Beavah

Yah, what everyone else said. Given sufficient time, usually half a scout generation or so (3-4 years), a troop will reflect da vision, style, and capacity of its primary leader(s). Boys who don't fit with that style will leave; boys who are attracted by that style will come. When da troop hits da size capacity of the adult leaders and their style, additional boys will drop out no matter what da recruiting is like. Some men and women run fine one patrol-troops. I honestly think that's da natural thing for an average parent with limited scoutin' experience. They sort of get run like a big family. Some men and women run troops in the 30s of scouts. Folks who are da youth-focused school teacher types who are used to dealin' with classes that size, gettin' to know that many youth well and figure out how they work together. A few men and women run troops in the "mega" range. Folks who are management types who do well workin' with and organizing groups of adults. Formality or informality always comes from key adult leaders. The boys adapt, or leave. Outdoorsiness always comes from key adult leaders as well. In subtle ways, they encourage or discourage the PLC in its direction. Get adults who aren't comfortable backpacking, and backpacking within a troop will fade. Training doesn't really touch any of this. As Eagledad points out, even when a man who has had direct on-the-job training and support for years it isn't enough to change his fundamental style or capacity. Yeh have to go out and find adult leaders of da right sort, yeh generally can't make 'em. Happily, troops tend to attract/retain folks with similar capacities in some ways, which helps. Leaders, though, often aren't da best at properly identifying their own replacement. They tend to select da fellow they worked well with, who made a good supporter but might not have da capacity to be the person in charge. Beavah

Yah, more info: Six boy scouts, one of whom is the grandson of former Senate President Russell Pearce, were reunited with their families Sunday night after getting lost in the Tonto National Forest. The group was supposed to return Saturday afternoon. One mother says the scouts, ages 12 to 13-years-old, were working on their hiking merit badge when they got lost. The troop was rescued from the Four Peaks area of the forest. They didn't have extra food and water with them. Scouts Jaxon and Rigdon Merrill seemed thrilled to be back with their mother and holding Snickers bars. "Pretty worried, my wife was very worried," said Aaron Jones, father of a missing scout. The two were among six Boy Scouts and two adult scout leaders who were lost in the Tonto National Forest. "How did they get to that point when they couldn't make it back?" said Holli Pearce, mother of a missing scout. The troop left Friday evening to camp and hike 10 miles. They were supposed to return Saturday at 4 p.m. "They were bringing dinner for Friday, then we were to pack them breakfast and lunch for Saturday," said Pearce. "So we expected them back in the afternoon, 6 or 7 p.m. is when everyone got worried and called the sheriff's office," said Jones. The Maricopa County Sheriff's helicopter pilot found the group around 1:30 a.m. Sunday morning. MCSO says the pilot got a thumbs up from the troop when he asked through a PA system if they were okay. He says the troop waved him away when asked if they needed assistance, so he left. "We're calm knowing that we know from the sheriff they're safe, that the kids did give them the thumbs up, that they're safe and okay," said Kasandra Merrill, mother of two missing scouts. But six hours later, with still no sign of the group, worried parents starting hiking the trail to the boys and the helicopter went up again. This time, the pilot took the group back to the trailhead where their families were waiting. The boys had just run out of water. "The sheriff says he thought it looked like they may have gotten off the trail onto a different trail," said Jones. Needless to say, there hasn't been word on if the scouts ended up getting those hiking merit badges or if they'll be going on another hike. ----- A group of Boy Scouts, one who is related to former state senate president Russell Pearce, was airlifted from the Four Peaks region of the Tonto National Forest Sunday evening, a full day after family members reported them missing. Brandon Jones, a Maricopa County Sheriffs Office spokesman, said the agency sent a search-and-rescue team to extract the six scouts and their two adult leaders Saturday morning. However, officials called the operation off after an MCSO helicopter crew made contact with the troop early Sunday morning and the group waved them off, indicating they were OK, Jones said. Jones said officials then gave the groups coordinates to family members who at driven to the area. Jones said the family members intentions, as Sheriff officials understood it, was to hike into the area and meet the group halfway. At about 2:30 p.m. Sunday, family members called again to report they had not found the group. Sheriffs officials again dispatched the helicopter and discovered the group had not moved from their camping site. The helicopter crew flew the troop and their leaders out in groups of four. All members were in good health, but Jones said they may have ran out of water. Jones said he did not understand why the group originally waved off the helicopter. Were definitely inquiring into why we were waved off the first time, Jones said. (But) the most important part ... was getting those kids out of there. Jones said the agency discovered one of the scouts is a relative of Russell Pearce, who had personally called Sunday morning about the rescue operation out of concern as any family member should be.

In Middle School in particular, lads want to fit in. In that environment, scouts is uncool. Mostly da goofy uniforms and such. If yeh did the same stuff with a church group or outdoors club it would be OK. By sophomore or junior year in high school, it's still uncool but not as big an issue. Boys in high school are lookin' to stand out as much as fit in, and high schoolers tend to find niches of friends where they can be themselves. So yah, sure, most scouts will report at least that their classmates think scouts is uncool. Beavah

Yah, I reckon $20 is a pizza and a couple of beers. College kids seem to be able to afford that. When I look at many youth activities around here - da travel soccer clubs and hockey teams and pay-to-play school sports or club sports, I think for da most part scouting sells itself too cheap. Perhaps if we charged more, families would treat us like we were more valuable (it's funny da way that works sometimes), and more of a commitment. Cubs I can see. Lots of packs are set up to nickle and dime parents on activities and uniform parts and other stuff.

Yah, RememberSchiff, I'm not sure whether yeh posted that to agree with me or to try to say I was wrong. What da text you copied actually means is da exact same thing I wrote. "Intentional or criminal acts" is a term of art in da legal world which has a specific meaning that's a bit different than da colloquial meaning. The CO did not commit a criminal act, nor did it deliberately intend to harm kids. Now, what gets a bit tricky is that da several states take somewhat different approaches to interpretation, and there can in some jurisdictions be an argument that some form of negligence by da CO in supervision or vetting amounted to an intention to harm children in a particular way. There is no coverage for a CO that believes in pedophilia and sets up a scout troop intending to molest kids, nor should there be. Da question would be, within da way "intention" is interpreted in da jurisdiction, whether the organization's lack of care amounted to the same thing as that sort of intention to harm. IMO that's a hard case to make against a church in a molestation incident, and lots of states have pretty draconian penalties against "bad faith" insurers who try that sort of thing. Da BSA and its providers have an excellent reputation as honorable, good-faith insurers. A real question would be whether there's an exclusion in da BSA contract for child abuse or molestation. Many insurers these days do limit that so as to provide an additional fee-based rider for sexual misconduct insurance, which might also have different limits. That would be worth askin' the BSA to clarify in writing, which might be what da UMC is doin'. As always, nuthin' a furry anonymous internet critter writes should be taken as gospel, or as legal opinion or advice. In actual cases, this stuff can get sort of complimicated. If yeh want gospel, go to church. If yeh want legal advice, talk to a competent attorney in your state.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so you're movin' up to IH, eh? Good luck to yeh in your new post as a fisher of men. That can be a lonely and tryin' vocation at times. Remember to keep good friends who are outside da daily life of religiosity and outside your congregation, for perspective and a chance to get away sometimes. Pastors need some friends to gripe to, too! Always remember that even da first fishers of men still went out and caught fish, and the Christ Himself frequently retreated to God's wilderness. Make sure right now yeh set aside time to go catch fish, and to go sleep under da stars. Mark it down in your calendar, make it absolutely inviolate or yeh will always find some need that keeps yeh from gettin' out, and that will make yeh a worse pastor. Finally, remember that God Laughs. There is no brighter laughter, no deeper sense of humor than that of the Almighty. If da Creator of all things can see all da world's beauty and tragedy and still smile with joy, who are we not to join the fun, and be able to laugh at ourselves and our condition? May the Great Scoutmaster of all Scouts be with yeh. Always, and until we meet again at His council campfire in eternity. Farewell, and good Scoutin'. Beavah

Yah, I had to go back and find da thread this was spun from. Let's be honest, eh? We've all hung out at campfires with folks who've complained about their council in exactly da way BadenP does. At least 2/3 of the time, they actually have a legitimate gripe. Yah, sure, sometimes they hold a grudge for too long, and of course there's a sort of "fish story" that happens when complaining that makes da tale more amusin', even if it makes da problem seem a darn sight bigger than it actually is. I just try to imagine him as one of those folks, eh? Da kind that cares a lot and has been disappointed by da corporate BSA a few times too often, and is frustrated because he cares a lot. That, and a bit of a tendency toward da Fish Story when complainin'. B

Yah, there's the old saw about never ascribin' to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. I reckon da corollary is never ascribe to a flaw of character that which has already been thoroughly investigated and explained as a common feature of informal text communications. This stuff has been documented and researched for years, eh? When folks don't have voice inflection and visual cues, any text-only joshing or critique or sarcasm comes across to folks as too harsh. Yeh need the smile and the tone to be able to interpret da author's intent. At the same time, online discussions are a great place for discussions. In discussions, yeh discuss. Yeh josh with folks and critique ideas. Hence, at some point, somethin' is goin' to come across as too harsh to somebody, and they're goin' to react harshly. All communication is contextual. Now, let me demonstrate a bit. Da notion that people show their "true selves" when they are stressed is a load of malarkey. There must be a veritable kiloton of research on da physiology and psychology of stress, and it all shows quite clearly that what da body is doin' physically and hormonally is not normal; what da mind is doin' is not the person's true self. In fact, it's often da opposite of the person's true self. Extroverts when stressed tend to show introverted behaviors, and vice versa. So that notion is just nonsense. Now, Eagledad could choose to read that as a personal attack on his character, and come back at da poor old Beavah with a nasty response. That would in turn surprise the Beavah, who was commenting on an incorrect idea, and has nuthin' but respect for Eagledad. So blindsided by a personal attack, da Beavah could respond in kind. Alternately, Eagledad could choose to imagine all da correct tone and non-verbal queues, and see an old Beavah around the campfire with a smile shakin' his head and sayin' "Nah, what a load of malarkey! Pass me another s'more." There's no failin' of character here. Just a limited communication medium, and perhaps a bit of failure of imagination. It's sometimes hard for us to imagine da other person as a good ol' sort, or imagine da other side of da argument. Anyways, da same stuff happens on forums where real names are used. Beavah

Nah, WasE61, you're not understandin' the way things work, eh? Quite naturally as a matter of law and public policy, yeh cannot ensure an individual or entity for strict liability for criminal acts. So da perpetrator of a criminal act cannot be covered by insurance, quite rightly. Jerry Sandusky doesn't get the benefit of insurance. That in no way affects the Chartered Organization who may be named in a suit as the responsible "superior" of the volunteer who committed the crime. The CO remains fully covered by the general liability policy. Penn State does get the benefit of insurance. That's the point of insurance, eh? Yep, yeh can choose to name individuals along with organizations. In fact that's typically what will happen. A boy gets hurt on an outing, the parents will sue the individual scout leader(s), the Chartered Organization as responsible superior, the BSA, the manufacturer of da climbing equipment, the owner of the land, whatever. The BSA general liability coverage protects both da Chartered Organization and all of its members and volunteers. Da scout leaders, da pastor, da church board of elders, etc. are all covered as primary. Of course most of 'em are likely to have statutory immunity from ordinary negligence torts anyway. The exposure for da CO is only if the BSA coverage limits are exceeded, in which case their own insurance comes in to play. That's not a big deal, because it would be exactly the same as if a kid were hurt at their Bible camp. They still run Bible camps on just their own insurance. Again, no real problem. Beavah

Nah, as I understand it, RememberSchiff, da issue with Catholic COs is that their internal YP rules require a background check. Those are expensive, eh? So if da BSA is also doin' a check, then it's a duplication of costs. They'd rather have da BSA bear that cost, but only if they get actual confirmation that a check was done and came back clean, eh? Otherwise they have to do their own. Right now, since da BSA background check process seems to be a black hole, they're doublin' the cost. Seems reasonable on their part. Be interestin' to see if da UMC push results in a change in da charter for all units or just UMC units. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... What risk do yeh feel is at issue, BadenP? It'd be interestin' to hear what da Methodists concerns are. If yeh choose as an organization to have a youth program, then yeh incur da risks of havin' a youth program. I'm not sure why that's a surprise to anybody. The United Methodists run Sunday Schools and summer Bible camps and all da rest. Now, I suppose there is some truth in sayin' that if yeh only have Methodist parishioners in your scout program, then da likelihood that they'll actually pursue a case is much less. Just out of religious loyalty and social pressure, eh? By runnin' troops that are "open" to other denominations and the unchurched, yeh probably do increase your risk of bein' named in a suit under such circumstances. In da Florida case, the Methodist church is bein' sued by Jewish parents, for example. Still, BSA protects Chartered Partners with a fairly deep general liability policy, on top of the organization's own policies. One could wish da BSA didn't play coy about the breadth of coverage, which should be stated up front, but there's no question that da coverage is in play for da Florida case. There's also no question that that case will settle for less than the coverage limits, so the church should not be exposed to da cost of that settlement. So what's da real concern? Probably that some nitwit BSA official or volunteer started up with the "insurance myths" and someone in da church got freaked out, then some other official did da "play coy" thing. That's why we should be aggressive about takin' people to task for perpetuatin' "insurance won't cover..." nonsense, eh? And why the BSA should just publish da terms of the first tier master policy. Silly behaviors and religious loyalty aside, there's really no safer way to run a youth program than to partner with da BSA. Beavah

Yah, sure. Da whole point of Merit Badges is to get scouts plugged in to local experts and resources outside of Scouting, eh? Yeh should be tryin' to hook 'em up with such folks rather than run an in-house program, unless you're a rare unit like JMHawkins that genuinely has those resources in house. Find out from your local ambulance companies or fire departments who does EMS training in your area. They're usually a good sight better than ARC, with more resources and fun stuff to show off, and are usually happy to volunteer. ARC is fine. So might someone from da outreach program at a local hospital. Always remember, though, da requirements are STEP 2 of advancement, eh? They are the test questions. When you're at STEP 1: A SCOUT LEARNS, yeh want 'em to learn good first aid. That means that yeh want someone who will present more than just da test questions. Goin' from requirement to requirement leaves lads with a disconnected, choppy view of first aid that can get 'em into trouble. Make 'em do a real course and really learn, so that they get stuff like scene safety and management and puzzlin' through evaluation of injuries and such in addition to treatment. Yah, even though it's not on the test! They're goin' to need that stuff to keep themselves and others safe and to respond effectively in a real emergency. Beavah

How many of you would support the SPL decision and let them know that they need to show that they are willing to work on improving their behavior and maybe they will get a position next time? Yah, that would be me. And never in a million years would I send a lad with even a hint of attitude or bullying issues to be a Den Chief, Troop Guide, or Instructor. Seriously?? Trust your SPL. Your SPL sees how kids act when no adults are watching. Yeh did fine, IM_Kathy. There are all sorts of parents in da world, and every now and then yeh can insert a suggestion or a new idea here or there, when yeh have a lot of trust. Don't fret when yeh can't change 'em. Just know that da SPL and other parents watched the whole thing closely, and saw that you cared, and learned that it's OK to have standards and values. That lesson will strengthen your troop and last long after yeh hang up your khakis. Beavah

And while a bunch of Boy Scouts could probably run a PWD, I think it's valuable for the Dads (well, Moms and Dads) to do it. Now maybe it's because I'm past "dad" and well into "grandpa", but it seems to me that what would be really nice is for dads not to run pinewood derby, but to spend their time workin' with their son on pinewood derby. Let the Boy Scouts set up da track and da timers and flip burgers. The time to treasure as a parent is teachin' your son how to use tools and gettin' paint all over. Different strokes I guess. Most parents burn out on "running" Cub Scout events by three years in. One of da most frequent things you'll hear is parents who just want "out" by the end of webelos because they're sick to death of "running" events. Let the Scouts do it, eh? Like Den Chiefs the way they are really meant to be. Give da parents the gift of bein' able to spend their time helpin' their Wolf with his Space Derby rocket. Like I said, though, I think there are downsides. I'd be worried about da general attrition. While one-unit retention might be better, there's still gradual attrition from programs over time. Around the world there are fewer Ventures than Beavers no matter where yeh go. It's a pyramid of sorts, so yeh need a big base; perhaps bigger than what one CO could do for various reasons, includin' what JMHawkins and others have said about leadership capacity. Without da younger adult leadership that's more common around the world, it also might indeed bring the "mommies and daddies" stuff into da upper levels more readily, again by weight of numbers. Or not. Hard to say. If it's done, it will need to be thoughtfully done, and of course there will be units that continue on their own way, as there should be. Yeh set da program materials to handle what's best for da broad middle, and then support exceptions. Beavah

Yah, JMHawkins and Eagledad, keep in mind I'm just tossin' this stuff around. I think there are plusses and minuses, but I've seen a lot of international scoutin' where the one Group approach is common and successful. A Pack needs a committee that does quite a bit. A Webelos scout, even with a couple of Bear Cub assistants, isn't going to plan the PWD. A pack needs a committee that does quite a bit in da current program. Once yeh get out of that mentality, yeh realize that a group of Boy Scout aged boys from da same unit absolutely can plan and run a Pinewood Derby. In fact, they'd love to do it and probably do a better job than most pack committees. So yeh see, it's only necessary to have "adults highly active in lots of things" because of the current program structure. We've had lots of threads here about the difficulty some adults have making the transition from Cubs to Boy Scouts Yep, that's because da Cubs and Boy Scouts are separate, different programs for adults. That's what makes da transition hard, eh? They never get to see Boy Scouting run at all until their kids cross over. If instead when yeh entered as an adult yeh entered Scouting, and your child just happened to be in cubs this year, it becomes a very different thing. Maybe dad volunteers to help with da Ventures while mom helps with cooking for the Tigers. By the time the lad is movin' into Scouts, the parents have seen da whole program running for 5 years. That's not much of a transition for either them or their son. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Adults dont get in the scouts way because of the multi-unit system, they get in the way because they dont do scouting correctly. And large committees are a result of committees wanting to be large, not because the unit demands it. The one unit program won't change that mindset. You are basically saying that one-unit programs would change or attract a different nature of adult to run it. Zebras dont change their stripes. Yah, there's a lot there, and I don't disagree with it. Da questions I think yeh have to ask are deeper, eh? Why don't they do scoutin' correctly? Some of it especially at the cub level is high turnover and lack of experience. Structurally, this addresses some of that. Then I think yeh have to admit that structure does matter, eh? You have been an advocate of mixed-age patrols for quite a while, claimin' that the structure achieves better outcomes, despite da fact that kids are kids and Zebras are Zebras. Kudu's 300ft. rule is another example of structure changin' behaviors. People of all ages adapt to da environment that they're in. It's one of da things that we're best at. Yeh can't change people, so if yeh want different outcomes yeh have to change da structure. How is adding more ages and maturities going to be better for a single committee? Committees shouldn't be involved in that at all, of course. But as yeh say, we have da same problem in all da units in terms of ages and stages. Same problem in families too! I don't reckon the answer is necessarily to create separate families with only elementary school kids, who then have to find and move to a new family in 5th grade. most folks dont have that vision or big picture, so the program has to be presented where the average person (Zebra) can manage the program successfully. Yep. Which is what I think we're talkin' about. Change da program. I really dont see how the same committee of the unsuccessful pack program could run a successful troop program. Yah, I think you're still stuck thinkin' in da terms of da current system. There wouldn't be a "same committee of the unsuccessful pack program". That'd be like a same-age-patrol person tellin' yeh "I don't see how the same New Scout Patrol Leaders who struggled leadin' their peers could run a successful whole-troop PLC". There wouldn't be any NSPs or PLs. Just older boy PLs who do fine runnin' things and guidin' new folks. It's not just da Canadians, eh? Most of da rest of the Scouting World runs on the Group model, and has done so ... forever. It's a more tested and proven design in a much wider variety of circumstances and cultures. It's da BSA approach which is the odd man out. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... I get what you're sayin', JMHawkins. Though wouldn't that mean that all troops should just be patrol-sized? Yah, I think you're stuck thinkin' da American way if yeh think yeh need sub-committee chairs and all da rest. You're tryin' to preserve da current BSA system within a Group. You're entirely right, eh? That would never work. Which is why that's not da way to do it. Some of da advantages in consolidatin' on the committee level is that it gets da committee out of the hair of the youth and youth-contact leaders, eh? Most of da messes that yeh describe happen not because of da youth leaders or youth-contact leaders, but because of too many poorly chosen committee folk who are too close to da action. Consolidate da staff (committee) positions to only what yeh really need to run the whole group, eh? Keep 'em at that level. Leavin' the youth more responsibility and more room to operate and most importantly more sense of connection and responsibility. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, WestCoastScouter, your council folks are just blowin' smoke. Yeh can come up with any local awards yeh want. Be thoughtful about it, make 'em meaningful, make 'em to last, do it for some good purpose. And then just do it. Damn the Torpedos and all da rest if need be, but I'm more a "Oh, yah, well, we decided to do it anyway" sort of guy. I like fred8033's version of an outdoor potluck though. Never much cared for da rubber chicken hotel banquets. B

Yah, for that matter, I recommend a bylaw change for da CSE position as well. At da time of hire, the CSE can be no older than 40 and must meet da BSA's height/weight restrictions at the "recommended" not "allowed" level. I was never more disappointed than when our current CSE got appointed to replace Mazzuca. A company man just aimin' to hang on to retirement if there ever was one. Add in an additional provision that da CSE in order to be considered for da position must meet all da requirements for Eagle Scout at an adult level of understanding (T-2-1, required MBs including Personal Fitness, etc.) and in order to maintain his position must camp out at least 30 nights and complete da 50 miler award each year. BSA Headquarters should have a rock climbing wall and a kayak roll pool and have kids visiting on a regular basis, with every employee required to take turns at leadin' / guidin' the boys who are visiting 1 day a month. Beavah

Nah, the man is also too old. He's past 50 for cryin' out loud! Talk about reinforcing our image of bein' old fuddies with da youth! Da folks who get excited about Mike Rowe are mostly old folks. Yeh need to look more toward extreme sports figures in their late 20s and early 30s, like Bear Grylls was when he caught on and got adopted by the Brits. Biggest challenge is likely to be that with da professionalization of many adventure sports we see specialization as well, eh? So a fellow who is a skier is just a skier; a fellow who is a surfer is just a surfer. It's hard to find a well-known and respected generalist outdoorsman anymore. Plus, most of 'em don't have the sort of personality and talent for media that Rowe or Grylls do. So it would be a search. All good things are, eh? But we'd be best startin' da search with young people, rather than us old folks. Beavah

Yah, I think da concept is hard for U.S. Scouters to get, eh? Talkin' about worries over a pack going into a "failing" troop are meaningless in such a system, eh? They're all one group, just with different program levels. There can be weaknesses or strengths, the way that one den leader can be stronger than another or a troop can be really strong but not have a well-developed high adventure program. Da thing is, when it's one group that strong group of middle-schoolers will eventually build a high adventure program. No need to go "shopping" for another unit. Same with finances, eh? You're one group, and yeh work together on fundraisers and finances for da group. Maybe it will help wean us off da borderline-unethical scout account nonsense. So yeh do fundraisers for the whole program, with perhaps dues differing by subunit because older youth programs tend to cost more. Yeh could also have subunit levels do special fundraisers da same way high adventure patrols within troops sometimes do. Da important thing is not to fully separate the groups, eh? To have it natural that the older kids help with da younger ones at every level. Mini-scouts help with younger scouts, scouts help the minis, Ventures help scouts and minis, Rovers help everyone, older young adult leaders coach da youth leaders, older adults provide wisdom and take care of da bureaucratic and logistic support. Easy peasy. Beavah

The result has been from all their changes to the programs is that the numbers of youth and adult leaders continues to rapidly decline annually, yet they seem unable to understand why. The reality is if National remains on its present course the BSA as we know it will go under within another decade. Nah, let's not overstate things, eh? The decline has been gradual annually, not rapid, and is likely to continue to be gradual. There might be a tipping point at some point, but more likely we'll see just continued gradual decline. That won't drive da BSA under. Executive salaries can still be funded by endowment and contributions in perpetuity, especially if we keep sellin' camps and puttin' the money in endowment. Yeh don't actually need to have any outdoor program or even kids for da BSA to continue. Probably da only thing that would be a game-changer is if a competitor sprung up, and the BSA government-pickin'-winners-and-losers partly prevents that. The presence of such a competitor could lead to a "rapid" decline. Perhaps da Hungarians would be willin' to start some Hungarian scout groups over here. Beavah

I would suppose the main reason is that younger adults aren't stepping up into leadership position in the numbers needed. Yah, if that's true, then I reckon it's a profound failure on our part in da BSA. It says a lot about how little we've taught about service, leadership, and citizenship. I think more likely is da fact that young folks don't really want to hang around with old folks, eh? In da BSA no matter where yeh go, it's an Old Man's Club. Particularly at da district and council levels. We've had plenty of folks on da forums over the years say outright that they wouldn't trust a young adult who didn't grow up in their troop, and perhaps not even then. In a land as mobile as da U.S., with a large percentage of scouts goin' to college or military service away from home, I see us mostly pushin' our young folks away. Most of that is U.S. culture, not the BSA. Da land of the Fearful and da home of the Nannied. I think there actually is a "better", Cambridgeskip. If yeh look at 9 year old or 11 year old or 13 year old scouts from Hungary or any of da places where youth leadership and independence are still valued, those kids are much physically, mentally, and especially emotionally stronger than our average U.S. scouts. It's one of da reasons why U.S. officials at World Jambos and other WOSM events come across to everyone else as such complete ninnies. What's common for 9-year-olds in Hungary is prohibited for 13-year-olds in da U.S., eh? And it would probably reduce our average 11-year-old to tears (with a charge of "hazing" on the adult leaders to boot! ). American culture has become almost toxic for boys. If we can't emasculate 'em and keep 'em locked down with rules and regulations then we drug 'em. We'd do well, I reckon, to implement a "no youth-contact scouters over 30" rule. Well, maybe 35 to take into account da older ages we tend to marry and have kids. Beavah

Yes, I plan to do that, although I'm a bit confused about who should start the process. The form seems to imply it should be completed by a council committee or some such thing so I'm unclear whether I should start the process or someone else. Yep, nominally these things are filed by da council advancement committee with national, so the forms are written that way. Practically speakin', it's like everything in Scouting, eh? If yeh wait for da council it won't get done. Call your Program Director or council advancement chair for advice, but I'd strongly suggest that you fill out the paperwork and put the whole thing together, then give it to an exec who will help shepherd it through the council advancement committee. Mostly they'll review and stamp it; a particularly diligent group might make a few phone calls. Your level of investment in the lad is higher than da council's, and these things are best if they proceed relatively quickly so the boy gets recognition (and so they don't just get lost through lack of attention). I once heard an estimate that only about 10% of the boys who deserve a Meritorious Action award actually apply. Not sure where they got da figure, but I reckon it's typical of scouts, eh? Yeh do these things because, as the boy said, you "don't have a choice." It's your duty to step up when others are in need. So most folks don't ever think about applyin' for the awards. Beavah

Yah, Brewmeister, a full Scout Salute to the young man, and to you and his cub leaders who taught him more than one-and-done! Now, da Beavah has a homework assignment for yeh. Get a copy of da application for da Lifesaving or Meritorious Action award group from here: http://www.www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/LifesavingAward.pdf Mark the boy down for a Heroism Award. Get a statement from the doc and from mom and the boy. Fill out the form and hand-deliver it to your council Program Director or someone who knows what they're doin'. Yah, yah, it's a lot of paperwork and a bit of a hassle, eh? But these are da things we should be honoring and recognizing, and these are the things that can get picked up by the local press and tell a different, truer story about Scouting. So suck it up and do the paperwork for the boy and for Scouting, and for da recognition your pack deserves for its part in keepin' a family together. A fitting Thanksgiving indeed! Beavah