Proud Eagle

did anyone else get a bit confused by that last bit in Dave J's post? Bob White: I would disagree that pointing a gun at people, or not pointing one at people is a "value" unto itself. I would suggest it is an expression of a value. More like a political position rather than a moral value. I would not, under any circumstance, point a firearm at another person unless it was to protect life, liberty, or property, or to train for the defense of the same. On the other hand, I have no objection to playing paint ball just for the fun of it. However, I think paintball has a value beyond fun. I think it does reinforce all of those things listed by Dave J. Certainly paintball could be used to teach someone small unit tactics, but it could also be used to teach teamwork, cooperation, problem solving, athleticism, and many other positive lessons. Ask yourself this- what is the objective of these water fights you mention? Then think if those same objectives could be met through the safe use of paintball or laser-tag (other than cooling off). I know some parents would probably object to paintball. It is for that reason that I suggest the rules be revised to require parental consent. I also imagine we can all agree that putting a non-safety related rule in the GTSS is not a good thing. Doing so sets a precedent that could be used to ban many other things under the false guise of safety. At the very least this rule should be moved to some other list of banned activities. I also think that the fact that so many people that agree on the type of values we should be teaching kids (those of Scouting), could disagree about the worth of a couple of activities, shows that these activities do not directly conflict with the values of Scouting. They could conflict with other values that are held by Scouts and Scouters, but I do not think these activities conflict with the values of Scouting. If they do, I have not seen the manner in which they do. Perhaps someone could explain it in a way that would make sense to me. I am sorry if people think I am just arguing this to be annoying, or so I can go play paintball with my troop. I just think this is one of those stupid rules, made for no good reason, by a group of people that really didn't fully consider the issue. I also know we will be lucky if they don't ban all similar activities such as water fights, just to keep from being non-PC. Why the BSA chose to take the PC route on this issue, I don't know, but it certainly seems like that is the most logical reason for going this way (either that, or they think we are all too stupid to know the difference between a weapon and a toy).(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

chembard, I agree completely that paintball is a potential danger to the eyes if people do not take proper precautions. However, you also pointed out a correctly worn mask in good repair virtually eliminates that risk. I do not agree with the overall validity of your argument. We trust Scouts to be responsible enough and listen well enough to use REAL FIREARMS that can kill people if mishandled. So why should we not trust, after proper safety instruction, Scouts to use paintball markers? Oh, and don't forget, "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle."

That last bit comparing BSA professional training to military training got me to thinking. It seems to me the Army may be on to something with doing a lot of heavy training BEFORE someone starts their job. Certainly the Army uses various types of advanced training throughout a soldiers career, but they certainly start the job with the skill needed for the job. It sounds to me like the DEs have to wait 3 years to be considered fully qualified for the job they have been doing... for 3 years. That all just seems a bit strange to me. Perhaps the BSA needs a DEBC. (District Executive Basic Coarse, a one off of the various Officer Basic Coarses.) That would solve the problem of stuff building up on people's desks. Though it would create some problems with losing flexibility in replacing personnel.

Your son is both lucky and unlucky with the age he is. He will have the opportunity to attend 2 Jambos if he chooses. On the down side he will be a bit younger than optimal for this Jambo, and a bit older than most participants at the next. I was at the 1997 Jamboree with my troop as a visitor. I believe it was the day of the opening ceremony, because we attended the show and heard Clinton address the Jamboree. I must say that the touring we did before visiting Jamboree was much better with my home troop on that trip. In 2001 I attended as part of the Council contingent. In fact I was the SPL for one of our three troops. That was a very interesting perspective from a leadership perspective. I got to see what leading a multi-patrol troop was really like. I also got to try to pull together a group of mostly young scouts who had never met each other, and have them get along, get work done, and still let them have fun. I can't say I succeeded entirely. It seemed to me that those who were very young were somewhat overwhelmed by the length of the Jambo trip, the shear scale of the Jamboree, and the fact that they didn't know each other. I also noticed that the older Scouts, such as myself, found the Jamboree to be far less impressive than the younger Scouts. It seems those that benefited the most were the Scouts closest to the middle of the range. I am glad I went, though being the SPL wasn't exactly fun. (Of coarse if I hadn't been the SPL I would have been constantly annoyed by the differences between how I would have done it, and how whoever was doing it, did it.) So I would say, go for it.

I can't tell you what the "book" says about this subject. I can tell you what my "gut", informed by 13 years of Scouting says. If I was the SM, and believed a requirement had not been completed, I would not sign it. The Committee can not force the Scoutmaster to do anything. They can replace him if he does not buckle to their demands. As to weather or not the SM should sign off on the requirement in this case, I can't make that determination based on the information provided. ScoutNut: I do not agree with you. If during the coarse of a conference, board of review, or at other times, it becomes known that a Scout has not completed a requirement, I would not accept it. The SM conference should not be used to retest requirements, nor should the board of review. However, if the Scout provides information that indicates they have not completed the requirement, that is much different from retesting. The issue of what should be counted for the various leadership requirements is a tricky one. My troop has faced the same problem. In our troop the relatively low number of Scouts makes the standard troop model impracticle many times. This means that many of the listed leadership positions do not carry the same level of responsibility as they are intended to. (For example: if a troop has only one patrol the SPL/ASPL end up doing the traditional job of the PL/APL.)

FOG: I know exactly what you are talking about. I haven't quite given up on uniforms yet. I know that the way things are it is too much to ask for everyone to be in complete uniform. So I will limmit the fight to a correct uniform shirt worn with some amount of dignity for the moment. Perhaps I shall add to that quest a push for Eagles to go the full measure during their Boards of Review and Courts of Honor. That really shouldn't be too much to ask. Laura, (responding to your post in the other thread): Now that you mention it, I don't really like the general public seeing Scouts that are not correctly uniformed in such settings as a Presidential phot op. However, that wasn't really the reason for my complaint. I think that showing people off in various publications sets a bad example to other Scouts. If they see an Eagle who won a college scholarship from the Elks not wearing a uniform, it could make an impression that uniforms are not necessary. Also, these various people winning these awards and what not should have enough pride in their accomplishments to wear the uniform correctly. Clearly action photos are a different story. If a troop is out camping I don't expect them to be in complete uniform. Activities uniforms are fine. Aslo, you can strip down the uniform to a relatively simple form and still have it be complete and correct. There is no rule saying you must wear every sash, patch, pin, or medal you have earned. There are rules saying that if you wear an item it must be worn correctly. If someone is posing for a photo after their court of honor with three generations of Ealges in their family, then I would expect them to be in complete, correct uniform, or something very close to it. Uniforms may not be required in Scouting, but they are necessary. As to the OA lodge not being very active, that is not an excuse to wear the OA sash in ways or at times that are not appropriate. Just because a local NESA chapter isn't active doesn't mean that Eagles in that area should start wearing their Eagle any way they happen to want to. (response to reply in this thread): In almost all cases some allowances must be made for indiviual special circumstances. If a family is in a situation that makes it difficult to do laundry then that is OK. If some family really can't afford the entire uniform immediately that is OK (it is also a good reason to have a uniform bank). We should not confuse this with the 17 year old that has their own vehicle and chooses to belong to both band and the troop, who never has on a uniform and claims they don't have time to drive home and change cloths. I am not suggesting some policy that tells people to either be in perfect uniform or stay home. I happen to agree with you very strongly on one point. I happen to think that if a unit leader, who must spend time helping the unit, is able to find time to keep herself and her son in uniform despite challenges, then those families that just drop the kids and go should be able to find time to keep up on uniforming. Keep up the good work. Your good example will have some positive impact. Just don't undercut it by saying to everyone that shows up out of uniform, "oh, your not in uniform, well, you did just get out of soccer and that is just as important so it is OK, uniforms really aren't that big a deal anyway..." (This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

reply moved to thread in uniforms section(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

dsteele, I understand your position. You do not have a choice about approving paint ball or laser tag. (Though I wouldn't be suprised if you have unkowingly approved a permit for an activity that included that as an unlisted activity.) I also don't want scouting to become a place where someone can just play with a gun when they feel like it. There are clear differences between recreational activities using devices intended for those activities and unsafe "recreationa" activities using firearms or other weapons. I don't want Scouts to start packing shotguns around camp and shooting the birds out of the trees. I also don't want the BSA putting what appear to be politically motivated rules in a safety guide. If BSA wants to ban those activities based on ideology they can, but it shouldn't be disguised as a safety rule. Besides, if someone is going to sue the BSA next time a former Scout shoots someone, they will probably do it weather he played laser tag or just learned to shoot a quarter size group at 50ft.

I do believe what you are telling us. However, until I see something specific about it in either the Ceremonies books, Guide for Officers and Advisors, or Guide to Inductions, I will continue to operate as always. NOAC's are great because you never know when you may run into someone like a National OA Committee member. Finding one of them by accident helped solve a running argument between some people in my lodge. The thing is though, the opinions, beliefs, etc of individual committee members do not constitute official policy. If I see something published as policy I will go with it. If I do not see something official then I have no way of knowing if this agreement is binding, if it was just a prelimary agreement, or what exactly it was.

Has anyone else noticed the tendency of national publications of various forms to publish pictures of scouts in absolutely terrible uniforms? I am thinking of the Eagletter and the Elks magazine. I know the BSA handbook and some other BSA publications also have this problem. Last time I looked at one of my dad's Elks magazines they had many Eagles who had recieved various awards pictured. I don't think a single one of them had a correct uniform on. Most had on jeens or khaki pants. Some had one sash over their shoulder and the other on a belt. Some had patches very far from the correct place. Several had one sash over one shoulder and the other over the other shoulder. (I have never seen any one do this outside of pictures.) The greatest problem seemed to be pants and OA sashes not conforming to uniform standards. Maybe the OA sashes just get my attention because I am a former Lodge Chief, but to me it is a bit embarrassing to see so few good examples of a uniformed Scout in so many published pictures. The Elks I can give a pass on publishing these pictures, but for the Eagletter, or the Handbook editors, to allow it seems almost to be encouraging poor uniforming. I really don't consider myself to be one of the uniform police. I don't even own a copy of the insignia guide. Am I overreacting to this constant streem of pictures of poorly uniformed Scouts (almost all Eagles, some at their own Courts of Honor) ? Also, why do many feel compelled to wear an OA sash (almost always an Ordeal sash) to a BOR or COH? It seems to me that someone who features their sash so proudly on their uniform on such a special occasion should have had enough pride in being an Arrowman to come back to the events of their lodge after their Ordeal and get their Brotherhood. If OA involvement is a major part of someone's Scouting experience I can understand wearing a sash at a COH, but your average Ordeal member doesn't fit the profile of someone who has made OA into a major part of their Scouting experience.

Has anyone else noticed the tendency of national publications of various forms to publish pictures of scouts in absolutely terrible uniforms? I am thinking of the Eagletter and the Elks magazine. I know the BSA handbook and some other BSA publications also have this problem. Last time I looked at one of my dad's Elks magazines they had many Eagles who had recieved various awards pictured. I don't think a single one of them had a correct uniform on. Most had on jeens or khaki pants. Some had one sash over their shoulder and the other on a belt. Some had patches very far from the correct place. Several had one sash over one shoulder and the other over the other shoulder. (I have never seen any one do this outside of pictures.) The greatest problem seemed to be pants and OA sashes not conforming to uniform standards. Maybe the OA sashes just get my attention because I am a former Lodge Chief, but to me it is a bit embarrassing to see so few good examples of a uniformed Scout in so many published pictures. The Elks I can give a pass on publishing these pictures, but for the Eagletter, or the Handbook editors, to allow it seems almost to be encouraging poor uniforming. I really don't consider myself to be one of the uniform police. I don't even own a copy of the insignia guide. Am I overreacting to this constant streem of pictures of poorly uniformed Scouts (almost all Eagles, some at their own Courts of Honor) ? Also, why do many feel compelled to wear an OA sash (almost always an Ordeal sash) to a BOR or COH? It seems to me that someone who features their sash so proudly on their uniform on such a special occasion should have had enough pride in being an Arrowman to come back to the events of their lodge after their Ordeal and get their Brotherhood. If OA involvement is a major part of someone's Scouting experience I can understand wearing a sash at a COH, but your average Ordeal member doesn't fit the profile of someone who has made OA into a major part of their Scouting experience. I am also going to post this same thing in the section on uniforms. I just thought I would post it here since it does tie into program in some ways. See the thread in the uniforms section here to reply: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=42967 (This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

If BSA isn't ready for Gen X it is far too late already. The Gen X people may not be in charge, but they are in the system now. It is the following generations that greater thought should be given too, since they are the ones that there is still plenty of time to prepare for the roles they will take, or prepare the system to survive them, whichever in needed. If people like the National Committee are worried about the next generation, it is probably because they have too little direct contact with members of that generation. Either that, or they have been listening to too many power point presentations and not noticing many of those working in their offices and what not are members of one of these dreaded generations. Oh, a quick question- Will the length of time between generations become shorter as the rate of change in the world becomes more rapid?

I really like the traditional patrol names that have been modified. That way you do have room for uniqueness and originality, yet it keeps ties to the longer traditions of scouting and it lets you use stock patches. My troop decided to give the boys the option of designing their own patch instead of a stock patch last time patrols were reorganized. This lead to the unique "Soda Can" and "Highway" patrol patches. However, it took us a couple of months to get the patches made and cost several times more. Then most of the boys didn't wear the patches. It certainly didn't help patrol identity because most couldn't tell you if they belonged to one patrol or the other. To hold elections we had to look up the patrol membership in the roster. Now it is a moot point because we just have a single patrol. (This may have changed again if there are new recruits.) For those troops that don't have truelly permanent patrols I would suggest keeping old patrol flags and the like and recycling them after the original incarnation of a patrol has faded away. In that way you could have a pool of patrol names with some history to offer to a newly formed patrol. If they chose to take up one of the old patrol names they could then modify the adjectives or other descriptive words attached to make it just a bit different from the original. Troops with more permanent patrols could change the descriptive terms attached to the name over time as the membership changed without losing the identity of the patrol. Those are just my suggestions. I was I member of the "Black Widow Patrol" (never liked that name) and the "Falcon" patrol. My troop also had a Sharks (sometimes with adjectives such as: swift, silent, deadly; usually without), the Bloodthirsty Woolverines, and legend has it there were far more complex names in the years before I joined, but memory of those has been all but lost as those who knew of them have gone on to other things.

I agree with the BSA policy on two deep leadership. No adult should ever be alone with a Scout other than there own child during a Scouting event. That being said, there are times the ideal must take a back seet to the practical during some of the "grey arrea" functions. Certainly if one takes it to the the extreme you will get the problems that F.O.G. has mentioned. However there are work arounds for these. As an example, many times there are not two adults present during travel to OA events. The solution is that the travel to the event is not an official BSA activity. The event is, but the travel is not. (This would not work if a unit made it an official trip, or for "contigents" to things like NOAC.) The restroom issue is one that has bothered me a bit. Even here there are grey arreas such as when using non-BSA facilities that only provide showers or restrooms for men and women, no youth/adult divide. Many BSA camps only provide one latreen per campsite and have no means of seperating youth and adult use. It seems that common sense must rule the day in the end. As an example, if your troop is taking a stop at a rest area you cannot close down a restroom to adults while the youth use it, nor can you close it to children while the adults use it. Often units face two deep problems while at summer camp. What if your unit only has one leader staying the entire week while the others rotate during the week? Can you allow a brief gap in two deep while one is leaving, but before the other arrives? Must there be two adults in each camp site or even buildings at all times? Most camps seem to take the line that the adult staff and adults in neighboing sites will cover minor lapses such as these. During summer camp this year my troop had three adults: the SM, the CC, and an ASM (me). Our troop van had some mechanical problems while at camp so it was decided that both the CC and SM needed to take the van into the nearest town with a ford dealership (30 minutes away). The camp director was informed of this, including the make up of the adult leadership, and was OK with it, in fact he was going to town to pick up something so he let them follow him to the ford dealership. Now we didn't follow the letter of the policy. Yet, a Camp Director, Scoutmaster, and Committee Chair all thought it was OK because of the fact that there were plenty of extra adults on camp during that time. So, were they right or wrong about this?

I find that last bit in F.O.G.s post to be highly unfortunate. I don't mind if someone decides to where non-official pants or shorts similar to the BSA uniform versions. I don't mind if a new Scout doesn't have a complete uniform yet. I can even excuse inexperienced Scouters, and all adults in cub scouting from having uniform pants/shorts. I cannot excuse veteran adults in the Boy Scout program for having poor uniforming. Certainly there are times the official uniform is not functional and so it should not be worn. However, I have noticed that just since I have been involved at the Boy Scout level, the degree to which the uniform is worn by both Youth and Adults has decreesed. I personally don't know quite how to go to a Scouting event not in some kind of uniform. (Over the summer the SM for my troop decided to swich to "B's" [activities] uniform for the remainder of the summer meetings. I continued to show up in full "A's" for a couple of weeks, just out of habit.) I guess I am a farely rare commodity these days. I am a Scouter that has two uniform shirts, two pairs of official shorts, one pair of official pants, more caps, bolos, and neckerchiefs than I know what to do with, and even an official campaign hat (headgear of choice for me in most weather/climate conditions); and I actually wear them. Uniforming was stressed by both senior youth leadership and adults when I joined my troop. You didn't show up at a board of review expecting to advance in rank unless you were fully uniformed, and were prepared with your handbook, notebook, and writing utensil. My uniforming standards changed as I went through scouting. At some point I dropped neck wear. I think that was when I was SPL and I noticed I was the only youth or adult wearing any. Then I started using bolo ties and have been ever since. I always believed that uniforming was expected of Scouts and Scouters, and especially expected of leaders. Now, not even a full decade later, I rarely see troops in full uniform. When leaders stop be a good example of uniformed Scouts, don't expect the Scouts to be any better. When the leaders constantly excuse every poor uniforming practice, expect the scouts to slack off even if the leaders set an example. I do think the BSA needs to change the current uniforming scheme. I think there should perhaps be two true nationally produced and widely worn uniforms. (maybe even designate them as As and Bs.) Perhaps a field utility uniform and a dress uniform. I would certainly not mind having a somewhat dressier uniform for formal occasions such as COH, BOR, dinners, and the like. (In my council the SE clearly agrees since he has all the DE's wear the very strange looking dress uniform to council dinner. Scouts and Scouter wear BSA uniform, and others usually wear a suit. This really does not seem right because I wouldn't consider the BSA uniform to be equivelant to a business suit.) I would also prefer a somewhat more practical uniform for wearing in the "field". Something that could stand up to the riggers of patrol games at camporees, and be useable for even backpacking trips. I really don't consider the "activities uniform" to be a true uniform. (i.e. I don't salute in activities uniform.) None of these changes are likely to happen because no one wants to buy all new uniforms. Especially if they had to have two new uniforms. We should remember that B-P chose the original uniform because of its combination of ready availability, low cost, utilitarian attributes, and sharp appearence. Today we have a relatively sharp looking uniform of intermediate price that is available from only one supplier. It is without a doubt too expensive, not durable enough, and generally unfit for use during most physical or outdoor activities. The military equivalent would be if the Army got rid of BDUs, and class A, and instead attached every thing you can think of to the class B and still expected soldiers to wear them in field, at their desks, and during ceremonial functions. I wonder what B-P's take on today's uniform woud be. I really don't know. NOTE TO PARENTS: Don't wait until your son is about to have his Eagle board or Court of Honor to buy long Scout pants. Certainly it is a considerable expense and is not needed immediately by most Scouts. I also know you may be worried about stains or other damage if you buy them before they are needed. Consider this however, you can buy a $45 pant for two occasions and have them look perfect, or you can buy a $45 pant for a couple of years worth of events and maybe there will be a small stain here and there. I know what the better choice to make is. Now that I have long pants I wear them to almost all meetings and even during many camp outs.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Bob White, dsteele, Thank you for coming through with level headed responses after having read a somewhat unhappy rant. The point I was trying to make about DE and DCs wasn't so much that they weren't showing up enough. Rather I was trying to demonstrate the lack of connection between units (at least mine) and the district. I really don't expect the DC or DE to stop by very often. It would be nice to see them around for a friendly visit from time to time. (Instead of the "why isn't your recharter done yet?" visits [answer, because council says it isn't due for a month and a half, and no we haven't heard about the districts goal of getting everyone to recharter early]or some such thing...) I know that the professionals have many things to do. On those occasions I have been able to have conversations on the subject with them, most lamented the fact that they spent so much time looking for money or doing paperwork. The volunteers are in short supply. I can't really fault the DC for not getting it done without help. I have not been to any district meeting in quite some time. As I said, I went to a few rountables, but I realised I had better things I could be doing with my time. Other leaders in my troop had learned the same lesson years before. I also realise that not going feeds the same cycle, because in the future there will be fewer BS participants and so more reason to focus on CS related things. I really don't expect to see any great effort to reach out to new leaders. I personally don't want special outreach or recognition, because time spent on that is time that could have been spent making the program better in my local situation. I would like to see a council or district newsletter, or some type of mailing at least a couple times a year. I also know the only way that will happen is if someone (more than likely a volunteer, with limited time) decideds to step up and make it happen. Also, I think I may have given a less than complete explanation of my Scouting experience. I think someone could have thought I have been an ASM for 2 years and that is all. I have been involved in Scouting since I became a Tiger back in 1st grade. I went through all of Cub Scouts and earned the Arrow of Light. I then migrated to Boy Scouts. I worked my way up through the ranks and the leadership positions of the troop with some of the best mentors I could imagine anyone having. I became heavily involved in OA. I did ceremonies, chaired chapter and lodge committees, and became chapter vice-chief, treasurer, vice-chief again, and then chief. Finally I was elected to be Lodge Chief, and served out a full year term. At about that same time I finished up my Eagle and became an ASM with my troop. (note: my screan name is the translation of my Vigil Honor name, Wulelensin Woapalanne) So, all totaled I have at least 13 years in Scouting. I can safely say that during all that time my most enjoyable experience was my 2001 Philmont expidition, of with I was the crew chief. I can say my most challenging single leadership test was being a Jamboree contingent troop SPL that same year. From having held leadership positions in the OA I have a vague idea of what those at the district and council face, and I certainly know enough to be glad I don't have their jobs. Speaking of which, I just realised the local lodge here where I go to school is having a fall fellowship as I speak about 30 minutes away. So I hope everyone has a good weekend. I am off to go do something I should have been doing already. Keep up the good fight. Don't give up just because a few unhappy volunteers come looking for someone to vent to.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

WARNING, this is going to go very deep into RANT land. Just skip it if you don't won't to hear me complain about things. It will also probably get way off topic. I notice there is an expectation by both Eamonn and Bob White that the district has its act together. I can say that certainly doesn't appear to be the case in my district. Maybe it really is, I don't know. My district usually has alot of blank spots in council publications where different contact persons are supposed to be listed. My unit's commissioner is non-existant as far as I can tell. I have seen a DE at a troop meeting maybe once or twice while I have been involved with the troop, and the DC a little more than that. Last I knew our DC was acting as the UC for all troops in our town because there was no one else to do the job. Needless to say that doens't really work well. The rountables I attended were a joke from the Boy Scout perspective. The entire thing seemed to focus on cub scouts. At one of them I was the only Boy Scout representative in attendence. At another I had information on an upcoming event that the DC didn't yet have. The fact that Scouting works in my district at all is nearly a mirracle. The really sad thing is I don't even know who to blame for it. Those that are involved seem to be trying to do their jobs. Generally most people say it is somehow the fault of the paid people, but I am not even really certain that is true. Now, despite all of these problems I have a pretty good idea of training and other opportunities available. Also, if keeping me informed was the number one goal of anyone in the council or district that would be a serious problem. After all, I am just a "part time" ASM going to college 2 hours from home. The only time the troop sees me is during vacation and for special purposes. Finally, the scariest thing I know about training is that I am supposed to teach a session at a council wide training event in a few weeks. All I have seen is a schedule of the event and the title. I have been told that someone else is writing the lessen, they just need me to teach it. The real problem is I didn't find out about this through "official" channels, but rather it happened by accident while talking to another trainer.

hey Trail Pounder, I know some of the staff for that coarse. I had been hearing about it for months. My council (Shawnee Trails) has a dedicated little corps group of trainers, so many of those same Powder Horn people were putting on a Wood Badge just a couple of weeks before. I hope everything went well. I would like to hear what you thought of the coarse. Your perspective would be particularly interesting since you sound like you are not from the area.

I do not know what changes you refer too. I was chief of my lodge last calendar year and I am currently chairman of a lodge committee. I have done quite a bit with ceremonies, and I have never heard anyone mention that we can't call the regalia regalia. I was always taught (and everything I read supported) the idea that the ceremonial significance of the regalia is what seperated it from mere costumes, not the fact that it was Native American in origin. I have long heard that only Youth should where regalia, but I thought that was a function of the fact that only youth should be principals in ceremonies, and that only those participating in ceremonies should be in regalia. If there is new information I am open to it, but I am a bit uncertain about any recent changes. Also, is it possible these are local agreements rather than national agreements? I know for example that drumming is not automatically allowed, but that our lodge recieved permission from local Native American groups to use drumming.

I think that the rule against laser tag is not appropriate for the G2SS. I can think of no real danger within laser tag that is not present during many other popular games. (capture the flag, water gun fights, hide and seek) In fact, laser tag is safer than many games of capture the flag I have seen. In laser tag no one even touches anyone else. In capture the flag you can end up with a pretty rough contact sport if someone forgets the rules. The only safety concern I can think of with laser tag would be eye safety. That is very easily addressed through the rules of the game. (Also, I seem to remember that the lasers used are not powerful enough to cause permanent eye damage. It would be about like looking at a bright flashlight.) As to it being a bad activity to engage in because of shooting peaple, I really want to know who is going to confuse laser tag with actually shooting people. The "weapons" used are nothing alike. Laser tag equipment is more like something from ghost busters or star trek (It is not military type MILES gear.) Perhaps the best way to address this would be to leave the decision up to the unit and then require all participants have parental persmission to engage in laser tag. That way units that found it to be a taboo activity could not do it, and those that felt it was appropriate could do it with parental consent. The same arguments also apply to paint ball. A set of sensible safety rules for paintball would make it just about as safe as anyting else. Set key safety guidelines (no frozen paint balls, limmit velocity, require safety masks, etc), leave the decision to the unit, and require parental consent. Paint ball can cause some minor bruising even if done correctly. Perhaps classifying paint ball as a high adventure activity would make it a bit easier to deal with. Here is a what if senario- Most laser tag facilities require no parental consent, waiver forms, or anything like that. So lets say BSA Troop X is on a trip. They stop at a mall to let the Scouts eat lunch and spend a few minutes in the AC. Like all good troops they are traveling in uniform. A couple of the Scouts (maybe an entire patrol) notices a laser tag facility on the mall map and decides to spend part of their time engaged in laser tag instead of mall walking. In this scenario who is at fault for the G2SS for being violated? Certainly not the Scouts, because they have probably never heard of it. Also, the unit leader can't really be expected to know the contents of a mall before stopping in for lunch during a trip. (Not to mention most malls contain far more objectionable things than laser tag.) Should a troop stopping at a location that could possibly contain the dreaded laser tag be forced to maintain constant direct supervision of all scouts for fear of them engaging in laser tag? I agree that no weapon should be pointed at others during Scouting functions for anything other than very specific training purposes (such as law enforcement conducted training). However, laser tag "guns" are certainly not true weapons. They are not desinged to cause damage or injury to any one or any thing. Paint ball guns could perhaps be considered a weapon, but even here they are certainly not a firearm or a deadly weapon. Nor are they designed to inflict injury. This seems to be a case of the G2SS either using overly broad definitons, being far too cautious, or being politically correct instead of safety oriented. If I was leading a youth group of any form on a paint ball or laser tag outing, I would want a careful safety briefing included. I would also want to explain the difference between the "weapons" used in tose activities and real weapons, and that real weapons should never be pointed at other people. Maybe I just have too much common sense for my own good, because all of that just seems like plain ordinary common sense. p.s.- I have participated in both laser tag and paint ball. The laser tag I did with friends on numerous occasions (until they raised prices). The paint ball I have done with my ROTC battalion during FTXs. I can say that both activities are very fun and could be great activities for teambuilding or just enhancing brotherhood and spirit amongst a group. I personally know of no one who was injured during any of these activities.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I have been an ASM with my troop for a little over 2 years. The only communications I recieve from council are email newsletters from the council exec. The only reason I get that is because one of my former OA advisors forwarded it me when it had some useful stuff in it and I signed up for it. Many entire units have no one that knows of this e-letter and it is the only regular communication from council that I know of. As for training, I know there are some forms of training available. However, my district seems to only conduct cub related training. (In fact my district doesn't even have anyone in charge of training last I knew). Council isn't much help because they expect the districts to handle all the basic training. Council is, however, good at putting on the advanced training. Wood Badge is done almost every year. (Also, they hosted a Powder Horn this year with another council.) I have been told that I should probably just sign up for Wood Badge one of the next couple of years and ignore the basic training requirements and no one will care.

No one participating in a Scouting event should be permitted to smoke around Scouts. This is the apparent intent of the G2SS. However, more than that, it is common sense. Scouters should not engage in activity around Scouts that they would not approve of. This is a very simple case of setting a good example. This common sense rule also extends to parents, since any adult participating in a Scouting event is a role model to at least some degree. As to those who are arguing over the interpretation of policy, I am very confused as to why there are multiple interpretations. Perhaps it is legally true that "may not allow" has multiple meanings, but ask any English teacher what that means and I imagine the response will be that it is synonis with prohibited. To GE: The range instructor or whoever confronted you should have been careful to consider the Oath and Law when choosing a method of informing you of policy and asking you to comply. He was wrong in his method if he did not. It is clear you were improperly informed of the policy, so you can not really be held responsible for violating it. Now you know the policy, so I feel certain that if you choose to participate in future Scouting events you will also choose to follow the policy.

Making Scouts attend when the leaders does not is clearly inconsistant. The only excuse would be if youth protection/safe scouting made it necessary. I personally like the Philmont approach to religious services. At 7:00 p.m. every night there are four services in base camp. There is a Catholic mass, a protestant service, a Jewish service, and a LDS service. Everyone is encouraged to attend the service of their faith, and are invited to attend any of the others if they would prefer that. Those that don't attend service of some type are asked to remain in there camp, keep quiet, and be respectful of that time that is set aside for the 12th point of the scout law. Those that don't attend services are also encouraged to pray/meditate/reflect according to their beliefs during that hour. If a Scout's religous views do not allow for participation in a service, then they should not be required to attend unless youth protection/safe scouting makes it necessary. That is just my opinion.

I am relatively new to these forums. I have been reading off and on for a few weeks, but I just joined. I am curious about a few things. Has anyone managed to make the new scout patrol idea actually work? If so what size troop did this happen in? If you do not use the NSP, how do you handle new member orientation and what not? I come from a background where my troop was relatively small, and usually functioned more as a single large patrol rather than seperate, distinct patrols. The new scout patrol seems like a great idea in a "model" troop that has enough members to form multiple full strenght patrols and gains enough new members each year to form a seperate patrol. However, I can't see how this would work in a troop with say 9 members when it gets 3 new members. Actually, it is difficult to see how the patrol method can really work in any troop with less than a dozen active members. The only solution I have seen is to simply have the troop function as a single patrol, but even that doesn't work because then there are too many scouts if they all show up (like that ever really happens). p.s. What started the running argument between FOG and BW ? Those two argue like a married cupple. The only value their arguments seem to have is that they can be somewhat amusing.

"I do think i heard somewhere that Order of the Arrow had changed their rules recently and are now allowing overnights that are NOT in tents or under the stars (cabin camping)to count toward the required nights for nomination to OA." -LauraT7 As far as I know, there has not, at least in the last few years, been any rule on this either way. The OA sets out the number of days and the number that can be long term camping, but it reserves interpretation of what specifically counts to the unit leader. See the national OA website in this regards to interpreting the camping requirement: http://www.oa-bsa.org/qanda/qa-52.htm Here is a more complete explanation of youth (under 21) eligibility, also from the national website. (It is also consistent with requirements found in many other official sources.): "Scouts are elected to the Order by their fellow unit members, following approval by the Scoutmaster or Varsity team Coach. To become a member, a youth must be a registered member of a Boy Scout troop or Varsity Scout team and hold First Class rank. The youth must have experienced fifteen days and nights of Boy Scout camping during the two-year period prior to the election. The fifteen days and nights must include one, but no more than one, long-term camp consisting of six consecutive days and five nights of resident camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. The balance of the camping must be overnight, weekend, or other short-term camps." I thought it would be better to get that out of the way before it caused any confusion.