Beavah

Yah, let's see. Just off da cuff, we have about a million registered adult leaders, eh? About 300 local councils. That means over 3000 people to be trained by each council. Say average adult turnover is 33% per year, every council needs to be able to train 1000 people a year. More if we accept GoldFox's notion that trainin' should expire and be repeated. Anybody's council out there set up to train 1000 people a year in the basic core trainings? Anybody willing to guess how effective trainin' is going to be when we cram that many people into sessions? For that matter, is anybody really willing to claim that the core training sequence really succeeds in achieving leaders who deliver the promise? Do we really get excellent scoutmasters after a few hours of chalk talk and a day of IOLS? What do we really supposed da level of retention is? Or even the level of performance in a program that has no performance requirements? Reality is just so good at pokin' holes in the "training" theory. Beavah

Yah, it's also worth sayin' that while the BSA as a program materials and resources provider is non-sectarian, that doesn't necessarily apply to those who are actually providing and running unit programs. Many of our partners are sectarian churches, and they run sectarian scouting programs. I think the Wisconsin synod fails to understand this properly, which is a shame. What the BSA chooses to believe as materials provider is as irrelevant as what your food service contractor chooses to believe. It's still your building, your program, your values. You're just gettin' the materials from a provider who also caters programs at other churches. Rather than tellin' their members not to participate in BSA scouting, I think WELS should charter their own BSA units. But I reckon there are some that will only buy materials from folks in their own community, eh? Beavah

"When we were in the same unit and took a bunch of scouts overseas, they MADE all the scouts attend a Catholic service with them on Sunday. I tried to take those non-Catholic's to another church or skip it and they had a hissy fit. " This person seems to be on a religious power trip. Yah, perhaps. Or perhaps they weren't comfortable with sendin' some kids off with only one adult in a foreign country. There's lots of possibilities, without assumin' the worst of other people. As Neil describes, what looks a bit wacky to those of us not brought up in a particular area/tradition might be so deeply meaningful to others that it moves adults to tears. The world is a big, diverse place. I reckon it's best if we start by bein' understanding, rather than judgmental. Beavah

It would not surprise me in the slightest to discover that they mysteriously never received the LOR forms, or that their letters got "lost in transit." Come, come. There is nothing at all in this troop's behavior to suggest that. Quite the contrary. Their decision to request letters of recommendation indicates their anticipation of conducting a full Eagle Board of Review, which would consider the references alongside the scoutmaster's non-recommendation. It is both a proper step and a hopeful one. Mdsummer, I'd have your son call his references and request speedy replies as a favor. If a few references got returned in time for Thursday night, even better eh? As to the SM being gone on a business trip, that happens, eh? Especially right now, da folks I know who are in work like that are travelin' a lot, scramblin' to keep businesses afloat and people employed, and are jumpin' on planes at short notice. No reason to expect anything nefarious. Just further evidence that the SM has a lot on his plate, and might not have been able to give your son his full attention. Perhaps that caused him to base his review on an isolated incident that stuck in his craw rather than the full picture? Beavah

Yah, Amen Lisabob. Kids are funny. They're all different. Adults are funny. They're all different, too. Programs are funny, they're all different. When anyone claims there's a program that produced magical results for all kids given all adults and all circumstances, they're worthy of a quiet smile of pity, eh? They haven't developed enough experience yet to understand. B

I reckon the bigger question is why aren't there school awards for Scouting? Of course, if yeh want a tie-in with school, Scholarship MB is available. And there's nothing to stop individual troops from developing an academic award to give to their scouts if they want to. Beyond that, I think boys who do well in school have plenty of opportunities to earn awards in school, eh? National Honor Society, and all the other stuff yeh mention seems like plenty of recognition for those achievements. Since school achievements are well recognized and rewarded by the school, I'd just as soon see Scouting awards recognize Scouting achievements. Beavah

Nice try, HICO, but on appeal the Scout Spirit requirement is defined as "no felony convictions." Or, someone is goin' to point out that Scout Spirit is supposed to be demonstrated in the boy's everyday life, which means he can be a complete twat in scouting as long as his mom thinks he's a good boy at home. Or, someone is goin' to read that dumb handbook paragraph from the second class requirement that says somethin' like "only you can judge whether you have truly demonstrated Scout Spirit" and claim that it means the boy gets to sign his own Scout Spirit requirement because the SM shouldn't judge scout spirit. There is no language which can't be litigated into ineffectiveness if one of the two parties isn't willin' to stand up for what it believes in. As I've said, I think most good units and adults just ignore all these newfangled interpretations. When a boy isn't fulfilling his responsibilities, they meet with him and encourage, but they don't sign off. Nor do they fire. They mentor. And most boys and many parents get that and go along. Only times there's friction is when a high-standards troop meets some low-standards parents (often the case when a family moves from a badge mill program - like many cub packs - to a non-badge-mill program). Or when a troop has become too mindlessly bureaucratic in its enforcement of standards. Sadly, being too bureaucratic in applying standards usually happens because of having been burned by low-standards parents. Settin' up clear, hard rules and percentages is usually a response to some prior helicopter parent problem. "We're not going to deal with this again, we're going to put everything in writing and make them sign up front" sorta thing. So I really don't fault units who have gone that way. They felt they had to. Happiness is findin' the right size porridge in between, eh? Where expectations are communicated clearly enough to be enforced, but mentoring and some flexibility remain. Where that is for each troop depends on the families the troop serves, I reckon. So we should all be careful when critiquing others without knowin' what they're dealing with. Beavah

Yah, stosh, relax a bit, eh? All of us provide some structure for da boys to work within. Call that "mandates" or call it "guidance", it's definitely our contribution to the program. Adult relationships method and all that. There are some adult-driven things which you've described in your programs over time that I personally wouldn't do, but it's part of the structure you provide that allows the boys freedom in other areas. If we're smart about it, we tailor the guidance to the ability of the lads. A younger group might get some fairly firm parameters; an older or more capable group should get less. We should always be willing to examine our assumptions about the boys' capability, and about the sort of "troop traditions" which crop up. Some continue to be helpful, and some should probably be faded out or re-examined. Just because we used imposed budgets to start teachin' the boys that aspect of planning doesn't mean we should keep 'em forever. Just because we haven't imposed budgets doesn't mean that we shouldn't, if the current crop of guys needs that to help learn. Beavah

Yah Rene and PeteM, where the rubber really meets da road depends on the individual personalities and personal relationships between adults supportin' the program. The guidebook is nice and all, but way too generic. In good programs, there's a division of labor between the CC and SM which is understood by all and communicated to new folks. Where those lines get drawn just depends, eh? Sometimes yeh have a strong, gregarious SM and the CC becomes the quieter administrative support coordinator. Sometimes yeh have a SM who really loves and is great workin' with boys but not as good with adults, and the CC becomes the adult communications and leader person. Sometimes yeh have a Scoutmaster who is a real planner-type, in which case the CC needs to be the social and program cheerleader. There are as many ways of constructin' the job as there are people. When there are problems is when da CC doesn't work well with the SM or MC's, and they start doin' each other's jobs. If yeh get a new SM or a new CC, there's always goin' to be a period of adjustment, eh? That can be a problem if you've got a long-timer CC who doesn't want to adjust to the style of the new SM. As odd as it seems, often it's better to replace a CC and SM at the same time rather than try to get an old leopard to change his spots. Biggest problem is when yeh get a long-timer CC who thinks he or she is somethin' special and starts doin' things solo without committee discussion or approval. We've seen some of that on these forums, where CC's start thinkin' they can hire and fire SMs on their own as though they were the COR/IH. That's a recipe for trouble. So I'd say, the job of a CC is to take on the tasks that the SM doesn't want or isn't good at, and help coordinate the adults in support of the SM and the boys. Beavah

It has gotten so bad that after the last email - where this person started talking about taking youth - not just their own but others - off site to attend church services. Yah, maybe it's just me, eh? But I don't see what's wrong with a couple of Catholic adults taking a mess of Catholic kids off-site to go to church (with parental permission, of course). This is not an argument you can ever "win", all yeh can do is lose. I'd just invite a local catholic priest to come out and offer mass, eh? In areas like ours where Catholics make up a fair percent of the scoutin' population, that just seems sensible. For Catholics, as I understand it, a generic service "doesn't count" for meetin' their Sunday obligation of reverence. Same with LDS. Some protestants are OK with generic services, but not all. So we try to help 'em all out when we can, or we at least make it easier for them to attend local services without missin' too much. Me, I've got to agree with KC and others, eh? Generic services are next to worthless, and cause more trouble then they're worth in a diverse community. Beavah

Move on, mate. You're with a different program now. It's up to da folks in that troop how they choose to operate. You've heard from others that youth on BORs used to be a BSA program feature, so even though we've become more adult-driven recently, it's not an awful thing. And if yeh want to see a neverending debate, just look for old subjects with "retesting" in the title, eh? All kinds of opinions on that score among scouters who are good people. Just like about "being active." Let go. This now falls into the "it's none of your business" category, where pushin' it starts to be an issue of courtesy. If yeh look at your short string of postings to da forums, you'll note that a majority of 'em are very critical of all sorts of other volunteers in scouting in different units, and multiple complaint calls to district staff. Not a reputation yeh want to get. While we do have a few bad apples, by and large the men and women who give a lot of time to the scouting program are good people, eh? Don't confuse minor differences over approach for being major issues. We want the lads to climb mountains, not learn from us to trip over molehills. Beavah

Yah, Albert_H, good show, eh? Nicely handled. Beavah

Yah, sounds reasonable Albert_H. One caution, though. I think if this is goin' to come up at a committee meeting, yeh need to be very careful about how that's done. It should be done in a generic and non threatening way, that doesn't leave a residue of adult hurt feelings or animosity. So "there were several of us adults who imbibed last campout, and we just want to address that for the future" is OK, but "Joe, you were impaired" is not. If you're goin' to bring things up in public, then don't put anyone in the position where they feel they have to defend themselves and it becomes a me-vs-you thing. I've seen it lots of times where folks who don't have the fortitude to confront someone privately will be apt to become very harsh in their criticism when it's in public and they feel they have "backup" or at least an audience. Don't be that guy. Make this just a "hey, we all know we shouldn't have, and we'll make sure we don't in the future." Beavah

Yah, there's a bit in the Bible I like very much. I reckon it answers your question, Albert_H. Go look at Matthew 18:15 and following. Yes, this should not happen for the reasons you suggest. Not a good example, and unsafe in the event of a problem. You should step forward, eh? So go barbeque or grill or have coffee or shoot a round of golf with the fellows, and say "Hey, guys, I need to talk to you about the last campout..." That's your first step, eh? And givin' 'em time to think through it even if they don't react well at first. Don't sling the rules around. Just express your feelings honestly. I wouldn't be going to the IH, or the SE. This is not a "Youth Protection" issue in the way we mean those things. I would not be convening a lynch mob of parents. Some of those steps may come, down the road, eventually. But to do that as a first step is the sin of self righteous pride, or the lack of moral fortitude to confront a colleague in person and in private over an important matter. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone... Beavah

Yah, I know an Eagle Scout local businessman, very reliable and generous FOS donor. He sat down one weekend with the stats from an average, not particularly large, not overly active troop. He figured out that the SM in such a setup is doin' the equivalent of being CEO of a $100K per year small business. He claimed that for larger or more active troops, the numbers get pretty staggering. I have no reason not to believe him, the man is a very successful businessman and "numbers guy." And this was some years ago, eh? Probably be even higher numbers now. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

We made up rule #13 and you didn't come to enough boring troop meetings and do-nothing campouts.... I still think this hangup with "active" is all about adults feeling snubbed that some insolent kid dared to miss a boring meeting, and we'll show him he can't get away with that. Yah, hmmm.... All I can figure, FScouter, is that you've had some really sad experiences as a youth or adult leader in adult-run programs. In most troops, the boys on the PLC are selecting and planning the outings and meetings. So a boy who chooses not to show up doesn't affect the adults at all, eh? What he's showing is a lack of support and respect for his peers and fellow scouts. Now, call me crazy, but I think if a lad voted on a set of activities and promised to help run 'em, he should perhaps show up and support the team. Even if his ideas for activities didn't win, he should support the activities the majority voted for, not stay home and pout. "Boring" meetings and activities in a proper scouting program happen when lads in leadership positions aren't really active or don't really live up to their responsibility. They let the other scouts down. Has nuthin' to do with adults. We should of course reward such behavior with our highest honors for character and citizenship, because otherwise we might be seen as punishing the poor boy. You're keep talking like "active" is the only requirement for an award, when in fact completing all the requirements proves he was active. Yah, yeh need to re-read da requirements, eh? It's "Be active in your troop and patrol" not just be active in Scouting or the community. As highcountry says, a lad can get MB's from dad or the council Merit Badge Mill Weekend, and can get 6 service hours because his class at school collected canned goods for hurricane victims. He can serve as a mediocre den chief or OA representative (goin' to 2 out of 6 of the lodge meetings when they looked fun and he had nothin' else to do). All the while he's AWOL from every troop event and meeting. Active isn't the only requirement, eh? But honestly, in terms of teachin' character and citizenship, it's the active, scout spirit, and position of responsibility requirements that are the biggies for the Star and Life ranks, not da six hours of service. As a result, it's the active and position of responsibility and scout spirit requirements that are most frequently disputed by entitlement-minded parents or kids lookin' for cheap bling. Yah, sure, sometimes there are adult or program issues in a troop, eh? But not all the time or even most of da time. The rest of the cases the troop can have a fine program, but the boy hasn't yet learned responsibility, or the parent hasn't yet realized that their kid isn't entitled to every award because he's a nice boy and hasn't committed any felonies this month. I'll grant yeh the first happens on occasion. Will yeh grant the rest of us that the second and third happen on more than a few occasions as well? Beavah

We want Scouts to be good citizens right? So do we punish them by not giving them credit when they are involved in the community (sports/band/clubs)? Schools want kids to be good citizens, right? So do they "punish" kids by not giving them credit for Chemistry when they are involved in the community (scouts/sports/clubs)? Or do they "punish" them by not giving them a Varsity letter when they miss half the practices because of scouts/theater/an after school job? Of course they do! Not giving someone an award IS NOT PUNISHMENT, except in adults or society who have totally gone overboard on da notion of entitlements. A boy who is not yet First Class rank is not being punished by his troop. He just hasn't earned First Class yet. A boy who has not yet lettered in baseball is not being punished by his team. He just hasn't qualified for a Varsity letter yet. Even if he never qualifies for a Varsity letter or never gets an "A" in Chemistry or never gets an Eagle scout badge that is not punishment. The lad is not entitled to any of those things by virtue of being a good kid. Yah, I think what it says to boys and families and the community when we just give awards to people because otherwise we feel like we're "punishing" is that we don't value our awards, and neither should they. When we give our highest scouting awards to boys because they're great varsity soccer players or trombonists in the band it says scouting isn't worth anything compared with soccer or band, so as long as you're doing one of those things, we'll give you our award too! Now, that doesn't mean we have to be pricks, eh? Most of us aren't goin' to be too upset with a lad who comes to a meeting in his sports uniform (especially not if he takes 30 seconds to change into his scout shirt when he arrives... he did bring it, right? ). But I certainly hope we're not goin' to give the lad who blew off all the meetings and outings during the three month fall football season an award based on the fact he was active (=registered) for those three months. He can wait and show us he's really active in the winter, eh? Makin' him wait 'til winter is not punishment. Beavah

Have you seen the latest stats, USA has a 600+ billion trade deficit compared with France, Germany, Japan, and China all who have from a 20 - 100 billion dollar trade surpluses. We are rapidly becoming a second rate country and if we can't manufacture anything competitively anymore that we and the world market want then no economic bailout plan will ever be able to restore our economy for the longterm. Yah, there are certainly issues with greedy CEOs and unions, and more properly with just plain stupid management of American firms. But really, the bulk of that trade imbalance is our insane addiction to oil. If yeh want to fix the trade imbalance, slap a big honkin' Patriot Tax on gasoline and let us develop other domestic energy sources. You're also missin' the other real cause, eh? The real cause is the strong dollar. So long as the dollar is a strong currency that everyone trusts, it's harder to pay people to do menial work here in the U.S. Far more economical to ship highly-valued dollars overseas to do menial work, and pay only for the things yeh can't get overseas - financial expertise, knowledge resources, high-quality entertainment, computer software, etc. In a strong dollar world, if yeh want to make a living in dollars yeh have to have an education which makes you worth earnin' those strong dollars. But there's lots of folks includin' all those high school dropouts we have who just don't get that, eh? Of course, those strong dollars have also allowed almost every household to own a car, and a big-screen TV, and personal wardrobes that would make most folks in the world blush, and live in houses with yards or large apartments that are the envy of the planet. The strong dollar which made overseas goods and manufacturin' cheaper has made us wealthier, because we can buy shoes for our kids at Wal-Mart for a third the price we could otherwise, and use da rest of the money for other things. Not to worry, though, the days of weaker dollars are comin' fast. That will shift the trade balance which ain't related to oil. Yah, it will ultimately shift the imbalance for oil, too, as we can't afford it. That will move manufacturing back here. You'll get your wish. Remember that when yeh tell your kids Christmas is goin' to be lean because you're gettin' paid in dollars, and those dollars can't pay for both shoes and new toys. Beavah

Yah, spendin' a lot of time canoein' lakes and such. Boilin' is a given for any kind of cookin' but it's a nuisance for drinkin' water. I and most of the units I'm aware of use iodine in one form of another, either the PolarPure crystal stuff (by far da most economical if yeh use it a lot), or the tabs. A few have tried da funky two-part chlorine option which avoids the decay rate problem, but I haven't tried. I have tried the ozone thing since a buddy had one; kinda pesky and finicky. Played with filters sometimes, especially when travelin' internationally. Hate the things. Bulky, pricey, slow, prone to clogging even when you're careful, and yeh have to be really careful not to contaminate da "clean" side of your filter. Of all the newfangled gizmos, the one I like the most is the UV jobber. Fast, effective, economical in the long run and works on everything. Simpler to work than the filters without the need for cleaning and no risk of contamination. Probably not for kids, though. I expect the breakage or just plain "lost it" cost would be too high. Other than that, when I'm out personally in an area I know well, I'm pretty familiar with what's reasonably safe and what isn't eh? So I confess I just drink da stuff straight up, though I don't let on to boys or other adult leaders. Water quality in the backcountry is fairly good in the U.S. if you're reasonably prudent and aren't on one of the backcountry tourist routes. Ain't ever been sick myself, though I did have a buddy get giardia from flippin' his canoe and gettin' a mouthful of water on an urban river once. Go figure! Of course, one might think I already have Beavah Feavah . To be honest, though, the UV pens are so quick and easy that I've been treatin' my water more regularly these days. Beavah

Yah, NC, what da others have said, eh? I've had no problems with store-bought eggs for a week to ten days out in summer temperatures. The good Lord made eggs to protect little chicks for longer than that. If da shell is intact and they don't smell funny, should be fine. Only da city folks that get used to storin' eggs and cheese in the fridge all the time. Always laugh thinkin' about what they'd think if they saw how long those eggs and cheese rounds just sit out at room temperature before they make 'em all pretty in the display case. Beavah

Hiya artjrk, thanks for wadin' in. I and I expect a large number of scouters I expect feel as you do, eh? The active requirements (which only apply to the S-L-E ranks, not da T-2-1 ranks/requirements that FScouter mistakenly refers to above) are clearly designed to overlap the serve in a position of responsibility requirements. So I reckon it's just fine to consider those in parallel. What you're doin' with your "blue cards" routine is what many units have done. You're clarifying your expectations for "active" and "serve in a Position of Responsibility." I think that's a fine way to go, especially for kids goin' for Star who are new to that type of requirement. Unfortunately, what the BSA program office states is that active=registered, and serve actively in a position of responsibility = hold a title and don't get fired. So, under that interpretation, if one of your boys or families chooses to appeal, the lad will get his badge even though he hasn't fulfilled his "blue card" and your mutual expectations, just because he is registered and held the title of Patrol Leader for 4-6 months without you removing him. If yeh don't want him to advance, yeh have to remove him from his position or from the troop, not keep workin' with him until he improves and learns real responsibility. And, like as not, a whole bunch of kibbitzers out here in internet scouting land will tell yeh you are a bad leader who is "adding to the requirements" and such. Of course, I expect most good scouters and good kids just go ahead and teach responsibility and commitment and such anyway, in the way you do. Yeh can take solace in the fact that you're adhering to the BSA's Rules and Regulations and youth leadership handbooks, even though you're playin' a bit fast and loose with the current advancement program guidance. Beavah

Nah, OGE, I didn't misunderstand your college analogy. I just didn't agree, and offered an analogy I thought was closer, based on the BSA havin' multiple definitions of "active". I like the "To be a Grand High Knight of the Beaver Lodge, you have to be a member in Good Standing" bit though, eh? The notion of us furry critters bein' knights tickles my tail. The question is what constitutes "Good Standing." Rather than require attendance why would not a unit attempt to develop a program that would make attendance requirements moot? Rather than require a swim check for First Class, why would not the BSA attempt to develop a program that would make swimming requirements moot? Surely an organization as vast and experienced as ours could come up with an active outdoor program where all the lads learned to swim well and strong (in their first year) just because it was part of the program and they wanted to. That would make swimming requirements moot. And yet we don't, eh? Because we recognize that settin' requirements for awards is a way to help kids set goals and work on things that might be hard for them that they would otherwise avoid. Not every kid, but some kids. So we use requirements as part of the program because it helps kids. And we even recognize that our choice of imposin' this requirement will mean that some kids who hate swimming may quit scouting, just as some kids who can't be active because of year-round hockey will quit scouting or not make Eagle. We'll do all we can, of course, but we're only part of da puzzle. Same with every other "requirement." Rather than requiring Citizenship in the World MB, why don't we come up with a program that would make world citizenship an essential, fun, core component of every outing that would make da badge requirements moot? But we don't, eh? And we even accept the fact that some lads won't make Eagle or will drop out because they just aren't interested in these required merit badges. I expect your council has "required" prep-trips for its Philmont contingent, eh? Why doesn't it make the prep trips so fun that da requirement is moot? What I think you're missin' is that there are at least three independent components to helpin' kids develop in Scouting. The program is only one. The parents are another. The scout is the third. The BSA and troops use requirements as part of the program so as to communicate expectations to parents and scouts, to help 'em set goals, to achieve our aims and all that. If it makes yeh feel better, whether it's the Boy Scout Requirements book or a troop's expectations for what constitutes loyal, courteous and committed membership, yeh can think of requirements as our way of communicating what we care about to our members. But da parents and the boys still need to do their part, eh? Ain't nuthin' wrong with communication of expectations, if da word "requirement" sticks in your craw. Point is just that we expect a First Class scout to be able to swim. Ain't that "we expect a First Class scout to be able to swim" both nicer and more accurate than all da other falderol? Like claiming we're callin' the boy a failure, blocking advancement, denying the lad first class just because the adults with their "my way or the highway" egos expect boys and families to kow-tow to their arbitrary swimming requirement, and don't they realize my boy has a life outside of scouting and is an honor student and cross country runner and swimming isn't a priority right now and it's your fault because your program doesn't make swimming lessons more fun than video games and what does swimming have to do with character anyways??! Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, GoldFox, yeh did what you could, eh? Couldn't change 'em so you voted with your feet. Other parents and kids might make different choices. Time to let go of old negatives and throw your positive energy into your boy's new troop. Much more fun and productive! Beavah

LOL, thanks ASM 411. Is that a real Abraham Lincoln quote, or are you a real Lincoln? Congrats on growin' your troop program and your troop, BTW. Yeh should start a thread and share the tale of what you did that you found was successful. OGE, da college analogy is apt, eh? The issue here is that you've got a college board which has set graduation requirements of bein' active with some fairly reasonable definitions, but you've got a dean who has published a pamphlet that says "active means you've paid your tuition". Though it ain't consistent with the college's mission, it's really convenient. Fewer complaints, fewer disputes, more money, doesn't take up as much of da dean's time. Naturally, the faculty and alumni who care about their institution and the quality of (character) education it delivers are concerned about that, eh? And just as naturally, a student or family who is only interested in gettin' a diploma wants to hold everyone to the dean's letter. Such things are generally resolved in da student's favor when litigated (appealed). But that doesn't mean that the dean's perspective is the right choice for either the institution or for the individual faculty or for the students they serve. I expect lots of good faculty are goin' to approach this the way acco does, eh? When you require something its because people wont natrually do it. Really? So all those T-2-1 requirements and merit badge requirements and whatnot are because kids won't naturally go campin' or learn to rescue people or be excited to lead folks? We can abolish the entire Boy Scout Requirements book? Nah. Requirements can be used for all kinds of things, eh? Includin' setting norms and expectations for a community, or settin' a challenge before a kid, or pushin' a lad a bit to help him grow. Especially when they're tied to awards, not membership, they help lads set goals and work toward 'em. That's why requirements are such a big part of the program design, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Wonder how many boys will not be embarrassed by wearing the new uniform in public? Wanna bet none? Yah, probably because there are still too many old men on those committees, eh? I reckon if we put a designer together with just a bunch of boy scouts we'd have a lot more luck. I hear the pants are doin' just fine in terms of kids wearin' 'em around, but the shirt is still too dorky.