Beavah

Suppose someone with one of these authorizations decided he needed his dose of medication during the evening campfire? Then I reckon he or she would walk away from da campfire and go take the medication. Not much different from what we allow for cigarette smokers. Aside from asthma inhalers and those of us addicted to caffeine, we mostly don't medicate in public. Like I said, these laws are a mess and ripe for abuse. I disagree with 'em. At the same time, there's lots of youth and adult medication that I feel is overused, eh? Everything from da Rx stimulants we hand out like candy to kids who are more active than average, to adults on various forms of mood-altering cocktails. Much as I have my own opinion on such things, who am I to judge? I'm not the person's physician. Vol_scouter is a physician and claims there's no valid medical reason to smoke da herb instead of takin' the marinol pill. At da same time, AMA and ACP have both called for more studies on the issue and some nurses and hospice associations have come out in support of medical MJ use. So it's not settled science at da moment. When in doubt, my view is to follow the law while the experts and researchers work things out. Since da feds have made it clear that they are honoring states' rights in terms of how they handle enforcement in states with medical marijuana laws, and since most camps are licensed by states and presumably bound by da state health codes as licensed entities, I reckon camps should find responsible mechanisms for handling medical MJ use, same as for Ritalin or anti-psychotics or prescribed narcotics. Beavah

I reckon both are fallin' down on the job, eh? Yah, yah, the primary fault is with unit leaders. They know the boys and should be honest about what the boys are learnin'. Good unit leaders can buck the trend. But it's a hard trend, eh? It's always easier to "grade inflate". Less conflict, fewer complaints, lots of short-term happiness and smiles. So those good unit leaders are fightin' the good fight, and givin' extra. Where da BSA fails is by not havin' their back. On the one hand, BSA trainin' and talk inspires 'em to go do somethin' meaningful and important for kids. To have high standards. But when it comes down to it, when they're gettin' complaints or grief, those good unit leaders get undermined. No retesting, yeh don't have to be present to be active, holding a title is the same as serving actively in a position of responsibility, parents can counsel unlimited badges for their own kid, yeh can't question a bogus badge after da MBC has "signed off", on and on. We see on these forums every week da mixed message that gets sent, and da perception that good leaders tryin' to uphold standards will not be supported. How much yeh want to bet the next release of ACP&P will go further down that road? National has learned that it's easier to grade inflate than to support their volunteers. Beavah

Yah, these medical marijuana laws are a mess. They're an odd back-door legalization route, and we're seein' fairly dramatic increases in use by young people. Adam S gave da current official BSA policy, but it's complimicated, eh? Camps are licensed by da state, and it's unclear whether states can or will respond to camps ignorin' state law by taking licensing action against da camp. This sort of thing is best left to da judgment of local folks consulting with competent local counsel rather than blindly relyin' on a national policy written by rank amateurs. It's like walkin' through a cow pen. Easy to step on somethin' that really stinks . Scoutfish is also right, that there are a lot of more ethically and legally sound prescriptions that can affect judgment, motor skills and such. The practice in Scouting is to leave participation decisions up to the physician and the individual / boy's parents. The last thing we want is some young camp medic tryin' to overrule the boy's or adult's licensed physician. Beavah

Yah, I reckon scouts and scouters have an obligation to help other people, and be thoughtful about how to do that well. Sometimes that might be done well by taxing ourselves to provide a consistent, reliable service that those in need can turn to. We do that often for fire and police and EMS and children's service agencies that respond to abuse and neglect, and we also do that with the National Guard and other disaster response teams. I reckon those are good things for a few reasons. First, those services require expertise. Yeh can't rely on your neighbor havin' those skills. Second, those services must be provided in a timely manner, eh? No good for da police to respond next week to the intruder in your house today. So those trained folks have to be supported while they're "on call", and yeh have to maintain a consistent system with which to call 'em. Third, those things typically require more resources than small groups of individuals can provide out of pocket. Now yeh might consider other kinds of systems and be thoughtful about what works best, but I think we have an obligation to support those kinds of services. For everyone, not just those who live in gated communities and can afford private security. Help other people at all times means tithing/taxing our own resources to help the retired military widow who is barely gettin' by, not just helpin' the old lady we see across the street. And that can mean havin' systems in place that she can access for help without begging from strangers. In small rural communities, I admit yeh can get by with volunteers for a lot of stuff. Volunteer fire departments work, because there just aren't that many calls so local folks can get trained and respond on a part-time basis. In those places, I think as scouters and scouts we have an obligation to support those volunteers, eh? Give money, help with da fundraiser, and volunteer ourselves if we have da skills and time. In bigger towns it can't be done by volunteers. Too many calls, too much specialty trainin'. For those things that aren't timely, don't require expertise, and only need limited resources, I'd hope that general neighborliness and good citizenship would suffice without the need for government programs. That's what Eagle Projects are for. For da rest, I think we all struggle to figure out how to do it best. But at it's heart, I reckon it's a partnership, eh? We want to tax ourselves so that da National Guard and Army Corps of Engineers can be there to help folks in the flood. We also want to volunteer to help fill sandbags or provide first aid or assist with da cleanup, or, if we can't volunteer, we want to contribute to Red Cross and other charities that support and equip our fellow citizen volunteers. It takes both. What I don't think we can do and still live by da Oath and Law is to not step up ourselves. So it's not OK to take da liberal out and just pay taxes and expect "the government" to do it. Governments do things poorly unless their citizens are in the trenches. And it's not OK to take da modern conservative out and just slash contributions to government programs without bein' thoughtful about where paid, on-call, full-time resources are necessary and best supported by taxes, while still stepping up ourselves with our charitable time and dollars. Beavah

Yah, how quickly we forget, eh? Cheese was how we humans preserved dairy products in da millennia before we had electric refrigeration. Most cheeses will hold up for da entire length of a long backpacking trip even in hot weather. Two or more weeks. Problem is just that soft cheeses get too soft and tend to separate, so if da weather is hot, you're best off with harder cheeses (cheddar not Brie, eh?). A bit of mold can occur in hot humid climates, but yeh just cut that off and eat the rest. So the answer to SctDad is "any cheese you want". Especially for just a week long trek or weekend. Beavah's

Yah, interestin' perspectives. Best to take a step back and think of advancement as just a method. Nuthin' wrong with using it, even in different ways, but best not to make it the focus of da program - or of the individual. The program has 7 other methods and different aims that are a lot more important. Sometimes, though, we forget that and allow advancement to become da focus, eh? Most often, that's caused by adult leaders in a troop, who push da whole troop that way. That's what we call an Eagle Mill, where adults have over-focused on that one aspect of da program. Sometimes it's a boy's parent who doesn't understand da program, and over-pushes advancement. That's when yeh get a "paper Eagle" to please mom or dad and get out. Either that, or yeh get a lad who rebels against that in some way. And sometimes, it's a boy himself who puts too much emphasis on advancement, eh? Gettin' to Eagle, gettin' all da badges, what have yeh. In so doing, it's easy to miss the rest of the program. Being in the woods just for fun. Service just for da sake of service, not to get a signoff. Leadership and group development for the sake of the group. The latter is where good mentoring comes in, eh? Not holding a lad back, but expanding his focus and the way he looks at the world, so that he gets da most out of the trail. Yah, yah, sometimes a lad will stay in and then move on to those other things, but most of the time, I'd even venture to say all of the time, it's best if advancement is put in perspective as reflectin' the bigger journey, not preceding it. Better for the lad and for the program. So da question is not so much "can it be done?", though I think First Class can't really be done in a year for an average boy and typical program. The real question is "should it be done?". I believe in the whole program, eh? The program works wonders for boys, but not if yeh slice it up into separate parts. Doesn't matter whether it's the adult leaders, da boy's parents, or da boy himself who we let do the slicin'. Beavah

As to the comment about how one could recognize openly homosexual leaders. If same sexes hold hands, kiss, or otherwise as the kids say display 'public demonstrations of affection'. Smart kids and observant adults will pickup on such things quickly. Yah, yeh know... in that case I reckon they must think that most adults their parents age are celibate . Just depends where yeh are. Ever travel in da mideast? You'll see adult males holdin' hands and boys holdin' hands all the time, as a sign of friendship. Young children do this fairly naturally, too, until their parents tell 'em not to. Kisses in greeting are common in many cultures and parts of da world. Has nuthin' to do with sexual preference. Kids only learn to think such things are hinky if da adults around 'em teach 'em to think they're hinky. Beavah

Sadly, I think vol_scouter is right on this, eh? As is Eagledad, at least for some areas of da country. We'd see more people leave than join, by quite a bit. It's a bit like the current debt limit debate, eh? There are some who are so convinced of their own righteousness and immersed in their own pride that it seems like they are willin' to utterly destroy the economic health of da nation and the lives of millions of people just to avoid payin' the same taxes they did in 2000. Somehow, they're confusin' that with virtue. We've forgotten what godliness and real values look like, I reckon. So much easier to make idols of our own philosophies. We've forgotten that Christians are called to convert people by changing their hearts, not by forcing policies and regulations. To eat with 'em and drink with them, not to shun them. So I can't see how even if we can still set our own leadership requirements within our churches and programs it's better to destroy scoutin' than allow others to set their own leadership requirements within their churches and programs. I'm just not that sort of fellow. I support da BSA policy. I think it's better for the program and for kids. I think it reflects da values of the majority of our chartered partners. But in spite of that, I hope I'll never be the guy who is willing to destroy the thing I love just because I didn't get my way. Beavah

The irony of that statement is its the lack of knowing the likeness and image of God that is influencing the acceptance of homosexual behavior. Yah, exactly. Yeh can't begin by teaching against homosexuality, eh? Yeh begin by teaching about God and real love and compassion and da things we learn from Scripture and from life. The necessary lessons about abortion and homosexuality and all da rest come out of learning about godliness. Not the other way around. Yeh can't get to godliness by stakin' everything on excluding those who sin from your company, as Christ taught us by repeatedly sitting down to supper with some of da worst of sinners. So I worry that if our focus is too much on excludin' folks (and only a subset of those that seem to upset us), we are teachin' the wrong thing. In order to find God kids need to be inspired, to stretch and look beyond themselves. That's how they learn to get and to keep a real marriage. That's how they learn to treasure the challenge of children to their "lifestyle." None but the most malignant of spirits gets inspired by excluding people, eh? So that can't be the lesson. Instead, we have go back and start with da real lessons of scripture and godliness and build back up from there. B

Yah, I guess I'm just an old, more calm sort of fellow. I'm a bystander in the culture wars. Homosexuality is sinful in my faith, and in my experience. I would not advocate that lifestyle choice nor want it encouraged or celebrated in front of kids. But then, divorce and remarriage is sinful in my faith and in my experience. Often da harm it inflicts seems worse than that of lived homosexuality, just because da acrimony leads to so much other bad behavior. At least a gay couple aren't tryin' to cut their own children in two. In fact, lots of things are sinful in my faith, and in my experience. And while I'm happy not to have committed those two sins (Mrs. Beavah's is pretty good with a shotgun), I can assure yeh I have more than a few to my name. At some point, we are all sinners and da sons of sinners. We can never be to others the best people we could or should be, and that hurts da kids we work with. We get impatient. We care about ds wrong things. We get angry when we shouldn't. We don't listen when we should. So we count on others - our spouse, our family, our friends and colleagues, to be the good example when we are not. And then we trust in da conscience of our kids and the actions of Divine Providence. Puttin' faith in human institutions doesn't get yeh far, So are we boxin' ourselves in? Of course we are, if we want sinless leaders. And there's a risk here when we pick one sin rather than another as being da make or break issue. Why a policy on homosexuality and not abortion? divorce? blasphemy? loaning money at interest? Probably because we're more willing to condemn other people's failings than our own. Now, do I want kids told that divorce, or abortion, or homosexuality is OK? Nah. Nor should such behavior be held up as examples to 'em. But at some point I reckon we also have to recognize that aside from the Messiah there are no perfect examples, and be compassionate toward good people with flaws. Our kids are goin' to know such folks their whole lives, eh? And work with 'em, and live next door to 'em. And they should learn to treat 'em as neighbors and friends and colleagues and bosses and fellow souls made in da image and likeness of God. Our policies must be measured in that light, eh? While I support the BSA position, I do worry at some point that maintaining the position and da polarization it causes may cause kids to lose sight of the real issues of personal weakness and compassion. And that might be a worse example. B

Yah, UCEagle72, I think everyone recognizes that there can be exceptions, particularly for First Class. A lad who grows up in an outdoorsy community in a family who does a lot of camping and backpacking might come in as an 11-year-old and really have all of the skills down solid. That's a different thing than it being the case for many or most kids. So when we're talkin' about programs, which I think is what da original poster was asking, it's appropriate to evaluate. And if yeh have an exceptional lad in a troop, there's always the question of whether it's better to move him through things faster or instead to be more of a mentor and challenge him to do things deeper. I confess I like the feel and results of the second better. I think, too, that things are different now from our era in a lot of ways. Cub rules prohibit camping we used to do as cubs. Most kids don't play independently outdoors, instead they are driven to play dates and organized, adult-run activities. Adult outdoor knowledge is a bit less, too. Lots of stuff. I'm also not with Oak Tree on the view that ranks are just a basket full of unrelated requirements to be checked, eh? Rather, I think it's best to think of 'em as coherent... as representing a defined step on ds road to a unit's goals for character and fitness and citizenship development. I think that's the BSA's view as well, at least historically. Proficiency, the BSA standard, requires yeh to be able to integrate the various requirements to be able to do things on your own or with your patrol. That's just me, eh? But it's how I try to help scouters think about stuff so that they have a shared vision for their program that their boys and parents can understand (and learn from). There's no vision in a check-off exercise of a bunch of isolated tasks. Beavah

Yah, and another win for da TSA security theater, eh? Gotta love that they let him get on the plane and fly to the Bahamas with the bullet in his pack. Too busy frisking little girls I bet . Beavah

Yah, one more. Just because I looked at the accident threads eh? Would yeh trust your Tenderfoot scouts to know da rules to safe hiking well enough on their own not to have caused the accident with da boulder? If yes, then they really earned Tenderfoot. If not, then yeh probably cheated. That's why this stuff really matters, eh? Beavah

Yah, SN95, welcome to ds forums. Yeh raise an interesting question, and one where you'll see two major schools of thought within the BSA. One set, what I'll call the "traditionalists", doesn't really adhere to the First Class First Year program, and instead follows a more traditional BSA program where First Class takes 18 months up to three years. The emphasis is on a scout really learning, and on a First Class scout being able to hike and camp on his own with his patrol and no adults around. The second group, a more recent variation on da BSA program makes da trail to First Class similar to a Webelos 3 progression, where there's a real push to finish in a year (like for a cub rank) and where da emphasis is more on classes and "signoffs". This is arguably more familiar and comfortable to newly crossed over boys and parents. As yeh can tell, I'm more of a traditionalist myself. . But da real question you and your troop and your chartered organization have to answer is what are your goals for kids? What's your vision for da program and what boys should get out of it? Advancement is just a method, a game we use to accomplish other things. Depending on what yeh want to accomplish, yeh play the game differently. Personally, I think if yeh intend boys to really experience the growth that comes with real learning and true self-confidence, what you describe is too fast, and amounts to "subtracting from the requirements". Let's just take one 2nd Class requirement as an example: On a campout, select your patrol's site. Now let's say yeh have 8 boys in your new scout patrol. In order for a bunch of boys to make second class right out of camp, they would have to first have learned about selecting a patrol site and all the considerations : rain, lightning, sun/shade, available water, etc. They would have to have had some practice looking at sites. That's the "Scout Learns" step. Then there's the "Scout is Tested" step, where the boy on a campout, without help, does in fact select the site for his patrol (and makes a good selection). So to do the testing for each of those 8 boys, yeh have to have at least 8 campouts where da lads have to make a real site selection (not just pull into the reserved site and unload). That's assuming they all pass the check the first time, which is unlikely if they were only taught once by lecture at summer camp Brownsea. Yeh can look at lots of other requirements and find the same thing, eh? Plan and cook a few meals, telling about food storage and all that. How much practice do yeh figure it takes for a lad who has never cooked before to actually learn how to cook on his own? I'd say a fair bit, eh? That's the Scout Learns step to advancement. He needs a fair bit of practice cooking, and then some additional practice planning and storing and cooking, before he's ready for Step 2:A Scout is Tested. Assuming you use a patrol cooking summer camp and not a dining hall camp, a boy might possibly get enough practice cooking, but he'd still need some time learning how to plan a meal. Then you'd need multiple campouts for testing, where each boy planned and cooked well from start to finish for his test. My guess, based on your timing, is that you're cheating the boy on the Scout Learns step to advancement. Probably doin' a once-and-done signoffs as a group rather than individually, or counting the instruction/learning as the test, so that the boy gets "helped" through the test. Now, that might be what yeh want, if your goal is only to "expose" the boy to camping or cooking. I always think of that as kinda what cub scouts is supposed to be, not boy scouts, but others disagree. However, if yeh want a traditional approach, then Kudu's test is a good one, eh? Are you willing to let the boy plan and buy and store his own food without adult help, and cook in his own patrol site that he selected, at least 300 yards away from any adult, where yeh can't watch or supervise, and where eating a good meal is important to his health and safety? If he's demonstrated that he can do that to your satisfaction and that of a review board that represents those who will be held responsible if something goes wrong, then he is truly Second Class. If not, then you're cheating the lad of the very stuff scouting is meant to give him, eh? Fun, adventure, confidence, skills... And all he gets instead is a dumb cloth patch. Beavah

Looking at the requirements, most intelligent and educated adults can adequately serve as counselors for the vast majority of merit badges after a few hours study and preparation. Yah, I reckon it depends on what yeh mean by adequate. Merit badges counselors are meant to be mentors showin' kids the depth and fun of potential future careers or lifelong hobbies or da real meaning of Citizenship, in the way that packsaddle describes. That requires somethin' more than just having taken the MB yourself once as a lad. It should require someone who works in the field, or has a genuine long-term amateur/hobby interest. Otherwise you're just cheating the scouts out of the real program. Yah, yah, someone with a lot of outdoor experience in and out of scouting can conceivably counsel a fair number of the outdoor badges well. It just happens that a lot of badges overlap the expertise of someone like that, because of what Scoutin' is about. I still think, however, that to truly be expert enough to be a counselor a good chunk of their expertise should be from outside of Scouting, eh? Not just have worked/sailed at a scout camp waterfront, but own their own sailboat or sail competitively or instruct for ASA. Not just have canoed on scout trips but have canoed on their own, in varied conditions, taken or taught ACA classes, etc. Part of the purpose of the badge is to introduce the lads to the wider world. Beyond that, I don't think an average adult can reasonably claim to be expert (and current) in more than a handful or two of badge areas. And the expectations for those should be the same, eh? The MBC should be plugged into and a regular part of the wider world of people who do that sort of thing. A pilot, not a passenger for Aviation MB. An athlete, not a spectator for Sports. A real graphic artist, not a consumer for Graphic Arts. Beavah

Yah, I'm with Basementdweller on this for the most part. And troop leader's have to be involved just so boys (or parents) don't game the system with different MBCs, eh? Like the Dog Care/Pet Care thing, where the requirements specify no double dipping. But how is the MBC to know that the lad used his time for another MB? The troop needs to be involved somewhere along the line to make sure that doesn't happen. Red Cross requires CPR recert every year, eh? It's not a once-and-done. Don't see why the requirement should be a once-and-done in Scouting either. I at least would appreciate the lads actually knowing what to do when I keel over in camp some day. I think that double dipping is particularly bad for things like service hours. Might just be me, but that feels really slimy. A lad with any honor and commitment to the Oath and Law should be offerin' service over and above the little bit that is required, and should not expect multiple awards for one act of service. Similarly, I don't think a boy should really expect 3 awards for one season of sports training (Athletics, Sports, and Personal Fitness). The repetition is healthy, working through the full badge with different counselors (and thereby learnin' different aspects of things) is good, doin' the work to fully earn each badge you wear is honorable. So I don't have any problem with unit expectations on this sort of stuff, because the individual MBCs aren't in a position to really know that the lad is double-dipping, to be able to make an informed choice. It's the kind of mentoring that falls in the Scoutmaster's realm. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... An interestin' thing that seems to happen more with the Utah units and these accident reports than with other units is the presence of a boy who is not a scout in that particular troop. I forget whether it was da reports on this incident or the lightning incident but at least one if not both mentioned that one of the boys was not a troop member, and that's been the case for several other of the "foolishness around cliffs" accidents in the area. So the issue might not be whether youth are or can be responsible, but whether youth who are guests of the units are familiar enough with da norms and expectations of scouting (or the safety issues in a particular area). I've generally found boys who have been instructed well to be no less safe than adults around cliffs, and sometimes more safe. All yeh have to do is pick up da news anywhere there's a cliff or river to see all kinds of adult foolishness resulting in injury or death on a regular basis. The issue is experience, not age, eh? And it's easy experience to develop quickly. Beavah

Yah, BadenP, I think you and SeattlePioneer are talkin' about two different kinds of people, eh? That often happens here. You're talkin' about yourself, someone with decades of experience workin' with youth, including youth at risk. Someone with that kind of experience can usually see right through a lad who is trying to manipulate you or pull da wool over yer eyes, eh? Even see right through abused kids, who tend to be accomplished liars by way of self-defense. When yeh have someone with that kind of expertise, the kids recognize that lying is unlikely to succeed, and they also recognize and respect the person who is savvy enough not to be lied to and therefore take him at his word when he sees some good in 'em. SeattlePioneer is, I think, talkin' about a parent scouter who is not that experienced, who came from a well off two parent home, who runs a well off two parent home and who has only dealt with "good" kids because that's all they choose to associate with under ordinary circumstances. So no experience, eh? Those kinds of folks are easily hoodwinked by kids who aren't like their own, and often overreact or under react to lads demonstrating challenging behaviors. When they under react, they let da program get out of control for the other boys; when they overreact, they fail to reach the acting-out boy and just drive him away. It's best of course if yeh have expertise like you suggest and can thread the needle, eh? But if yeh don't, of the two, it's better for da program if they overreact. Or at least recognize the limits of their own competence and direct the boy and his family to somewhere else that is better equipped. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... So just how precision do yeh reckon those precision-guided bombs are, eh? We've been hittin' a lot of wedding parties and farmer's kids overseas. How many weddings in Nebraska are you willing to accidentally drop cluster munitions on? How many Christian Churches are yeh willing to hit with a bunker buster because da successors to Tim McVeigh might be meeting there? How many folks out just tryin' to clear a field with some gunpowder or dynamite are you willing to accidentally gun down with helicopter gunships? I don't know about you, but if your government started doin' that to Nebraskans I reckon I'd grab my guns and ammunition and be headin' south to fight on their behalf. There are all kinds of evil, eh? It all must be opposed. But da most important evil to oppose is the work of the devil that creeps into our own heart, and makes us willing to accept harm to the innocent because we imagine ourselves doin' God's will. That is apostasy of the most heinous sort. Beavah

Yah, I'm not sure what safety issues you're worryin' about E61? We've started gettin' our usual round of summertime accident reports out of the intermountain west. One lightning hit, one loose rockfall, one SCUBA accident, one case of lung lesions from wind-driven southwest grit. That strikes me as pretty typical of da sort of safety issues we have in Scouting, eh? Not sure how having a "bad" kid around contributes to lightning strike fatalities, unless yeh have a very different notion of da way the Almighty / Zeus operates. Beavah

Yah, I'm sympathetic to the sentiment, Gary Miller. Never have been fond of da cockamamie notion of nation-building. Just one question for yeh... If a domestic terrorist group headquartered in Omaha claims credit, do we carpet bomb Omaha? If not, why not? Even if they weren't part of da terrorist group, surely some of da citizens of Omaha were somewhat sympathetic to the anti-government cause. Funny how the Lord of Hosts agreed He would not destroy Sodom if even 5 just men could be found there, yet we would destroy a city if only 5 unjust men are hiding there. Makes yeh stop and think, doesn't it? Perhaps, just maybe, we should behave a bit more like He who is the only real Superpower, eh? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I've been caught in mountain storms. If you're used to livin' on the plains where yeh can see stuff building and comin' for miles, yeh might not appreciate how quickly a mountain storm can msterialize. The terrain acts as an accelerator while at da same time hiding some information on weather from sight. Sounds like they just took time to get organized, buddy up, and head down as a group, and that was enough. Yeh can always armchair quarterback this stuff, but nuthin' there seems unreasonable. I agree with murky lake water divin'. Keep in mind though that the intermountain west has rockier soils and harder bottoms than us folks more to the east. Colder temps and less plant life too, eh? Da waters tend to be clearer. Young dive buddies can get confused, and if a lad gets hung up, panics, has an asthma incident previously undiagnosed... All kinds of possibilities. My heart goes out to all da kids and adults in these units, and especially the families. Why is this always happenin' in Salt Lake Council? Beavah

Yah, easy fellahs... I reckon there are circumstances when each of us would remove a lad, and ones where each of us would keep a boy that others want to remove. Here's some things to think about. What is the experience of the adults? I think SP is right, eh? There are naive adults. Folks who have raised good kids and who themselves were good kids and who have never worked with "bad" kids. They should avoid gettin' into da "save every kid" / great white savior routine. Too easy for boys to pull the wool over their eyes. Kids livin' a harder life learn manipulation as a survival skill, and naive adults are easily manipulated. In my experience yeh need adults who were bad boys or otherwise know the genre. What's up in da rest of the boy's life? Let's face it, scoutin' is a part time endeavor, eh? An hour here and there, an occasional campout. Nothin' we do in scouting is likely to overcome chaos or bad influences in the boy's daily life. So if the parents aren't supportive or the lad hasn't renounced the gang, you're not likely to get anywhere. In fact, "non-supportive parents" that enable a lad's bad behavior yeh almost certainly have to remove the lad. Where's the boy at? Is he truly, tearfully remorseful for his choices and really tryin' to change, much as that's goin' to be a roller coaster? Or is he just "playin' the apology game" but not meaning it. Finally, where's your CO and troop at? Frankly, if yeh have a bunch of SPs or E61s odds are yeh aren't going to be successful. The boys are going to live up to the (low) expectations of those around 'em. If his patrol mates and their parents send subtle signs that they think he's a delinquent, then he may well live up to that. So scouters and a CO that are truly committed to reachin' a hard lad have to be willing to tell a more up-tight family that they are not welcome if they don't buy into the mission. I wouldn't wait for 'em to leave on their own. They do too much damage that way. Yeh have a version of da "full disclosure" talk as soon as yeh sense a problem. Not full disclosure about the boy, that's not their business. Full disclosure of your mission for kids and your expectations of their behavior if they want their "good" kid to stay in the unit. Hopefully someone in BSAmomWW's unit is havin' exactly that sort of conversation with her. Beavah

Try Arizona. Yah, hmmm... not to rain on your parade or anything, but... First, Arizona is not a state which makes everyone a mandatory reporter of child abuse and neglect, eh? Only the set of folks who are presumed to have knowledge or privileged contact with kids (physicians, teachers, clergy, parents, etc.). That would not include volunteer scouters. (AZ Rev. Stat. 13-3620). Second, Arizona has relatively reasonable and cogent definitions of child abuse and neglect with respect to its reporting statutes, not expansive ones. (AZ Rev. Stat. 8-201). Then, the adult leaders, CO and BSA are at legal risk ... eh? Not sure what yeh mean. If they blab confidential information to all and sundry? Yah, sure, I reckon that's an irresponsible thing to do that would hurt others and therefore they might be held liable for those damages. If you mean they have additional exposure from workin' with kids who aren't perfect? Yah, sure, in da abstract. Imperfect kids are more likely to do somethin' dumb than perfect ones, though I reckon yeh have to provide adequate supervision regardless. That's not very different from ordinary day to day scouting or youth work though, eh? Look, I understand where you're comin' from as a parent. We all would like to ensure that our children are only exposed to da best possible influences and only other children and adults who are above average. But we're just not entitled to that sort of information about other people or their kids. Nor should we be. Beavah Da fellow who's writin' this note has hardly ever been to a bar near a cactus, let alone been a member of da bar in a land of cacti (and fire and dust storms ). Sand gets in da fur, and there's no dam place to build small dams and pretty ponds. So nuthin' yeh read here or anywhere on the internet should be taken as legal opinion or advice by this flat-tailed furry fellow or any other critter.

the situation has you concerned about state laws that require you to report "if you are aware of any person who you may suspect may endanger the health or safety of a child." Yah, just to be clear... There aren't any states that have laws that are that expansive, eh? And whatever the actual text, da state reporting requirements refer to a confidential report made to da state child protection agency which is required by law to keep it confidential. It does not mean publicize to everyone in the child's youth group. Beavah