Proud Eagle

Scoutndad, What exactly do you mean by that. One person's right thing is another person's wrong these days. As to politically correct, I think the last two things BSA did to try to be politically correct were allowing women as adult leaders and moving the uniform to a less military form. While discussions about values or uniforms are interesting, I think there is a better direction we could take this. What about the program itself? In particular, how would troops and patrols be structured? Or would he have even used the patrol method in the current day? Some of our friends in Venturing seem to think the patrol method is a poor organizational system and a corporate model is better. BP used patrols because he thought those were the most natural groupings of young men. However, how do young men naturally organize themselves in the present day? Do they even naturally organize themselves? In BP's day, all the kids in the neighborhood were forced to be a group. They other kids living near by were essentially the only people close enough to get to, after all they had to either walk, or in some cases use a bicycle or horse. Today many kids don't know their neighbors. Instead their parents shuttle them to school, church, soccer, baseball, 4H, and other activities spread all over town. About the only place the old method still exists is in the inner-city environment. Unfortunately the gangs in those areas do a great job of recruiting the youth. So, how would BP organize Scouting today? What would he have Scouts do? Would they still engage in "tracking" and "stalking" or would BP embrace web design?

I would possibly take the following actions, depending on the exact details: Wright a letter of protest and distribute it to - Scoutmaster, Troop Committee Chairman, Charter Organizational Rep, Instatutional Head, District Council Regional and National Key 3s. Write a letter to local media outlets explaining the change and my position on it. Write a letter to current supporters of Scouting who I know personally explaining my views on such changes. Write a letter to my elected representatives in government outlining my position on the changes. Write a letter to the Troop to resign as Assistant Scoutmaster. Write a letter to the Council Camping Committee Chairman resigning from his committee. Write a letter to the council Scout Executive resigning my position as Lodge Adviser. Resign my position as Boy Scout resident camp Program Director. Request that the council registrar remove me from the council's membership. Request that the National Eagle Scout Association remove me from their current database. I would also offer an explanation, in person, to my troop, the lodge executive committee, the council camping committee, and the council executive board. I would begin looking for other ways to make use of my time and talents to benefit others. Again, that would all depend on the exact nature of the changes.

Eamonn, I think what you are running into is the same thing I frequently observe. OA Troop Reps often don't do anything more than what an Arrowman is already expected to do. Now, why exactly would that be? Common reasons I have run across are: lack of understanding of the program by Scoutmasters lack of understanding by the lodge/chapter lack of proper support from an adult adviser lack of proper support from the lodge lack of proper training Now the question I sometimes have is, what exactly in the job description should they be doing that another Arrowman in the troop should not also be doing? morainemom, The structure and process you discuss sounds like a perfectly good method of administering unit elections. However, I should note that the exact organizational structure of lodges, chapters, and committees is at the discretion of the lodge (and the SE, in the case of chapters). Therefore the way your lodge works could in fact be quite different from the way another lodge works. There are certain basic parts of the structure that should be common to all lodges, and there should be certain parts of the unit election process common to all lodges. However, beyond these basic elements there is quite a variety in the way things are done. Just as an example, in my lodge (OK, it isn't mine, it is the youths') we have most responsibility for elections given to the chapters. Each chapter is supposed to appoint a Unit Elections Chairman to supervise the process. This person then works with a lodge Unite Elections Chairman who coordinates on the lodge level. These chairmen report to the chapter vice chiefs and the lodge vice chief. In reality at the chapter level the Chapter Vice Chief often winds up doing the chairman's job. As for the actual election teams and the exact process we use, I won't get into that. Also, the OA Troop Rep should be appointed by the Senior Patrol Leader, in consultation with the Scoutmaster. Some units may choose to use other methods, however the method supported by BSA is for the SPL to appoint the OA Rep.

I happen to think the Pope is a great man. I also think he was right on the vast majority of issues, though there are a few here and there I don't agree with, or at least I can't fully support them. However, I am only willing to suggest I may be right on a very narrow set, because I do not have the benefit of the long years of education, contemplation, and spiritual guidance of the Holy Father. On most issues where I differ I chalk it up to my quite limited understanding, and hope that God will forgive an ignorant soul (and I hope to one day gain a greater understanding). The Pope is one of histories rare extrodinary men who did extrodinary things. In a similar way, I happen to think that our President is a good leader. He is not perfect by any means. In fact I disagree with him on a great range of issues from energy policy to Amtrak. Yet I agree with a great deal of his positions, and I think he is doing the best he can under present circumstances. I think he is pretty much an ordinary guy who has been able to do extrodinary things. Anyone who thinks they can do a better job as either Pope or President is more than welcome to make a try at either. If you happen to get the job, good luck. I would say that the most we can ask of such leaders is that they do their best to be prepared for whatever tasks they may be faced with. I don't care for Pres. Clinton as either a leader or a person. Yet I have a sort of respect for him too, though not of the same sort I have for either the Pope, or the sort I have for our current President. Life is funny like that. We may think a person is completely wrong and still have a type of respect for them. It is sort of like sportsmanship. You want to beat the other team. You want them to lose and you to win. Yet you can still have respect for the other team.

Hold it. The cross is not by definition a religious symbol. Neither is a crescent or a star of David. They are symbols that can (and often do) have religious meanings, but could just as easily have a secular meaning. The crescent is symbol used by many middle eastern nations and cultures. The star of David is frequently used by both those of Jewish descent and those of the Jewish faith, along with the state of Israel. The cross takes a similar place in many western societies. Also, the cross is in truth a symbol of torture, execution, death, and rule by fear. Execution using the cross was a creation of the Roman Empire, but it has continued until modern times. Just as an example there is now clear proof of executions being carried out by crucifixion in Iraq in the 1990s. So while many religions have chosen to use the cross as a religious symbol, it is not necessarily such a symbol. (On the other hand a crucifix would be a religious symbol.) If the government can not have religious displays on its property then it MUST BE PROHIBITED from taking ownership of any property being used for a religious purpose. That would mean the govt could never own a church building (many govts have taken ownership of religious properties for community use but yet they have still remained religious properties). It could never own a piece of art with a religious purpose. It could never own a religious historical site. It could never take possession of any artifact of religious significance. If a pre-existing monument on public land must be destroyed because the government broke the law by taking this land, then it is clear that government must destroy every religious item it has. We should start by sand-blasting the walls of the Supreme Court. Actually those carvings are pretty deep, we may need a jack-hammer or even some explosives. Also, has anyone noticed all those government maintained religious displays in our national cemeteries? Obviously if we can't have a religious looking war memorial in a park we can't have one in a government cemetery either.

I thought the Venture activities had been merged with the Varsity ones so they could share the same literature and such. Maybe I am wrong but I think the Venture letter and Varsity letter are one and the same now.

but, but, but... if the uniform isn't perfect for all outings it must be a total failure...

First, these guyst won't be without experience leadership. They will have the troop's adult leaders, and many youth leaders in the troop, to help them along. The older Scouts may not be a part of their patrol, but they should be helping to teach the new Scouts and serve as a good example to them. Second, the new Scout patrol is a short lived group of inexperienced leaders. It gives the young Scouts a chance to make mistakes without any major consequences. It gives them a chance to become leaders with some experience, so that in a year they will be able to be part of a regular patrol. Third, it lets them stay together with their friends. If you dropped them into different patrols they would be alone in a group of strangers. This would probably work out OK, but if these guys have been together through Cubs I bet they would rather stay together. Fourth, insist on the Scoutmaster assigning an Assistant Scoutmaster to work with new Scouts. This should be someone with experience in the Boy Scout program, who has most or all of the essential Boy Scout training, and who has the skills to teach new Scouts when needed, and also knows when to step back and let the boys figure it out on their own. Fifth, there needs to be a Troop Guide assigned to this patrol. This should be an older, experienced, and respected Scout who will work with the patrol for their first year. He will serve as a mentor to each Scout as they take their turn trying the Patrol Leader's job. He must work closely with the Assistant SM that is assigned to new Scouts. Again, he must know how to lead and teach, but also know when to let the new boys give something a try on their own. Sixth, encourage the parents to keep an eye on their Scout but to not interfere directly unless needed. Let them know they can get involved with the unit, possibly through the committee. They should express concerns to the SM and committee and should never interfere in the patrol (except in emergencies, then they must do what is needed). Seventh, explain in no uncertain terms that Boy Scouts is not Cub Scouts. Explain that Cub Scouts was a younger kids version of Boy Scouts, but with a vastly different program and goals. Now their sons will be getting to experience the real McCoy so to speak. It won't be watered own. It won't be kid stuff. It will be the fun, adventure, and promise of Scouting in its full glory. Sure it can be messy at times, but there is much to be learned from cleaning up a mess.

What you need is the Scoutmaster's Junior Leader Training Kit. There is a paper portion that fits in a 3 ring binder and there is a video. This should contain what you need to get started, though you will have to figure parts of it out on your own.

Lets see DOD gets to use Jamborree for training they get to use it for recruiting they get to use it for public relations they recieve the benefits of the BSA's good will (such as BSA being receptive to working the DOD on other matters) they recieve certain improvements at the AP Hill site there is a clear body of statistical evidence indicating that Scouts are more likely than the average person to enter the military, this makes them a prime target for recruiting there is a body of anecdotal evidence that BSA's programs give a person skills of use to the DOD, making them not only more likely buy also more valuable than average recruits there is a long history of mutual support and cooperation with the aim of improving Americas national defense, both in times of war and peace, this includes everything from war-time scrap-metal drives to peace time emergency preparedness training there is no other group with a comparable event that has a comparable relationship (in the cost benefit department) that can be used as a comparison to determine if DOD is discriminating there is no difference between Congress allocating funds specifically for Jambo and DOD using discretionary funds for it, both are actions by the govt, both would involve expending money, both would be due to acts of Congress (one direct, the other inderect), and most spending must be approved by Congress, so even if DOD could choose how to use the money, Congress would still have to approve that so it still wouldn't pass muster lets just hope this gets sorted out over time as it is it is a mess that creates a great deal of unpalitible possible precedents such as: no DOD training involving any non-govt group for fear of descrimination no DOD recruiting at any descriminatory group's property or events limits on DOD being able to make decisions involving private groups that may affect national security little or no use of DOD facilities by private groups (for fear of descrimination charges), since after all allowing any use of govt facilities is a form of approval and it most likely comes at a cost to the tax payer

The ACLU has chosen to wage a war. It is a war opposed by most of the nations people. It is a war that causes more and more of the nation to question the motives and intentions of the ACLU. It is a war that causes many to see the ACLU as an enemy. It is inevitable that there will be a back-lash against the ACLU. It is only a matter of exactly when it happens, what sets it off, and how severe it will be. The ACLU's actions are also serving as the greatest single energizer of the conservative/traditional groups that support the appointment of "originalist" or "strict constructionist" judges. In the end this may very well lead to changes in both the elected halls of goverment and in the appointed jurists on the bench. It is quite possible that the ACLU will manage to defeat itself, as long as people keeping showing how nutty some of these ACLU cases are. It may take a generation, but the courts can be changed. And if it comes to it, so to can the Constitution. Note to ACLU members: this requires passing and ratifying an amendment, not convincing the court that the EU has had a shift of opinion. By bringing in such farcical evidence as the opinions of foreign courts (based on foreign laws), polling data, and other non-Constitutional sources various parties to various legal cases have managed to do more to end the Rule of Law in this country than just about anyone else, except the judges that were willing to side with them. Can anyone really make an intellectually honest argument for the inclusion of the opinions of EU or African court opinions, or of polling data, in the decisions of a US court? Oh, as to this particular case, the ACLU screwed it up big time (and the court more so for siding with them). They should have challenged the original govt take over of this site. After all, it is clear the govt aquired control of this property only so it could maintain this monument. So that was the actual violation of the seperation of church and state, if you believe in such a thing. The correct path would be to rule the govt take over of the property was invalid and find some way of disposing of the property, such as returning it to its previous owner, if possible. Taking down the display in no way supports the free excersise of religion, and in fact greatly infringes upon it. After all, if that were allowed to stand, a local govt could use immenent domain to take over a local religious shrine to "preserve it" and then conveniently be forced to remove all religious displays from the property. This is a hostile act toward religion and speech as it terminates a current free excersise of religion and creates a zone that cannot be used for a certain type of speech (if burning a flag is speech, then building a monument certainly would be). If govt cannot have religious displays on its land, that essentially sets up the govt as the enemy of religion. After all, that would mean every acre of govt land would be one less acre available for excercising religious freedoms now and in the future. We can not survive as a nation if the secular and the sacred in our country are forced to war against one another. That would destroy us utterly and completely as a people. Yet that is the very circumstance being set up by certain radical activists and irresponsible judges. The ACLU must shurely be able to find a way of preserving constitutional liberties without destroying the nation built on those liberties.

While we are all sad to lose such a faithful servant of God, let us not be overly burdened with sorrow. I think it was Gen. George Patton who said that we should not mourn for such men, rather we should celebrate that they lived. I think perhaps that is a great thought, particularly in the midst of the Easter season. The message of Easter is that the power of death and sin have been broken (though they still remain with us). So I think we should mourn our loss, but celebrate his life. He may no longer live here with us, yet he does still live, in the embrace of the Lord in Heaven. I personally feel as though I have lost a member of my own family. It is beyond me to express who this man was and what he did for the world. p.s. Just in way of reminder, the President has ordered flags to be flown at half mast until sunset on the day the Pope is intered. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050402-3.html (This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Sea Scouting is a traditional program. If you want some sort of non-traditional maritime Venturing Crew (not a Sea Scout Ship), and you want literature for it, look to Venturing itself not the Sea Scouting program (which is a subdivision of Venturing) to create such literature. If you want traditional Sea Scouting, be a Ship. If you want something else, do like everyone else in Venturing and be a Crew that figures it out for themselves. (This isn't to say a Ship must be completely traditional, but rather it makes no sense to provide support for two different types of Sea Scouting, particularly when Venturing already exists as a create your own program system.) Listen, I personally am not looking for anything at all out of Venturing. That is because I don't do Venturing. Maybe at some point I will, but at the moment I can't do it. I don't have the time, and even if I did I have no desire. I like serving Scouting. I do it reasonably well. When I need to advocate to someone outside BSA I stick up for Venturing as well as anyone does, but when sitting around the campfire I am going to advocate for Scouting. Oh, as for needing a lot of literature, I think I completely understand. I have a small library of things just in my personal collection. And like so many others I wear more than one hat and so need more than one set of literature... then there is the camping equipment, uniforms, gas, oil, wear and tear on the car (darn flat tire!)...(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I suppose my greatest hang up about Venturing is a complete and total lack of anything even vaguely like a "patrol". The patrol is the fundamental unit of all Scouting and as such is the basic unit of the BSA. Troops are groups of patrols. When a younger boys program was needed they again drew on the patrol model and created Cub Scout Dens. These are grouped into Packs, though in a much different way than patrols are grouped into troops. In the Varsity Scout program the basic unit is the Squad. I don't know enough about Sea Scouting to know if it had such a basic unit bellow the Ship, but I suspect it once did or perhaps still does. Venturing on the other hand does not make any use of the "patrol" or anyting vaguely like it. Or perhaps it does. I guess if you really do have a specialised Crew with some focused interest you will probably have a relatively small size group of people who are really wanting to be involved in stuff focused on that interest. So then maybe it does look a bit like a patrol, but at the Crew level. However, the really large Crews seem to be trying to become multi-function, non-specialised Crews, and are trying to find ways to create sub-groups to focus on particular things. I find it interesting that the patrol is forcing itself into Venturing even though Venturing was designed without the patrol. While I can't and won't say that the patrol is the best way of organizing a youth organization, it is the way to organize Scouting. There will always be some of us that will see Venturing as a competing organization, because, well, it isn't Scouting. That isn't to say it is bad. Venturing is in fact a very good program. However, that doesn't make it Scouting. Can a Venturing Crew be run in a way that would make it be Scouting at work? Yes it can be, but many seem to choose not to. That is fine by me. After all choices to design your own program is part of what Venturing sells itself on. Just don't be suprised if there are a few of us that supporting Venturing, but only after we do our part supporting Scouting. As I see it their are 4 Scouting programs in BSA: Cub Scouting Boy Scouting Varsity Scouting Sea Scouting (when run in a traditional manner) Then there is Venturing, which is based on BSA's values and some of the historical programs. It is not, however, Scouting. Yet it is fully a part of the BSA family of programs. Then there is Learning for Life, a totally seperate corporation that sub-contracts to BSA for administration and such. Its programs are not grounded in Scouting's traditional values, though it does embrace ethics. The LFL program includes the Explorer program. That about sums it up I think.

I certainly did not have sarcasm in mind. I really do stand by a literal reading of everything I had posted above. While I have never attempted to start a new Crew, I can easily see the point about many failing. Many troops and packs fail in a similar amount of time, usually because COs start units without knowing what they are getting into and unit leaders don't use the program and instead do something else that doesn't work as well. As to weather or not it is a good thing for Venturing to be an open ended program, I don't really know. Maybe it would do better with set program, maybe that would only make it worse. I don't know. I do know that Venturing is a terribly misunderstood program. Of coarse all of BSAs programs with names starting with "V" are misunderstood. Such is life.

If you look up the "Unit Election Procedures" in the Guide for Officers and Advisers it makes no mention of the OA troop/team representatives. It is the responsibility of the lodge to create and train unit elections teams, contact the leaders of each unit, schedule elections, and then conduct actual elections. Troop/Team Representatives would be likely good choices to serve as members of unit elections teams, but there is no requirment that they be members of such teams. If you check the job description on the OA website or in the SM's Junior Leader Training Kit you will find it makes no mention at all of unit elections. However, other materials indicate that the OA Rep should encourage his troop to hold an election and make certain that all arangements are made for one. That doesn't mean he holds it, or that he works on the election team. http://www.oa-bsa.org/programs/ttr/ttrtrpj.htm So while your lodge may have chosen to use the OA Reps as members of the unit elections teams, that is not actually a part of the job. Remember, the Order of the Arrow Troop Representative is a Troop position of responsibility. As such they report to the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, are advised by an adult in the unit, and are appointed by the SPL. Their duties are to serve their unit. In so doing they will also serve the interests of the lodge, but their responsibility is to the troop. As such the lodge can ask them to help with elections, but it can not force them to do so. As for training the OA Reps, they should be recieving the same sort of training all other youth leaders in the unit recieve. In addition to this, an opportunity to attend a lodge training session such as an Lodge Leadership Development Conference should be made available to the OA Troop Reps and their advisers. So, next time someone comes before an Eagle BOR and they used OA Rep as their POR, make certain they actually did that job, not the job of the lodge's unit elections team. For more information see: http://www.oa-bsa.org/programs/ttr/(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Correct me if I am wrong, but if Venturing was being conistent between its program and its literature the "leader" manual would be targeted at the youth leadership, since the adults are supposed to advise and support the youth. Perhaps 3 manuals relating to crew operations would be appropriate: Advisor's Manual Crew Committee Guide Youth Leader Handbook Your idea of literature to support each program emphasis and each bronze award is also logical. However, I don't think there needs to be a traditional and non-traditional form of Sea Scouting. There is Sea Scouting, and then there is the rest of Venturing. If a crew wants to take on a nautical interest without really be a Sea Scout Ship that is fine, but there is no need for some sort of extra material to support that. After all, they could quite easily take the Sea Scouting materials and the Venturing materials and figure out how to mix and match the parts to create their own program. Now all you need to do is figure out what the contents of these various publications should be (just a very short outline of critical information) and start letting the various BSA people responsible for this know about your ideas. (I would imagine there are both professional staff and volunteer committee people who would be good targets for some well crafted letters setting out your ideas.) Good luck to you.

I know the last version of the election video I looked at made mention of no discussion after the process had been explained and any questions had been answered. Also, in the Guide for Officers and Advisers, page 26, "Election Ceremony" if you look under "OA Member A" it says: "Campaigning in an Order of the Arrow election is not permitted. You are expected to think for yourself; do not let others influence your decision. The election is by secret ballot and no discussion will be permitted, so no one will know for whom you are voting. This important decision about your fellow Scouts is entirely up to you." I don't think you overstepped. As long as what you provided was entirely factual, you are OK. However, an OA election is most certainly not the place to be providing opinions about anyone. I don't really like the idea of passing out those records during an OA election, but I would not be willing to say you actually violated the rule. Next, you do not need the permission of the OA election team to explain the process or the basis for election. Rather the OA election team should ask your permission to make their presentation or should work with you on making the presentation. After all it is your troop, they are just guests performing a service. As the Scoutmaster, if you are an OA member, it is entirely appropriate that you help explain things (assuming you keep current on policies and procedures). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it should be noted you do not have a veto over the choices of the Scouts. What the unit leader has is the responsibility to approve only those candidates who meet the requirements. You give your approval to candidates prior to the election. You have no post-election veto. The leader must certify the candidates Scout spirit (adherence to Oath and Law and active participation) and certify that he meets the other specified requirements (rank, current registration, camping, and age). (You probably knew this, but I wanted to make certain it was clear to anyone reading this that does not know the process.)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

Not to offend anyone but... W T F Can we just make this stop and go away? By the way, this mess (I have decided just to trust people's descriptions, no reason to become another "hit" on this person's webcounter) does violate one law of importance to people here: The Scout Law. I do not see how such a display is respectful of the beliefs of others. In fact it would seem calculated to insult and mock. Again though, can we just make this go away? It isn't relevant in any way and it would be best if this just died.

Actually hops was more on target than I was. It is a thing with military bases. When I went to Ft Knox even with the ROTC we all had to have photo ID and had to have them ready at the gate, event though we were there for official reasons, traveling as a group, and even on Army busses. We recently hosted a lodge event at a regional National Guard training center. They required photo ID to let us in the gate.

I personally want no part of a BDU based BSA uniform. BDUs are great for the military, SWAT teams, rescue squads and the like. They are not good for Scout camping. Why? The same reason a M2 Bradley would not make a good troop vehicle. It is overbuilt, too heavy, and not really designed for what we need. BDUs are designed for crawling around on your hands and knees for days in the mud, for lasting months in even the worste climates imaginable, and for being able to be used in any climate zone (meaning they suck equally in every climate zone). On the other hand what is used by the ultra-light backpacking crowd won't work for us either. That stuff is too expensive and will never hold up to use by Scouts. We need something that is in between those two extremes. What exactly that is I don't know. I would like to suggest we need to due something to cut down on patches if we are looking for a true outdoors uniform. You don't see anyone like the military, police, or civi backpackers wearing a shirt that has about 20% of its surface area covered with an extra layer of non-breathable, non-flexible patches and do-dads. Some sort of simple, logically placed, and comfortable insignia and such would be good if we are really going to have a true outdoors uniform. Perhaps have some other system for wearing patches. Though I don't really like clasp backed insignia, I had a set of those on my BDU cap suffer a rather unfortunate failure during a field excercise while I was in the ROTC (decided to discontinue involvement with that, but it was fun while it lasted). We were doing a paintball based excercise, and I was wearing the cap backwards to accomodate the face mask. This placed the rank insignia at the back of my head. Well, during the course of the excersise I was running from one piece of cover to another, doing combat roles, and all of that fun stuff and at some point I must have applied quite a bit of pressure to that insignia on the back of my head. At the end of the excersise I discovered the pins had pushed through the clasps and were imbeded partially in my scalp. Ouch. Maybe velcro, I don't know. And if we really must have a BDU based uniform, can we at least agree that it should be the slightly more comforatable summer BDUs and not the horribly heavy and non-breathable winter BDUs?

I have also heard that unit leaders will be given ScoutNet access (read only, no changing data, and only for records relating to their unit) sometime possibly next year. Of coarse with the now widespread use of troop software I have to wonder how useful that will actually be. Also, at long last an update was made to Scoutnet so OA lodges can check their membership against Council membership. Finally (and somewhat unfortunately late) the OA national committee has decided to support the developement of a ScoutNet compatible LodgeMaster database. Of coarse by this point most lodges have already built quite extensive and capable databases of their own, but hey at least they are heading in the right direction (even if a few years late). I think maybe BSA is finally starting to move again. I wouldn't be suprised if we start seeing the pace of change within BSA accelerate exponentially before long. Rumor has it some things that have happened in my own little council are even bringing about changes in policies at the national level. So what we locals do, what we learn from experience, it really can be applied for the greater good.

No, I think what he meant was that he has an old book, but the new requirements were already in it. It could be they just made some minor change. There may have been a typo or something wasn't printed that should have been. Who knows. I do know that Archery was completely revised for 2004. I was the Archery supervisor for our camp last summer. We had a brand new book with new requirements in it LAST YEAR. The edition prior to that was a 1970 something, and that is what had been used through 2003. Why they needed to change something in the 2004 edition for 2005 I have no idea (assuming this list is correct). Also, the 2005 Requirements Book has a problem. Not all the 2005 changes were ready to go when the book was printed. It apparently contains instructions to look for updates (there is a list of which badges are involved) on the web. I guess they needed a couple of extra months. There is also apparently some sort of mistake that left a major requirement out of the 2005 Requirements book, but it is in the MB book.

Yeah, it is a policy of the Transportation Security Administration that anyone traveling by air must have official photo ID of some form (there is a list of exactly what all counts some place or another). So you can thank the Department of Homeland Security for that one. Also, there is a long list of what can and can not be taken on an airplane as a carry on and in checked baggage. Everyone flying should pay close attention to these lists, unless you want to be fined, arrested, or loose the items in question.

I, personally, would encourage the Scout to continue his advancement work in the troop if he plans to remain active in the troop. I would also suggest coming to some understanding with both the Scout and his Crew Advisor regarding this issue. I don't know if there is any actual policy on this, so I would just go with a gentleman's agreement (perhaps in writing, just in case someone forgets) about this. ScoutNut, You are off base. While what you say makes perfect sense, it is not in fact reflected in any policy I have seen. If a Venturer achieves First Class (or higher) in a troop they may drop out of the troop and continue advancement work (including Eagle) in the Venturing Crew. I don't know why they made it this way, but they did. So a Venturing Crew can award Boy Scout advancements as long as the Venturer recieved at least First Class in a Troop (or Team, I guess). On the other hand, a Boy Scout Troop can not award any Venturing recognitions.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)