skeptic

Calico pretty much covered it. There is a Little Scouts hard back with jacket from 1944 made up of the original magazine work. It shows up fairly often on eBay. The actual comic books also show up, but not nearly as often. Great fun though.

At least you did not sing "the bear song" then.

This is exactly what was bound to happen when the files were thrown open to everybody. This legal group is nothing more than a predator itself, preying on "possible" victims dredged out of the documents. Throw a wide enough net, and you will catch something. It does not matter to them that the organization did a far better job than most back then. The BSA is simply seen as a deep pocket target.

You also had at least two other Boy Scout groups at that time, including one that was very militarily slanted.

Part of being a leader and counselor is to be aware of special issues and needs. Obviously, if the scout or parent is not forthcoming, problems can arise. A frank discussion with the boy's leader and parents on how to deal with the challenges is the proper route. But, there are unfortuneately people that simply think legal bullying is the only good response, and that everyone should simply know their child is "special". The worst part of these cases is that the child generally never learns to properly cope and then becomes a severely challenged adult in time. But, volunteers are not required to be phycologists or counselors for severe emotional and physical disorders. And, it is unfair to expect otherwise, especially if the family does not make it known directly. Hopefully the COR and council will back the leaders should it go too far.

How long until our favorite "no BSA in schools" chimes in??

Does anyone know where we would go to fix discrepancies in training reports. If you look at my training report from the link on MyScouting it shows almost everything, other than Philmont courses. The early leader courses, which were taken ions back show on this report, but with a 1911 date; that seems to be the dates for earlier training in positions. But, on the Dashboard training lists, I am noted as still needing a bunch of training, even though it is shown in the noted report. How do we fix this?

But, there is no law against the holder supporting your particular group.

Actually, no watch can be guaranteed waterproof, and the terminology is no longer legally used in the U.S. and most other countries. It is pressure tested only, and is resistent to that depth as long as all the seals are in good condition and no cracks in the crystal. Years ago, about 1973, I was a trainee for Zales in Riverside, the county with the Salton Sea in it. We had a customer return a watch because he said it leaked while he was fishing on the Salton Sea. But the watch only had the mimimum pressure test of 3 atm, and the Salton Sea is well below sea level. So, it leaked. We did refund it, but explained he needed a better tested watch should he plan on going there again. While in the industry, had number of times where people could not understand why their watch leaked when they pulled a stem under water, or pushed buttons that were not meant to be used under water. Also had instances of condensation when people left them on dashes or hot seats. Interesting to me, but probably too much useless info.

Gee, wonder if I can get one directly from California DMV; or is that another area of the PC pols here?

So, are the scouts going to be billed for the cost of the investigations? While there is always room for doubt, it certainly does not weigh well on the side of the scout group based on the info we have been given. The real issue of course is the actual "accuser(s) not being allowed to be interviewed. Goes to show how easily things can get grown way out of proportion as to what may have actually occurred. Simply seems a poor reflection on this particular group, at least to me.

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/15/texas-gov-rick-perry-indicted-for-coercion-for-veto-threat/20947859/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D516226

:rolleyes: sigh :rolleyes:

Stosh. They specifically note that the hats were found at a very good price through a friendly supplier, and they have to be First Class to wear them. Secondly, the flag you seem to be referring to is the original Navy Jack, and a historical flag. This photo has a number of flags, some of which may very well be other historical flags. Using historical flags is not defamation of the standard. Would it be better if they all were in perfect uniform, including pants? Maybe, but certainly better neat and clean than full uniforms that look like they were slept in and with neckerchiefs improperly rolled and crooked. Uniforming is a method; it is NOT, nor ever has been, required.

Help, police:mad: http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/08/08/troop-501/

Love the emblem; should make it into a full sized t-shirt design too. Learned long ago to be careful what you say, especially to an adolescent. Was at a camp one summer, and I kept seeing the infamous Tote-n-Chit patch on the OA designated pocket. When I saw it on an older scout one day, who was wearing a Star patch and an arrow dangle, I asked him (I guess sarcastically looking back, though thought it was tongue in cheek) where the lodge was located. He of course gave me the blank look, so when I explained the error, he informed me that is where his leader told him to put it and so it was staying there. After suggesting he review the insignia guide, I wished him well and forgot about it. That evening, a very red faced leader from the boy's unit found me at dinner and lambasted me about it. So, I have tried to not be even jokingly a UP except in my own unit. But, as noted, some things you may occasionally look past. In 1985, I put my 1960 Jambo patch next to the 1985 patch when I was a leader. Only had one comment, other than that is cool the entire time at jambo. Also have my two mentor pins on my left pocket flap; it is an honor. Not sure if I had more if I would keep them there though.

Anybody else note that as soon as this sad event became pretty much a non Scout "blame game" the media dropped it? Does not surprise me, but certainly shows again their bias. At least that is how I see it.

If you look at the larger version by clicking original it appears they added some form of platform in front for the first row to sit on. The boy on the left of the photo seems to have a second class pin on his hat, though it could be first class with the top faded into the photo. The one on the far right does look as if he is in the early style uniform. But, this being an obviously posed photo, the group probably tried to look as good as they could, and most probably had little if any uniform parts. Early photos in my collection gleaned from 15 years searching the web seem to mostly have boys with a neckerchief, a hat, a shirt, then maybe pants with lace sides; and pretty much in that order. The leg wear in the photo is fairly common in those from that era, whether a scout group or simply boys. I find it fun that they all have ties on except the two in obvious uniform who neither have neckerchiefs. Those of us that have the historical interest beyond the superficial likely could spend a lot of time discussing old photos if we were together. We would try to identify units if not obvious like this one, and look for sleeve insignia. It is too bad so many of the photos are faded and small; but they continue to be fascinating to me.

None; the uniform is only a tool and NOT required. Never has been. Of course KDD is just making fun:rolleyes:

Back to the misconception issue. Early camps predominately had camp cooks and some kind of mass feeding. But until the post WWII period, they also seldom had troop attendance per se, but rather individuals going, then grouped in some manner for activities. Some units did go with a group, but it was not necessary. Patrol and/or unit cooking came into general use after the war, but many camps still had group eating, or both. Now, in much of the country west of the Rockies there are fire restrictions with which to deal, so camps have had to add group dining in case they lost the in site cooking ability. That then has led to some simply going to the dining hall, as fewer and fewer wanted to deal with patrol cooking, or it was cancelled too often with fire issues. It also has limited locations to build any fires at all. We were not even allowed gas stoves in camp, though lanterns were okay. Another issue now to be dealt with is the health department. Food storage and sanitation issues related to site cooking also can be a stumbling block today. The last couple of camps we attended with patrol cooking available, or sometimes part of at least one or two meals, the distribution of food and such was another challenge. If your unit cooks in its normal program consistently, missing the summer camp week is not really that much of problem. But, if all the hurdles are overcome, and it is available, it should be seriously considered by the scouts. But the dining hall or other mass feeding has its own issues. If the camp gets a rep of poor food, it can kill its attendance for years, even if they fix the problem. That goes for any program area too. Our local camp is already hampered by size to some extent, but the drought dried up the reservoir two summers ago, and the lack of boating hurt us this year especially. Last year, it occurred too late to lose campers, as it went dry in mid June. But we knew it was not coming back this summer. Hopefully we will see the forecast El Nino happen and we will have a small pond at least next summer.

Once again, we have what seems to me to be two incidents. First was the apparent photo and camera confiscation. This then led to the search, and it led to the alledged gun pointing episode. So, unless they have video of both events, it is incomplete. But over reaction on the part of government agents is not uncommon. I watched it happen returning from Jambo in 2010. A scout forgot to take his knife from his pocket and store it in checked luggage. Not only did they put him through the entire routine, but they held up the entire troop that was traveling with him, and chastised the leaders loudly and publicly. For their part, I was impressed with the scouts' response to the incident, considering how overbearing the agent was. At the same time, the scouts and scouters involved need to make sure they are not "embellishing" a bit in their moment of celebrity. BSA does not need more negative PR that would result from excitable stretching of the facts.

After over two years of dealing with a recalcitrant scout that refuses to get up much of the time, and finds way not help with activities that he feels are boring or not centered on him, I appear to have reached the limit. He went to summer camp for the first time, and before we left, his family and he assured me that he would cooperate. Since he has "improved a little", we took him, hoping the longer period would help get him into the flow. It backfired, and he got worse. He missed flags three mornings, his stewarding job twice in the AM, and on Saturday, while all the rest were 90% ready to load and leave before breakfast, he refused to get up and dress. I finally lost it and dragged his sleeping bag off of him and out of the tent, which finally got him moving, but of course with attitude. (yes, I had another adult with me). His actions made us late home by over an hour, but during the week they also made other scouts have to do some of his group work. He has a lot of home issues, and came into the troop at 11 via the help of a "Big Brother". We have tried to give him leeway, and he shows flashes of possibility, then reverts again. He is now 14, and the rest of the scouts also have started avoiding him, even when he is not acting out. While I need to deal with it, I just hate giving a boy an ultimatum; but it is unfair to the rest of the scouts and to the other leaders, who lost patience long ago. Thoughts on how to handle please.

Just another one of those questions to rattle cages. Of course they would. The charter has nothing to do with their survival.

It seems to me that a vast majority of the posters on the forum have not seriously studied the history of BSA, especially on the levels of camping and hiking realities. Most histories do not deal with much in the actual program areas, nor details of unit activity. This leads to a lot of misconceptions about how "macho" early scouts were compared to today. Reality is that many units, those with the broadest and strongest programs (are a lot out there in every council), would blow the average unit back then away in a contest of skills. Many troops took various levels of public transport to go camping; but many did little real camping, just a lot of hiking. Skills related to camping were often practiced in day sessions. Many scouts did not have even the basic equipment, so they made their own; but this was really heavy and often inefficient. Also, many boys had family responsibilities that did not allow them to go overnight, especially in the farming communities. None of this is to say that there were not some very good camping units. There were, but they were mostly mediocre at best even then. As noted in other discussions, we also are now dealing with so many out of our control rules from state, county, and even federal levels that often we are hamstrung. Of course, we also have the disappearance of much of the camping areas, or at least the free ones. Even backpacking at the most popular places requires special permits and sometimes scheduling two years in advance; that applies to Philmont as well. As recently as 1979 when I took my first trek with my unit, we were able to register easily a year out. Now there is a lottery, and we did not win it 4 times, though in 1990 we were able to go again. Also, two deep leadership, while absolutely a good thing and warranted, was not required until the 80's. Many of the hiking and camping impressions stated in these forums were no more common in early days than they are today. In 1910 matches existed, and the fire starting requirement was using two matches. Friction and flint and steel were even then other methods that often were used, but not mandatory for advancement. Modern technology, such as it was, was encouraged even in the teens. An interesting example was how the government turned to scouts to help train adults in early radio useage, as scouts were building them, crystal sets, all over and knew more than most adults, just like many elements today related to computers and related technology. Baden Powell said in one of his books that using new methods and techniques is an important part of scouting, as it broadened the program and made it more efficient. He noted his use of a dictaphone for his later writing, allowing his secretary to more easily decipher his intent and save a lot of rewriting due to errors in written transcripts. The other area of misconception that tends to skew the discussions is the misunderstanding by some that you cannot really compare most elements of the program across the various levels. Cubbing absolutely cannot be discussed in most instances in comparison to Scouting. Much of the Venturing and related older programs are almost diametrically opposite from basic Scouting, though the high adventure areas and merit badges do intertwine. An example of this I encountered last week at summer camp was a parent fresh in a troop from Cubbing. We have a Boy Scout Leader training available at camp when one local trainer is there with his unit, and that was going on for a number of days. This gentleman, who was not in the training, asked about it and was convinced it had to be Baloo. When I tried to explain Baloo was cubbing, he adamently argued; so I gave up convincing him. This lack of understanding the different levels even contributes to some extent to the media's skewed reporting. Too often they compare apples to oranges. We need to fall back to greater competency in some areas of our programs, that is a given. But all the hew and cry about how the "old" program was so much better is simply nonsense. And the idea we will every get back to the percentages of youth involved that occurred in the score of years after WWII is wishful thinking. Society has changed, and Scouting is now just one of the myriad things youth can do. In the post war era through the late 60's we were living with the parents and grandparents that went through the depression and two wars. Idealism and even God were more important. Besides being a scouting historian of sorts and having read a lot of little known books and articles on scouting in the early days at the unit level, I also am a bit spoiled in having been involved with a troop that began in 1921 and has much of its history still intact, including journal entries of camping and other things. One book I have, Thirteen Years of Scouting Adventure talks about a troop in Chicago in the first decade or two of BSA. They would go to the railyard and hop a train to the country, then hop off in the woods and farm country to find a place to camp, or picnic. There is even one tale of sending smallest, most pitiful scout to beg for food at farm houses. My own troop has photos of one its founder's farm truck loaded for camping. It had specially constructed boxes that sat over the wheel wells of the stake truck; lids dropped down on chains to the outside of the truck, once the sides were removed. One side had staple food such as flour, rice, and so on, while the other had cooking and eating equipment. There was a third cupboard that sat below the window between the sides. Once the cupboards were in place, the scouts and leaders piled gear on the floor of the truck, then climbed on top. The gate was put on, and they went to a remote farmer's field or orchard or up the mountain road until it ended near a river. They carried rifles and fishing gear most of the time as well. Even in 50's and 60's we still rode in the back of trucks to activities. Ultimately, we can only work on the unit level to offer the best program we can, working within the limits of BSA and all the other levels of bureacracy. Do what we CAN DO and quit the complaining and excuses. JMHO