Proud Eagle

I don't know for certain what the book says, but I do know what is common practice in my experience. I think every board of review I appeared before contained ASMs. I also know that I have served on several boards of review as an ASM. This may not be the way it is supposed to work, but it seems to be common practice in my area. Conversations with other adults indicates this is the norm in most units. I think it is because the average CM is usually just a parent who doesn't have a clue what is going on while the ASMs at least have some idea what the Scouting program is supposed to be. I know just this year I was on several boards made up of the Scoutmaster, the Committee Chairman, and I. I am not certain, but I think at least one of the members of every board we have done in recent memory was a CM. We briefly had a committee of dedicated members who had some history in, and understanding of, Scouting. However, that is no longer the case. Now we have a few old members on the list that don't ever show up, and some newer parents that are still learning. (The CC is the exception. He is a relatively new parent, but he is dedicated. Also, he is an Eagle, so he already knew the basic concept of Scouting.)

I know all of the national (and if there are any) regional committee members use gold loops. This applies to all program areas. The pros at those levels also wear gold. The various directors at Philmont wear gold, though the rank and file employees wear the loops of their program. OA officers are a tricky issue. Many places have lodge and even chapter officers wear silver loops. This doesn't make sense to me, with one exception. In most instances the Lodge Chief serves on the council camping committee and/or the council Executive Board in an advisory/non-voting capacity. Section Chiefs usually wear red loops, but while attending certain things such as the annual national meeting (I forgot what the official name is) they apperently wear gold loops. It seems gold loops are determined if you are a permanent pro/volunteer at regional/national level, or if you are currently primarily serving in a regional/national role at that moment. Varsity Scouts are officially "blaze". Oh, just looked it up. You wear the loops of what you are functioning as. So if you have a council/district position but are at a unit meeting as a unit leader you should actually change loops.

Woow, what a relief. I felt like a moth being drawn into a candlelight for a minute. Then the thread returned to a far less dangerous and more productive topic. Yes, you must undertand something abouting following before you can be a good leader. You can be a leader without knowing how to be a follower. However, you can never reach your full potential without also knowing how to follow. Consider this example. It is crude and not entirely correct, but it is the best I can do at the moment. If you are a shift manager at a fast food place you need to know the basics about your subordinates jobs to be really effective at managing them. If you don't understand what they do, and how they do it, you will have a hard time making the most effective use of the personel assigned to you. It is the same with leaders/followers. It is applicable both in technical aspects (you will not be a good Philmont crew leader without orienteering skills) and in the more general leadership aspects (you can't effectively make requests or give instructions if you don't know what it is like to be on the recieving end of those same requests/instructions.) These are all very basic things embraced by all parts of the military in training their leaders. Also, don't forget that every leader is a follower of someone or something. Most leaders exist somewhere between the bottom and the top and so need to know how to both give and take orders, so to speak. (Though orders are not generally the preffered method in Scouting, I use that to encompasse the entire up/down relationship of the chain of command.)

FOG, I think you just made the best case I have heard for banning those things. I happen to think you're examples are dead on. I know my personal experience is generally in line with your reasoning. List of traits these devices don't encourage, maybe even discourage: cooperation kindness courteousness helpfulness teamwork compromise enthusiasm for the outdoors and nature appreciation for simple things I am certain there are more. That may not be a reason to ban them from all Scouting functions, but it is certainly a reason to discourage their use. Oh, here is question- why do many school systems ban headphones on buses? I am pretty sure it has something to do with safety issues. Maybe they can't hear driver instructions, though it could be anything.

You know what they say about assumptions... They make an (three letter word that can be used for a farm animal or part of the anatomy) out of you and me. and They are the mother of all (a crude reference to an act involving two people) ups.

Listen, if I had the time to go look up the references and take the training before I expressed my opinion I would. However, I do not in this case. Generally on most Scouting issues I am reasonably well informed. However, I have never served on a Troop Committee or been trained to be a member of one. That doesn't mean I don't know anything. It doesn't mean the experience I have had doesn't give me a few useful insights. The point about the tour permit came from an earlier thread. It seemed to be the consencus that the committee had to approve an outing. (Though not the permit itself.) That was the point I was trying to make. I was trying to suggest that the committee's power rested not in the chairman or individual members, but rather in the body as a group. That is generally the nature of committees, though perhaps the BSA has decided to abandon the normal nature of committees. Bob, think about this if you will... If there was no need for the committee to aprove of a trip why would a committee member need to sign the tour permit? It certainly doesn't make any sense to believe that the consent of a single member of the committee is what is desired. It also makes no sense to think that a single committee member would have the authority to speak for the entire committee unless specifically provided for by the committee. The comment about specifically setting the membership of the committee was there for a reason. The individuals who are members should know that they are members. The list of members should be known so as to avoid confusion when it comes time for any important issue to be addressed. I was also trying to suggest that it is not a good idea for all parents to be members, or for all adults and parents to attend and participate in every committee meeting. Those things are counter productive, in my experience. Oh, here is a question I am uncertain of. I think I know both the book answer and the reality. Can an adult be registered as an unit leader without a position being specified? I have been told by what I consider to be an extremely reliable source that while this isn't specifically provided for, that it can be done. It was suggested by that same source that this could be used as a fix for the problem of parents that either want to be registered "leaders" or have nothing to do with the unit at all, and yet at the same time were largely unwilling to be trained for any position.

This requirement seems to have been different at some other point in time. At a former summer camp, (now just a run down little council camp) there is a trail that was created as an Eagle project. The dedication plaque list the date. I think it was early 1970s.

Advisor Jim makes an intersting point. I think most volunteers would advocate for the importance and quality of the program they support. We would all like to be able to recieve more support from the district/council pros and volunteers. I know in my district it always seemed like the cub scouts got the lions share of the attention. The Venturing program did not (and to my knowledge) does not exist. However, the DE is frequently pushing charter orgs (through the unit leaders) to establish Crews, or even change Troops into Crews. So, no matter how you figure it, somebody gets moved to the back burner if you move something else to the front burner. Maybe a DE can put all program issues on the fron burner, but then something like FOS will slip, and next thing you know you will be sharing a DE with the district next door. I think we need to acknowledge that DEs can only do so much. Though we should be careful to not let that become an excuse for not getting the job done well.

It seems that dsteele is coming the closest to expressing the opinion I hold on this issue. I am not in favor of creating troop rules unless there is a need for those rules. Because each charger org, each community, and each unit is different, I can not say what is or is not needed to carry out the program in individual cases. If a unit does create rules to assist in carrying out the program they must originate in the appropriate location. Any "arbitrary" rules that are not addressed by BSA policy, charter org policy, laws, and other binding things should generally originate with the PLC or other applicable youth leaders/bodies. Rules related to safety, finances, or to clarify/reinforce binding policies would naturally originate from adult leadership in most cases. That being said, creating your own version of the BSA program by ignoring some policies and creating others of your own is not acceptable, as long as you claim to be carrying out the BSA program. You can't add to rank requirements. You could create something like a FAQ to clarify the rank requirements, if something is unclear. (and rank requirements are pretty clear, to those who can, and do, read) You can't require that someone be in complete/correct uniform for a BOR. You can let it be known that it is appropriate, or even expected, that Scouts will be in uniform for such occasions. The key question is, are the "rules" created by the unit supporting or suplanting/superceding the BSA program? If the answer is supporting, it would seem to be acceptable. If the answer is something else, it would not be acceptable.

I find this issue to be interesting in a somewhat indirect way, since it does not directly relate to me. I would strongly advise the troop to formally set the membership of the committee. The position of committee member exists for a reason. Otherwise committee meetings turn into adult leader meetings, or parents meetings. Neither of those seem to be particularly capable of doing the job assigned to the Troop Committee. I would suggest that the Troop Committee, by the very nature of being a committee, must operate according to parliamentary procedure (at least in principal, if not in specific technical details). Parliamentary procedure calls for action by majority vote in certain circumstances. It would seem that there is no need to specify the means by which a committee operates, because that is fundamental to the nature of committees, unless otherwise SPECIFICALLY provided for. The earlier discussion about approving tour permits indicates that this is the case. If the Chairman has the full authority to make decisions for the committee then only the Chairman's signature should be accepted for tour permits and all other official documents. If, however, the committee, as a body, has the power of approval, then any committee member could be able to act as a witness to what the committee's decision was. The Chairman would still be responisble for organizing the members of the committee, running meetings, and ensuring that administrative and organizational matters are cared for. I have not been trained in these matters. This is just my opinion.

Having been through my onw board within recent history, and having been on two boards since, I guess I could provide a couple of semi-useful pieces of information. 1. Make certain all the paperwork is squared away. Have simple, yet thorough documentation of the project, your planning of it, and all other papers that you are asked for. Providing an extra copy isn't a bad idea. Don't just do the bare minimal of what is required in the life to Eagle packet. You can pass the board with the minimal, but it doesn't make a stellar first impression. 2. Have complete and correct uniform. It is not a good thing to have the first thing someone notices about you be that you are wearing both your OA and merit badge sash. (that was the first thing I noticed about one of the individuals I helped review) 3. When asked a question that you are uncertain take time to think it over, but don't just sit there in silence for an hour. Most of the questions you will be asked have no right answer. Just come up with an answer that makes sense to you. Be ready to explain answers you give. 4. Be honest when answering questions. If someone asks you about your worst Scouting experience don't tell them there was no such thing. The board will be able to tell when you aren't being open with them about something. 5. Know your own Scouting history. Know when and where you went to summer camp. Know what badges you earned and approximately when. (You don't need to memorize dates, but you should know if you earned it in your first year, or this year.) Think about your favorite and least favorite experiences in Scouting. 6. Oath and Law. Know them and be able to explain them. If asked the perenial board of review question about how you live them in your daily life, have a very solid answer. Here are some questions I recall being asked that you might want to think about: (though you many never be asked any of them) What was your personal Kobayashi Maru? (When, as a leader, did you encounter a no win scenario, and how did you deal with it?) What would you add to the Scout Law if you had to add a 13th point? Favorite merit badge. why? Least favorite merit badge. why? What is the most used thing you have learned in Scouting? You will probably get some questions not directly related to Scouting. You may be asked about other activities you do. Basically, the board is trying to do several things: make you think about your Scouting experience find out who you are find out what you have gained from Scouting find out if you did what was required find out if you have the characteristics to be an Ealge (those first three are probably going to be the central focus) The Eagle Board of Review is just like a board for any other rank in some ways. You will be asked many of the same questions. However, the reviewers are some of the most capable and experienced at doing reviews of anyone in your district or council. The Eagle Board will also serve as a review of your entire Scouting experience, in some ways. Expect tough questions. Remember, those on your Board are Scouters. They will not try to tear you apart. They are there as much to help you as anything else. Though they will give you enough rope to hang yourself with, in a figurative sort of way. Hope that helps. If you have any specific questions, let me know. Oh, you asked about things to bring. Bring anything you think may help you. Bring your handbook, something to write with, and something to write on. Chances are you will never use a single reference or aid. There won't be many questions whose answers can be found in the handbook, but having your handbook is a sign of being prepared. The board may even ask you to leave whatever you bring outside the room, but it can't hurt to have something that you could need.

I have to wonder if providing advertising space on a trailer or something along those lines would constitute a service. In that way you could have your corporate sponsors, and be selling a service. I don't know if that would work or not, but it might. I know my troop gets most of its funds from annual Christmas tree sales. That has been enough to pay for several troop trailers over the years, most of the scouts summer camp fees, a 15 passenger van, and many other things over the years. Another idea, (one I just thought of) you are chartered to a church, is ask if at Scout Sunday you can take up a special collection for the troop. On the issue of event fees, I think District and Council adding on to the fees is a nearly universal problem. I know this was a problem with a Camporee planned by the volunteers in my district. After the DE or SE decided to change the budget the volunteers bailed out and the event was cancelled. Several units in the council host their own camporees with near by units just to get around the many problems associated with Council/District events. I know at the last Jambo our contingent ended up having extra money. This was after the SMs had done everything they could think of to make certain the money paid in fees was spent on this event. In the end only a small amount of each persons fees wound up being given to council, but I have to wonder how much lower of a fee would have been needed if they had really been careful with the budget instead of feeding everyone at buffets and what not during touring. To me a $10 Camporee fee is outrageous. Many OA events are done with a $10 fee, that includes a patch, program materials, and food for all participants. If an OA lodge can do a weekend including food, for ten bucks, then a Camporee should easily be less than half of that cost since it doesn't include participant food.

The thread about the most important word in the Scout Law made me think of this. At my Eagle Board of Review, I was asked a simple, yet difficult question. If I could add one point to the Scout Law, what would it be? I have since served on two Eagle Boards and that same question was asked on both occasions. (Once by the same person who asked me, the other time by me.) I think it is a good question to ask. So what would your answer be? Don't tell me the Law is perfect, come on, you can think of something. Now explain why that 13th point should be added.

Examples of going the extra mile: The SE that personally cooks the steaks for the SM's dinner every week at camp. The DE that works at camp all summer, not because the SE forced him to, but because he cares about the camp and campers. The DE's that show up when they don't have to. (If our DE shows up at our troop's 25th anniversary dinner this weekend, that would be an example.) Things that I think would be nice if the pros did, but usually don't, at least where I am from: Show up at the largest gathering of Boy Scouts to be held in your council for 9 years for more than an hour. Don't just drop off the materials needed for an event and leave, stay a while. Take invitations seriously. Just because you don't have time to make it to all the events you are invited to doesn't mean you shouldn't reply in a sincere way. ("Why would they think I would show up for THAT? Don't they know I am busy" [that is supposedly what a pro in my council said to another office worker about someones Eagle COH with several volunteers around as witnesses.]) If you are the SE you should probably know the name of the Lodge Chief by the end of his term. You don't need to really know him, but knowing who he is would be a considerable plus. That way when he calls you a few months after passing the torch to the next Chief you don't have to ask "do I know you?" after he gives his name. That also prevents the key youth and adult leaders of the lodge from feeling like you don't really care about the program they dedicate their time to when they hear about said conversation. (That comes from personal experience. It is backed up by the fact that my predecessor, who became Section Chief, had several similar experiences.) That example of the SE cooking for the SMs is perhaps my best example of an SE going above and beyond. He could have stayed in his office that afternoon, but instead he drove to the camp, checked in on the staff, then helped set up for the dinner, personally cooked the steak, and made certain everyone felt welcome at his council's camp. He took time to talk to some of the SMs and find out how their week was going. People remember those personal touches far more than they ever remember the extra hours at the office, or the amazing increase in FOS contributions someone raked in. (unless they were there along side you helping during those extra hours, or those fund raising attempts)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

In my troop (as in the one I am a member of, not the nonexistant one I charter) we always make the Scouts aware of Council/District events during calendar planning. We then encourage them to use camporees and the like as part of the troop program. If camporees are well planned they should be a great addition to a troop's program. If they are not well planned then they can seriously detract from a troop's program.

This thread seems to have gone off the deep end... I would suggest that unit level rules, if designed to be in keeping with BSA policies and made in such a way that they reinforce the BSA policies, Scout Oath, and Scout Law, can be a useful thing. We must remember that we are talking about kids hear. Their is a reason schools have rules. It is for that same reason that units should sometimes establish rules. Certainly it would be best if a unit needed no rules because all of its youth and adults knew, understood, and followed BSA policies, the Oath, and the Law, but that isn't the way the world works. Instead we live in an imperfect world filled with flawed people. I would suggest that while rules may be a symptom of a problem, they are not necessarily a problem of their own if done properly. Also, don't tell me the unit's SM needs to get his act together and fix the problem instead of allowing rules to be created. That would be what would fix the problem in the ideal world, but we live in reality, not Utopia.

I have good news. You can have your cake and eat it to in this case. You can create a temporary new scout patrol to place the new recruits in. They should probably stay in that patrol for at least a few months, possibly as long as a year. Normally new scout patrols are supposed to help get the scouts oriented in the troop and help them get their first class. After these new scouts get their bearings within the troop, and are no longer "new" they can then choose to move into the permanent mixed patrols (with a little guidance from youth and adult leaders), or form their own patrol if that is what they really want. The purpose of the new scout patrol, as I understand it, is to provide just such an option. You don't have to have age based patrols. You don't have to throw new scouts directly into a mixed patrol. I hope this helps. Others can probably provide some better information based on direct experience.

I earned my Eagle and now I am an Assistant Scoutmaster. I also chair a committee for my OA Lodge.

FScouter, I find your last post to be highly frustrating. It appears you decided to hide behind national policy to avoid answering questions about your own positions and beliefs. Perhpas I have misjudged your intent, but that certainly seems to be what you have done. In your previous post you argue your position about what you think is right and wrong. I then ask some questions of your position and present some challenges, and your reply seems to amount to a, "my opinion doesn't matter, only national policy does". If that is your assertion then I must wonder why you stated your own personal beliefs in the first place. You are right that BSA has not banned all simulated killing. However, you made a statement that would favor that being the policy. "any game or activity that centers around the simulated killing of other people is wrong" If that is truelly what you believe, it seems to me you would be morally obligated to promote the banning of simulated killing. In fact, if that is your position, then you would have to believe that all simulated killing is banned in fact, if not by name, by the "morally straight" clause in the Scout Oath. Otherwise your belief that it is wrong is rather hollow at best, or so it seems to me. I do not think we should go around ignoring national policy. I am not even asking for BSA to allow units to ignore the GTSS. Instead, I am suggesting that the current interpretation of the GTSS does not fit the language of the rule, and that the rule itself is not well worded. I am not suggesting BSA tell the units "ignore GTSS if you want to" I am suggesting BSA change the GTSS. I really can't determine where you got the idea that I suggested the GTSS should be made into some kind of optional thing. Also, your assertion that we do not have to make decisions because BSA does it for us is absurd. We have to make decisions all the time. We have to determine what policy means. We have to determine what to do when policy isn't clear. We have to determine what to do when there is no policy on something. (By "we", I mean collectively all those involved in Scouting in the field, those carrying out and participating in the program.)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

This seems to be a potentially very serious breach of Youth Protection, which is perhaps the most important set of rules in Scouting. The fact that you are at all uncertain about this activity indicates to me that you MUST take some type of action. At the very least, you should not allow your son to be alone with the SM. It is possible that the SM may consider these shopping trips to be something other than a true scouting activity. This is an area that is not 100% clear. What constitutes a Scouting activity that requires the rules of Scouting to be followed? The fact that this shopping trip is the standard procedure used before every trip indicates that it is pretty close to being an official troop activity. At the very least, the SM should take the opportunity to go the extra mile to set an example of following YP. If this cannot be quickly and permanently resolved within the unit, then it seems that it would be necessary to bring someone at the district or council level into the mix. At the very least they should be consulted to see what they think about this issue. The only possible ways around YP is to take the position that this is not a Scouting activity, but rather just an activity that involves a Scout and a Scouter, or to take the position that the other drivers on the road and other shoppers in the store prevents them from being alone. I also have to touch on the cook question. If they are selecting someone to act as the patrols head cook for the weekend that would seem to be acceptable. However, expecting one person to do all of the cooking (and perhaps all of the cleaning) for the weekend is not a good idea. At the very least there should be a duty roster providing assistant cooks and a clean up crew for each meal.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

FScouter, I am not trying to suggest that killing people is a good thing. In fact I would agree completely that murder is a terrible wrong. So, we at least agree on part of the issue. I would also suggest that no Scout should participate in an activity such as laser tag or paintball unless both they and their parents are comfortable with them doing so. I do think that if a boy run troop decides it wants to engage in one of those activities, and the adult leadership is willing to support their decision, then it should be an option. Many parents object to shotgun, rifle, and archery activities. Others object to fishing. At what point should we draw the line between acceptable activities and unacceptable activities when there is considerable differences of opinion based on cultural, political, religious, and regional differences? I am inclined to think offering flexibility to the charter organization and their units makes sense when there is no demonstrable safety risk. I must also ask what constitues being entertained by simulated death? Do films that contain death constitute being entertained by death? What about computer or video games that involve death? Should a Scoutmaster check all of the gameboy games his Scouts are using during a long road trip to ensure that none of them are engaged in simulated killing? Perhaps chess and risk should banned because they do at some level simulate combat. How many layers have to seperate the real thing from the simulated to make it acceptable? Here is another angle. Painball most closely simulates organized combat, such as that between units of soldiers. Now some do object to the use of lethal force even under the most justified circumstances and even with the greatest restraints to keep things within the rules of war. However, most people would say there is a considerable difference between say a just war and murder. The point I am trying to make is that banning anything that could be considered simulated killing, or other simulated immoral/unethical behavior, is a slippery slope that could easily lead to banning what are quite widely accepted activities. Perhaps the similarities between paintball and actual combat could warrant it being banned. That I could settle for, though not enthusiastically. However, banning laser tag does not make sense. Laser tag has very little similarity to real combat as far as I can tell. Often laser tag doesn't even involve the individuals who are hit being eliminated from the game. It is because of those quite obvious differences that I would think that laser tag would be an acceptable activity, especially if the charter org, the Scouts, the adult leaders, and the parents all approved. At some point we have to trust that the individuals in the units will be able to make appropriate decisions about such things when safety does not seem to actually be a concern. Certainly it would seem nuts to suggest that a troop based in Berkley, or one where half its members are quaker, should be playing paintball, because that would probably not be acceptable to the families involved in that unit. On the other hand, suggesting that similuted killing is wrong to a troop based on a military base where half the parents of the scouts jobs involve killing the enemies of this country, would also be nuts.

I am not certain if my troop really has a formal rule on this issue. We do have a standard practice. We do not use or carry cell phones unless it is necessary for the individual or the troop. Many adults need to be able to check in with work or family from time to time. That we allow. Scouts with cells hasn't really been a problem. Last I knew we had one Scout with a cell. That same Scout is the only one that is old enough to drive. We allow him to have a cellphone during troop activities, but he keeps it turned off. Generally we ask that people do not bring things that they don't need to have to meetings or outings. If they must bring something, then we ask that they turn it off or put it away when not actually needed at that moment. So far this has eliminated most of the problem. (We do have one active adult that almost always has his cell on, and he gets call frequently. However, they are usually work related, or his family, so that seems to be a necessity.)

That seems very unusual at best. I know of nothing at the national level that would support this. I also know of nothing locally that would support it in my area. Is it possible for the OA to charter a crew? I don't think they can. Maybe the council will turn a blind eye toward it, or maybe some other group is the charter org. on paper, with the OA being it in fact. My greater concern beyond this being within the rules or not is the question of this being of benefit to the youth and the program. The only possible uses I can see for an OA venturing crew would be to create a unit based on ceremonies and dancing that could carry out additional activities beyond those of the lodge, to allow the OA lodge a way to send expiditions to the high adventure bases and other such activities, or perhaps to offer some part of the venturing program to youth in parts of the council without local venturing crews. As to how Venturing fits into the OA, it doesn't, nor does OA fit into it. The two programs are seperated at all levels. I would certainly not be in favor of any OA lodge chartering a unit. OA supports the program and the units. It should not become a unit. On the other hand, a Lodge being able to do some of the things a unit can do would be a great use to the OA. However, creating a unit from a different prgram in a way that is probably contrary to the rules is not a good way of gaining those abilities. Oh, one other thing. What is that about not letting you join for another two years? I am a bit uncertain what that is about.

Dave J, I am not really certain if we are in conflict on the substance of the issue. Perhaps we are, but I don't really think so. ------ The reason I do not use the term value is that I do not think of "not pointing guns at people" as a moral value by itself. Pointing guns at people for no reason could be a negative value, but I would think it would be the product of bad or lacking values, rather than the presence of the "point guns at peole" value. I would agree with placing a "value", as in a measure of worth, on activities. If someone fully embraces and lives up to the values of the Scout Oath and Law, they will not point guns at people without cause. They certainly wouldn't intentionally shoot someone without a justification. I would even say they wouldn't point a paintball marker at someone without a reason. There is no need for a 13th point in the Scout Law: a Scout is "not pointing guns at other people". If a person does not believe in being curteous, kind, helpful, friendly they may be far more likely to point a gun at someone. Values guide actions. Rules govern behavior. If a person does something wrong, it could be for any of three reasons. 1. They may have failed to live up to the values they hold. 2. They may not hold any values that prevent the action. 3. They may have values that make what is wrong seem to be right to them. Scouting should teach values that are universal in their application. I think we have all agreed that painball and laser tag are banned for reasons other than safety. That would lead to the posibility that they were banned because of being in conflict with the values of Scouting. However, under close examination, I think we can determine that is not so. The values we teach should be applicable to life, not just to Scouting events. Do we want to teach Scouts that is is wrong to play paintball and laser tag? If that is a value we hold, then we should be teaching them to not partake of those activities under any circumstance. The rule itself indicates there is no absolute "no pointing guns at people" value, because of the exception for law enforcement training. That lead us to the posibility that not pointing guns at people is the expression of, or the outcome produced by, the values of Scouting. That I will agree with as a general theory. However, it is not an absolute. If multiple people agree to engage in a game of paintball or laser tag and then point a "gun" at each other in the process of doing so, are they in conflict with any of the values of Scouting? I do not think so. Point out the part of the Scout Oath or Law they violated. Tell me in what way they are doing something that is unsafe? There are only five possible valid reason why painball and laser tag were banned, after eliminating the core values of Scouting as a possibility. 1. They produce excessive risk of injury that would then require BSA to compensate the injured parties. I have seen no evidence that either of those activities carries a very high risk of injury. If there is data to support this, then I could see the point. I am not certain I would agree with the decision, but I would at least understand the reason. 2. The fear that Scouts are not mature enough for the activity. We think they are too young to understand the difference between pointing a somewhat gun like device at another person as part of a safe game, and pointing a real gun at someone for no reason. Perhaps this could send the wrong message, but I think the considerable effort by BSA to teach gun safety, and perhaps a bit of augmentation with extra reinforcing messages about the didderence between a toy and weapon, could make that very clear. So I don't think we really want to go down the road of branding the leaders of our program as being so immature that they cannot understand the difference between playing a game with willing participants under a controlled setting, and shooting up their school and classmates. I suppose you could also argue that the Scouts are not mature enough to play by the rules on their own time. If we teach them to play paintball, next thing we know, they will be doing it in the street, hitting other people, not wearing masks themselves, and end up putting out someones eye. That logic would require us to ban many of the activities of Scouting. ("next thing you know, they will be swimming without lifeguards", "they will be shooting arrows all over the neighborhood", "they will build a shoddy tower"...) 4. We are afraid that one of our Scouts will do something with a vaguely gun like object that will place him in an unsafe position, or get them into trouble, outside of Scouting. I suppose you could argue that playing paintball could increase the chances of someone being mistaken for an armed criminal and shot by the police or another citizen. I certainly hope our fellow citizens and our law enforcement aren't so trigger happy and irresponsible as that, but if they are, then perhaps we should keep the ban for that reason. Next thing we know there will be police stand offs with 9 year olds in a tree fort because the police can't tell the difference between a water gun and weapon. Old ladies handing out candy on Halloween will open the door and great trick or treaters dressed as cops, cow bows, etc with a shell's worth of buckshot because their toy gun looked so real with its orange plactic tip, and shiny plastic parts, that she thought they were going to rob her. 4. The current political climate makes it unwise for the BSA to allow the activity. Fears of protests by political action groups, unfavorable media coverage, or alienation of a segment of the population, could be reason for banning the activity. I don't think we really wan't to go down the road of basing national policy on fears of repercussions in Berkley, or other such political problems. If the culture of an area, or its laws, makes doing these thing unwise, then it shouldn't be done there, or by units based there. Many people favor kids not ever being exposed to firearms, or even bans on firearms, yet BSA doesn't cave (for good reason) to such pressure. 5. BSA believes that all games that result in what could be considered to be "dying" are not appropriate. There is perhaps an argument to be made here. Being eliminated from a game and not allowed to play anymore is probably not a positive thing. Though that could lead to banning any type of game where someone is eliminated from the competion. I don't think we want to do that. If we are worried about the possible connecions between different outcomes in games, elimation=death, temporary elimination=injury, capture=POW, then I think we would eliminate many games for no good reason. Perhaps the mental health community may have information that would be useful in this regard. I think that BSA, based on either unfounded, and ill informed, safety considerations, OR political correctness, banned paintball and laser tag. I think BSA should reexamine its decision. If there are real safety concerns, then it should publish in some appropriate form the reasons for those concerns and clarify the rule so that it doesn't appear as though BSA thinks a laser pointer used in a lecture hall and a .30-06 are just as dangerous. If there is nothing but political concerns at the base of this decision, then the rule should not appear in the Guide to Safe Scouting, and it must not be allowed to remain there. If they wish a non-safety rule to remain in affect, publish it somewhere else. ------------------------------------------------- Is it possible that the entire rule has been misunderstood by everyone? Look at the language again. Unauthorized and Restricted Activities The following activities have been declared unauthorized and restricted by the Boy Scouts of America: Pointing any type of firearm (including paintball, dye, or lasers) at any individual is unacceptable. However, law enforcement departments and agencies using firearms in standard officer/agent training may use their training agenda when accompanied with appropriate safety equipment in the Law Enforcement Venturing program." Notice it says any "firearm". It does not say devices that shoot the types of material in question. If laser tag equipment, wich is not a firearm, but rather fancy recreational equipment (a toy, is banned by being a device that shoots a laser, then it also MUST cover laser pointers frequently used during presentations and training events. If painball markers, a device that is not a firearm, but despenses paint, is banned, then you could argue that a tool that is used to spray paint or dye is also banned. Is it possible that the word "firearm" is actually the key word? Perhaps the rule was intended to prevent the use of firearms using non-lethal ammunition, such as simunition (a type of ammuniton fired from a gun that instead of using a bullet as a projectile, uses a paintball), or using modifications such as a laser for non-firing pratice, from being pointed at people. It is possible the intent of the rule was never to ban painball games or laser tag games, but rather to prevent a firearm, any firearm (even if it was just loaded with simunition, or wasn't loaded but had a laser aiming device attached), from being pointed at someone. On having considered this possibility, I believe that it is quite likely that this rule was only intended to be used to prevent firearms (or devices so near in appearence and contruction to be nearly impossible to distinguish from firearms) from being pointed at people. Otherwise the rule should have been written VERY differently. So I believe that there is nothing wrong with the letter of the law, but rather how it has been interpretted by so many. I feel certain I could find a lawer that would agree that this doesn't really ban those activities. I also feel cetain many ordinary people with the definition of a firearm in hand would come to the conclusion that painball markers, laser tag systems, and laser pointers, are not, in fact, covered by this rule. I don't know why I didn't really bother to read the rule and come to my own conclusion when I first read this thread. However, I did just accept that the rule banned those things. I now believe I made a serious error in judgement by not critically analysing the actual text of the rule. I feel that the rule needs to be cleary rewritten so as to include all projectile weapons (such as slings, sling shots, bows, crossbows, a cannon, etc from being pointed at people). I would suggest the following language would make this all far clearer: "Pointing any type of projectile weapon, i.e. firearms (including those firing paint, dye, or lasers), BB guns, bows, or slings, at any individual is unnaceptable. However, law enforcement departments and agencies using firearms in standard officer/agent training may use their training agenda when accompanied with appropriate safety equipment in the Law Enforcement Venturing program." In this example I am using the following two definitions just to make certain everything is clear and we don't start thinking a laser pointer in a classroom is some kind of weapon or firearm. firearm: from the Merrian-Webster Dictionary: firearm Pronunciation: 'fIr-"rm Function: noun Date: 1646 : a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder -- usually used of small arms from the American Heritage Dictionary: firearm SYLLABICATION: firearm PRONUNCIATION: frrm NOUN: A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant. weapon: from the Merrian-Webster Dictionary: Main Entry: 1weapon Pronunciation: 'we-p&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn Date: before 12th century 1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy 2 : a means of contending against another from the American Heritage dictionary: weapon SYLLABICATION: weapon PRONUNCIATION: wpn NOUN: 1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. 2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense. 3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon. TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: weaponed, weaponing, weapons To supply with weapons or a weapon; arm. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English wepen, from Old English wpen. Also, some form of rule should be inserted about the use of accepted safety equipment and procedures during any painball or laser tag game. I am certain there is some kind of commonly accepted rules found in some law or publication about these things. The BSA should take those and require their use for these activities. Something along the lines of: "Before engaging in any paintball or laser tag activity, it must be insured that proper safety procedures and safety equipment are in place to prevent injury to any participants or observers. All participants and their guardians should be fully informed of the activity and must provide consent before participating in any way." BSA could also create a standard paintball marker safety rules, similar to those for firearms. BSA could also require that a safety briefing be conducted before all such events. That safety briefing should include all safety related rules and procedures for the activity, and the proper use of safety equipment. The opportunity could also be used to explain that weapons (firearms) must be handled in a different manner than paintball equipment, and reinforce the BSA firearms safety rules. ---------------------------------------- I have made several revisions to the message as of 12:22 A.M. Eastern, Nov 3. (This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I did a bit of looking and here is what I came up with: There is a dispute between the BSA and the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities over the Connecticut State Employee Campaign Committee. Apperently the state has some kind of charitable giving campaign for their government employees. The committee that runs that system decided the BSA couldn't be placed on the recipients list because of various discriminatory policies. Currently the state seems to be winning the court cases, with the 2nd US Circuit having ruled with them this summer. However, I DID NOT varify if this group that is asking for money is legitimate. They may be, or they may not be. I don't know. If I was trying to help the BSA, I would probably just donate to the BSA, not to an outside group that may be helping the BSA at this moment.