Beavah

Yah, this kind of shrill ugliness runs a terrible risk, eh? Pastors of souls can "inspire" the emotionally needy of their flock to take action with words and abjurations like this, eh? Almost at times seems like that's what they want. Wink wink, nudge nudge, somebody should shoot da president for God. Then afterward they can all feign ignorance and pretend they never meant that, da poor young fool just misunderstood. There's a special place in hell for those who would lead their flocks and especially their young astray in such a way. Better for millstone to be tied around their neck and cast into da sea fer sure. I see this fellow is another one of those whose website proudly proclaims he has no college degree, nor any education for Christian ministry. Badge of honor to be ignorant, eh? The President will be in my prayers tonight. May he be protected and kept from those who would twist the word of God, and from the ignorance of those who may follow such false prophets. But I won't pray for da death of this pastor, eh? Real Christians don't do that sort of thing. I'll pray for his conversion. But let's also remember this fellow isn't da pastor of a presidential candidate. So he really doesn't merit air time. Nor do we really want his views gettin' a whole lot of play. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I've had this happen a bunch of times. Lots of folks get sites confused. Especially if they come in at or after dark, eh? If it's da first time it's happened with that group, I reckon yeh do what you did. You treat 'em the way you'd want to be treated if you had made the same mistake. Yeh just roll with it as your good deed for the weekend. Now, I do think they should have offered to move, eh? That would have been da honorable thing for them to do, rather than playin' pass-the-buck and ignorant. Check their reservation, realize you were right, and at least made the offer. Treatin' you the way they'd expect to be treated if da situation was reversed, and just bein' honorable. But you're not responsible for their choices, eh? You're responsible only for your own. So yeh do the right thing toward brother scouts, and let 'em have the site and the benefit of your example. Beavah

The real key is to dry up the jobs for the migrants by punishing the employers. How? Sorry to be pedantic here, but OK, we want to try to dry up da jobs. Generally that means dryin' up the demand, because as we discovered with prohibition, punishing the businesses that try to meet the demand doesn't usually work. Just means a really big criminal enterprise to deal with. But OK, we're goin' to try to do it by punishing the employers. How? Random raids on businesses? Seizing the assets of companies that didn't recognize fake documentation? Jailing da guy who hired the out-of-work friend from church? 10 million illegals. Hundreds of thousands of businesses. Court dockets are already full most places. So yeh have to add courts, and clerks, and prisons, and judges, and lawyers, and police... lots and lots of federal police. How are yeh goin' to fund it? Execute it fairly? Deal with da huge economic impact? Beavah

The only way is dry up all the jobs for the illegal aliens. Yah, OK... How? B

Yah, hmmmm.... I'm sure vol's right about da practical effect. But he's not quite right about the mechanism, eh? Da federal government is only limiting the amount of scholarship support it's providing for residency trainin', eh? That's not at all the same as limiting the number of positions. Believers in da free market would expect that private funders and the students themselves would provide for the rest, eh? But trainin' docs is a big ticket expense, and we don't see private sector entities like insurers jumpin' in the way they should to increase the supply so as to drive down the price. That's a market failure as much as it's a government planning failure. It's again because da private insurers are focused instead on demographic skimming and other short-term profiteering tricks rather than long-term cost containment. Beavah

My main point is if I do something Illegal, I go to jail. Why are thses illegal immigrants different. ... Find the illegals. Deport them back to mexico and secure the border with military force. Yah, OK, SctDad. How? There are between 10 and 15 million illegals. Some of whom have U.S. Citizen children. How exactly are yeh going to find them, jail them, and deport them? Our current prisons are mostly full, overflowin' and dangerous in many states. We're often releasing criminals just because we've got nowhere to put 'em. One court case can take a while. How many more lawyers, judges, and clerks will that take? Yeh ready to vote a really big tax increase for all that? Ready to have that huge police force snoopin' around your neighborhood and family? Our borders are huge. Yeh have any idea da size and resources required to secure the borders with military force? Yeh ready to vote another really big tax increase for all that? Ready to vote down Posse Comitatus? Ready to put da current Commander in Chief in charge of the Domestic Military? Ready for someone like Janet Reno to be in charge of all that police and military force? Tell us how to accomplish what yeh want. I'm all for it if there's a practical way, eh? So I'm all ears. How do we do it? Beavah

Either get off your butt and do something about it or shut up, sit down and be a sheep. Yah, not to worry, eh? I'll remember. If Wilson gets a primary challenger, his challenger will get a hefty donation from me, and Wilson's campaign and da newspaper in town will get a letter from me explainin' why. I expect his district is one of these typically gerrymandered districts that locks in one party or the other. Would love to bring an end to that across da country eh? But da wingnuts and strategists in both major parties are strongly opposed, because then they'd have to fund real campaigns across da country rather than rely on the echo-chamber in "safe" districts. Beavah

Which do you prefer? Fiscal responsibility. And success at achievin' at least some of da things on my list. I figure both will make America stronger. I'm willin' to sacrifice for that. Reckon most Americans are. Beavah

Yah, just to be clear, da smiley face means "joking", "said with a laugh", etc. And da S.O.P. above refers to members of both the Republican and Democratic parties, eh? Bein' dumb and obstructionist is an equal-opportunity thing. We now return yeh to the immigration policy discussion which was briefly interrupted. B

Yah, I reckon part of da problem is the quotas, eh? We'll let in Swedes. They're good, hardworkin' blue-eyed blonde white protestants, eh? They're just not clamorin' to come to da U.S. Better medical coverage in Sweden. But we keep da numbers low on Latinos. They're Spanish-speakin' dark-skinned undereducated Catholics, eh? Thing is, whether it was Anglos, or Germans, or Irish, or Italians, or Latinos, da folks who want to come to da U.S. in large numbers are adventurous folks who don't have opportunities in their home country. My ancestors and yours. So long as relatively close neighboring countries are economic backwaters, their citizens who want to work and care for their family are goin' to want to come to da U.S., even if it means workin' for half the wage of any citizen at tough jobs that most Americans would never consider. From da Irish and Chinese who built the railroads to the Latinos who pick our California fruit. If yeh really want to get a handle on da situation, yeh do somethin' like Spiney suggests. Yeh increase da legal quota by a big amount. Make it easier to come legally, work hard, pay taxes, eventually earn citizenship. Continue to spend enough to make it annoying to come illegally. Then folks have a reasonable choice, eh? If yeh add to that continued support for free trade, so they've got a shot at workin' hard and supportin' their family while staying in their own country, and we might get a handle on da issue. Of course that sorta thing is what everybody who's looked at the issue has proposed, only to be shouted down by those whippin' up people's emotions to score political points rather than actually solve da problem. In the couple years since that mob killed da last immigration reform bill, have we seen 'em propose anything? Seen any progress at all? Nope. They're just da S.O.P. Stupid Obstructionist Party. Beavah

If an existing Troop or Crew wanted to implement this does anyone have suggestions on the steps necessary to put a policy like this in place? Yah, sure. Talk to your district trainin' committee and arrange special sessions of training just for your unit. Set 'em up in a way that works with your calendar and da needs of your parent community (weekends, weeknights, whatever). I've always found parents are more willing to buy in if they're doin' it for the unit, with other parents they know from da unit (and school, and sports), on a schedule that's good for 'em. Make it a fun, social thing. All about learnin' and being together with adults. Not about requirements so much as fun and "expectations", eh? Give da ones that need recognition recognition. Then start usin' 'em right away for more responsible things to reinforce and build on their trainin' with practical experience (and so ones that missed the trainin' want to do the next one). Generally speakin', if you're starting from scratch, tryin' to send 'em off to a district event with strangers and shoehornin' into da district schedule isn't going to do it. Beavah

Yah, hellow SM196. As Scoutmaster, you get to determine who you send a boy to when he requests to start a MB. There's no reason yeh have to send him to his parent, even if his parent is a counselor for that badge. Some councils refuse to sign up a MBC for more than 5 or 7 badges, eh? Not strictly kosher, but they're tryin' to deal with da problem you describe. Many troops choose not to allow boys to complete any badges with a parent or close relative, the same way we don't allow a parent to sit a Board of Review. In workin' with a lot of troops over the years, that's what I generally recommend in most cases. Da parent-as-MBC is just too Cub Scout for me, eh? It deprives the boy of the full benefits of Adult Association, and parents aren't really experts in the field when they're doin' a lot of badges. Parents tend to be either easier on their own son or harder on him, and yeh just can't escape the stigma of perceived impropriety even when things are on the up-and-up. So best if yeh don't allow it at all, IMO. Like anything, there are exceptions. If a dad is really da only qualified Composite Materials counselor in the district, then by all means let the boy take the badge with dad. But for Eagle required badges, it should always be a non-parent. Beavah

To suggest that HSA's are "public options" is ridiculous. Well, they're certainly not revenue-neutral, eh? How much are yeh willing to increase our deficit by continued spending ... I mean "tax incentivizing"? Somebody has to pay for da INS and the Army, eh? You need to talk to more young workers in their 20's. Many of them choose not to participate in their company health insurance plans because they would rather keep the money. Of course they would. Most of 'em would rather not pay FICA or Medicare either, eh? Problem is, old folks like you want your health insurance to be affordable with "tax incentives". That means yeh need those lower-risk young people buyin' in. Otherwise your premiums go sky high. And da Republicans now seem all in a twitter to protect Medicare and Social Security from any fiscally responsible changes, eh? Which means we definitely need those young folks AND a whole bunch of immigrants to keep payin' in to da Ponzi scheme. And some of those uninsured 20-somethings contract H1N1 or get MS or leukemia, eh? Are yeh ready to watch 'em die of the flu because they can't afford hospitalization? Ready to have 'em drop out of the taxpaying workforce that's supportin' you and your parents because of lack of care for their condition? I don't understand your statement about a high deductible plan being ok until someone gets sick. My max out of pocket is $2,900 per year. I've got that covered with my HSA. What am I missing? That yeh could be Gern's sister. Yeh lose your job. Or change jobs. Now yeh don't have an employer-provided high deductible insurance plan any more. You or your wife gets sick or seriously injured. Maybe yeh lose your job because you get sick or injured. Your HSA I reckon would be wiped out by even a short stretch of tryin' to pay for chronic care. People in da stock market often confuse a bull market for their own genius. Don't confuse personal lucky circumstances for genius either, eh? Just like da market may hit a downturn, your personal circumstances could hit a downturn. Lots of folks' have, eh? Why can't all the small business owners in a city or county group together and get a group plan? Yeh need to understand how these things are negotiated and bid, eh? Da demographics and claim history of a company are big factors in the costing. Small businesses tend to have older workers, no claims history, and less stability, eh? Most insurers won't get anywhere near 'em with affordable rates, pooled or not. That's what I mean by demographic skimmin', eh? You're gettin' semi-affordable private insurance only by virtue of denying coverage to other businesses and citizen workers with unclear or riskier profiles. That's killin' family businesses and small business innovation in the country, along with all our mature manufacturin' businesses with demographically older workers. Beavah

Yah, da only successful fences yeh can point to are the one that used to be in Berlin (still had tunnels and such, eh?) and the one that currently separates North and South Korea. Both of those are a lot shorter and didn't have to cover water, eh? And I really don't think we're ever goin' to go for landmines and automated machine guns to kill women and children tryin' to sneak in. 2. Make the punishments so severe for eemploying them, no one will. 2 years in Jail and a fine per each illegal hired $50,000.00 plus siezure of your business....Make the punishment for renting to them 2yrs in Jail and Fine of $50,000, plus forfiture of you rental property. Ten million people. Call it a million businesses and a few million homes/apartments. We're goin' to need a lot of jails, eh? Last I checked, we're also not big on allowin' da government to seize private property willy-nilly. Constitution and all that. Plus, seizin' that much property you're goin' to cause more than a few banks and downstream or upstream businesses to fail. That will put a lot of citizens out of work and in harm's way. Remember, what da government can do to a fellow citizen, it can someday do to you. I remember the malarkey with property seizure in drug cases, eh? Sheriff's offices planting evidence so as to seize expensive cars and such. Families losing houses because junior had a joint. Some elderly widow has the nice fellow from church repair her porch, and you're goin' to jail her and seize her house? 3. Don't allow them in our schools, hospitals, churches , stores, or any other place. Yah, I'm always just puzzled by this, eh? If I'm with a group of scouts and we come across a person who is injured, we render aid. "Help other people at all times" and all that. It doesn't matter if the person is a Russian without a green card, or a Jew, or a Democrat, or a Samaritan. I don't see anybody with a conscience refusin' emergency assistance to a fellow human in need. Can't say I see any Christian churches turnin' away folks seekin' God either. But if yeh wanted to do it, that means yeh need to plant cops at each church, and everyone at the church door must present their citizenship papers. And at the convenience mart. How many Americans do yeh think are really goin' to tolerate a national identity card that they must carry at all times and show in order to enter a theater or buy gas? How many Americans want cops at their church doors? Want to be detained when they go to church while on vacation and leave their ID card in da hotel room? And then what country would do business with us, if we became that kind of police state? What legitimate tourist or foreign businessman would want to come? Heck, which of us or our kids would want to stay? It wouldn't be America anymore. I think folks talkin' enforcement-only "solutions" just haven't taken the time to think things through. Either that, or it's just another way of muddyin' the waters so as to prevent a rational, genuine solution because they're afraid that a new group of hardworkin' citizens might vote against them. B

Yah, for some reason this spin-off didn't have a link back to da original thread, so I couldn't find it to figure out what generated da question. Honestly, IMO da best answer if we're talkin' about BSA stuff is "none." Internal BSA trainin' doesn't really matter a lick in terms of anybody's personal liability. If you're not capable and the CO appointed you to the position, that's the CO's liability as supervisor. Yah, yah, I can dream up scenarios where maybe someone misrepresents their trainin' and all that, but that's just playin' litigation games. If you're a registered leader, BSA insurance coverage applies as primary coverage for you on any scout or scout-related event. Trained or not, stupid or not, whatever. If you're not a registered adult with the BSA but are a parent volunteer helpin' out on an event, BSA insurance coverage is goin' to apply to you as well, but as excess coverage over any personal insurance policies you have. The BSA works hard to protect its volunteers and COs. So pretty much there's a basic rule, eh? Anytime anybody tells you that you need to worry about personal liability in Scouting, they're wrong. And on top of it all, odds are you're covered by volunteer immunity anyways. So relax, and worry about how to get youth leaders to do their job, or how to get your den to pay attention at the next meeting or whatnot. That's where yeh should be spending your scouting time and energy. If you're worried about not bein' trained, best not to be playin' untrained amateur attorneys frettin' about "liability." Beavah

Unfortunately the illegal alien problem will not go away until the broders are secured and immigration laws are enforced. Yah, in that case it will never go away. It isn't possible for us to do what's necessary to secure da borders, eh? To do that, we'd have to emulate the old Soviets and construct a Berlin Wall, complete with da automated machine guns and mines that used to cover that Cold War relic. How many women machine-gunned by a robot do yeh think it would take before We The People gave up that little experiment. Estimates are that we've got well over 10 million illegals workin' in this country. I'm wonderin' how exactly those laws can be enforced. Are we ready to fund the INS enforcement arm to do that? Ready to build the prisons necessary? Ready to institute a National Identity Card with biometric taggin' that every legal man, woman and child in da U.S. is required to get and carry? Ready to allow law enforcement to come into our schools and hospitals and homes and businesses on a regular basis without a warrant? Ready to deny citizenship to those born here? Even after yeh did all that - transferred half da school revenues to law enforcement and prisons, tore up liberties, and built a reasonably impenetrable wall, yeh still wouldn't be able to get control of da problem. This is a pipe dream. Enforcin' the immigration laws would destroy the courts and the country. Yeh think health care costs are bad? My ancestors were da unwanted "retched refuse", eh? I reckon I owe it to 'em to pay it forward to current immigrants when I can. Especially since anything else would destroy da country they adopted and I love. At least, that's my opinion . I'd love to hear if someone else can find any way of actually enforcin' these laws beyond makin' a token effort. Beavah

Yah, let me just be clear and then yeh all can go back to talkin' about illegal immigrants. When we're talkin' about civility and courtesy, it doesn't matter one whit whether yeh think da president is daft, or lying, or puffing, or wearin' an ugly necktie. Yeh show courtesy and civility because he's da president, and you're sittin' in a joint session of the national legislature. Out on the lawn or at some political event where you're actin' as a private citizen you have more latitude to boo or be a cad. But sittin' in the Chamber you aren't a private citizen, eh? And to be honest, I don't much care for it when people of any persuasion come to speeches just to heckle or shout down da speaker. Even as a private citizen, it's obnoxious and rude. The president could be lying outright. It doesn't matter. Da behavior of the Representative from South Carolina is inexcusable, shameful. Any party or group that truly believes in "Timeless Values" would agree. And any man with any sense of personal honor would resign his post in shame after committin' such a gaffe. Beavah

Look at the problem from the insurance company's side. They see people go for years without insurance, and then want to sign up only when they are deathly sick. Yah, fair enough. Except that da person WAS on insurance (perhaps even with da same carrier) with his/her former employer, and in switchin' jobs can still be denied. Or, as Eamonn points out, if da person gets sick enough to no longer be able to work, they can be bankrupted.... and effectively sentenced to death ... after payin' insurance premiums for decades. How many folks in da modern economy stay with one employer at one location their whole life? The point of insurance is to spread risk, eh? When insurers do their best to exclude the risky for profits' sake, they're no longer spreadin' the risk. They're robbin' folks. HSA's are an OK government option, eh? But why did yeh need da government for that? Yeh couldn't have gone and taken out a high-deductible plan and saved money on your own without a tax incentive? Of course, da point is that without that government intervention and "public option", yeh couldn't have - you couldn't have afforded da health insurance part, and without the tax incentive (which upped our federal deficit) yeh couldn't have afforded da HSA contribution. So yeh took the "public option." Problem is, it was a pretty weak public option. If yeh leave your employer, the company that's insurin' your High Deductible plan will drop you, eh? And a new employer's plan might refuse to cover your wife's cancer. How long do yeh suppose that HSA is goin' to survive in that case? That's da problem with this sort of thinkin'. If everyone in your family is healthy and in a low-risk demographic group, of course yeh want to get favorable treatment from a high deductible plan and squirrel money away in a tax-incentive savings account. Until someone gets sick, eh? Or loses a job. Then you're hurtin'. And hopin' yeh make it to Medicare.... Beavah

Yah, I confess I haven't heard anything resemblin' an intelligent plan from the GOP side of the aisle. My list of things to fix? Health care costs bankrupting U.S. manufacturers and other businesses. Health care costs making our businesses less competitive with those overseas in a global market. Small businesses and self-employed folks who work hard and make a decent living, but have difficulty or find it impossible to get health care coverage because of their age, prior conditions, and/or lack of purchasing power. Hard-workin' folks who get laid off and lose coverage. Hard-workin' folks who get laid off, find a new job, and are denied coverage for their son's pre-existing condition on their new employer's plan. Heck, I know someone who changed jobs and the new employer's plan denied coverage to his wife for childbirth because they claimed pregnancy was a "pre-existing condition". Headaches takin' a lad in for care on a campout. Seems like we should be at least as good as Canada at carin' for our kids. Basic health care for kids should be free and readily available. That's a just plain good investment, especially when compared with health care for us seniors. The practice of carin' for the uninsured in emergency departments, where care is most costly. Out-of-control, outrageously expensive, flogging-the-patient intensive care for the terminally ill. Sometimes when they don't even want it. The gross inefficiency of the present billing system. My uncle was an accountant, and durin' his last 10 years it was a half-time job for him trying to keep track of the billin' and accountin' eccentricities for his care and his wife's. Da payments system that rewards doctors for ordering unnecessary procedures, spending as little time as possible with patients, and going into specialties rather than family practice. Da tort system that further encourages ordering unnecessary procedures (though I don't think it's as big a problem as the payment system which encourages ordering procedures). And, horror of horrors, the notion that us folks over 60 who aren't workin' anymore are entitled to have our children and grandchildren pay for whatever we want. If our kids ever acted that spoiled, we'd have spanked 'em. That's enough to be gettin' on with. I'm not hugely fond of government programs, eh? So many ways they can be bureaucratic messes or manipulated by parties in power. So often da government overpromises and fails to think about how to pay for it beyond da current folks' terms of office. But I have to be honest, da private insurers have made a complete mess of the thing, and are spendin' all their time trying to skim the demographic cream rather than perform the real service of distributing risk. I don't see a successful reform happenin' without a public option, to be honest. The goal should be to keep it modest. Beavah

Yah, I must say my view of da current state of U.S. politics was summed up by the behavior of the Republican member from South Carolina during Obama's address. We have really sunk so low that all measures of courtesy and civility in our august chambers are being thrown to the wind. Heckling the President? Are we now the British House of Commons? Health care is a complicated thing, eh? Changin' it is goin' to be hard work. All kinds of things we could get wrong. All kinds of ways to disagree. But that's no excuse, eh? The Republican Party used to pride itself on Values and decency. On respect for those who serve. Now they've got members who behave worse than my kids ever behaved when they were 6 years old. If a scout did that at a public event, every single one of us, liberal or conservative, would be haulin' him out of the room by his ear. One would hope that the Republican Party would immediately endorse a challenger, and da good people of South Carolina would act to remove this person from office at the next available opportunity. I fear it is not to be. South Carolina has one of the highest high school dropout rates in the nation, eh? And those folks are da loyal core constituency of the Republican Party and seem to be in control. Courtesy, Civility, and Decency. Those things are important, eh? They let us disagree and still work together on behalf of a nation that we love. Those who abandon such principles in favor of playin' political football over policy details have no business in public office. Beavah

Yah mbrownkc7, an interestin' question. I'd ask yeh this - what do you want to teach? That is to say, what do yeh want to teach the lads about responsibility and the Oath and Law and all that stuff? I personally think the lad has to do another 2 months as an active den chief. But then a really good den chief might be meetin' with the pack adults over the summer, helpin' to lay out the pack and den calendar for next year, showing up to contribute to Cub resident camp and all that. I'd say if he was doin' those things, then by all means give him credit. If not, he's got more time to serve and learn from. Six months, remember, is da minimum. That's the least that we think is needed for a lad to learn the things he needs to learn about commitment and responsibility. Bein' short on your commitment by 1/3 ain't usually what we want to teach. I think if the boy did no work for da quartermaster position, then tryin' to count that as being responsible is just silly. In good youth-run units, da quartermaster job is one of the hardest and most thankless jobs. It's a load of work, and the work is really important to the troop. If he wasn't there to do the work, that really hurts the group. Not the sort of thing to give credit for bein' "responsible." Troopmaster is a record-keepin' program. It doesn't have any "authority". It's not even a BSA product, eh? The authority yeh want is your SM and SPL/ASPL. They should be decidin'. (in da BSA model, support PORs report to da ASPL, eh?). As for other positions, I think if yeh have a position like librarian or scribe or whatnot that is "not that hard of a job" (in other words, you're not really usin' it as a true position of responsibility in your troop), then your SM/SPL/ASPL should abolish the position . Nothing says da troop has to have a Librarian if it doesn't really maintain and use an active library. Handing out an occasional book can be part of the Quartermaster's job. Lots of troops don't have Scribes anymore in favor of Webmasters; very few troops have Buglers. The point of a position of responsibility is for a boy to engage in service learning, eh? To learn responsibility and skills by actively providin' service to others. You're subtracting from the requirements if you're signing off when a lad hasn't been responsible or provided any meaningful service. Doin' it so a lad can make some schedule for an Eagle party? Not what I think we're about. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

. All participants wear PDF's any time they are doing an afloat activity and within 10' of the water's edge. Yah, do yeh have to get a license from Adobe for that? I think we remote folks always have to defer to da judgment of the people at the site, eh? Lots of judgment calls just depend on da local conditions, the quality of equipment, the experience of the boys and adults and such. No way to assess all that by remote. Sometimes, though, an outsider's perspective can be helpful in providin' a check to our thinkin'. Keeps our egos from writin' checks which our programs can't cash. So just be aware, jblake, that yeh seem to be goin' places where other folks with a lot of kids-and-water experience are uncomfortable goin'. And it seems you're bein' pushed there by some parents rather than really makin' the call from a program perspective. I reckon that's at least worth some serious reflection. Also a good example for mikecummings157 of the downside of parent involvement, eh? Parents who aren't buyin' in can push yeh to compromise on things that you otherwise wouldn't compromise on. Beavah

Yah, there can be unusual cases, eh? Though I must admit that da notion of a non-swimmer goin' out on a small sailboat in a big lake is a bit frightenin'. I've had non-swimmer adults out on a bigger keelboat where I had both a motor and the conditions were light, but even then yeh have to keep a close eye out. There are some G2SS guidelines that yeh have to adapt to da circumstances. At da same time, there are some that fall solidly in the realm of real safety and just plain common sense. Non-swimmers on light sailing craft, swiftwater, or open water is somewhere I reckon most prudent and intelligent folks don't want to go. Like PFDs, even in those few cases where they might not be strictly required, there's da question of developin' good habits and good examples. What parents do on their own time is their business, of course. They might allow their sons to fire handguns or sail without a PFD or do Leave-Big-Trace campin'. But when we're runnin' a unit outing, I reckon the participants should buy into da unit's expectations. Beavah

Yah, da system doesn't like apostrophes in titles, eh? Every time I get that message it's because I tried to use an apostrophe in a title. Beavah

Yah, jblake, I'm as confused as BA, eh? A nonswimmer should be in a canoe with a trained lifeguard, not a parent. That's da BSA rules/guidelines. Bein' with a parent is nice and all, but if the parent isn't a strong canoeist they're goin' to end up in trouble. Perhaps deadly trouble if da water is high and strong enough. That's to my mind da biggest downside of inexperienced parents on trips, eh? Yeh have to take care of 'em, yeh can't just treat them as non-participant observers. If it's cold and rainin', and they get cold and wet, it's a problem for da whole group. If they can't swim or don't know how to paddle or ski or backpack, yeh have to deal with it. If they're out of shape, yeh have to deal with it. And like some folks said, if they don't "get" the scoutin' program, yeh have to deal with it. That can suck down a lot of adult time, eh? So much so that havin' 'em out is a net negative. They take more than they're able to give. So gettin' back to mikecummings157's question, I think what most troops really want and need is some selected parent involvement, eh? Where you encourage folks to come out on some easy stuff and teach 'em da Scouting Way, and then you select da ones who look like they'll train up to be decent assistant leaders and encourage/invite 'em on more stuff. Da rest get steered to committee and in-town support positions. Beavah