Beavah

Yah, what red feather said, eh? Let 'em set their own bylaws and rules, and learn what works and what doesn't. For da Eagle thing, I'd encourage kids to discuss it, look into it, read up about it, talk to people. Let 'em figure things out for themselves. Maybe they discover they can't do that directly, but that they can still take a vote and send it along with their comments to the troop committee and EBOR as an unsolicited reference. Or perhaps they take it a different direction and push da committee to do 360 evaluations for everybody, or perhaps the PL takes a vote of his patrol and then has a frank "pre-BOR" with a fellow. Always encourage the lads to brainstorm, explore, address problems they see, write letters to Irving, what have yeh. Those are the kids who care enough about Scouting to be its best citizens, tryin' to improve things. And if yeh show 'em some respect, they'll be Scouting's long-time supporters. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, consensus works great... until it doesn't . Usually when some new folks come in who don't buy in to the view of da current leadership. so a set of bylaws like that is in violation and any DE or UC should be able to get that fixed quickly but your example is exactly why I used my example Yah, Hawkrod, I know you've admitted to being a bit literal or black and white about these things, eh? That works for many things, but not for this. The BSA owns the program, but the CO owns the unit. They license da program, but they don't have to use all of it. They can choose not to use advancement at all, or to integrate it with their religious education program or any of a dozen different things. Even within da program, they can put age restrictions on holding certain positions of responsibility for advancement. So in terms of committee operations, it's their show, not the BSA's, and neither the DE or any of us Commissioner types can do much about it. Yah, sure, there are a few things, like advancement, where there's an appeal structure in place to allow us to give a lad an award if we think he met da requirements but the unit disagrees. But even then, we can't "make" the unit change, eh? They don't work for us, they work for the CO. Done well, of course, da relationship is a partnership between the CO and the BSA, though the BSA is the junior partner. As junior partners we provide services and can make suggestions, but we really don't tell 'em what to do. Quite da opposite, eh? It's the CO's who have the votes to tell us what to do. But if yeh want black and white, it's that the members of the committee are volunteers for the CO, not for the BSA, and in their roles as committee members they owe their loyalty and duty to the CO, not to the BSA. I always tell folks it's important to understand who you owe duty to, so as to avoid conflicts of interest. Beavah

Nah, Hawkrod, it's not that simple, eh? Da troop committee is the chartered organization's entity, not da BSA's. So in general, da TC bylaws must adhere to the chartered organization, not the BSA, and the BSA program guidance definitely does not "trump". So while da BSA suggests that committee members be selected by a nominating committee, some are open, some may just be appointed by da COR/IH, etc. Advancement would not normally be an issue for bylaws, it's just a program element. It is a special case, since da BSA has ownership of the trademarked awards, and can insist on conditions for their use (mostly through choosing to award 'em or not award 'em at its own discretion). But practically speakin' we're talkin' about volunteers time and a customer's effort, which da BSA can't mandate. Even with advancement, local units have different expectations, as we see in postings here quite often, eh? And a lad who enjoys his troop and his scoutin' friends is going to go along with their expectations. Beavah

In my honest opinion if the young woman was 19 and engaged or already married then I would be willing to bet that her young man or husband would not want nor allow her to continue in the program around all of the other young men. Yah, Eagle007, I don't know how old yeh are, mate, but even I'm not that old. Modern young folks are different than when we were growin' up, eh? Women are more self-confident in mixed social situations. Dating "as a group" is somethin' that is da norm rather than the exception. A healthy young couple learns quickly to respect that each member is goin' to maintain their own interests/careers/activities in a coed world. To be honest, I'd be a bit worried about a young fellow who felt as you suggest, and I'd probably take him aside for a few words. That sort of jealous "too hot not to cool down" behavior is immature for a married man, and is likely to cause problems and stresses to the marriage just when it needs to be puttin' down roots. In da worst cases, it becomes abusive. Married folks weave themselves together by love and by habit, not by lockin' each other away from da rest of the world. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, E-Mtns, it just depends, eh? Like Hawkrod says, if da committee is an open one made up of all da parents in the troop, then it's pretty natural that the SM would have a vote just like any other parent, eh? I can't see why you'd disenfranchise the fellow just because he's doing more work than anybody else! Of course, the BSA guidebooks presuppose a different committee arrangement, one where committee members are carefully recruited and selected, eh? In that arrangement, the committee does not consist of all parents, but only those selected (either by the committee with da CO's approval, or by the CO more directly). That's a more typical board of directors approach, and in that setup the SM usually sits as a (non-voting) ex officio member. Then there are lots of other ways to skin da cat. So why don't yeh give us a bit more background, and maybe we can give yeh a bit more guidance. You say the SM is "at it again". What's the "it" exactly? Many units will expect new members to agree to da unit's rules/bylaws/whatever up front. Just like the BSA on its applications. Being clear up front about things like how money and fundraising is handled is important to avoid problems later. At da same time, most of us here aren't hugely fond of adding lots of nonsense and falderol to unit bylaws and such. Properly speaking, yeh want adults to play nice with each other and work together by consensus for the benefit of the boys, as John-in-KC says. Scout troops are usually small enough that doin' a whole bunch of procedural rules and such doesn't make much sense. A few are OK, but more than that and folks start to focus on that stuff rather than on the kids. So tell us, what's really goin' on? Beavah

Yah, no problem. Though this probably belongs in da Issues & Politics forum. Sorry to hear about your many friends in da underemployed category. The banksters who did this to the economy and effectively mugged ordinary working citizens for their multi-million dollar bonuses should have gone to jail. Of course, that was made-in-America fraud and malfeasance, eh? At least in China, they execute people like that as a matter of honor. Yeh won't see a rebirth of American manufacturin' until we fix the banking system and American unskilled labor is willin' to work for less. Or until the dollar tanks. Beavah

I put the fault on the zealots who try to piggyback their own personal agenda onto a package of otherwise well-regarded guidelines. It's their fault when the "pack out your trash" part of LNT get's a bad name. They're the ones lumping the two together, because they want "no orange tents" to bask in the reflected common-sense of "don't litter." Yah, I'm increasingly thinkin' this has to be a BSA thing. I've never seen it in da civilian LNT master educator folks. It reminds me of those BSA folks who try to piggyback their personal agenda onto other things, eh? How many times have such folks told people that "insurance won't apply and the attack lawyer will eat you?" Or that paintball or laser tag are safety issues, lumped together to bask in da reflected common sense of G2SS and "don't go exploring abandoned mines". It is true that LNT was developed originally in a backcountry / alpine environment. There are new LNT Frontcountry ethics materials comin' out, and some of our BSA LNT team have been heavily involved with da efforts at drafting those. So it's an issue that's being addressed, eh? I don't think folks have to worry about LNT wanting to apply backcountry ethics to da frontcountry and sidecountry. Now, what some BSA trainer tells yeh, that's a different story. Beavah

Yah, readin' Hawkrod's post in da parent thread got me thinkin'... What advice do folks have for CORs? What sorts of "tricks of the trade" for bein' an involved and helpful COR are there? We see too many "in name only" CORs (or worse, da SM's spouse to fill the position), and too many decent CORs who don't understand their district and council roles. Share your insights and advice you'd give to a COR.

Yah, just another sign that you're an addict, and raisin' a family of addicts Blancmange. Don't worry, da first step is always to recognize that yeh need help... Of course it may just be that your family wasn't making full use of all of the wonderful events at the funeral home :) Beavah

See also http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=240852#id_291733

See also http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=240852#id_291733

See also http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=240852#id_291733

Perhaps the issue is that the BSA seems to present LNT as if it should be taught as a single unit. Yah, perhaps this is part of da problem, eh? One of the things about BSA training and trainers is that we tend to be very declarative, eh? Do this, do that, don't do that. We write and talk like da G2SS a lot of times, and our training curriculum is pretty specific. LNT, by contrast, ain't designed that way, since it's written to be given to all sorts of different people in all sorts of different settings. It's meant to be delivered in a more low-key way, da way Calico describes. Can I ask... For those of yeh who have negative experiences with LNT trainers, were they BSA trainers or did yeh take an actual LNT course from a "civilian" LNT trainer or master educator? Perhaps in doin' our own delivery we're changin' da tone of the stuff, because we're used to more declarative, rules-based training. ----- Funny how da clothing ethic seems to get everyone in a snit. Another aspect of LNT clothing ethic hasn't been mentioned here, eh? That's the in-town ethic. LNT also teaches not to go into towns dressed like smelly nylon hippies. Just like we have scouts put on uniforms to travel, da LNT ethic is not to disrupt da experience of others with distracting clothing when yeh get back to town (spandex in church, etc.)... Just a courtesy thing, eh? No different for wearin' loud flouresents or setting up glow-in-the-dark circus tents in da backcountry. Just a courtesy thing. And I reckon if you're worried about SAR finding yeh, rather than investing in a jacket yeh should invest in a map and compass and learn how to use 'em. Just a courtesy thing, eh? Now me, I mostly wear whatever jacket I got a good deal on . But when I have a choice, I avoid da fluorescent pink, since I know what I'm doin' and don't get lost. Just like I don't carry an air horn or a flare gun, even though those would be helpful if I got lost, too. Besides, I look pretty silly in pink Beavah

I have to crap in a bag? And carry a warm squishy bag of excrement in my pack? Why can't I scratch a cathole with my boot, and cover my deposit? Won't the plants benefit from the fertilizer? Not a LNT principle. Da principle is "Dispose of Waste Properly". In many areas, catholes that are dug properly are an excellent LNT approach. Shallow ones close to water, of course, contaminate the water with all those pesky G.I. bugs that we humans carry. And yah, in a few places like high-traffic river gorges, yeh have to pack it out. I can't take home blue-jay feathers, mussel shells, or possum skulls? Yeh never could even under da traditional Boy Scout ethic of "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints". If da first fellow on the trail grabs the possum skull for himself because it's cool, then none of the other scouts get the fun of discovering it and talkin' about it. Nor does the next troop that comes along, or any of the other visitors. If we want kids to enjoy campin', we can't neuter their experience of da wonders of the outdoors by taking all of it home with us and leavin' sanitized dirt. But because folks "just don't get it" what yeh see now is more regulation. So collecting natural objects is now prohibited in National Parks and refuges, and requires a permit on many other public lands. We can't burn our trash in the campfire? Sure, simple paper will be completely consumed and is OK to burn. Other than that, yeh really never could. Almost all food waste isn't completely consumed, and most other "trash" has so much non-burnable chemical gunk in it as to be a problem. Yeh packed it in full, eh? Are yeh so lazy or out of shape that yeh can't pack it out empty? And again, if we can't do this by LNT education, it's goin' to happen by regulation. In some states, like mine, it's against state regulations to burn trash in a campfire. What's this bag gonna smell like after three days in my pack? What's my pack gonna smell like? Well, if yeh planned ahead and prepared, yeh brought the right amount of food and repacked it so that there was as little trash as possible. It's not goin' to smell like anything. I've carried trash for 3+ weeks in da height of summer, no problem. So have many scouts I know. What's the fun in going where no man has ever gone before, if you can't go there either unless it's a hard packed surface? Nuthin' about LNT says yeh have to travel only on hard-packed surfaces. In fact da authors of LNT routinely lead groups in da most remote backcountry. It just says that where yeh can, yeh stick to the trail, or choose your route based on how well it can handle the stresses of your trampling. And again, if education fails, then regulation is goin' to happen. There are areas in a number of states where off-trail hiking or camping is now prohibited, just because some people were too self-centered to learn how to do it properly without leavin' a mess. Yah, I don't know if there are renegade LNT trainers out there, eh? I expect so, da same way there are renegade BSA trainers out there. Mostly, LNT is da same wilderness ethic we've always had in Scouting, presented to non-scout outdoors enthusiasts. In some cases, da research has offered updates to our old practices, which don't change our ethic but do change how well we do at it. In some cases, like planning ahead and preparing carefully and minimizing the trash we bring into da field, it's just pushing us not to be lazy sots who come out to the campsite straight from the grocery store with every conceivable package and wrapper, and then feel we have to burn da aluminized mylar pop-tart wrappers in da fire. Beavah

Yah, this thread took a twist, eh? No uniforms for MCs and district staff, hmmmm... or perhaps no knot-style awards for anything that doesn't involve a lot of time in the field with kids. Yah, maybe that has some merit, especially for us district and council folks. Like others, I've seen plenty of delightful district and council volunteers and pros. And, like others, I've seen districts where it's become a retiree's old boys club dat's almost completely divorced from kids and woods. Or worse. On average, it's often more toward the latter, to be honest. Of course da rest of the world doesn't have our same structure. Professional scouters are a rarity in da worldwide movement, and council/district/national scouters are far fewer percentage-wise. BSA scoutin' is pretty much an oddity. Others seem to run quite well and happily without as many non-direct-contact leaders, so I reckon we'd also do fine. It's healthier in a lot of ways, IMHO. So yah, I think a sound rule of business is that yeh have to tailor your incentives to what yeh care about. Since we care most about kids and good unit scouting, the emphasis of uniformin' and especially of awards should focus almost exclusively on unit scouters. Da rest of us are just support staff, eh? We do what we do only to help those unit scouters succeed. They're the ones puttin' in da real "hour a week." Beavah

LNT is the wilderness version of political correctness Nah, it's da wilderness version of the Golden Rule. Do unto others and all that. The reason the ethic is to leave things like feathers, and antlers, and wild flowers, and old artifacts in place is the Golden Rule reason, eh? So that others can enjoy 'em too! That girl scout group hiking up the trail behind us would also be as interested as our boy scouts at finding a set of antlers. That older couple out for a late spring weekend deserve the same vista of wild flowers that da Flaming Monkey patrol came across and thought was so "awesome." Yah, sure, so long as da other 20,000 visitors to the area that month don't set about picking the wildflowers the way we did, they'll grow back next year. But maybe if they all acted the way we did, they wouldn't. As Boy Scouts, we should be the best example of good wilderness users. Of course, this is no different than our older ethic of "take nothing but pictures". Lots of folks here seem to be objecting to things that LNT is not, because they've somehow confused LNT with PETA or Earth First. Da folks at NOLS who developed LNT are avid backcountry trout fishermen. Nobody at LNT is opposed to hunting as a valid herd management technique and a legitimate outdoor activity (though they'd of course frown on illegal baiting). Yeh won't find any trained LNT advocate suggest wearin' earth-tones during hunting season, or wearing blue-green when sailing on da open ocean. What LNT does do is go out and research what sorts of practices allow the environment to recover from human wilderness use at least yearly. So they send out folks to do things like look at da long-term impacts of fire rings and human waste disposal. And they survey other wilderness users of all sorts to find out what sorts of things other people find disrupt their own enjoyment of the woods. Did yeh know that 90% of our fellow users of the woods would prefer not to see other folks on their outings? They go into da woods to get away and be on their own. LNT doesn't lecture "rules." It provides information like that to help us be better users of da wild lands, and better neighbors. If yeh know that the vast majority of fellow hikers are there because they want to be alone to experience da peaceful wilderness, then in courtesy it's best if a group of 20 boy scouts not stop in da middle of the trail for lunch and a round of "The Duke of York". Better to get off trail a ways and save da song for the next Camporee. So whether it's fire rings or where to stop for lunch, if yeh have the ethic that you want to be a good citizen and preserve the wilderness for others, then LNT provides information on da methods that work best in different areas. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, 83Eagle, I reckon it's always best not to cast your pearls before the swine, eh? Seriously, if yeh treat your ideas as precious pearls or an extension of yourself, then bringin' 'em to any internet forum, or for that matter to any similar sized group, is just goin' to cause you pain and suffering. Or at least joy-sucking. Precious pearls yeh keep locked up at home and bring out only on special occasions when yeh feel they're "safe." I do a fair bit of collaborating with other professionals, and it's pretty normal when someone puts together a draft for it to come back in pieces, with comments all over it and counter-arguments and whatnot. It's hard to take, especially for newbies. But that's what happens in committed communities of people who know a discipline well. The result is yeh understand where your argument is weak, where it needs revision, where it might have challenges that need to be addressed, etc. And that's what's precious, because it makes your idea stronger and more workable (or saves yeh the time you'd spend on somethin' that really wasn't workable). That give and take helps get the best outcome, eh? And isn't that what we want, really? Whether we're working in our profession or volunteering to serve kids. Now, I hear yeh in terms of tone, and da endless rules/book quoting. But then not everybody is deeply familiar with da program materials, and havin' someone bring 'em up is actually a real service for those who aren't. I'm well known for jumpin' in on da opposite side any time somethin' seems to strident or forumulaic. Just part of my own experience and training. And of course we have our more aggressive characters here too, with strong personal views. Yeh get to know 'em after a bit, and if yeh can't deal with an occasional rant about da evils of Woodbadge, then there's always the squelch feature (which sorta works... . And we have our frequent posters, from fellows like me who pick up a lot of ideas to help different troops to others who just use da forums as a break from their day job. Don't knock 'em; no online forums survive without frequent posters, because they keep da responses flowin'. And many folks here are workin' lots of hours IRL at da unit, silver-tab, or yellow-tab levels. So I'd say, go ahead and post your ideas, questions, and thoughts, if yeh want feedback and more ideas and a chance to improve on da outcomes you could get on your own. But only if they're not pearls, eh? Yeh don't wear your fine pearls on your chest in this sort of informal, workin' crowd. Beavah

LOL. Yah, I agree with all of 83 Eagle's italicized points, eh? Yah, I think this is mostly just human nature. If yeh love your favorite sports team, odds are yeh dissect and criticize every game or coaching decision. No difference here. Criticism happens only when yeh really care about somethin'. What will be truly sad is when Scouting is no longer interesting or relevant. At that point, rather than being criticized it'll just be ignored. BadenP is right, eh? Sometimes (or often), da administrative and organizational side of Scouting in the U.S. can be ... disappointing. Nevertheless, Scouting as a movement is a fine thing - especially the scouting done by so many volunteers workin' with kids across the country and the world. You'll find very few adult scouters and committed scouts who aren't really fine folks. No different here than da rest of the world, eh? Yeh should hear da folks from Scouts Canada . Beavah

I would suggest that Beavah argues in favor of that based on pragmatism. Nah, I think yeh missed it. I'm arguing based on what's best for the boy in terms of learning and developing his personal character. Has nuthin' to do with pragmatism. Has nothing to do with who was "right" or "wrong" or "fair" or some 1960s rebellious notion of "power". Just has to do with character. A ref can make a bad call. But if yeh then pitch a fit and argue with da ref and call him a power-monger and all da rest, that is a also a bad call. It's up to da ref whether he apologizes for the bad call (remember that umpire who sunk the fellow's no-hitter a year or two ago?). That's not da question, though. The question is what should the boy do about his own behavior in order to demonstrate character? And da answer is he should apologize to the referee for his poor sportsmanship. OGE's example is an even better one, eh? Our obligation as parents and scouters is to teach boys appropriate behavior, citizenship, and character, eh? And yep, sometimes the lads are goin' to go on about how wrong the referee was and how they shouldn't be respected just because they are old and wear a striped shirt and all da rest. Just like da average teen will talk about what a power trip their parents are on and why can't they have the car to go to the college sorority party, or how da other fellow in the playground is a dork and doesn't deserve respect and dissed on the Bears. They're still learning how to behave. They still need us to act as teachers. They need to know that it's not right to lash out like that in front of others, and they need to learn to apologize for it when they do. Yah, sure, and they also need to learn more proper techniques for handlin' disagreements, like making an appointment for a more personal, private conversation later on to discuss the issue reasonably, and how to "agree to disagree" with grace. Yep, if yeh insist on viewing this as some "power" thing, you're right, eh? Parents, teachers, referees, scouters, da SPL or PL, etc. are all the responsible adults or youth leaders in da situation. They are the "power". And their duty is to use that power to teach younger, less experienced folks how to act with character and dignity even in hard situations. Because even when a teen really, truly feels he is right, that doesn't mean he is; nor does it mean he chose da proper way to express himself. He's still learning what's right and what's appropriate. Now, I'll agree it's a better message if da person doing the enforcing is different than the person who was insulted. That's why ideally should be the parents insisting on the apology to the SM or the referee. But these days, da parents tend to support the little darlin' against those awful, power-mongering, unfair adults who give up their weekends to go camping with other people's kids. Guess I'm just too old fashioned for da liberal post-baby-boom world. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, lots of misunderstanding about LNT here, so let me try to explain. LNT is not a scouting program, eh? It's a program aimed at all outdoor recreationists, not just youth. Folks are exactly right that many elements of it and that the basic ethic has been a part of scouting for decades. In many ways, scouting was one of the pioneers of LNT outdoor ethics. And because of our values and our level of use, we should stay on the forefront of that movement. LNT is not meant to be bureaucratic or rules-based. It's an educational effort that is designed to avoid having land managers achieve the same ends by creating a lot of bureaucratic regulations which would curtail our more open use of the wilderness. As such, it is failing. Because people, including many scout units, have not voluntarily bought into the ethics and values of LNT, more and more land managers are imposing regulations that heavily impact scouting. The trend toward maximum group sizes smaller than the average troop is continuing. I don't see how the LNT ethic can be objectionable to scouts and scouters who care about the lands we use, especially given that scouting has been on the forefront of good stewardship for so long. We should be big supporters of LNT's efforts to teach outdoor ethics to other recreational lands users. We should have boys getting trained as trainers to offer sessions to civilians at local parks and forests to spread the word. We should be seen as the LNT organization for young people. As DeanRx suggests, as an ethic, LNT requires us to adapt our actions to da environment in which we travel. In the deciduous wilderness, we may dig catholes where there is enough biotic soil to break down waste. In river corridors that get too much use, we may have to pack out our poo. In deserts, we may do some form of open deposit so the sun can break down the waste. All that's required is an ethic of learning, eh? Of always trying harder to do the best job we can to preserve and protect da environment we use for others. Yep, that means at times we learn that stuff we thought was OK really isn't as good as we thought. Some of us used to bring wood from home so as not to be clearin' out da forest near our favorite campsite, now we've learned that that transports invasive critters that cause a lot of damage. So we change our long-time practices because our ethics demand it. Yep, that means like anyone with sound ethics, we look first at our own practices. Scouts are "hard" users of the land, eh? We tend to have much bigger than average groups, and young folks tend to climb, hack, play, run, stomp, and holler with more gusto and over a wider area than da average user. That means we have a duty to be particularly careful about our LNT practice, and sometimes to make changes. Things that were the "best practice" back in the 70s might no longer be da best practice in 2010, and we have to be open to that. It should be a game. We as scouters and da kids as scouts should always be learnin' and lookin' for what we can do better. When we depart a camp, we should look around and say "can anyone tell we were here?" "What can we do better to prevent that next time?" If we're goin' to a new area, we should take da time to look up what the best practices are for that area. In short, we should live up to our own ethics, eh? Not just be content that we were doin' it right back in the 70's, but push ourselves to be on the forefront of what doin' it right looks like in the 20-teens (10's? What do we call this decade anyways?). Da old handbooks aren't enough. When we look at da new evidence, we learn things that Thomas54 missed. Those 400 square feet he talks about represent only da actual fire pit. But those fire pits attract someone else, and result in trampling and cutting and scavenging all of the downed wood in a much broader area. So for each 2 square feet he talks about, several hundred square feet are directly impacted and even more indirectly. Multiply by 200 and now we're talkin' many, many acres damaged. Now consider that da distribution isn't random, but instead it's confined near rivers and streams. So of the most important and fragile land, a still greater percentage is damaged. Now consider that da fire pit is still in evidence for many years, especially because the damage makes it harder for the area to recover. So add the 200 from this year and last year and the year before that. Pretty soon it's an area that's no longer pristine. I'm an old fellow, eh? I've seen exactly this happen to dozens of da favorite spots I remember as a younger man. It pains me that I can't share those places with my grandkids because they aren't what they once were. And that should make any of us as scouters who care deeply about our ethics and our young people be willing to work a bit to change our practices without gettin' all defensive. We should be the best example of da LNT ethic, eh? LNT should be able to point to Scouting as the premiere youth organization for outdoor ethics. We should be so good that we go da extra 15 minutes to attend to even da small, picky stuff that other people blow off as unimportant. Because we believe that ethics are da most important, and livin' up to them is our example to the youth. And because we don't want the answer to be the imposition of a lot of bureaucratic rules and regulations by land managers that would impact our activities. Beavah

Yikes, doubled with a couple of people. I couldn't disagree more with John-in-KC. I think where we do our best work in Scoutin' is when a lad has screwed up and it's at the point of requiring an apology. That's not the time to cut bait and shoo the kid to the door, it's da time to work hardest. No other point teaches our lessons of character and citizenship as deeply - to both the boy and to his peers. We're all about teaching youth, eh? Yep, respect is something that is earned. And da lad in question hasn't earned any. He's behaved like an immature little kid, and he needs to learn that. Nope, the adult isn't perfect. None of us are. He's goin' to work with and for lots of imperfect people in his life. He's goin' to do lots of things he disagrees with or things he thinks are busy-work in school, in family life, in jobs. And if he mouths off every time someone else ain't perfect or every time he disagrees with a task he's goin' to be a very, very lonely unhappy fellow. That's where I think jblake is doin' him a disservice. He's not helpin' the lad learn or develop personal character, or become worthy of respect. We ultimately don't apologize to others because we owe it to them, we do it because we owe it to ourselves. It's a sign of our personal character. Yeh get it wrong when yeh focus on the other fellow, like da way jblake is just makin' excuses for the boy and blaming the victim. His friend should just suck it up because people insulting him and his family are a part of life? Yeh have to be kidding! Nope, da consequence is that yeh lose a friend, or yeh lose participation in scouting. Just like arguin' with the ref, eh? Yeh can do it. And the ref might even be wrong. But yeh get ejected from da game, cost your team the win, and lose the respect of those who value good sportsmanship. It does not demonstrate good character, and yeh should be sorry for that. It's not about da ref or the adult leader, eh? It's about the boy and his character. So unlike jblake, I'd tell the lad I expect him to show that he has more character than the adult by stepping up to apologize and mend da relationship first. Yah, yeh can't make someone contrite who is not. But da relationship can't be repaired until they are. Teens are good at takin' aim at their own feet in that way and pulling da trigger, sacrificing their relationships and their own character. So the trick is to get 'em past that oddly selfish self-righteousness. Not enabling it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, let me go back to my post... I said the first duty after hurting someone is to be sorry for doing so. The second is to apologize. If a person has so little empathy for another as to not be sorry for hurting them, then da answer is consequences. They must receive consequences for their action, which in turn makes them sorry. One of those consequences of course is da natural consequence, eh? They damage relationships and lose friends. If yeh value a relationship, yeh often are sorry and apologize even if yeh don't quite see that your action was wrong. Mrs. Beavah has me well trained in that way, eh? Yeh apologize because yeh are sorry for the consequence of your action - the damage to da relationship. And, hopefully, slowly, yeh learn what sorts of actions damage relationships even if yeh didn't recognize 'em as being wrong before. Same with kids. If they haven't yet learned how to properly judge actions, then yeh have to teach 'em by imposing consequences so they associate certain actions with certain negative consequences. Smoke pot? Lose your driving privileges, get grounded, etc.... Doesn't matter whether junior argues that occasional recreational use is safe, or that he's not really sorry ("Can I just apologize for getting caught?"). Yeh make da consequences severe enough that junior becomes truly sorry. Then yeh accept an apology and let him work off his penance. Remorse. Contrition. Forgiveness. Restitution. Resolution. We want to teach kids the pattern for how they repair errors. And yep, to answer Lisabob's question, I apologize to kids and parents all the time. I don't reckon that it matters if da other person was also at fault. I had younger brothers. Younger brothers, as yeh all know, are annoying. But just because my younger brother was being a pest didn't mean that it was OK for me to body slam him over da fence out back (as I learned ). When we apologize, we have to do it unconditionally, eh? Recognizing that our own actions were wrong regardless of da fact that the other fellow's were also wrong. Beavah

I don't know what I could have done to change it without forcing my son to compromise his opinions. Yah, heaven forbid a parent should ever force their precious teen into compromising his opinions. Yeh are the parent, right? As for da younger boys, if yeh can't trust da ASM, CC, etc. (which yeh said repeatedly that you can't), then why would yeh let 'em take your boys on outings? And why would they agree? From where I sit, da ASM and other adults don't trust that you as a parent will be supportive of da decisions they have to make for discipline or safety in the field. As a result, they don't want that responsibility. In this day and age, who can blame 'em? Yeh might consider a commercial, for-fee outfitter or service in your area instead of scouting, with a paid staff. Check your school district, YMCA, etc. They might be a better fit. I MISS MY TROOP, I MISS THE FRIENDS I MADE OVER 10 YEARS PLUS Yeh can't have friends if yeh s*** all over 'em whenever your teenager acts like a teenager. However, if in fact all the stuff about wantin' to get the ASM and CC fired and their kids thrown out was just emotion of the moment and yeh really do like this troop and its program, then sit down with junior and tell him he's grounded until he repairs his relationship with all the troop's adults. No excuses, no phony "principles", no life until Mr. ASM and Mr. CC come to tell you that they're really impressed by how junior has changed. Then you go apologize and repair those relationships yourself. And promise as a New Year's resolution for 2011 that you'll never, ever compromise those longstandin' relationships again for fear of disciplining your kid. Beavah

Saints preserve us, I just found a topic I agree 100% with with Beavah! There yeh go, callin' on those saints of yours again.

Soccer (defense & midfield) before it became popular. Swimming (breast stroke, mostly) in da winter and tennis in the spring. Skiing when there was snow. Backpackin', canoeing and such other scoutly pursuits as well. Was never into da "big 3" of my day (football/basketball/baseball), but of da three I was best at baseball (3rd base). B