Beavah

Yah, I think we're hijackin' Missouri_COR's thread just when he might need some additional insight or help in how to work with his CO and balance expectations. So let's leave off (or spin off) the other unrelated stuff, eh? B

Yah, hmmm... Sounds like da IH is concerned that one of the lads is going to "go Columbine" and then it will reflect on the church. Yeh always hear new things in this work, and that's a new one! I think what yeh do is ramp up your presentation, and talk about the number of people who get injured accidentally by firearms, and the number of people who learn from video games that guns are toys, and that learn from modern media that guns are how yeh solve disputes. And then yeh make the point that the BSA is one of da only groups who are working diligently to teach kids the responsible use of firearms, how to treat 'em with respect and avoid accidents, how never to misuse or play with 'em as toys. I bet the congregation doesn't ban marines or law enforcement officers for fear one of 'em will "go Columbine". You're tryin' to teach the same level of responsible citizenship and safety to young men who may well join one of those professions in a few years. Yeh might try the analogy to driving. Young folks are killed when driving with some regularity. Or kill others. Or show up in da news. The answer to that isn't banning driving, it's teaching 'em how to drive well. Young folks are killed by drowning with some regularity. The answer to that isn't to not let 'em near water, it's to teach 'em how to swim, and be safe, and treat water sports with respect. I think you'll be able to convince 'em. But yeh want to enlist some "expert witnesses" and put on a good show, and be ready for their questions and arguments. Good luck with it! Beavah

Yah, Mr. Maynard, I love that yeh care about your lads! Here's da thing. I don't think you care about 'em the right way. Some dads want their sons to be good people, and for their sons to find happiness and their own way in life. And some dads want their sons to be just like them, and carry on the family business, getting the awards that dad cares about. You're slipping in to thinking like da second one. The goal of Scouting is to help the boys grow in fitness, character, and citizenship. If your scouts aren't really showing strength in those areas, if they aren't really growing into men with good values, then you should intervene, eh? Push, prod, pull, etc. Advancement is not a goal of the program; it's not a goal that we adults should care about. It's something that we use to help kids set goals or to challenge 'em, but it's only one of those things, eh? Youth leadership, patrol method, outdoor adventures - all da other methods also are ways we help kids strive and achieve. If some of your boys don't care about advancement, your job as SM is not to try to force them. Your job is to find some other challenge to help 'em grow in fitness, character, and citizenship. Maybe that's more advanced high adventure? Maybe that's stronger use of youth leadership? Maybe that's more patrol spirit? You know your kids, eh? Find what motivates 'em, and care enough to keep your eyes on da real prize. Not Eagle. Building young men of character. And yeh might find, if you up your use of youth leadership, if you up your patrol method, if you up your high adventure... then da advancement might come along for the ride, too. Beavah

Yah, I reckon every time anybody anywhere says " scout insurance won't cover if..." they're talkin' through their hat ;P. But traveling in uniform when it makes sense is a great thing to be encouraged. Other times, like when you're goin' winter camping up here in da north, it might not make sense. It's definitely a treat, though, to see how many people support scouting. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... When did rank requirements become "laws"? I always thought they were the criteria for receiving a recognition or award. The criteria for receiving an award is always set by the folks who are giving the award, eh? So for a BSA award, da criteria is set by the BSA. For a unit award, da criteria is set by the unit. If the kids want to make up an award for da loudest farts, they get to set the criteria . No law says yeh have to pursue any award. I think you're mixing up a bunch of different things, eh? For some things, even many things, in a democracy we delegate or trust da decision to officials with expertise. We don't vote on the best way to lay a road, we let da city engineer decide that. Same in Scouting. Some decisions are best left to the PL, or SPL, or SM. Most, in fact. Other types of decisions are best handled by the decision of a group of representatives, like a PLC or TC. Still others, like da selection of the SPL are something that everybody has a vote in. That is democracy in a republic. Beavah

Sure they can, acco. BadenP described a few; I know of a bunch. Some COs just use da chartering relationship for access to camps and the insurance and values aspects. They don't offer advancement, and don't use it as part of their program. It's just a method, eh? We're happy to have 'em. They're otherwise good supporters and help da numbers . Goin' back to MO_COR's situation, I like da notion of finding a sportsman's club as a CO for a shooting sports Venturing Crew. Seems like the best fit. If yeh want to work it out with da current CO, I think yeh have to figure out whether the objection is practical or ethical. If da CO is a church that jus objects to firearms on principle, I don't think you're going to get anywhere. If it's more a concern over supervision and liability, then that's something yeh can have conversations about. Beavah

Are yeh sure? You're talkin' about an Eagle Scout here. Does an Eagle Scout really need an adult to push him along? Is that what an Eagle Scout is? Shouldn't an Eagle Scout have reached da point where he can self motivate? I think yeh find that the kids always slow down and dilly dally a bit at Life Scout. That's normal. And some choose to be Life for Life. That's normal, too. I'm not sure us nagging 'em to finish Eagle should be normal. Beavah

Never push. Never nag. Never prompt. Occasionally pull. Invite. Welcome. Always recognize others who achieve. Always know your kids. B

Scouting is not a democracy. Many folks seem to forget that. I reckon I forgot it. Actually, I don't think I ever learned it. Da Scouting program for kids is supposed to teach them good citizenship in a democratic republic, and as such scouting experienced by the kids is supposed to be a democracy. Yeh vote for your representative to the PLC (patrol leader); yeh vote for your president (SPL). Your representatives decide what yeh spend your money on, your activities, da rules and expectations. Adults guide and advise to help the lads learn how to do representative democracy well. But they're not "in charge." Beavah

Yah, I think rappelling was a "hypothetical", eh? It'd be nice to know what da real issue was. Also worth mentioning, though, that the Age Appropriate Guidelines are just guidelines, eh? Not prohibitions. So rappelling is not recommended for cubs, but not forbidden either. Beavah

Does a CO have the right to make this type of statement to a unit about their activities? Can someone please cite the source please. Yah, the CO has da right and obligation to impose whatever requirements it wants, eh? They can choose not to use the BSA Advancement Program, choose to restrict certain activities, put in place additional training or YP or religious requirements for their adult leaders. They own the unit, and as a unit volunteer, you work for them, not da BSA. Ref. your COR training (yeh did COR training, right? ). If they believe insurance is an issue, how much skin does the CO have in the game (in terms of insurance) for an activity conducted by a unit off their premises? Da CO is the responsible superior/supervisor. So from a liability perspective, it's da CO who is ultimately on the hook for anything that happens or anything you (as their volunteer and agent) do. You as an individual volunteer probably do not have any liability for ordinary negligence because you are accorded statutory immunity under federal law. The CO is not so lucky. The BSA provides primary insurance coverage for the CO, but that coverage has limits. Relatively high limits, but limits nonetheless. When those limits are exceeded, the CO's insurer, and ultimately the CO's property, is on the line. Now, where do yeh go from here? Generally speaking, if yeh don't have good communication with your IH, yeh need to start that up. You don't want to handle this by exchanging letters and emails. Go sit with da IH and your DE, explain the relationship, explain the program, explain the training, explain the BSA insurance coverage as primary, and help 'em understand. Usually that's enough. Yah, properly speakin' the CO should maintain good contact and a good relationship, but relationships are two way streets. IH's can turn over more frequently than the average SM. It's important for units to maintain good communication and relationships with their CO. Consider it part of Scouting service! Now, can we ask what da real activity is if it isn't rappelling? That might help us give yeh additional insight. Climbing/rappelling is generally a liability concern, but other things (firearms?) might be more an issue of CO values / ethics. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm with CalicoPenn. Maybe because he's as longwinded as I am . Summer camp for boys yeh usually hit a "down" spot midweek where fatigue from being active all day instead of videogaming, and emotional fatigue from living in close quarters, starts to take its toll. Tempers get a bit short, even among adults, eh? And even among friends. A bright PL, SPL, or adult recognizes the signs and catches things early on to intervene or redirect, but not everything can get caught. Sometimes, a swing or three happens. Ordinarily, such fights between brothers or friends aren't somethin' that rises to the level of being sent home in my book. Usually yeh just separate 'em, figure out what's goin' on, get 'em to an accommodation or shake on it and then find some service work that suits 'em to do together. Or better yet, send 'em both to bed early! By the next morning, they'll be back to being best friends. Now, sometimes a fight exposes some uglier stuff - some longer-term bullying or thievery or such. In that case, yeh sometimes have to send a lad home. Fights where a lot of damage gets done or a weapon is threatened are also ones where the response has to be stronger. But none of that seems to apply in this case. So I think da SM had it right. SMs usually know the lads better than Committee Members, and are therefore in a better position to make wise decisions. IMHO Committees of parents should never be involved in discipline issues, and even committees of more neutral adults should be reserved for final expulsion decisions. ASM #1 is not a loss. If the fellow doesn't understand boys, he shouldn't have been an ASM in da first place. ASM #2 is reasonable if the fight went beyond a brief altercation or exposed some other stuff. ASM #3 is naive and yeh should make a quiet note that the fellow should never be made SM. Yah, an ADHD or Asperger's lad might be handled a bit differently, depending on circumstances, but that's only a gentle modifier of a response. Yeh still need to respond, for the sake of both the boy and the other lads in the troop. Beavah

Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, or to the children, do not announce it as the hypocrites do, to be honored by men. I tell you truly, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your kindness to the children may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you - Matthew 6 Yah, Mr. Maynard, I wouldn't fret too much about people struttin' around with awards from a kids' program that they never earned; or even ones that they did, eh? They have already received their reward. The real treasure of Scoutin' is the quiet times in the woods, and the seeds we plant in young men and women to grow to give fruit to their lives. Those folks with da extra knots miss out on da real rewards. Beavah

I too have never known anyone who quit Scouting b/c of the uniform. Yah, I think what E61 was tryin' to say is that while no boys quit scouting because of da uniform, there are boys who never join because of the uniform. I know I've met quite a few, even as adults, who confess that they like the outdoors and the stuff scouts did, or who had friends in scouts, but never joined themselves. I'm willing to bet that if yeh ask boys in your troop, they'll tell you they have friends like that... guys who would love to do scout stuff, but don't want to do it being associated with da uniform and what they perceive to be the (adult) BSA. Yah, sure, we might fault 'em for that, but they're kids. Unless we get 'em into scouting, we can't change their minds. I personally like to see the lads in uniform, and appreciate it when the boys wear a good-lookin' uniform when it's appropriate in public. I confess, though, that I like strong youth leadership and outdoors programs better, and too often da "full uniform at meetings" units are weaker in those areas. So while yeh won't find a lad who quit scouting because of the uniform, yeh do see some boys who quit scouting because of the boring adult-run program that sometimes comes with an over-emphasis on uniforming. I think that's what Lisabob is tryin' to say. So it's like anything. Campin' 300 feet away from every other patrol no matter what might be da perfect implementation of Patrol Method, and wearin' full Class A's at da outdoor meeting in mid-July might be da perfect implementation of Uniform Method. But I reckon there's a lot of great scoutin' that goes on without being perfect. The same reasons for not wearing a uniform to a troop meeting can be made for not wearing a uniform to an Eagle Court of Honor. Because da ECOH is outdoors, fun, active, and service-oriented, with people hanging out in their patrols and working hard and playing hard? Yeh must have some fun ECOHs! Either that, or some really dull meetings. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, SMT224, I reckon Lisabob's point was that there is a dress code for certain situations, but that da Boy Scout Uniform ain't the proper dress code for what we do at a meeting, eh? Leastways, not if we're having fun, active meetings that appeal to kids all summer long. Kinda like expecting one of us adults to wear a full suit and tie to a beach party. Only works as a joke or costume, not somethin' you'd ever really do in public. I travel all over, and yeh see all kinds of attitudes about formal clothing among da older folks who care about such things. In urban areas and old industries, formal clothing matters to professionals. In suburban areas and especially in more modern "growth" industries that are providing the jobs of the future, casual is more the rule. Wear a suit and tie and yeh look like an incompetent pointy-haired boss. In some rural areas, wearing formal clothing is considered "uppity". So perhaps this depends a bit on where your unit is located, and whether da area is in tune with modern "growth" industries or not. But I reckon the bigger message is that gettin' clothing wrong one way or the other really can be a turn-off, eh? Show up for a job interview at a bank in cut-off jeans and a tie-dye, not a great choice. Advertise outdoor adventure and require a pressed parlor outfit designed a quarter century before you were born, perhaps not a great choice either. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Having uniforms at scouting events is important, as you are identified as SCOUTS and not just random people Yah, I don't reckon I've ever had much trouble identifying scouts. Even on da trail wearing outdoor clothing, eh? The smell alone... Seriously, da way you identify scouts is simple. A bunch of teenage boys with more than da usual skills and confidence doin' something outdoors or service minded. I've never needed da uniform to tell a group of scouts ever. The uniform doesn't set the tone, eh? Being a scout sets the tone. The tone sets da meaning of the uniform, whichever one happens to be worn. And I don't reckon the lads need help identifying each other at their own meeting, eh? Nuthin' wrong with spif uniforming, either. Tradition and ritual are important for young lads, as is being a part of something bigger than themselves. All things in balance. There's time for formal wear, but I'm not sure it's when you're hanging with your patrol buddies at an active, fun meeting (which preferably is outdoors!) Beavah Beavah

Yah, around here yeh see troops of all types. Full dress uniform at meetings (though these troops often make uniform "modifications" to personalize things to their troop), just shirts at meetings, active wear at meetings. Different styles. Loosely speakin', da full uniform troops are a bit weaker on youth leadership, and da no- uniform troops are a bit stronger on outdoor method. As Lisabob suggests, there are tradeoffs. All of 'em are fine troops. I'd guess that da most common are the shirts-only group, though personally I don't care for da shirts with jeans thing. I recognize that I'm just an old fuddy duddy though . To me the so-called "Class C's"... Yah, I reckon it doesn't matter what it is to you or me or any old fuddy duddy, eh? . What matters is what it is to the boys, and for that yeh have to listen to the lads. I reckon for most of 'em, achievement and preparedness don't depend on what they wear, especially not in a setting where they know everybody. And even I don't carry "be prepared" gear when I'm sitting in my Headquarters. That would just be silly. Beavah

Yah, Liz, da Society of Friends sponsors a number of units across the country. What you're describing is perfectly fine, and I reckon your local council will be more than happy to add yeh to their numbers. Call your DE and set up a meeting. Beavah

Yah, I think like everything da curriculum amounts to only a small piece of the final product, eh? So much of training depends on da experience and dedication of the trainers and their personality, on the skills, background, and personalities of the participants, and a mess of other things. Like Eagledad says, not everybody can or should be a course director. Like Thomas 54 says, age 13 might be a bit young and inexperienced for the stuff. I'll agree with SM224, though, that the curriculum is a bit heavy on some fad-ish and simplistic management theory. Same stuff F talks about as not being "management", but that you'll find in da bookstore "management" shelves . In small doses, when done well, that stuff can help a young lad or a novice adult get a handle on a thing or two. In larger doses or done poorly, not so much. There's a lot to be said for Kudu's critique. I think too much of da management stuff wanders in for reasons others describe - the organization is top heavy in managers these days, and thinks in terms of workplace and employee management, not so much in terms of volunteers and kids and outdoor leadership. That's natural, eh? It isn't even all bad. But it does mean yeh need some really good course directors to make it work, and probably some brighter older boys who can handle da abstraction better than a 13 year old. Beavah

Yah, da other thread about daughters and how GSUSA has generally abandoned the market of girls who are seeking real outdoor adventure is somethin' I've been seeing all over. Safe to say, there's a very large demand for real scouting for girls that isn't being met, eh? And a lot of those young ladies are the sisters and daughters of some very loyal BSA folks. Seems like it's almost our duty to help 'em out. Now I know that we've had marketing studies for years that indicate if we went coed we'd wipe out GSUSA. Frankly, I'm not sure I care that much anymore. GSUSA has jumped da shark on a few issues. So if we were to decide that doing our duty to young people involved meeting the needs of girls and young ladies, how would we best do it? Separate single-sex programs that merged into Venturing? Coed all the way? Local choice? What are the possible traps to be aware of? How do we maintain our successes with mentoring and meeting the needs of (especially) middle school boys if we're also trying to serve girls well? I put this here in da program section in the hope that it will be a program discussion on da real merits of different options for providing such a program. If folks want to discuss whether girls should be provided any services at all because they have cooties or such, please spin off an Issues and Politics thread. Beavah

Yah, I'm with jhankins, eh? We're in da camp business, and dealing with food allergies in a supportive and understanding way is a part of da camp business. In fact, dependin' on the state I expect that it's a feature of law or regulation, and the camp is in violation. From what you're reporting, I think you're not gettin' da right answers because yeh either aren't talkin' to the right people or you're taking written "policy" too seriously. All camps these days seem to multiply "policy" like a bad case of da trots. So... deep breath. Relax. Give the camp director or camp ranger a call, explain what's up, ask for help. Could be the ranger will give yeh some space in his fridge. Could be the camp director can let yeh use the kitchen on the sly, or the chef could. Could be that the chef can just do a gluten-free thing on the side for you. If yeh want, drop da "I guess I'll need to talk to the Scout Executive about why you're not in compliance with the state camp licensing rules" bombshell, but only if yeh absolutely need to. Or just set up to cook in the campsite. Honestly, I don't know any camps that prohibit propane burners in camp, I think that's just nuts. A few still prohibit the gasoline backpack stoves, but more on paper than in reality. I wouldn't even ask permission, I'd just do it. Yeh can go to a local ice cream shop or food supplier and get a bunch of dry ice for relatively little cash, which will keep things in a sealed cooler frozen for several days, then supplement with regular ice for the rest of the week. The camp staff should be more helpful, but yeh should also be able to work with a few folks and get around this thing without a whole lot of grief. As an aside, though, this is somethin' about da BSA culture that makes me nuts sometimes. In da evaluation of our employees we place so little emphasis on service that yeh often see this kind of odd slavish adherence to (often fictional) "policy" contrary to common sense and our proper role under da Oath and Law. Had some stern conversations with folks over da years on stuff like this. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, it's just not worth gettin' your shorts in a knot over, eh? Anybody who receives an award owns that award. They're free to sell it if they wish. Doesn't matter if it's an Eagle pin or an Olympic Gold Medal or da pink lawn flamingo they won at da Polish kielbasa festival. What's more, when a scouter goes home to da Great Scoutmaster, like as not his family needs to dispose of his estate. While some families might find old patches and pins worth keeping, mostly those things were meaningful to the scouter but not his grandchildren. And da kids are dealing with far too much to be worried about separating out all that stuff eh? It's pretty common for them just to pay an Ebayer to come to the house and take all the stuff. That's just fine, eh? It allows other scouters the enjoyment of purchasing an item that means something to them, while givin' the original scouter's family some cash to help with expenses. Or if a lad quits scouting, it's within his rights to sell his uniform and patches on Ebay and make a few bucks for college. Heck, it might be an incentive to advance . So I'd say we should all lighten up a bit and mind our own business. Unless yeh have direct evidence or knowledge that someone is stealing kits to sell 'em for personal profit, relax. And even if yeh know something like that is goin' on, it's not your job to do anything about it beyond sending a polite note to Irving. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Actually with regard to swim competitions, EVERY open water meet I have assisted had a watercraft alongside EVERY individual competitor for the long courses (and I've had to take a few aboard who couldn't make the distance). Must not have very many competitors, eh? Around here, tri events that include teenagers typically have a hundred or more competitors per age group startin' at da 0.5 mile open water swim. There are some kayak and rowboat safety boaters who do a fine job, but da ratio is more than an order of magnitude off from your 1:1. B

I'd agree that the "never swim without a buddy" rule is a great one and should appy to ALL swimming situations. Yah, so no triathlons (or other swim competitions) for your kid either, eh?

Yah, da proper fundamental is "wet and hydrated inside, dry outside". All kinds of lessons like that kids have to learn by experience. No amount of parental or SM or PL words can convey it. And no worthy SM or parent is goin' to lay out clothes for the lads or set up an official "OK, everyone change your socks in front of the adults" time. Beavah