skeptic

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

Stosh; You ARE aware that some form of group camp kitchen was the most common camp feeding clear through the 40's? Maybe not a dining hall as we know in most today, but definitely a "camp cook" with group feeding. This idea that individual cooking at camp is somehow the norm until very recently is simply not historically accurate. Even a lot of troops on individual outings in those days had some form of larger group feeding if they were able. The scouts were still involved in the chores on the troop level though, even in the group meals on rotational basis. Also, every camp we have attended in thirty plus years that has dining hall also requires the scouts from every troop to act as stewards before and after every meal. Individuals clean up after themselves if not stewards (most of the time) and the stewards then do the menial work such as washing tables and putting chairs up until the next meal. Every meal a few stay later to sweep and mop as well. Our camp, which opened in 1933 had the same camp cook for over ten years; we have photos of him outside his camp kitchen along with a couple helpers in some of them. Of course, there are other issues today too, such as health concerns (often overblown, but there) dictated by county and state health departments. Fire restrictions so tight that we could not have even propane stoves for camp the past two years, and they considered even cutting off lanterns. Animal concerns with food spread throughout the camp area; we have a severe drought and the critters are more desperate than usual. I know there are ways to store safely to a point, but with large numbers you are bound to have a few that simply do not do what they should. Certainly summer camp does not "have" to have troop or patrol cooking to satisfy requirements, if the unit is doing it the rest of the year on their own. Our camp now offers actual cooking in their TTFC program, preceded by the prep work, so that is still available in a special area with a temp permit.

We are still doing it, but only on a minimal level. Working on developing other directions and may opt out all together going forward.

Members of NESA can search for Eagles through their files, which include non NESA listings going way back. My troops first two from the early 20's are listed. Also, in 2002 (I think), all active councils were sent a CD with Eagles a committee of researchers had put together from old National records and NESA listings. While there is a good deal of duplication in these lists, and some confusion due to Eagles living in a council area that became Eagles in no longer existing councils, it can be cleaned up and even sorted. I got our local one, after digging it out of the executive's drawer of unviewed CD's from National, and sorted it by units, cities, and years. Since then, most councils have fairly accurate records, as does National. A general public record from Eldred on is not available as far as I know. But if it was, it would be a huge data base, as there have been over 2 million scouts, which may be why it is not published as a list. There also may be concerns that some individuals might prefer not to have their names publicized. I know that NESA had to alter the search parameters to make it very difficult to glean the lists for mailing lists and so on. If you have a NESA access, you have to look at the names one at a time to get any useful info, though you can get a name only list searching for cities or zips. But, you must be a NESA member to use that data base.

Nothing new and enlightening. This entire issue is so overhyped that it is tiresome. I do continue to be saddened though by those that cannot separate the 99.5 or so percent positive of the basic BSA program when run at the unit level, and the politicalization and hyperbola surrounding what in reality is not a particularly realistic issue for the majority of participants. No one will ever like everything about other individuals, but most of us simply work with it and around it hoping for a positive outcome. It is obvious to me that even if National caves the rest of the way, it will still not satisfy those that yell the loudest, bescause it is not about BSA, it is about ecocentism that does not care a whit about how it effects others. Much of the supposed acceptance of the Gay issues really revolves more around the "marriage": or "partner" rights. That is where the consensus appears to be about 50/50 now; but it very likely would not come out that way in relation to a broader acceptance. Very few of us have issue with what others do within their own group dynamic, but we reserve the right to not be forced to accept them into our personal relationships. The media, along with the more radical and loud advocates continue to skew the whole thing to the detriment of youth and adults that just want to live their lives too, It is not a fight BSA can win, because they are NOT a radical, politically connected group. So, the local option seems to be the only good choice to me. But even that will not keep us out of the mess, because for some nothing is ever enough, as noted before.

Just have trouble understanding how a few so well educated and generally bright individuals do not seem to be able to separate the "extreme" or "over the top" displays characterized very often in some of these parades from comedic acting or tongue in cheek parody. There IS a difference, and I suspect those refusing to admit it are simply fooling themselves or are too proud to admit they have overreached. They hopefully would not purposely expose scouts or other similar age group youth to those truly raunchy and in your face attempts at self expression. I would wager almost no parents would allow it if they were really cognisant of some of the more flamboyant, sexually suggestive exhibits.

While it is highly unlikely beyond the local council level, COR's can vote for change within their council. Most COR's never participate, so the proxies are voted by the executive board as they see fit. On a rare occasion, the COR's have been known to mobilize against an exec board and change the direction of the council and the membership of the board. But few, if any councils "push" to have active COR's; likely because it could lead to turmoil at times.

Calico; San Diego settled for just short of a million dollars with the ACLU and bowed out of the whole thing. BSA finally won after 10 years. The ACLU finally quit pushing it then; but they did not give San Diego their money back either. So, they came out way ahead, assuming the court did not make them pay for the BSA court costs.

If people would use common sense and understand that there is a difference between a National policy and the actual scouts within the community, maybe there would not be a problem. As long as individuals feel the right or need to use the boys as pawns, the problem will not go away. The entire approach is nothing but pettiness by the political combatants, mostly on one side, as BSA does not have political propagandists.

With each opportunity for service or a "good turn" there is always various levels of return received, from a simple thank you, to treats or a non-monetary reward such as food or free access to an event such as a fair, to public recognition in certificates and such. But payment for service in actual monies or major tangible goods takes it out of the service designation and into the fund raising area. So, once we have determined whether it is real service or a fund raiser, then we can pass judgement. From my perspective, it is too often an expectation of free labor when we are approached for "service" directly. We may or may not offer to help, depending on the circumstances and expectations, the absence of other than minor political associations that are unlikely to suggest our support, as well as the more legal issues and safety concerns involved in some activities. Ultimately, it is up to the youth to decide, as long as we have assurance it is safe and something they feel they want to do. And NO scout, scouter, or parent should ever be expected to participate in these projects if they have personal concerns. Now, in the specific situation that led to this discussion, there are a number of considerations. First, is approval to sell something, such as water in this case, contingent on the approver's expectation of cleanup or other service before or after the event? If so, then it is not service to begin with, as getting permission to fundraise depends on the "service". Indications are that they are two separate activities in the specific instance. So, one could occur without regard to the other. Where the problem arose was that the City Council altered the simple permit application by adding a political element to entertaining and approving it. So, even going to a second hearing would be putting the units into a political situation which is unfair to the application process unless ALL other applicants are also required to fulfill similar requirements, and BSA is supposed to be apolitical. That leaves us with the cleanup efforts after the event. If, it was not for the fact that publicity had already put the spotlight on the Scouts, they likely could have done the service as in the past, receiving minor acknowledgement and hours for advancement, school, and such. But the Council had painted a red letter on them, and there would likely have been strong possibilities of verbal harrassment, as well as support. The leaders, in my opinion, made the right call in this situation. Ultimately, the loss of the scouts in the cleanup areas was the result of posturing and politicalization of the event by the Council. Would the majority of the general populace have appreciated the efforts of the scouts if they had done the service? Probably, if they were even aware of it. But, whether or not it is construed as sour grapes, the scouts should not have been exposed to the chance of negative comments. Should they consider coming forward next year to cleanup? Possibly; but only if it can be kept separate from the controversies of this year.

I have one of the tye dyed scout shirts that came out a few years ago from National supply. They discontinued it, and I could not figure out why, since everyone likes it when I wear it in the SM splash at camp. It just dawned on me: IT IS RAINBOW COLORED. Talk about being slow; of course, maybe it simply is unique and has nothing to do with symbolism. Not in this super sensitive society.

Anyone else find it a bit amusing that the belicose instigator does not even know where the BSA is located nationally? And the press that let that slide is just as ignorant. None of these people that push this political football care a whit about the kids. And the media, about half the time, has wrong information, and mis-identifications on photos and in stories. They do not know the difference between cubs, scouts, and senior level youth and often take things out of context in order to make it seem worse than it is. I agree with the scouts there; why bother if they do not want us there except to save them money in cleaning up. While community service is part of the program, there is no requirement where it is done, and under what circumstances. I for one have opted NOT to "help" in some instances when approached by a group of some sort for cleanup help as a "service"; what they really want is someone to do free labor to save them money. That is not what community service is.

This has a lot of simple common sense and seems to be on target. Before you read these ten common Scouting mistakes, let’s agree that being a Scouter means always moving towards the ideal, but we never truly arrive. Ideals are like stars: you will not succeed in touching them with your hands, but like the seafaring man on the ocean desert of waters, you choose them as your guides, and following them, you reach your destiny. - Carl Schurz 1. Making Things More efficient Would things would go so more smoothly if we just made a few changes? Perhaps, but some changes to gain efficiency would compromise the opportunity for Scouts to do for themselves. Read Maintain Inefficiency! 2. Applying Uniform Standards Our standard for badge earningâ€â€as I have frequently saidâ€â€is not to attain a certain level of quality of work (as in school), but the AMOUNT OF EFFORT EXERCISED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE. Baden-Powell Standardization of Badges 3. Over-Valuing Metrics Scouting is more a mirror for individual assessment and development than a measuring stick. The answer is not in numbers of camp outs, number of hours or contracts; not snap judgments or fits of temper. Instead of metrics just ask The Guy in the Glass. 4. Thinking of themselves as the boss “Scoutmaster†doesn’t mean “master†of anything. In fact, if we substitute “servant†for “master†we’ll be a lot closer to the truth of the matter. Read Just What Does Scoutmaster Mean? 5. Making Our Own policies Every once in a while we run across doctrinaire, fussy, hairsplitting, nitpicking, people who promulgate rules and regulations from thin air; these self-appointed “experts†are specialists in Scouting’s Urban Legends 6. Being the Senior Patrol Leader The young man was still puzzled. “Okay, let’s go back a minute. If you guys do everything without the SM’s guidance, how do you know what to do at meetings and activities?†Read The Scoutmaster at the Troop Meeting 7. Not Using the Patrol Method The Patrol is the unit of Scouting always, whether for work or for play, for discipline or for duty. Read The Patrol Method 8. Discouraging Scouts I spent a few years discouraging Scouts by throwing every possible impediment in their path. I was the worst kind of Scoutmaster; a self-appointed guardian of an unattainable standard of perfection. What I became was a grumpy old man ready to swat any hand that reached for my holy awards. Read Scouting Standards 9. Managing Instead of Cultivating. There is too much “management science†in Scouting. We should stop trying to manage programs, Scouts, patrols and troops. Scoutmastership is much more akin to gardening than management. Read Cultivating Scouting 10. Skewed Perspective If you look at the first nine mistakes they are all about skewed perspective or basic misunderstandings. Certainly our work is important, but we must not allow that to cause us to be selfimportant. If we look at things from a Scout’s perspective we’ll see things differently, and change our approach to make things better.

As a SM and counselor I have a general rule of thumb for myself regarding the badges for which I am listed. If it is non-Eagle, I will counsel my own scouts, though they may find I am harder than another might be. While I am listed for 3 citizenships, I try to NOT do those unless a very unforeseen issue arises, which has happened only a couple of times related to one requirement and original counselor unavailable. I DO try to be the normal approver for Camping, as I see that as one I really need to do. But, I could sign any of them, but it would not look good if all my scouts had citizenships signed by me. I also do reading, Scouting Heritage, and scholarship.