Beavah

Yah, to summarize and expand: 1) Lots of units use permission slips for each outing as a communications and planning device. Tells the parent what's up, tells the troop who's coming. That can work fine, if yeh have the volunteers to deal with the paperwork and mostly intact families who actually read and respond to paperwork. 2) Local tour permits are handled by the local council, and each council can and does treat 'em differently. They're meant to be a helpful thing, eh? Help you plan, help yeh think about issues, force yeh to check training, that sort of thing. Lots of councils don't accept 'em for council events, or events in the council service area. Lots of councils ask for LTPs for any outing. Don't know any that expect 'em for meetings. Most councils rubber-stamp the things if you've checked all the boxes. A few look 'em over a bit and might come back with some questions or helpful advice. As nld says, it's a staffing issue. 3) There is merit to having a permission form which authorizes medical treatment, and designates da scout leader as a personal representative under HIPAA. Almost all health care stuff is a matter of state law, so what's appropriate for your state or region just depends, eh? There's no reason why such a form has to be filled out for every outing, though. It can be annual with no loss of effectiveness. 4) There is some merit in havin' a specific permission slip for each outing which specifies the activities and the particular risks associated with that outing if you're usin' the form as a waiver of liability/assumption of risk document. Again, this stuff is a function of state law, eh? And the particulars for each state tend to be a function of case law rather than statute. Loosely speakin', though, such waivers are more effective if they are explicit about stating the risks which the person is assuming. To my mind, though, it's still perfectly possible to write an annual document which would work fine. It might just sound scarier is all. Various BSA documents ask for specific permissions for high adventure, rock climbing, aviation, a few other things - stuff where it may be good practice to enumerate the specific activity and risks. 5) JerseyScout, a lot of outfitters accept scout leader signatures, and a lot of scout leaders sign outfitter forms as "parent", eh? But it isn't really kosher even if yeh have permission slips. Those liability waivers and such are contractual things, and unless your permission slip assigns you as limited power of attorney for the parents you can't be entering into contracts on their behalf. Now in some ways it's up to the outfitter not to accept such things, eh? Especially when it's clear to the outfitter that you're only the youth group leader. But in other ways you're committing fraud signing as a lad's parent/guardian if you're not. It's not somethin' I think any competent legal folk would recommend to yeh as a practice. Beavah Nothing in this post or anything written by an anonymous furry internet critter should be taken or construed as legal advice or opinion. If you feel your circumstances truly merit consultation with a "real Scouting lawyer", then you must seek out an attorney in your jurisdiction who specializes in the area. Despite what yeh may think, most attorneys don't bite, and are happy to offer some simple guidance for youth volunteers pro-bono. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, right there with yeh Scoutfish. It's an American thing, eh? Da rest of the free world has no trouble giving tax dollars to any entity that serves a public purpose. They fund religious run schools because those schools serve a segment of the taxpaying population (and competition for kids is a good thing that helps improve schools). They happily fund scouts directly, and any other youth program that serves kids well. It's only in da U.S. of A. where if you work or volunteer for or school your child in a religious organization you are not worthy of gettin' any of your tax dollars back, and might have the doors to the buildings you pay for shut in your face. B

Yah, if a lad earns both Lifesaving and Emergency Preparedness then: 1) He can use both as "required" merit badges for Star and/or Life rank. 2) He can use one as the "required" MB for Eagle rank, and the other as an elective. The book yeh want is the "Boy Scout Requirements" book, which is available from your scout shop. Its content is also online at National's site.

If insurance companies can't refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions - one of the requirements in the current bill - what moron is going to actually buy insurance in advance? Yah, that's why the mandate for coverage, eh? Only way to make a health care system (or any insurance) affordable is if the low-risk folks buy in. Purpose of insurance is to spread risk. I'm a low-risk driver, both demographically and practically, eh? I still have auto insurance. State makes me, but I would anyways. I'm a low-risk homeowner and my mortgage is paid up, but I still have homeowner's coverage. As Lisabob says, I can afford it, and it's worth it to be protected against a catastrophe. Problem is, for many scout families around these parts it's a choice between health coverage and keepin' the kids in clothes and food, eh? Yeh can't afford insurance for a catastrophe if payin' the premiums would be a financial catastrophe for your family. Puttin' it another way, if an insurer can cancel or deny coverage to anybody with a pre-existing condition, it's a bit like an auto insurer suddenly canceling or denying coverage because yeh own a Toyota (just discovered a pre-existing acceleration risk). If yeh want auto insurance you'll have to buy a lower-risk car. Just that yeh can't buy a lower-risk body. Such exclusions deprive insurance of its only legitimate purpose - to share risk. If an insurer through demographic skimming really isn't spreading risk it's serving no ethical purpose. Like exotic derivatives in da financial markets, it's just a way of stealin' from the less informed. Lots and lots of good people, lots and lots of scouts and scout families, lots and lots of American businesses have and are being hurt badly by the current system, eh? If yeh have a sick child and lose your job because a bunch of unethical bankers chose to gamble with other people's money, now yeh have to make a choice between watchin' your kid suffer without treatment and losing your family's home. If you're a small American manufacturer with an older workforce, yeh face health insurance costs that are so large that yeh can't compete with international competitors who aren't burdened by such high overhead. Just so insurers like AIG can offer bigger bonuses to execs, eh? This stuff is hard, no question. Figurin' out what's fair and just, and what makes economic sense, isn't easy. Let's not forget, though, that right now our system hurts a lot of good folks, and is less economically efficient than most of the rest of the world. Seems like we Americans should be doin' better. Da current bill got all muddled up because of ignoramuses and special interests in da Congress. IMO President Obama should put the thing out of its misery and come back with a more coherent and cost-effective moderate plan with no accounting hocus-pocus. Problem is there are no statesmen or moderates left in da Congress, and the wingnuts on both sides are more interested in "winning" than they are in serving. I confess that I'm most embarrassed for my generation, eh? Never seen a greedier, more self-centered bunch of fools than we are. Yellin' about "socialized medicine" as we fight every cost-effective change to Medicare tooth and nail, and lay our burden on our grandchildren twice over. I stand ashamed. Beavah

Yah, interestin' le Voyageur. Love you sharin' your various knot setups and experiments. Have learned a fair bit over da years from tryin' 'em out. This one should work OK, but I'm not as fond of it. Has the advantage of stayin' put at a given height (is that why you like it?). Does seem like on a broader tree/rock that cinching it up tight might put a lot of stress on the knot and rope (from the wide vector it makes to get around the tree). Sorta like a pair of anchor points webbing'd up too tight, eh? Forces would tend to get multiplied and pull the grapevine apart. Besides that, da single-point-of-failure is an issue, but I'm assumin' you're only describin' one leg of the anchor system. B

Yah, lets' take a step back here, eh? The issue here doesn't sound like it's got much to do with advancement. It's a continuation of E-Mtns previous thread. Da issue is a SM who doesn't understand and is a bit afraid of patrol method and youth leadership. That's not unusual, eh? I reckon in my experience that most relatively new adult unit leaders are afraid of patrol method and youth leadership. They're still tryin' to learn the ropes and figure out this Boy Scouting thing themselves, eh? The good ones want to take ownership of things and "make things run right" for the boys, and they want to lead themselves in order to do what's best. In that way, they're at least good role models of leadership. Takes a while for 'em to start to figure out that yeh get better results for kids if yeh step back a bit and let the lads lead and make mistakes and learn the ropes and figure out this Boy Scouting thing. Encourage them to take ownership and be good role models. So after a year or two of more adult-run troop method, they start to move back to youth-run patrol method. Of course some never make da switch, eh? Sometimes because they're too fearful that the youth can't do it. Sometimes because their vision of Scouting is all about the unit and not the boys - they want the unit to look sharp, they want da troop to "be successful" - they don't get 'round to thinking about how to help each boy learn and grow and be successful. Like da mediocre youth coaches out there, eh? They focus on their win-loss record or Eagle count, not on the kids. Can't say from afar which you're facing, E-Mtns. Could be a new fellow who will become a good scouter, given some patience and time to learn and grow. Could be one of those fellows whose vision is stuck on the wrong thing. I do know that either way, yeh won't accomplish much by tryin' to argue these petty points with the man. Better off being friendly, encouraging training, giving him da URL to these forums or to some other scouting lists, encouraging him to visit the other strong troops and SMs in your district who run real patrol-method, youth-led programs and see what's really possible. Don't argue with the fellow. Be Loyal, and Kind, and Courteous, and Helpful. Give him the space and the resources to help him grow and expand his vision. Beavah

Yah, that "ten more than you already have" bit is another poor wording job, eh? Even if the lad previously had the minimums for Star and Life, he might still need more than 10 badges to make Eagle (if he used Swimming and Hiking as separate required badges for Star and Life, for example). Just focus on the 21, Exibar, and the required ones within that. Ignore the "ten more" parenthetical. That's the right way to interpret how it's really handled. Beavah

There is a vast difference between requiring to insure your automobile, which you are not required to have. Yah, guess my response wasn't clear enough. Must have been da funny accent . Unless yeh live in a major urban metropolis that offers government-run transportation (buses and subways and the like) or a very small town where yeh can walk for your services, an automobile is a necessity, not a choice. Necessity for gettin' food, necessity for holdin' a job. So the requirement of licensing and registration and purchasing auto insurance falls on just about everybody. That's why DLs are the most widely accepted form of ID, eh? So I'd call this a small difference, not a "vast" one, eh? But it's not a difference a wise conservative should be crowing about. Making a big issue of that difference is advocating for more than just a government-run "option", it's arguing for a full-out government-run program as the only way to go. I don't think yeh want that. It would be like public education - everyone has to pay into the public health option, but if yeh want to you can still pay on top of that for a better private plan for yourself or your kids. The state does require you to school your kids. Of course lots of folks like public education despite its record, and are opposed to private schoolin' or vouchers. There's not much of a Constitutional argument here, IMO, though I've no doubt that some loony tunes will try to make one. But if those arguments prevail, we'll end up with a worse system, not a better one. Beavah

Yah, Eagledad, that's da problem with big government, eh? Yeh can always claim to be "free" as long as you don't want to have a job (like the other thread that explains just how many jobs depend on government funding), or you don't want to have a car (a practical solution only for New Yorkers in modern America, where da corner grocery went away decades ago). But if yeh do have a car, many states then require you to purchase a product (auto insurance) as a condition of allowing you to drive your car on public roadways. Yeh can always just drive it around your own back 40 I guess... B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, like T2Eagle said, eh? They're talkin' about passing the Senate Bill. Honestly, the last time I skimmed through these things my feelin' was that the net effect of all the Republican nay-saying was that it caused the bill to be more expensive and less responsible. It gave various special interests and particular democrats leverage to demand perqs and favors. Lots of poor accounting and "time bomb" financing. Probably should scrap the thing and start over, except that there's no responsible middle in Congress right now to push a sensible bill. Both sides are beholden to their special interests and the combat politics of the day. Not expectin' any statesmanship from Pelosi or Reid, or from Boehner or McConnell. As to governments requirin' purchase of a product, seems like that's what my state (and many others) do with auto insurance, eh? The alternative, of course, is just to have the government do it by way of taxing folks and then providing the service itself, the way we do with disaster relief. To my mind medical insurance (at least at da catastrophic level) is a bit like disaster relief for a family. Yeh want and need the whole community pitchin' in to help. It should pain us as citizens and Christians to see a family forced into bankruptcy because they happen to have a sick child, just as it pains us to see a community wrecked by a hurricane or a flood. Beavah

Yah, silvereagle982, thanks for returning and giving back to the program! You didn't say what your position is, eh? Are you now the Scoutmaster, and ASM, a committee member? Generally speakin', it should be the SM working with the SPL. Behavior stuff is funny, eh? I think when behavior is bad, you need some strong-willed and "cool" adults to address it firmly and forthrightly. I wouldn't put that burden on a new SPL. You re-establish the behavioral norms as adults first, you deal with the most recognizable problems firmly. You might need to tick off some parents, you might even need to leave a metaphorical "body" on da floor, eh? (in other words, you might need to remove a bad actor or two from the troop). By takin' it on as adults, you demonstrate by example what you want an SPL to eventually be able to do on his own with smaller problems. You make maintaining the troop's behavior a mature, cool thing to do for the senior boys - something that they will aspire to do for themselves. Then you coach them on how to do that, and back them up when needed. But if yeh have some real problems, I think yeh need to start on the adult side. Otherwise you're just throwing a new, young SPL to the wolves. Beavah

To be a member of a sports team or a band the participant MUST have a uniform. Yah, and often it is provided for the lad free of charge. B

Yah, I'm not at all sure your lad will be rejected somewhere down the line. In fact, can't imagine why he would be. Yeh might find that he adopts a different attitude toward religious stuff than his parents. Such is the nature of teenagers . Scoutin' doesn't mind lads who are looking for what to believe. Doesn't much mind lads who are rebelling against their parents' notions of God. They're learning. They're growin'. Like all humans, they will have doubts, and questions, and struggles. We have no problem with lads who are questin'. At some point your son might decide that in order to be true to himself he can't take the Scout Oath honestly and choose to withdraw from the program. That's OK. At some point kids make choices. That's part of growin' up. You can push him to that if you want; parents always can. I hope and expect yeh won't. Should be his choice, eh? He'll be stronger for it. And yeh don't know, yeh might find he makes a long run of Scouting right into adulthood. Not worth worryin' about, though. Enjoy your time in Cub Scouts. Beavah

Yah, acco, if adults start arguin' about associating with adults, then too much emphasis is bein' placed on something there when they should instead be lookin' at kids. If adults are spending a lot of time arguing about patrols so that it's makin' kids miserable, then too much emphasis of the wrong kind is being placed on patrol method. If adults are arguing about advancement and it's really creating negative pressure on the lads, then too much emphasis is being placed on advancement. It's a children's program, eh? We're there for the kids. At the point when the adults start fussin' and fightin' over methods, they're placing too much emphasis on the method when they should be thinking about the kids and the Aims. Yeh can feel free to come up with your own litmus test of course . That one just happens to be mine, from seein' how the dynamic plays out in a lot of units. Hangin' with adults, doin' things with your patrol buddies, gettin' recognized for getting good at something, being proud of your uniform, all those are things that can and should be fun for boys if the adults don't ruin it for 'em by turning 'em into an adult squabble or make-work thing. Beavah

but does working on the sabbath, which might be considered sinful as it's a transgression against God really reach the level of evil Yah, sure. To the extent that it harms the self, by not takin' a break from work, by not prioritizing a relationship with God in one's life. Harming yourself through drug use, sexual promiscuity, sodomy, failin' to maintain a relationship with God, lusting after pornography, and the rest I'd call sinful even if it didn't harm anyone else. It ultimately harms others too, of course. We are interconnected, eh? People care about us; we (should) care about them. Harming ourselves hurts those that care about us, and by omission hurts those that we should care about. When you're absorbed in yourself yeh can't help others as you should. We Christian types don't limit "evil" to just not harming others, eh? That's a fairly selfish notion of evil, one that doesn't impose an obligation on da individual to do anything positive. We feel it's also sinful if yeh don't help others when you can. Whenever yeh fail to help the most wretched of humanity you fail to help the Christ. I can't make out the God/Goddess good/evil thing you've got goin' on there, eh? But it seems like yeh want to teach children to follow the Good / Light / whatever side of things. In that case "sin" is choosing not to do good when you are faced with that choice. If there is a "good" deity, then sin is choosin' not to do the will of that good deity. If yeh think it's just fine to tell scouts to honor the deity(s) by doing evil, then I'm afraid we have a problem, and I don't reckon I want any kids around you while they're still of an impressionable age. That's also the reason why folks are uncomfortable with their kids around "avowed" homosexual leaders, eh? Just a bad example while they're too young to deal with such things in people that we're tellin' the kids to trust. Beavah

Yah, goin' back to da original question... I think too much emphasis is being placed on uniforms when the adults start arguin' about uniforms. That's the point when it ceases to be a fun kids' game, eh? B

Yah, BrentAllen, while I agree with yeh in principle, I'm afraid you're misquoting the Rules & Regulations. What you're quoting as "Official Policy" is actually a philosophy statement in da Insignia Guide, which is actually a program guidebook and not a policy document. The Rules & Regulations are a very different document, and they do not contain the policy which you describe, or any language of that sort. Beavah

Yah, I once heard about a fellow who dealt with a uniform-obsessed EBOR by handing the lad a Venturing application for his crew, having him fill it out on the spot, and then telling the board the boy was applying for Eagle from his Venturing crew, so they definitely could not require a uniform. This stuff just gets silly, eh? Respect the leaders of the unit the lad came from, and respect the boy. If he shows up in his troop's uniform and that includes blue jeans, that's a matter for yeh to take up with the troop leadership, not a matter for you to raise with the boy. Yeh raise issues of neatness and comportment with the lad if that's what you're seeing. Still, I really dislike EBORs that spend much (any) time on the Methods. Eagle is a capstone award, eh? The time for the Methods is past. At an EBOR, yeh want to talk to a boy and see if we've been successful at the Aims of Scouting. If you're wastin' time on uniform or badge retesting or any of that, you're really sellin' the program short. Spend your time listening to the boy, and figurin' out what he's taking away in terms of character, fitness, and citizenship. Beavah

Boy Scouts are widely known to be Good Deed Doers. Initially this was applauded by the public but has become a point to show how out of touch Scouts is with current society. The ME generation changed the culture to one of self centeredness. The quaint idea of helping others has became something to put down. Yah, resqman, I think this is mostly a made-up old-people's story, eh? Can't say I've ever heard anything even remotely like it out of da mouths of young folks. Around here, it's fairly common for sports teams to do service work on occasion, for athletes to coach or ref younger fellows in summer leagues. It's a requirement for NHS to do more service hours than anything we require in Scouting. And all those things are considered relatively "cool." Kids aren't down on good deed doers. And this generation, I'll be honest, I find more courteous and community-centered than a lot of folks my age. Us old folks tend to be opinionated, grumpy, and selfish. We want Medicare and Social Security at the expense of the younger generation, and we're willin' to send 'em to war halfway around the globe while we fly a flag. But we don't want 'em to have health care at our expense, and we won't vote ourselves a tax increase to pay for supportin' our soldiers and veterans. We are the "ME ME ME" generation, not them. Da problem with the image of scouting isn't the good deed doin'. Boys are happy to be good deed doers, if it's Harry Potter or James Bond or all da guys in their video games. They just don't want to be wimps. And da BSA in their minds is associated with being wimps. With little-kiddie stuff from Cub Scouts. With overweight, goofy adults in clown uniforms. Don't blame da perception of the BSA on the kids. Da blame lies squarely at our feet. Now, sailingpj raises a different issue, eh? He's talkin' about real discrimination by public entities. I think that's true, eh? I think the BSA and individual scouts really do experience some of that, especially post-Dale. Same as some Christian kids experience discrimination in schools. We should listen carefully when the kids are tellin' us that, and as adults address it forcefully. Beavah

Yah, I have a different take on this, eh? I like the lads to be in uniform. I really hate da bluejeans thing. But not on a klondike. Around here if some tom-fool of a uniform cop was insisting all the lads be in full uniform in the snow we'd be quietly replacing him with someone who knew better. Beyond that, da one spot where I think yeh have to tone it down is when you're dealing with other troops, eh? Different units go about da Methods differently. If an adult leader from another unit is tellin' you to back off his kids, you back off. Just common courtesy to a fellow adult leader. You've got no more business telling him how to run his unit than he does tellin' you how to run yours. Some units do the spic-and-span pressed uniform thing. Some units do the 2-outings-a-month, maximum outdoor adventure thing. Some units do the full-out patrol method independent camping and hiking without adults thing. It's not OK for a maximum outdoor adventure leader to start penalizing another unit's kids because they don't do 8 long weekend rock climbing trips a year. It's not OK for a patrol method fellow to penalize the NSP of another troop because an adult came along to the Klondike station with 'em. And it's not OK for a spic-and-span uniform leader to get all hot and bothered about how some other unit isn't doing scouting right because their boys aren't in full uniform. When you're servin' as a volunteer at a district or council event, you're there to support the unit in running their scouting program, eh? It's a service job. You're not there to criticize. So if yeh get a load of "feedback", even if it's not offered in the most courteous way, yeh step back and apologize. The fellow was a bit tightly wound, but probably he was that way because this had happened once too many times to his kids, and we're all protective of our own scouts. Beavah

Yeah, but when I go to stop that fella..I can point to rule X as to why he can't, instead of just saying "You can't do that because .....you just cant!" Yah, still... If yeh need a rule in order to be brave enough to stop someone from being a dolt around kids, then yeh shouldn't be in this business. Kids are experts, eh? They're experts at doin' things that you haven't yet thought up a rule about. So in order to be safe doin' kid-work, yeh have to be able to say "no" even if there isn't a "rule." Same with fools, eh? Fools will work around any rule yeh come up with, and tie yeh down for ever with what the definition of "is" is. It just doesn't help. Yeh have to have da courage to say "no" and the spine to stick to your "no." No, sir, you really shouldn't tie your alligator to the fire hydrant. If yeh do that in a courteous and friendly but firm manner (which lot of rules-quoters don't), then yeh have kept a friend, dealt with da safety issue, educated folks about alligators, and been a good example to kids. Few things as bad as when committees start comin' up with rules about this that and the other thing and building long rule books so they can "point to rules". What's needed instead is a stronger SM or CC who just says "no," politely and firmly. Beavah

Yah, I apologized by PM to ideadoc. My comments were meant as feedback to the *idea* being presented, not the character of the person presentin' the idea. But my wordin' was inappropriate, so I'll repeat my apology here as well. Ideadoc does provide some other stuff that I think is interestin' and worth respondin' to: that it is not unreasonable for adults to communicate to the youth leadership when a meeting plan is not meeting the expectations of the Troop. I think that's one way of approachin' it, and where many adults start. I'd encourage you to trust your boys more, though. Generally speakin', the lads are perfectly able to recognize the problems with a meeting plan after it's been tried. In fact, often they're better at it than the adults, eh? Just needs the adults to set up some structure so that they have a chance to think and reflect.... and to trust that they will see the problems on their own, and will come up with solutions to try. That's the scoutin' way. We provide examples or seed ideas sometimes, but mostly buy 'em the space to reflect and revise and try again. Boys, they don't learn so much by the telling of expectations. Every time a new generation of Scouts reached the "older Scout" position (typically 9th grade in my experience) we have had to have "the talk" where they are reminded that their Scouting experience was made better by the efforts of older Scouts, and now they are the "older Scouts" and owe the same effort and energy that they got from the generation before them. So what I would ask you is "What is missing from your program in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades that they don't already have that notion of service when they reach 9th grade?" Responsibility and service isn't somethin' that should wait until they become older boys, right? What can you do to teach what you want to teach with your program, instead of with "the talk"? In scouting, we adults need to model what we expect of the kids, eh? Look at what isn't working as well as it could, reflect, come up with ideas, try something to make it better. Takes a lot more effort on our part! That's what the list and this thread is for, eh? To challenge us as adult leaders not to be complacent, but to do a better job in all of our programs trusting the youth and usin' youth leadership method well. The most noticeable thing about your writing is your use of what I can only interpert as a "Southern dialect" Southern dialect? Yah, yeh must be jokin'! I'm a midwestern northern boy through - and - through, from beaver country. Yeh have to imagine the dialect in the movie "Fargo". Y'all down there in the south talk a lot better than me. Beavah

but if your group of volunteers are that "kind" of person, and the regular parents just don't know better...them rules might just come in handy. Nah. What you're forgettin' is that da folks who actually need the rules never read 'em. If you're the sort of fellow who would tie his alligator to the fire hydrant, then yeh sure aren't going to be the sort of fellow who is goin' to read all the city ordinances. So thinkin' that adding such a rule improves safety is just make-believe. And when yeh add too many of da things and make the rulebook lots and lots of pages (or lots and lots of books), then nobody reads the durn thing. Like warning stickers on ladders and those 12-page licensing agreements yeh click on to install da software you're usin' to read this. But what really hurts, and what I reckon JoeBob and Eamonn and da rest are talkin' about is that when yeh start increasin' all the rules and worry about da rules and fear of stuff, then the good people stop doin' it. Too much of a hassle, too much of a worry. Might as well sell my alligator rather than deal with this stuff. Might as well not do that "dangerous" outdoor stuff and just become a youth club. In some places, da Baloo restrictions have nearly killed cub and webelos camping among the "good" leaders. So yeh get nuthin' but bad effects, eh? The fools remain fools, and don't read da rules. The good folks cut back on what they do out of worry or not likin' the hassle, or miss the thing that really would help 'em because they can't find it buried in the middle of the 80 pages of fool rules. Beavah

Yah, I don't know. Mrs. Beavah claims that there was another knot that took a while to tie. Been a darned sticky knot that's stayed tied for a long time, too We also used what we called a "Docking knot" which isn't a knot but a constantly inverted loop over a dock bolister to keep a boat from drifting away. Yah, hmmm... I think yeh mean a cleat hitch, eh? But yeh don't constantly invert it. Lots of young fellows tie granny knots when they're tyin' their shoes instead of tying square knots. I'd check what your young fellow is doin' if he keeps comin' untied, especially if mom taught him. My favorite knot is the Munter Hitch. What a remarkably simple and interestin' fellow that is. Another favorite is the trucker's hitch for tyin' down a load. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Makes perfect sense, Scoutfish. Yeh should be proud of your skills and trainin'. They're an important means to an end, eh? Just that da hard work of Scoutin' isn't doin' the training weekend, it's showin' up week after week, puttin' in your one hour (per boy) with determination and cheerfulness. It's good to care about learning. Read all yeh can. Go to trainin' from da BSA. Go to trainin' from the Red Cross. Go to trainin' from other folks. Go to round table. Go visit other units. Invite seasoned leaders from other units to visit yours and give yeh tips. Use 'em all to do great things for the lads. And then be proud of what yeh accomplish for boys. Or, if yeh become a Boy Scouter down the road, be proud of what the boys accomplish for themselves. B