Torveaux

No fighting sports. It is too bad in some ways because there are good things for boys to learn from these done properly. Fencing is another healthy sport that is not allowed. I figured that if Ultimate is there, so should Bocce Ball; Horseshoes, etc. USA Rugby has a touch game for Youth, so Rugby should be there ala Flag Football.

The Light of Christ (Roman Catholic) award requirements mesh fairly closely to the 1st Reconcilliation/1st Communion education conducted by most parishes. The award booklet becomes a sort of supplement that reinforces the information taught in the classes.

Some of your 1st graders (or their friends...recruits) will have older brothers that may be interested in being Wolves, Bears or Webelos. Our dens tend toward 5 or 6 per, but the Web IIs have only 2 this year and two years ago there were none . The whole group missed having the older boys as part of the Pack.

In short, yes. It is not the Troop's camp. It belongs (likely) to a Council and the staff is in place to protect the camp and its guests. I agree with Eamonn that my first approach would have been to chat with the boy myself. I probably would have offered him an alternate covering as clearly he was wearing the only jacket he had...

Bob, using your definition, the offical uniform is no uniform at all. We live in a world of various shades, enjoy them. I was wondering about the Red/White/Blue loops. I saw some Scouts with them in Scouting Magazine. I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that they were Eagles or something. I guess if the offical Scout Magazine has pictures of them while touting the accomplishments of the unit, they must not be proscribed.

Actually, EagleinKY, I expect that those same types will beg-off any attempt to get them to committ their time and energy to the Troop/Pack. You are right, of course, that if they accepted it would be worse. I find that people who bend/break the rules tend to be the first ones to accuse others of doing the same. You are also spot-on about the kids of leaders. Rather a chicken-egg sort of thing to a degree. In some cases (like mine) the parent gets involved heavily because it is important to the boy. My brother-in-law is an Eagle, has 3 Eagle brothers, is and SM and son of an SM. His boys are well on their way to Eagle as well and are fine young men. Is is genetics? Is it environmental? I guess all we can do is provide the best program we can and try to move more of the slacker-types into the category of productive citizens. Hmmm...perhaps that could be some good lesson material for various 'Citizen' badges.

You have to be careful in this area. I had a boy that said he had done 12 loops worth of stuff. At one meeting his dad came with him and brought their own copy of the requirements. The first one he claimed to have completed required a poster or other display at a den or pack meeting. It was obvious that he had not finished all of the requirements. I suggested that the father 'review' the list with his son. Unfortunately, the boy dropped out at the end of the year. I don't know if the loops thing was a factor, but I am sure that it didn't help. The lesson I learned was that loops are a good thing for individual parents to use to motivate their sons to explore new things and delve a little deeper into things they already enjoy. The other parents need to understand that the expectations are different for each boy. 'Explain the rules of ___' can be very subjective. I know my boy and how much detail he needs to push himself. If a parent tells me the boy did the requirements, I just take a deep breath and order the loop. As for additional rewards, I think the example of 'BelieveinScouts' shows that perhaps getting additional awards for quantity may be counter-productive. The key for the 'other' parents (and their kids) is for them to learn that it is the experience that is important, not the loop.

Our Council has an even wider range for 'no permit required'. The Council boundaries abutt Milwaukee County(lots of 'activities' there) so the official policy is that travel within our Council boundaries, Milwaukee County, or to our Council Camp (physically located just outside our boundaries) are all permitted without a permit.

I find a similar undercurrent as a WDL. My son is just more interested in Scouting and his advancement than most of his Den. In all honesty, I expect more from him vis-a-vis meeting his requirements than do the other parents. The way I see it, the point of the requirements is for him to learn something, not simply to mark off items toward a badge. It seems that from talking to most (not all) other leaders, it is not uncommon for leaders as parents to expect more. Now, this can go too far as well and as it applies to the Merit Badges the leader/parent must be a bit more even-handed as the other parents do not have the authority to 'sign-off'. If anyone complains, I suggest handing them an adult leadership form and the dates of the next training sessions in your district.

That's OK. There are no authorized footwear items, yet I continue to see Scouts and Scouters of all kinds wearing various non-uniform shoes and boots.

Be Prepared! Seriously, the Black Hills are famous for their unpredictable weather. There are tons of things to do in the area. Lots of historical locations (Deadwood). Wall Drug is still worth seeing. Custer State Park has a great herd of Bison. There are some cool caves nearby if you like that type of thing. Reptile Gardens is good for those who like snakes and such. Bear Country USA is drive-thru park to see bears in the wild. Some outstanding fossils have been found in the Black Hills as well and the dig sites may be accessible, you would have to check that out. Lots of rugged natural beauty in the Badlands. Enjoy.

While I do not agree with juris I do think if you ignore his extreme position, there may be some valid thoughts... It seems that in the past 10 years or so the Cub program has moved more and more to do things that the Boy Scouts do. I don't think that it will result in wholesale losses of Scouts, but there could be anecdotal evidence of individuals that get burned out on knots, knives, and camping. I think they should retain more of the 'special-ness' that comes with Boy Scouting. One of the things I think that needs to go away is the idea of Webelos in Patrols. Patrols are a 'cool' thing for when a boy 'graduates' to Boy Scouting. It is one thing to introduce the concept for Webelos IIs at a camp...but I think some of the changes are confusing the boys.

NJ, I just gave you one example, Kennedy. He votes on his understanding of the Constitution even when it disagrees with his personal political philosophy, as in this case. Many of the others are only pro-states' rights when the subject matter suits them.

Why yes, I am a politics buff. I would agree that the regular labels do not apply in many situations. The real difference among Supreme Court Justices is between those who see their roles as upholding the Constitution, regardless of their personal opinions and those who see their role as one of modifier of the Constitution to suit their individual beliefs. The other significant factor that is not here regarding the current court is the fact that most of them had to be confirmed by decidedly Liberal Senates. Ford had absolutely no political captial with which to appoint a conservative, even if he was so inclined. Bush 41 had Democrat majorities of 54 and 56. His popularity after the 1st Gulf War is the only reason that Thomas got through. Both of Clinton's appointees were confirmed before the Senate changed control in 1995. Kennedy's position on this case was that it belongs in the hands of the states. He has been fairly consistent in his pro-state view on the Constitution, even when it is otherwise troublesome for him personally. While I abhor the decision on the one hand, Justice Kennedy does have a good point that the states themselves should be protecting their citizens, not the federal government.

Most accrediting bodies are independent organizations. (or are supposed to be) Rather than try to get sanctioned by BSA to add a new program, why not form an organization that accredits Youth Organizations. Rather like ISO 9000 wherein you get accredited for following the official program (whatever it may be), getting OGE accredited would mean that Troops follow the BSA rules; Campfire kids follow their rules, etc. Even without official approval by BSA or others, the idea would be that parents would eventually seek out accredited units and the units would use the recognition as a form of advertising for recruitment.

I'm with torribug on this one. While there is a GSUSA, it is far inferior IMHO to the BSA program in many ways. I like the Try-It badges for the young ones as it gets the instant gratification factor that is missing in Cubs, the rest is rather poor. I have 2 girls and 2 boys, so this subject is near and dear to my heart. I have no interest in co-ed Scouts, while most scouts may be able to control themselves, it only takes a couple to ruin it for the rest. Besides, I think for most the bigger issue is removing a 'safe-haven' organisation where the boys can be boys and the girls can be girls without the added pressure of inter-gender relationships (I don't mean dating, I mean the way kids act around their friends of the same gender is much different than when you add both). As an educator, I have investigated this subject from an academic standpoint and the data that is available suggests that single gender schools are better for both boys and girls. Not because of sex, per se, but because of the removal of that element of life distracting them from the purpose at hand. To whom it may concern: when dealing with a hypothetical about something, it is generally bad form to repeatedly comment things along the lines of 'we already thought of that and it will never happen'. If you don't have some creative opinions on the subject, it may be better if you sit this one out. Just because the BSA is too chivalrous as an organization to recruit girls into the Girl Cubs does not mean that a discussion about the merits of the idea is worthless. Things change. Maybe if BSA leadership changes over time, enough people who are fed up with GSUSA's pathetic program will end the current attitude of detente. The Seeker program (for Kindergarten) is co-ed, so maybe there is a change brewing... As for the uniforming issue in the GSUSA, the younger girls tend to like the dress-up factor and despite the 'requirement' of only the vest or sash, my daughter and her peers are more in uniform than the Cubs of their own age. Clearly as they get older it is not cool, and the uniform is worn as little as possible. The way I see it 90+% of the Cub/Boy Scout program would be beneficial as is for girls. There may be some additional things that may be of more interest to girls than boys that could be added, but generally the program is rather gender-neutral.

Well said. The Committee Chair could technically be a dictator of sorts providing the CO agrees (or is ambivalent) with the style and substance of the program being delivered. Sometimes leaders must lead and not leave important decisions up to a vote. If the 'committee' were to vote to allow girls to be Cub Scouts, it would not change the fact that they are not permitted. In our Pack, the new Cubmaster does not really understand his role either. He thinks he is the Committee Chair and Cubmaster and Treasurer all rolled into one. He is a really good guy, but he likes to bend the rules and he is going to burn himself out trying to do everything himself. Our Committee Chair doesn't feel he has the political capital available (he's new to the Pack) to put his foot down yet.

Spot on JR56, The same sort of hogwash is used in the education field all of the time. Stats are misunderstood or intentionally distorted to push some agenda or another. Of course, 100% of Eagle Scouts reached 1st Class, so it is easy to create such misleading conclusions. The Troops that were doing it right before the new 'emphasis' did not really need the new 'emphasis'. Those that were doing the old program wrong are likely just changing over to another bad implementation of a good program. As for leaders getting better, we all would like that, but the reality is that the average leader is just a mom or a dad that wants to be involved in their kids' lives. They see Scouting as a way to help them grow young men. Some see Eagle as the path to scholarships and job opportunities. Eagle to them is just another i to dot on the boy's resume. Any program designed to speed that process is great to those people. We would all like to have Districts and Troops filled with uber-leaders that adhere to the program, understand what boy-lead really means, and have fun. The reality is simply that we will never get there. We will have a few Bob White's that know the program inside and out and can instantly grasp the meaning of new emphases. Sadly the majority will muddle through the way they have 'always done it' and we will continue to churn out 13 year old Eagles that are immature and have no retention of the skills they learned at 11. Personally, I think the idea of FCE is wrong-headed. If you enrich the program from Scout to 2nd Class, you will retain as many or more boys because it is fun and useful. This emphasis effectively says that the first 3 ranks are meaningless. Also, if over half of a Scout's advancement opportunities come in the first year, that takes away a portion of the program from the next 6 years of the Scouting experience.

LindaJ, et al, The way I read it, it does require at least 2 projects. Otherwise it would read 'project or projects'. The use of the plural without a caveat means that anyone allowing less than 2 projects would be modifying the requirements as well. Of course, everyone is going to do whatever they want anyway, c'est la vie!

FScouter seems to have it right. There is an official exception for year-around schools. They can have events during their hiatus periods. The idea being to ensure Scouting is not just another 'school' activity that dies when school is out. I think part of the idea of the award is to recognize those who make the extra effort to attend one session per month while school is out. When you give the award to those who come close you devalue the efforts of those who made it to the whole thing. The attendance requirement is only for Dens, not Packs. Back to the original question, answer 2 fits the requirements as written in the application.

Bob, et al, You need to be more honest with yourself. You have admitted on another thread that you in fact do not 'go commando' and shoeless while wearing the Scout uniform despite the fact that the 'guidelines' specifically state that you may not wear the uniform "with civilian clothing" Cub Scout Leader Book (pg 12-11). You have made the decision to violate the letter of the rules because to do otherwise would be absurd. Berating others for minor infractions does nothing to help the program and only serves to undermine your credibility on other more important issues. Pot, meet Kettle.

Excellent point on the Swiss Guards. Those performing the ceremonial function wear the old uniform. The guys doing the real security work do not. priests 'uniforms' have also changed, but that is beside the point. As mentioned earlier, comparisons to uniforms for paid positions do not really hold water. I also resent the comments that insinuate that everyone who takes issue with the uniform pants is in the 'I hate uniforms' camp. I love uniforms. If it was about uniforms, the complaints would not be nearly universally about the pants. The whole pants as part of the uniform is an artificial construct of uniforming. It may be the official uniform, but it is only so just because. BSA does not have a long storied history of exactly the same uniform (ala ceremonial guards), the uniform has changed significantly over the years. I think sharp uniform pants look sharp and should be worn. The current pants are not sharp and detract from the look. As for them being 'uniform' they do not fit that description either as some wear the really old pants, others wear wools and some the cottons. They do not look any more uniform than requiring a certain shade of pants. I also understand that the pants as currently constructed are an obstacle and distraction to the program. Sure, there are a few that will not wear any uniform pants, but they also tend to be those who do not volunteer, either. At the end of the day, the uniform as a whole is great. The problem is primarily rooted in a few hard-core scouters that only see the uniform as that which they remember and cannot see outside their precious little box. If the BSA came out tomorrow saying that blue jeans were acceptable uniform wear, it would not damage the program whatsoever. (personally, I prefer that they go with a 'pick-your-own' pant with the official color scheme) Non-scouting people do not see the uniform as the pants, they see the shirt, the neckerchief, and the hat. What I ask from my scouts is that they 'do their best'. I do not wear the official pants, but I wear similar dockers (actually they are a cheap knock-off of Dockers). If someone gave me a pair of uniform pants I would wear them, but I am too thrifty to waste money that way.

Our Pack is improving! One of our initiatives is adding the NSPA to our program. We planned two activities per month as well. June (service project / camping trip ) July (MLB baseball game / picnic) August (Bike rodeo / tree planting [75th ann'y item]) The events are spread out so families on vacation will not be automatically excluded. If you check out the form, the Pack does not need 50%, only the Dens need it. I saw web site for a Pack in Ohio that gives the pins to scouters as well? Has anyone seen/heard of such a thing? Is it official?

How about this instead. Part of the Leadership portion of the Bear Trail is to help another scout join, or complete his Bobcat. When you get a new scout that was not a Tiger, try to get a Bear Den to help them out. It teaches the Bears leadership and the builds bonds.

Sorry Merlin, but your position would only make sense if the same public schools refused to sponsor similar groups that allowed atheists. I agree that we don't really want public schools as COs for Packs and Troops, but your logic is faulty and does not reflect an understanding of the Constitution. It does agree with the opinions of some individuals, but it is not consistent with the document that is the Supreme Law of the Land.