Torveaux

Right on Carol!! Get Parents OK for any such stuff. Personally, I would rather my son's last name was used than his first. Those who would use such information to harm them want the familiarity of the first name. I would recommend perhaps J. Smith as opposed to Johnny.

Are there any quarries or mines in your area? Layering is very cool when viewed on a large scale like that. Most quarries and mines run across some sort of fossils as they dig.

Wow! Well the CC is supposed to be running things, but he/she really reports to the COR. Without knowing more information, it sounds like #2 (CC) put #3 & #4 on the charter, but then you would have signed it as COR, right? If you did not approve them on the charter, they have no business being leaders. Definitely get an outsider involved if you are all involved in varying degrees. At this point, I would require that 3 & 4 get trained, big-time, and have two dens. Our small pack has only 2 boys in WebI (soon to be WebII). It can work.

I agree that condoning a non-blue pant is a bad idea. If they look that good, lobby for a universal uniform change so the boys all look the same. As a cub scout leader, I try to be as in uniform as is practical for our family. I wear Dockers that look like the official pants because it is the right thing to do for my family. The kids couldn't care less and most of the parents don't know the difference. (Most of the other leaders wear blue jeans). My recommendation is that to make Cub Scouting more accessible and to better differentiate between Cubs and Boys, the cub leaders wear a Navy Blue Docker or similar pant. The boys' pant (both cubs and boys) should be uniform in color and style, but the families should be free to find the best deal they can. If National wants to continue to sell 'official' pant items, that would be cool for those boys who like official buttons and the like. If you really examine the uniform pant idea for Cubs, it is almost silly. For most boys, they wear an individual pair of pants perhaps 24-30 hours before they outgrow them. Shirts are more flexible that way, but the pants usually last about 6 months (4 1-hour meetings per month + extras. At $30+, that is huge. Pants of the same color that are not 'official' cost half that amount and can be worn for other occasions as well. Sure, they are not immune to the growth factor, but the value involved goes well beyond the 'sticker' price. What value does it teach my boy to spend an inordinate amount of money on what amounts to vanity? We try to teach them how to be responsible with money and with natural resources. How is wearing a pair of pants for 30 hours helping the environment? In many ways, the inflated cost of the pants is also a hidden cost. That is a rather untruthful way of getting funding. If Scouts need larger fees, charge them. I gained two additional families to our den this year specifically because we did not "nickel and dime" them by requiring den dues. People want to know up front what the costs of membership really are. If the specific uniform is that important to National, they should up the enrollment fees to cover the cost and issue the uniform to everyone. Dark blue Dockers-style or cargo pants do not violate the spirit of uniforming. Quibbling beyond that about the 'official' nature of the items is counter-productive to providing a good program for the kids.

How about this one. I am taking my son and daughter to a Council family camp. Can the three of us share one tent as a family?

Slavery as we know it from US History, comes from multiple sources. The Portuguese brought African slavery from Africa to the European world. Native Tribes had slavery as well. The real American contribution was to 'improve' it. The industrialized version practiced in the 1700-1800s was rather unique to the 'New World'. The North American version was considered humane compared to the conditions in South America. Here, family groups were most often kept together and slaves were encouraged to 'breed'. While this is certainly barbaric in our times, the alternative was much worse. South American slave owners simply worked their slaves to death and bought new ones. The fault of the Founders had nothing to do with bringing slavery to the US. In fact, the position was considered quite strongly anti-slavery by those who favored its practice. Had concessions not been made to the large plantation owners and the associated slave trade, the US would never have thrown off British rule, much less formed a nation. Sometimes compromise is necessary to reach a long-term goal, even if it means accepting something less than what you want. (sorry, I'm a Social Studies teacher)

Peaceful1, From what I have seen so far, nothing inspires people to help out their kids more than when other kids get the recognition they earned for doing it first. One of the biggest mistakes our Pack has made up to now was waiting to give rank recognition until the end of the school year. Now that we moved it up, people are getting pressure from their kids. They want to earn their badges too!

The biggest practical drawback is evident in your post. If he had started the Bear stuff rather than finishing the Wolf stuff, perhaps he would be caught up now. You have to take them all case by case, but since he will be going into Webelos, I would suggest that he use the summer months to work on Webelos Activity Badges.

Applause, unc. musing while chain-sawing does not sound safe I think national publicity would help recruiting at the local level With all of the focus on the 75th anniversary of Cub Scouting, I would expect that National would get some air time, both commercial and expositional (like news programs).

If you set aside the morality of homosexuality (for discussion purposes only) there is still another aspect of it that would not wash with current BSA policies. Part of Scouting is built upon single gender groups that allow a certain amount of safety. I am not talking about physical safety, thought there could be an element of that as well. I am talking about emotional safety. Most studies of school environments have concluded that single gender schools are more effective for both boys and girls in terms of fulfilling their mission of education. Mixing genders turns the entire process into a stage wherein some kids feel undue pressure to perform. When a group allows openly gay members, it does the same thing to its single gender groups. How can you say a hetero boy and girl cannot share a tent while you allow two gay boys to share a tent? Alternatively, do you force a straight boy to share a tent with an openly gay boy? Isn't that like making a girl share a tent with a boy (even if there is no 'attraction')? Even without this logistics headache, such situations amplify sexuality, sexual orientation and identity to a position that has no place in scouting. One of the advantages Scouting has over some other groups is that that particular dynamic is heavily muted. Perhaps the solution, if there ever is one, would be to have uniquely gay troops that had a one boy per tent rule. As the father of two boys and two girls, I would love to see Boy Scouting for girls. From what we have experienced in the Girl Scout program, I would prefer my daughters be Cub Scout and Boy Scouts but I have no interest at all in them being in mixed gender Packs or Troops.

We played Kim's game. It was quite popular from the beginning of scouting.

Those are the words that come right before these: "...that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator..." You don't get to pick and choose sentences out of context packsaddle. Too many people out here have educations and access to information.

FB, You just described me. I was a scout for about 1 year. I made 2nd Class and was close to finishing 1st Class, but my parents had enough trouble and I stopped finding time for scouts. The funny thing is that I have used many of the things I learned in that time in my life. I made it a point to have my son join Cubs and have tried to provide a balance between support and 'wing stretching' opportunities for him. If I knew then, what I know now....

I hope you all don't mind if I show up in my dockers around your campfire. LOL. PrairieS, If I add brussel sprouts and okra to the cafeteria so you will enjoy the menu more, but the smell and sight of them makes 1/2 of my customers too ill to patronize my establishment, I have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. (no offense to brussel sprouts and oka)

Excellent point. Using your analogy, since Camping is a method, only BSA equipment should be allowed on BSA campouts. We have already concluded (in another thread) that while the BSA rules say that the uniform cannot be combined with civilian clothing, they didn't really mean what they said. (footwear, outerwear, underwear, etc.) Remember, the Cub Scout Motto? Do Your Best! I take that approach with the uniform. The cub uniform pants are better than the BS/Leader pants, but for one thing: Cubs grow weekly. If you want pants that fit them, you need to buy 2-4 pair per year. That becomes a significant obstacle to parental buy-in. The point is not about whether people want a uniform, the point is about what makes up the uniform. Your comparison suggests that any deviation from the prescribed uniform would be tantamount to eschewing the uniform method. That is simply not the case. Requiring solid navy blue pants or shorts for the Cub uniform would not detract in any tangible way to the uniform method. The crux of jnclement's post is very valid. If the details of the uniform are an obstacle to providing a solid program to as many boys as possible, we should make the modification to the requirements. jnclement did not say anything about tossing the uniform completely.

I had heard that some units believed that only the higher cub religious award could confer transfer to the BS shirt. For Roman Catholics, that would be Parvuli Dei, not just Light of Christ. From everything I have been able to find, either one earns the knot and stays on the uniforms. Additional 'levels' just earn the pins. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a definitive answer anywhere that I could find. If anyone knows where this is clarified, it would help settle a small family wager.

Does anyone have any idea why they axed the Skill Awards? It seems as though some of the required Skill Awards are still part of the requirements for the lower ranks, just repackaged. I thought they were popular and added to the program. Any thoughts on negatives associated with the awards?

Sounds like great advice so far. Shooting for 'easy' badges or working on the some artificial schedule will likely turn the boy off. As noted above, the Camping badge is popular because it dovetails so nicely with the program in general.

I wonder what the parents' expectations of Scouting are? I am guessing from your post that you have had discussions with them about what they expect. I have 6 active Bears. To date, only 2 have earned their rank badges (my son and the CCs son). The other 4 boys have many other extra-activities (they are all in every sport that is available all year long). I have provided opportunities to complete all of the achievements that can reasonably be done within the Den. There is still a huge section of Family and God activities that are required. Given that we are all part of the same faith community, we even did part of the God discussions at our meeting. I have resigned myself to the fact that you can lead a horse to water...I fully expect one or more to show up right before the last Pack meeting with a fully completed book. Just remember the motto: "Do Your Best". As long as I have done what I can and let them know what they need to do, I cannot lose any more sleep over how it goes. Part of this resides with the boy as well. If he really wants to finish his part, he may need to push his parents a bit. Good luck, don't beat yourself up about it.

It is amazing that so many people in business miss this fundamental principle when they are in school. Well said.

I had the same problem with our B&G. I got the 'that's the way we have always done it' speech from the old CM, I thought our new CM was going to fix it and he said at our first meeting with new leadership 'that's the way we did it when I was a cub'. I tried to explain why, but he still thinks that CM means 'king of the pack'.

Our B&G is in May and that's when we have the formal crossing over ceremony, but our Webelos IIs are done and have moved on to Boy Scouts. Maybe he could just go back for their ceremony?

It is my understanding that while we tend to use dens as a per rank grouping, it is not really required. In small Packs they may combine all Webelos into one den. I am not 100% certain if this meets everyone's definition of BSA kosher, but I think it makes sense. Effectively, you will have one Webelos Den consisting of 1 Webelos II and 7 Webelos Is. (We only have two Webelos IIs to be next year.)

foto, Sorry you got the wrong impression. I did not intend to suggest that anyone is expected to do as I do. The key is that our Pack covers the expenses as needed, not the individual dens. In our cases, people would rather have the money flow through the Pack treasurer than to have each DL 'managing' funds. When we do things as a den that cost significant money, the parents pay as they go. My biggest objection is the hidden cost portion. If we need annual dues to be $100, fine, make it $100. By using fundraisers you can avoid having any real dues. I think we are going to add Scout Accounts so those who participate in the fundraisers can defray the cost of camps and other incidentals.

I hate den dues. I think they take away from the fun aspect of Scouting by making everything dependent upon the almighty dollar. Our kids already have a job board that earns them up to $5 per week (generally it comes out to less than $2. 10% goes to the Church, 50% goes to the bank. The rest is for learning to manage a few dollars.) That being said, there are obviously costs involved in some projects. I think fundraising is best centralized. While I tend to pay for den items myself (unless we spending more than a couple of bucks per kid), the Pack would reimburse me if I wanted to submit them. Remember that these donations are tax deductible as well. We only 'charge' for events that have an entry fee (sporting events and the like). Everything else is paid for by our fundraisers (almost exclusively through popcorn sales). Also, while I completely understand the resentment some people feel toward those who do not participate fully in the fundraisers, is it really worth getting all worked up about? If it is getting to be a problem, you can always make the fundraising mandatory (either sell popcorn or contribute more in direct donations). We are even going to start having those who sell popcorn get their next year's dues paid by the Pack. Maybe that is an alternative. If you really need Den Dues, I would recommend having a flat rate at the beginning of the year with an option to offset it through fundraising participation. (if the cash flow is too much for a poor family, work it out individually).