skeptic

Here is a link to a copy of the book he wrote about his hike; http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&ref=bf_s2_a1_t1_1&qi=ec4UzHuRU2GGZ1LV3YkyoSACSxA_4101155256_1:1784:4397&bq=author%3Daugusto%2520flores%26title%3Dmy%2520hike. I have a copy in my collection, along with other fascinating true scouting adventures from that era. One of them is called Fliver to Cambodia; it is about 3 French scouts that drove a Model T from France to the Mediterranean and then eventually through ferries, mules, and taking and putting the car back together, ended up in Cambodia by route of the Himalayas. Another, is Hobnails and Heather, a story of U.S. Eagles on a month long hike through Scotland one summer. These stories really are great, but most would not likely occur today with the over protective attitudes so common. They also were done by older teens and even some in the early twenties that were involved still.

Locally, even summer camp is really volunteers, though they are paid for the summer. Really nothing but leaders that step forward to try and make the program happen each summer. Right now we are fortunate to have some really dedicated gentleman as camp director and program director; they have stayed on now for four summers, and the consistency in program and returning staff has really improved the overall summer program. We went through a period of revolving key camp people, and it almost killed us. But, our council so far appears to be behind keeping camp going and doing improvements as they can. Our real problem is simply water, dryness, and small capacity. Last year our reservoir went dry, and not likely to be there this year either; so boating is out. Supplemented with a good mountain bike program and more trails being added in a newly arranged area above camp that belongs to a mining company. That area also is going to get a few small back country camp sites. Reality is though that it is unlikely we ever can hope to reach previous levels. Most of us that joined in the fifties had few other distractions, and the entire country was still riding the WWII patriotism stream. Vets were parents and grandparents in very large quantities, and leaders were almost all war vets, including the president. Little League was just getting a foothold, and soccer was almost non existent, as were all the other youth sport programs. No computers, black and white TV with few channels (if you had one at all), less neighborhood paranoia about kids being attacked or something. Vietnam really hurt any uniformed group in the late 60's and early 70's, and patriotism began to split into the two polar opposite camps of pro and con military and flag respect. On the other hand, even with lower numbers, scouting still offers more outdoor opportunities, and many are superior programs. We have at least a dozen council troops that have large numbers and run monthly backpacking AND drive in programs, and also various options for high adventure in summer and sometimes at Easter break. I am often a bit confused as to why there seems to be so many posters on the forum that "appear" to simply not recognize the huge amount of positive things we still have, even with the professional issues. Yes, much needs to get redirected and National needs a serious shake up in many areas. But even they DO offer a lot of good opportunities, and there are many good people in the hierarchy that are working in the background much of the time to stabilize and improve. It never happens overnight, and our "instant news" via electronic media exacerbates things too often with partial stories with political slants. If most of us continue to work the local units to the best of our abilities, drawing on old and new technologies and skills, we will survive and remain a factor in improving our youth. Bang the "good drums" loudly; feather the "bad drums" as much as feasible.

"Make sense?" Not really. But the entire issue makes no sense, and hasn't from the beginning. As noted numerous times, if simply left to allow local unit leadership and membership policy, as was the case until about 1990, it would not have been a particularly big issue and over time would evolve to align more with the general public view. But, because certain groups have felt it needed to be a political weapon, and for some reason National found it necessary to go away from what had to that time worked in some kind of illogical reaction to the political hacks, it grew to the monster it has become. But, it really makes very little "sense".

The old pup tents were easy to do blindfolded; domes with sleeves for poles are not. Even seeing the tent I still sometimes struggle to get the right sleeve going across. And of course, newer ones have more poles at times. Guess the basic dome is not too bad, as long as you get the cross in the middle handled.

Torchwood; Sloppy Joe's made from chopped frogs; cool. Must have taken a bit of scrounging to find enough to make it worthwhile. "He diced onions and peepers, and had a packet of spices he measured out in advance."

Interesting.

Guess the term "funny" doesn't fit Pack. But, the cartoon was actually published in the L.A. Times on Thursday past. As noted, lets hope we do not see BSA in this position any time soon again; it has happened once or twice I think. That is why we stress fire safety so heavily here, and try to keep fire devices out of careless hands.

Let's hope we do not see this for real.

The first one is the answer; that was 1949; I became a scout in 1955, and that was NOT a requirement. In regard to the hike, it was not required to be an overnight, so it was not necessarily that hard, especially for youth of that period that walked most places anyway and often worked outside, many on farms. While it would have still been a major challenge for some, I would think that signaling was even then a greater one. While the outdoor program was a bigger part of scouting then and into the fifties, some parts of it were less intensive. Many elements of today's outdoor program opportunities are far more difficult and challenging, due to improved equipment and access. Baden Powell was known to encourage learning new skills and bringing newer technology into the program. He himself made an effort to do it as well according to some of his biographers. Our real challenge is to keep the best parts, while using newer products and equipment to further the program. Just because the program began over a hundred years ago does not mean it should stay in that era, and it is unlikely the early proponents would not support taking advantage of new materials, equipment, and technology.

The first two Eagles in my troop, 1923 and 1924, were both 14 as well, one barely. Also, joining age was 12 until about 1940 (have to check the date). More things to distract them, the project, less actual personal decision making, and so on. All surely do have something to do with it. Still, if a scout really wants to, he can become an Eagle at 13 and actually meet the requirements. Most that do it "on their own" would likely compare to the one noted here. The only real concern I have with really young scouts reaching that plateau is their maturity and leadership skills; but most I have met that stayed involved going forward have been exceptional young men, and far ahead of peers in most areas. Unfortunately, there still are a few that really are very poor examples; and my experience is that they also generally DO NOT stay to contribute to their unit or any other scouting area. One of our biggest challenges as leaders is to NOT lump scouts into general categories. They are all individuals, and they all have various levels of commitment, initiative, and intellectual ability.

Qwazse; you mean the IRS is not just foaming at the mouth to come and find out if our boys may have gotten a few dollars allocated to them for troop expenses on their behalf? Oh my.

This is another reason to reinstate the old previous BOR through 1st Class the responsibility of the TLC, done with a "non-voting" adult supervisor. Not only was it really a leadership development tool, but you saw better results because peers are much harder to fool. Apparently some of our local schools think peer review is a good idea, as they have selected students that sit on some cases and give recommendations. Most of the time, some version of their decision is used by the administrations.

Maybe we can comment on the event noted, rather than start knocking other elements of the OA that you may not agree with. Common sense, as well as being simply safety aware, would suggest there was poor judgement used for the sake of a show. While these types of flashy fire lighting are exciting and really ramp up the introductions of ceremonies, they are NOT generally a good idea, especially without very strict controls. In most cases, unless there are very qualified executors of the program, it is likely best to simply have a well laid fire with a simple match. Hopefully they learned a lesson, and fortunately there was no serious injury.

I believe you may have a spelling glitch on "tauntline", as I fairly certain you meant it to be "tautline". Clarified a couple things for me, though I will never be good at knots, even the ones I practice regularly for scouting. Diagrams always lose me in their loops and paths around and through, even those in color. But looks like could be a useful book.

One of the best I can suggest is "tri-tips".

Points re adults in OA on target. I do have one question, as I believe ALL adult members nominated by the unit have to have the committee approval and be submitted on a form for approval outside the regular election procedure. So, if you unit has not done that, then you would be ineligible to be called out anyway. If my understanding of the adult rules is incorrect, please someone point me in the right direction. Thanks. Good luck with whatever decision is the outcome.

Just make sure they have the Charmin!

You can make your own out of some type of light material. Depending on the size of your pot, you can try throw away micro wave bowls; just punch holes for the steam and it would work. You can also make sized to fit screen of some kind and simply put a few rocks in the bottom of the pot and drop the screen on top. I am sure there are other ways to achieve the same result.

So, what do you think B.P. might think of the pettiness we see so often here?

Pack; Failing does mean something, but passing with a D is still passing. Obviously, in college, should you have all low or failing grades in your major you will have severe difficulty. But, should you pass with mostly D's, with a few higher grades and even a few F's, you will still get the certificate. And it will not have that grading information on it for people to see. Of course, you would have little chance of grad school without a lot of remediation first. As far as high school grades go, low grades will keep you out of four year schools initially. But, once you have gone to JC or similar places and obtained passing grades you will find a four year to take you, though you are unlikely to get into the higher ranked colleges. F's are never good, especially if there are a lot of them. But, sometimes they only indicate the student needs to mature, or perhaps find a different area of study. I dropped the idea of ever becoming a forest ranger, something I really thought would be of interest, because all science beyond very basic stuff was far too hard for me. I also had the experience of barely passing low grades in JC right out of high school, then having UC reject my application in 1969 because they threw out one of the two A's I got in JC as remedial, and it dropped me to a 1.99 for those two years. But I had since gone through the service and was more focused; applied at ASU and was accepted straight across the JC gpa, made the dean's list and then got in to UCR anyway for my senior year. My point is that today we actually do not give the high school students enough reality in grading, and that often allows very unqualified college entrants in four year schools. Almost every JC in our state has very large classes of remedial students in basic course areas that they passed in HS, yet are still woefully unprepared. Many of these would have been better served if they had been given "real" grades in HS that reflected their shortcomings in comparison to their peers. I know you work within the higher education system, so surely you understand fairly well what I am talking about.

It is almost time to throw out grades all together, as they barely mean much anymore. The standard curve, the one where most are average, or in the middle, while about 15% are in the 80-90 percentile or 60-70 percentile, with 10% on the bottom or top, is no longer close to valid. Teachers are almost afraid to give the grades many students deserve. But, if a student can't get into one of the so called better schools, believe it or not, very few people care where the degree came from, as long as it is an accredited school. There is no GPA attached to the diploma, and there are many very good college instructors that work in the so called lesser schools. It is interesting that many students that transfer from junior colleges to regular schools perform better than many that went directly, whether it be "elite school" or a basic state four year program. We worry far too much about these things. And that is much of why so many struggle in the first place, both in high school and college. The concept that everyone can be above average is simply not true. And the results of this kind of thinking is showing in the educational nose dive. It is also showing in the increase in failure in college, because too many go there that never should in the first place, and would not have even been accepted 30 years ago or more when high school students were actually held accountable. We will always have those that rise above, no matter what, but they would do it no matter what system of education and level of accountability they experienced. We see these in the 10%-15% of Eagle candidates that truly stand out above most of them. But, as been noted, an Eagle is an Eagle at the time of receiving it. Those we tend to hold out as examples of great Eagles, ones that achieve great things or set wonderful examples in adult life come from that small percentage noted above for the most part. Part of countries employment issues relate directly to pushing too many to go to college, instead of find a trade or their own special niche. By pushing them to go where they really do not belong, we simply push them to low esteem and other issues. Of course, it would also help if we were to find a way to redirect much of the corporate profit bloat that goes to the top to better pay workers that actually earn the profits, and to hire more to take the pressure off those that are over worked with higher and higher productivity expectations for the same amount of pay. Time to take the rose colored idea glasses off and accept that is very unlikely to happen, even a little, as long as we have our egocentric so called leaders and corporate lords.

Merlyn; My point exactly. Thanks for the other link. While it is a fair discussion, I find it interesting that the few responses in the comments are not particularly supportive of the continued political attacks on BSA. And the last comment (currently) also takes Disney to task to some extent. " mootv20 hours ago It's good that big business is publicly affirming gay rights. A lot has been said about blue chips influencing Arizona's recent anti-gay brouhaha toward the right conclusion. This strategy is a plus for the cause and brandishes these business' images, but I don't find anything particularly courageous about Disney dumping the BSA. I'm an Eagle Scout. I am, like many current and former members of the Boy Scouts, embarrassed by its lumbering and short sighted policy vis-a-vis gay participation. But scouting also gave me a lot, and has benefited countless American men. Disney, a multi-zillion dollar for-profit company with a patchy record of their own, in a public dialogue they are rather late to, using the BSA (finances detailed above) as a convenient foil strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. Shape up, yes, BSA, but look to the mote in your own eye Disney. "

Oh come on Fred; that is just too much common sense. Funny thing, it seems to me that was pretty much the way it was until the Dale case got pushed into the political area and for some reason National felt the need to respond. If BSA is supposed to be apolitical, then it should be, period. CO's have always had the final say, and still do. The difference is only seen for the most part on the National level when the PC police latch onto something and push it into that arena. Have never understood the rationale behind these actions, other than politics and notoriety. They certainly do not have much concern for the damage they do in comparison to any improvement. The real irony, to me, is that the history of BSA shows them evolving to accommodate cultural and social issues over time. And I suspect this too would have worked its way through without all the drama if just allowed to do so. But, what do I know; I have only worked on the troop and district levels for the past 40 years or so?

While your point is valid to some extent, it is not our responsibility to monitor the access on the internet; that is their parents' responsibility. They do that by having proper protections and barriers in place on these devices. After all, we are not able to watch the scouts every second to see if they are doing something they should not. But, the easiest way to deal with it is to have the parental cooperation in the first place. That would include assuring the phones and such are not taken to camp, or are only available on the way to and from, or if you really want to be lenient, under direct supervision during a specified time. The rest of the time, any devices would be locked away under the adults in charge supervision for emergencies or agreed upon uses. Ultimately, parents need to decide what is best for their kid. If they cannot work with the unit rules, then they need to consider going elsewhere. I think you will find that the majority will welcome a bit of support in restricting the devices. Just my viewpoint of course.

Actually, I have never been to a scout camp where taps was later than 10PM. Now troop quiet time may be later for some; but not for us. We expect everyone to be quiet no later than 10:30, a half hour after taps. Usually do not have too much trouble anyway after the first night, as they are too tired to stay up.