Beavah

What an odd thread to log on and see, eh? I thought there was some prohibition on usin' usernames in subject lines. Yah, what Eamonn and NJ said, eh? When yeh really need legal advice yeh have to consult with someone local. Just no way to give responsible advice on specific situations without knowin' the situation in a way only someone takin' the time to represent you can. And certainly not across state lines. Since I'm more in da education than the practice side of things, I take a few more liberties talkin' about general principles sometimes, eh? But you're gettin' exactly what you pay for. Da off-the-cuff ramblin's of a guy trying to be a friendly educator of laymen, never the professional opinion of an attorney who is offerin' a legal opinion or advice. Never, ever consider anything a furry critter with long teeth says to be more than it is, eh! Questions of a legal nature come up a fair bit for NFPs, and smaller NFPs just don't have the resource most of the time to keep legal counsel on staff or retainer (and to be honest, a lot of da staff counsel for NFP entities are gawd-awful dumb ). It does create a bit of a need. Often there's someone your CO uses for such informal guidance or low-level pro-bono work, you can check there. At da district our council level, chances are you'll find a few fellow scouters with legal background you can bounce a few questions off of when you need to. Most attorneys will be willing to give you a hand with that sort of quick consult for no more than the cost of lunch. Remember, just like any human endeavor, there are lawyers and then there are lawyers. Not everyone is competent, and certainly no one is competent in every area. Remember, too, that best legal advice isn't the same as best ethical advice, best business advice, or best program advice for kids. Yeh have to balance often competin' issues when you consider these things. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm with da rest of the folks, eh? This is an issue yeh leave to the parent(s) unless you're confronted with it directly. You've got enough things to worry about. And if yeh are ever confronted with it, seek local help and advice. Local family attorneys will know how your local courts tend to handle such things. Now, one thing I think it's important for every troop to get when a boy signs up (and after any life-changing event like a divorce or remarriage) is information on custody, visitation, and release, eh? It certainly is possible for a lad to be caught between warring parents, and for a lad's scouting to get sucked into that black hole. Doesn't need to be fancy, eh? Who has legal custody (mom, dad, joint?), and are there any special instructions the custodial parent has in terms of release of care after a meeting/outing (never release to dad, only release to dad on visitation weekends, etc.). Yah, and whether a non-custodial parent should be included in troop communications or not. Inform all your scouters about the terms for anything out of the ordinary "open" thing that most units have. This helps yeh avoid da situation raisinemright was in, eh? That's not a particularly good place to be, caught between fear of releasing a lad to a potential non-custodial parent kidnapper and committing kidnapping or custodial interference yourself. B

The purpose of bylaws (that's one word, no hyphen) is to define how an organization is organized. Troops don't need this, because this information is already set down in BSA documents. Nah, this isn't really true, eh? BSA literature doesn't specify a parliamentary authority / how committee discussions are to be conducted, doesn't specify quorums or voting, doesn't specify committee scope vs. scope of da CO, only offers guidance on how new committee members and adult leaders are to be selected (by the committee or a subcommittee), doesn't specify subcommittees, doesn't specify terms of office or method for selection of officers, etc. There's lots of room for a troop to have real bylaws in some circumstances. Might even be a few spots where they're useful. Though I don't particularly encourage the practice, it's important not to overstate the case. One spot, for example, which is completely blank in da BSA literature, is "how does the committee run the process for considering expulsion of a youth member?" That's a good one to have in place before you need it, eh! Yah, and of course a PLC might choose to adopt bylaws at the youth level, eh? I reckon that's overkill for a troop as much or more than it is for a crew, but it can be a learning experience for the lads if the unit feels that kind of learning is important. Is this really necessary? Not in my opinion, it has already been defined by BSA. Neither the PLC, Troop committee, nor the CO have any authority to change that. Yah, we've got to be careful about overbroad statements here, too, eh? There are very few things in BSA literature that a CO can't change for their unit, and all of 'em either have to do with the BSA's awards, trademarks, and "image" or with things that affect risk exposure. Everything else is da CO's authority, because they own and are responsible for the unit. They choose to use BSA program literature to help with their program, but the program is defined by the CO, not the BSA. So sure, a troop policy or just a plain old SM can say "we're not going to have an ASPL." Perfectly fine, even though ASPL is a position in the BSA program literature. And I reckon all troops "adjust" what da job descriptions are of various committee positions to fit their needs and circumstances. Again, I don't particularly recommend bylaws, especially the way a lot of 'em are done. Nor am I fond of a whole lot of unit policy which really should be more program practice as BobWhite indicates. Just let's not overstate the case, eh? There can be times when such things are both appropriate and successful. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I agree with OGE. We should get straight what we mean. General operatin' rules and policies are one thing. Those you might compile as they get enacted by the CO or the committee, or put in place by the SM. Things like "fingerprint background checks are required for all adult leaders in kid contact positions" (CO policy), or "scout accounts can only be used to pay for outings expenses, and when a boy leaves they can be transferred to a sibling" (Committee policy), or "you must sign up at least 2 weeks in advance for an outing" (PLC/SM policy). All of those are good to have, good to compile, and worth communicatin' to whoever needs to know them through handbooks or letters or orientations or whatnot. All units have 'em. Bylaws generally refer to how the Troop Committee operates, eh? As long as there are no disputes, you're a group of friends with da same vision, and yeh have a longish "operating history" that has set up some traditional ways of doin' business yeh don't need 'em. But having them can help yeh a bit when you do have disputes. Typical bylaws would cover rules of order for runnin' a meeting, what constitutes a quorum, who gets to vote (and on what things yeh don't vote), what the scope of the committee's role is, what the scope of individual positions and subcommittees are, how appointments to positions are made and for what term, perhaps what would happen to assets on dissolution, etc. Might be important to cover things like when complaints are out of order or how the committee will handle a decision on a disciplinary expulsion from the troop, for example. If you're a "Parents of" or "Friends of" charter operatin' either as a corporation or an association, yeh should have bylaws. Must have, in many cases. Units with "regular" CO's that are incorporated, it's more optional. As a rule, the less diverse your unit is, the less yeh need bylaws (and other policies for that matter). If you're an LDS or other church unit tightly tied to the church, yeh won't need bylaws. But if you're somethin' like a PTO unit in a diverse area, where people won't necessarily agree on practice or vision, then spelling out ways of handling discussions and disputes can perhaps be worthwhile. Beavah

I can quickly teach a "map and compass" trained person to use a GPS and rely on him to 'get me there' reliably in a crtical situation, but I would be less likely to give a GPS-only 'gadgeteer' a critical navigation task. Yah, DugDirt, but you're answering da wrong question there, eh? Of course you can give someone who has already acquired solid navigation skills how to use a GPS fairly quickly and then rely on him. The real question is what is da best way to teach new folks, eh? What's best for boys who have no prior skills? My guess would be that given how great kids are with tech, the best way to teach 'em navigation might be with a GPS, eh? No more drawing contour lines on the back of my knuckles to try to get 'em to visualize what they mean on a map. Just flip back and forth between the 3-D and flat views. Then, once they've got those skills down, yeh can move back to battery-less procedures that require you to visualize in your head - provided they need battery-less skills for backcountry travel (GPS's I find burn through too many bats to be worthwhile as primary nav on long trips). Now, me personally? I'm a sun, wind, and contour navigator myself, don't bother with a compass hardly at all. Darn things get lost, break, or freeze. But I wouldn't start by teachin' a lad that way. Any more than I'd start by teachin' 'em how to do square roots by hand. Yah, yah, doin' square roots by hand gives yeh better number sense and more of what a square root means, and yah, "your calculator batteries might die" or da calculator might break. Correct answer to that is to bring a spare . As for axes, I honestly can't say I can think of a single time in the last couple of decades where I really needed a hand axe in the field. I can think of a few group campsites where scouts with woods tools did some damage, though. No doubt they were killing trees to make tent pegs like their Scoutmaster did when he was a lad. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, bunch of old fuddy-duddy's here, eh? I learned to ski on leather hiking boots and wooden skis, eh? Taught yeh a lot about balance and weight shift and control. I wouldn't wish that on any kid. The new equipment shortens the learning curve from years to months, and is safer to boot. A bit harder to maintain yourself, though, just like modern computerized car engines. So instead of learning the fine art of balance and weight shift on wood and floppy leathers, lads now get to learn the fine art of balance and weight shift by doin' aerial acrobatics and grinding rails. Who'd a thunk it? The lads can't do square roots by hand, the way I can. Darn calculators. But you should see 'em solve problems I never would have approached at their age by whizzing through Excel. Yep, some of da old skills get lost when we use technology. But the kids can use it to go farther and faster than we ever did, and open up whole new vistas. Me, I want that for the kids. I'm willing to give up the hand axe or my old wooden boards to see it happen. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, mmhardy, there must be some backstory here, eh? Probably whatever energy remains unresolved because of the backstory is what has got the adults all atwitter. Behavioral issues need to be resolved firmly, and publicly enough that the community remains confident in its leaders. Generally speakin', calls for codes of conduct / more rules / "policy" and such happen when leadership has failed in some way. Sometimes it's by not being firm enough or transparent enough in addressing an issue. You'll find some adults who don't have the gumption to face a tough issue without ducking behind a piece of paper with a policy on it. Less often, it's by being too firm or a bit arbitrary, and folks want some sort of policy to rein in a leader who they feel isn't being fair. Either way, it's a leadership problem, not a code of conduct problem. In scouting, we use Adult Association, eh? There's nothin' in our methods that says we should behave like institutions and have lads sign contracts, read da policy handbook, or any of that, eh? That's adult drivel that doesn't really teach boys a thing. For us, it's da Pirate's Code, aye?! Parlez? Stuff that boys can get into. Scout Oath and Law, learned through Adult Association. Leave da codes and policies for when yeh have to do like your wife and run an institution, not a scouting program. Beavah

Yah, BobWhite, it's true that some CC's out there behave like they're IH's and believe that they can set policy on their own authority. It might work for your unit, and with da right sort of amiable fellow as CC, it can be successful, eh? Yah, and in some CO's with a religious hierarchy tightly tied to da unit, it might be the way a CO chooses to do things. That's their call, eh? Personally, for most units, I wouldn't recommend it. I don't think it's healthy. I reckon that's why in the BSA's program materials it isn't recommended either. Yeh won't find anywhere in da BSA literature which states that the Committee Chair sets unit policy. Rather, in da BSA materials, the committee acts as a board of directors, and the committee and CO set policy. Policy, by its nature, needs more than one brain to think through things, eh? Too easy for one guy to "go off", or just not realize all da implications. That's why we live in a democracy, rather than a kingdom. Of course, dhendron is also right, eh? In a crew, the crew sets policy for itself (at least for da youth side of the operations). I don't reckon that's supposed to apply to the youth setting the youth protection rules, eh? But then again, the youth might do a better job than a CC who thinks he's IH! Beavah

Yah, worth checkin' on what perdidochas said, eh? Sometimes, yeh might find that a 7pm start just doesn't work for a lot of lads. If mom & dad are working and don't get home 'til after 5:30, dinner might not hit the table until 6:15ish, and if they want to do a family dinner and then get ready for and drive to a meeting... it can be a lot, eh? Generally speakin', though, every organization has its culture about timeliness. Yours is that folks arrive in da first 15-30 minutes. Everyone's grown used to that culture. If yeh want to change it, then it's a good 6 months of fight to change it, eh? Make it an expectation of your youth leaders. Start the meeting immediately on time, and make sure you're doing something fun or worthwhile right at the start which boys who come late aren't allowed to "make up". Make sure da adults are never, ever late - that they take it as a serious commitment, and they expect it of da youth leaders. There has to be a reason to be on time, eh? If things start at 7:30 and if you're not there you lose, then you get there at 7:30. But if yeh know nothin' important is goin' to happen, things really won't get going until 7:50, then it's OK to dilly-dally, eh? Beavah

Yah, I've seen lots of issues with this over da years, eh? As a general rule, anytime a kid takes somethin' home for more than a few days it becomes "theirs", but not really "theirs." Gets lost in da basement. Gets put away wet and turned into a mildewed monster. Remains stuffed and compressed, whatever. I reckon to keep things clear, there are only two types of gear: troop gear, which has troop numbers on it and gets issued each campout and returned promptly at da end of each campout, or personal gear which the lad/family actually pays their own money for. I have seen a couple of troops and one crew also offer "rental gear", though. Boys pay some $ and a deposit up front for the purpose of renting gear, which must be turned in clean and serviceable after some period of time. Failure to turn it in means they get billed for replacement, turned in unserviceable or damaged they lose their deposit. Da one troop I knew also allowed boys to buy their rental gear in installments. In other words, when their total rental cost over time equaled the unit's purchase price, they received the equipment as their own. The one crew I used had an adult who often funded gear purchases himself; crew would pay him back from da rental charges and when paid off the gear became the crew's. Some arrangement like that might be possible for yeh to consider, even with "rental contracts" to aid with communication. Beavah

Oops, Yah! Mrs. Beavah's yellin' at me for not puttin' da stuffing away after I raided it! Missed da point of J-in-KC's comment because Mrs. Beavah can be quite loud . Joinin' a crew or ship can be a fine thing, eh? But encourage the lad to work on Silver or Ranger or Quartermaster or another appropriate Venturing award! More interestin' for him, and more age-appropriate. B

Although Beavah disagrees with the policy... Nah. I agree with da real policy of the BSA, as written in da Rules & Regulations which we all agreed to follow when we signed our applications, eh? An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit: subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age, as promulgated from time to time by the Boy Scouts of America.- Boy Scouts of America Rules & Regulations, Article VII The confusion comes when one particular program office gets tired of dealin' with da inevitable complaints and threats from attack helicopter parents (and yah, gets tired of the occasional inanity of self-appointed adult gatekeepers), and promulgates poorly worded program documents. The policy we all agreed to uphold is da one in bold above, eh? Aside from that, samzpop, I agree with da rest of the crowd. Yes, of course you're right, it shouldn't sit well to give Eagle Scout to a lad who isn't active. Easiest way to avoid that is to drop boys who aren't active at recharter time. If they come back later, they can have a SM conference and apply again, and yeh can choose to accept 'em back or not. Yeh can even have 'em participate as a guest who is interested in joining for a bit until yeh see what the lad's about and approve the application. Given your current situation, I reckon if nobody has signed their books for "active" or for POR, well, then, they're startin' at zero for you, eh? Make 'em work for it. If they do have those requirements signed, then when yeh meet with 'em, I'd have the conversation about how a scout is Loyal, Helpful, etc. and tell 'em that you need them to be truly active in da troop now before you can honestly sign their project workbook (can't say a lad is ready to do a project if you don't know him) or their Eagle Application (can't say a lad is qualified for Eagle if yeh don't know him either). Yah, there are ways for the boys to request a review without a SM's recommendation, but that's harder and kinda sketchy in terms of whether or not a board will respond positively in such a circumstance. Easier for them to learn da lesson of character and do what you ask. Now, all that havin' been said, stop and think for a moment. Has your troop been real lax about this up until now? I think yeh have to make changes in a way that gets communicated to the lads in advance, eh? It's really not fair to change da rules on 'em late in the game. So if these kids have seen others do Eagle without being active, and nobody sat down with 'em before this and laid out different expectations, then yeh should be lenient. Just make sure you lay down different expectations for the younger lads who will be coming through in the followin' years. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Basementdweller had an excellent question which was gettin' lost in da camouflage threads. Here it is: I have purchased sleeping bags and given them to the boys only for them to not bring them to the next event or their parents/siblings selling them on craiglist. I saw the ad myself after a tip from another parent. a fifty dollar sleeping bag being sold for 10 bucks on craigslist. I was pretty ticked off about it. I called and told the parent about it, and their response was well you gave it to him and we really don't have anywhere to store it. We sold candy bars and the boys used their own bags and backpacks, same deal, some used them to haul books back and forth to school. I was considering purchasing them for each boy tagging them with their name for use during their tenure with our Pack and Troop. Then storing them myself. Is there anything else to consider?????????? At this point there isn't too many maybe 4 or 5 boys. I am just trying to ensure a quality outdoor experience, nothing worse than being cold while your trying to sleep. I have already purchased half a dozen large duffle bags so the boys can put their clothing in those instead of carrying trash bags with their gear in it. I get the bags back before we get back to the charter org.

Yah, I don't think da labels mean anything anymore, eh? Da Republicans of the last 8 years have been the party of big, bigger, and biggest government. Massive intrusions on the authority of states over education. Major grabs of federal control and authority over "IP" law and enforcement. Near scandalous assertions of unilateral power by da executive. And finally massive socializing of industries and commercial risk. And they called themselves "conservative." I think both parties want big government these days. They just want to control who gets more of da big-government subsidies and bailouts. Beavah

Yah, fgoodwin, I enjoyed da letter, eh? But Mr. Ketchum is just another volunteer, writin' his personal opinion in a letter to the editor. No different than any of us blatherin' here on da forums. Only part of that which is a BSA editorial response is in italics. Just to be clear, no one is talking about trying to imitate the uniform of the armed services.. First off, dat's a federal crime, eh? Secondly, it's against the rules and regs. The BSA's italics editorial comment is correct on that point, eh? Imitating da uniform of the armed services is not the same thing as some boys or adults wearing hunting camouflage on an outing. Ain't even the same thing as everyone in a Venturing Crew wearing hunting camo (which I reckon some do when they go on a hunting trip, eh? ). Boys and adults who wear hunting camo on an outing are just like boys and adults who wear North Face jackets on an outing. It's not a violation of the law. It's not a violation of da Rules & Regulations. It is not contrary to the BSA's charter. Anybody who tells yeh otherwise is either misinformed or just plain bein' mendaciously ornery. If we're goin' to be precision scouters, I expect we can at least try to get da rules and guidelines right, eh? There's enough of 'em as there is without da Scouting Urban Legend folks makin' up more! the official literature tells what we CAN do, not what we CANNOT do Yah, this too is absolutely, unequivocally false as far as unit scoutin' is concerned. Can't even imagine what gave anyone that idea. Da official literature lays out program materials which are designed to be helpful. We only bother to write things when it seems like a lot of folks are lookin' for that kind of support. For years and years in da BSA there wasn't a lick of literature on rock climbing. Wasn't until COS and climbing MB about 10 years ago that we started offering program materials on that. That did not mean that we couldn't do rock climbing. The absence of official literature just meant that there weren't any BSA program supports, and we had to build our own or use professional outfitters. Snow Sports MB is only about 6 years old or so, eh? That does not mean that before then Boy Scouts and Venturers were not allowed to snowboard. Just meant the BSA wasn't offering program materials to help. There still ain't any program supports for geocaching, or mountaineering, or sea kayaking, eh? Doesn't mean those things are forbidden. I don't mind that some folks feel a need to be precision scouters, eh? Yah, well, OK, I mind a little But da least folks can do before shoutin' "policy, policy" at other people is actually learn and understand what da policy really is. Yah, and then maybe take some time to learn how it's really interpreted and applied by those folks who actually have da authority to interpret and apply it. If we're really worried about BSA adults bein' examples of good character, I reckon that's a good place for a lot of us to start. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, vol, I've always bought American. I dunno, the patriot in me, I guess. Next round I might look at Honda or Toyota, but I'll be lookin' to make sure it was assembled in da U.S. I think we should try to hold onto or re-develop strong, modern, cost-effective, innovative manufacturing in da U.S. That's certainly in our long-term best interest, eh? I just don't see how propping up weak, aging, inefficient, bloated, poorly managed manufacturers can possibly get us there. I don't think we're done with the bad financial markets news yet, despite somethin' like 7 Trillion dollars of money bein' thrown at the problem between the Fed and the Treasury. Europeans are noticing that the market for Treasuries is breakin' down now. That's scary, eh? See www.euromoney.com. You couldn't shovel enough money at GM or Chrysler right now to keep 'em out of bankruptcy in this market. Da Big 3 might think they're Titanic, "too big to fail" and all that, eh? But they drove full speed into the iceberg. Time to stop bailin' and start launching lifeboats. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sorry mmhardy. I know it's affectin' a lot of folks in your state, eh? But honestly, the big three are gettin' what they deserve. You're in a business that depends on innovation. But yeh didn't innovate. You're in a business that is cyclical. That means that durin' the up times, yeh need to save for the down times. But durin' the up times, the union leadership grabbed all they could, and management let 'em. Now the down times are goin' to wipe 'em out as a result. You're in a business where quality really counts. People rely on your product for their lives and livelihood. Because a car is a big purchase for people, they remember problems, and they tell all their friends. Maybe for the rest of their lives. My last vehicle purchase was a Ford, and I expect I'll be dead before I consider buyin' anything from 'em again. The Big 3's reputation for mediocrity is deserved. And as a capper, your business spent tens of millions on lobbying, and your Michigan congressional delegation blocked pollution and mileage standards which would have saved the auto industry from this mess while making the country more secure. Why should my grandkids who had to deal with da seatbelt molding falling off on 'em, and the electric windows that jammed open on their vacation, have to pay for years and years so that the auto execs can make $100 million this year and so that the auto workers can make more than their dad? Why should their dad, who had to replace transmissions on two cars within 10,000 miles of warranty expiration have to pay an additional tax burden for the guys who built that junk? It's goin' to be hard for everybody. Hard for workers and their families. Hard for one-industry states and towns. But packsaddle's right, eh? All a bailout does is redistribute wealth from the workin' middle class to the rich. And all that kind of misguided socialism does is make our nation and our industry weaker. Chrysler should have ceased to exist years ago. It's gone, we just haven't had the funeral yet. I don't think there's a chance for GM. I'd be content with one major U.S. manufacturer survivin' strong enough to compete, but if they get a dime of my tax money the Ford family has to lose all of their shares and voting control of da company. But yeh know what? If anybody has a brain in Michigan, they'll capture some of that workforce and those plants, and start a couple small auto companies makin' high-efficiency composite vehicles. Give it ten years, and the death of the Big Three will leave a lot of room for more nimble, innovative, small manufacturers to spring up. The nation and the industry will be stronger. Bail 'em out, and we'll have all da innovation and efficiency of other socialist states, like da old Soviet Union. Complete with the cronyism of government wedded to big industry, much like da Michigan congressional delegation. Beavah

Yah, this is a no-brainer, eh? Yeh do what yeh need to do to get the gear, and then yeh go well out of your way to say "thanks" and get the donor some recognition for helpin' out a program for urban youth. Scrub the BSA name from it if yeh need to avoid negative politics, even. One of the headaches with Scoutreach units is that the lack of gear hampers activities, and the lack of activities hampers program and retention, eh? Generally speakin', Scoutreach neighborhoods don't have the reservoirs of either monetary resources or family time available for fundraising or even a social ethic of fundraisin' to build on. To even have a remote shot at success, they need all that resourcin' provided, especially at the beginning. Go for it! Beavah

No tapdancin' there, BobWhite. Just tryin' not to be a turkey, especially on Thanksgivin'. It's not the job of unit volunteers to "represent the BSA program" either correctly or incorrectly. In fact, unit volunteers aren't permitted to represent the BSA program at all under da Rules and Regulations. When the BSA wants to be represented, it selects its own representatives. What unit leaders do is represent their own program. And I expect almost all unit leaders do a fine job of that, and do it honestly. Da precision scouters among us might not like or agree with some unit programs that don't meet their goals of bein' precise. Nobody else, includin' the BSA, really cares. Often as not, the need to look down at fellow volunteers says more about the person doin' the looking down than it does about how good a job the unit is doing working with kids. On this Thanksgiving Day, I'm thankful that most such folks don't serve in direct contact positions with youth. Actually, I'm really grateful for all of the wonderful volunteers out there, in khaki, green, blue, jeans, camo, nylon and wool who care enough about kids to be a part of their lives on a regular basis. A Scout Salute to you all! Boys and girls learn character from your kindness and generosity, not from your adherence to a uniform guide. Thanks for continuin' to be there for America's future generations. Beavah

Yah, sounds like a whole bunch of precision scouters would rather have no kids in uniform at all rather than have all the kids in partial uniforms. Get a grip. Y'all are mixing up two very different things. One thing is the BSA's corporate need to define the uniform as its brand, from a trademark/marketing point of view. Honestly, folks, that concern doesn't really apply to unit meetings and activities of regular units under most circumstances. Second thing is how in a particular unit to use the Uniform Method well. That's where scouters look at their families and circumstances and choose what battles to fight and make accommodations so that they can have a good program which works for kids, even if they don't have a precision program which pleases da precision scouters of the world (who usually aren't runnin' units anymore themselves). Know that da BSA would love yeh to buy the whole ensemble. Know that the BSA will be upset with yeh if you show up on CNN with everybody wearin' scout shirts, camo pants, green berets, packin' paintball guns, and claimin' that you're a real, fully uniformed Boy Scouts of America troop. But also know that da BSA will be happy to sell yeh just a shirt, and will be proud to claim yours as a Quality Unit even if the lads are in blue jeans or dad's camo hunting jacket at the council camporee. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, fellow Beav, welcome to da Scouter.Com forums, eh? I reckon if yeh look back earlier in the thread, one of the first responses linked to Mike Walton's page, eh? No need to keep copyin' it for us. LTC Walton is a good fellow and a bit of a uniform historian, but he does not represent the BSA. His personal opinions are his own, and are worth as much or as little as all of da personal opinions that are bein' shared on the topic. Rather than quotin' Mike, why don't yeh share from your own experience? What does your unit do? Beavah

Yah, I confess I'm really tired of da partisan drum beaters. This is an American financial catastrophe, not a Democratic or Republican one. Both sides lathered on the pork spending. Both sides have taken major programs like a war and Social Security "off budget" so as to obscure deficits or avoid actually having to plan payment for their decisions. Republicans more than democrats aided and abetted irresponsible corporate behavior, foolish deregulation, corporate subsidies and corporate welfare. Democrats more than republicans aided and abetted irresponsible union behavior, nothing-gained spending on social programs, and regular welfare. We Americans were happy to have one party or the other give other people's money away, or give away public lands or resources, so long as they were giving it away to our friends, eh? And now, in the midst of a crisis, all sides are united. Let's give away the nation in a massive spending spree for all our people! Republicans get a multi-trillion bailout of Wall Street. Democrats get a trillion dollar bailout of commercial credit and a defunct auto industry. Don't worry, Dems, you'll come back to parity with the Republicans when we have to start bailing out state and local governments next year. And then watch as da insanely underfunded public pension systems start to collapse... Beavah

Yah, Aquila, many if not most countries have multiple scout associations, unlike da U.S. where BSA has a government-granted monopoly. WOSM only wants to deal with one representative entity per country (so they're not referreeing internal squabbles between competing associations), so what happens is a "federation" is created, with representatives from each of the scouting associations in the country. The WOSM member is the federation, but all of the individual scout associations are part of da federation (and therefore part of WOSM). Da NYT reporter is a typical reporter, eh? Gets some facts right but doesn't understand how things really work. So there is no direct affiliation between any individual association in a country like Lebanon and the international body. The affiliation is indirect, through the national scout federation. With 28 different scout associations, Lebanon is pretty "diverse", eh? A Mahdi scout would presumably still be eligible for world jambo participation. I note from their website that they participate in Jamboree On The Air and Jamboree On The Internet. Beavah

Yah, GHB. LNT is just a title. And LNT the organization can't be responsible for BSA trainers, some of whom have never done a LNT trainer course themselves. If I were to characterize the LNT ethic, it's to leave no medium to long-term trace, and reduce short-term impacts where possible. We all recognize we will leave footprints. What we want to do is avoid causin' long-term trail damage, or creating an "informal" trail where there was none before. We don't want to set up camps next to watering holes, causing animals to change their long-term behaviors, or stress animals durin' times when they're vulnerable. Yah, we could do that by regulation, eh? That's the trend. Hunting is awash in regulation with very limited seasons. Every time I go out these days I see longer and longer lists of posted regulations at trailheads. Your last "fact" that some parks and forests are prohibiting all off-trail exploration is true, eh? But that's not caused by LNT, that is exactly what LNT was developed to prevent. LNT is meant to educate folks about proper off-trail activity so that land managers are not forced to continue the current practice of imposing regulatory restrictions in order to fulfill their mission of conservation. In that way, it's 100% in line with da BSA's mission of educatin' kids and promoting ethical choices. If you don't care for regulations and restrictions, the alternative is education and personal ethics. What we're tryin' to teach is the ethic of competent wilderness users and land managers, so that those responsible for conserving our resources for the future don't have to do so by regulation and restriction. But it does mean that some of us who grew up campin' in other ways have to learn new tricks. What we used to do doesn't work so well when National Parks and wildlands are experiencing the highest number of user-days ever. Those fire lays we once thought were "minimal impact" start to look pretty major when yeh multiply 'em by a million. I can't tell whether you're an old-time camper who is just annoyed by the fact that the ethics of campin' have changed and you're being asked to change what you're used to, or whether you're just hung up on a marketing title because yeh won't be bothered to take the time to learn what it means. I suspect it's the former, from your statements. Tough for us old dogs to learn new tricks. I was convinced when I saw what had happened to some campsites and natural forest areas of my youth as a result of increased user-days. Almost brought me to tears. As to your "facts" + Yep, folks take LNT ethics seriously. That's what it means to be ethical. That means they try hard, not that they're perfect. + Yep, LNT is incompatible with some traditional woodcraft. That's because some traditional woodcraft is incompatible with good conservation. In those areas, we old timers and old-time youth programs need to change, or we will be rightly labeled unethical or "bad" campers, and suffer further restrictions on access to public lands. + Yep, LNT is an aspirational goal. It aspires to Leave No Trace of our passage in the wild lands to future campers. That can be achieved. + Nope, I know some of da LNT developers personally. Ain't a PETA person among 'em. Some expert fly fishermen, though. + Yep, we as scouters actually intend to be ethical outdoorsmen. That's part of the requirements for being a good scouter. and, finally, + Nope, it is not the LNT ethics which cause some parks to prohibit all off-trail activity. They do that because off-trail users have caused discernible damage. That is exactly the situation which LNT is designed to prevent. Me personally, I want da next generation of scouts to be better than I was, eh? Beavah

Yah, OK Frank17. It sounded like there was some parent sniping behind da scenes, eh? I agree with yeh, that stuff is toxic, and yeh have to get all the adults on the same page workin' together with you as SM. Get everyone focused on what's best for the kids, eh? And if that means you eliminate a pseudo-position (or add a position for that matter), you should do that. More importantly, da CC has to get on board in terms of guiding and managing the committee. Good luck with it, eh! Adult "stuff" is the least fun job of the SM. Beavah