of it. But again all this depends on the river. If it is a fast continuous run, there is less opportunity to scout rapids. More of a roller coaster ride. I really enjoy a series of falls and pools. ...We approach the 7 foot ledge, the first boat simply disappears over it. The rest of them get quiet. I ask, "who's next?" They look at each other. I love seeing those wide eyes tipping over a ledge they can't see past. On a short section, if you time it right, you can run it twice in a day. Equipment has to be secured properly, safety throw rope for each raft, something to bail water with...you get the idea. We try not to take coolers on the river and then only tiny ones that can be secured with the other equipment. We leave a big cooler in the vehicle at the take out with drinks and food (they're going to wait there for a while) and the extra clothes. If the take-out spot is appropriate, we swim for a while too. I know most of our rivers fairly well so when possible, we schedule lunch for a location where everyone can swim (again with pfd and helmet on). The kayakers are usually very experienced and I don't worry too much about them, we stay together as a group and they play all around the rafts. Then at lunch we let the non-yakers give it a try in a safe place. Great fun. I wish I was on the water right now.

Thanks, as usual (due to my complete lack of fashion sense), I'll rely on the crew to make sure the colors don't clash with green.