YoungBlood

When I think of the swim test, I don't think of swimming merit badge and rank advancement. Instead, I think this determines whether or not he is safe to go canoeing, sailing, waterskiing, swimming in crowded deep ends of pools and lakes and etc. It is for that reason that I would have major concerns about any boy who NEEDED googles and a noseclip to pass the swim test.

There is a difference between what someone may feel the program should do and someone who doesn't follow the program. I have always followed the program and will always do so. As for the swimming requirement I do not believe I am adding to it and I stand by that. It is what I was taught at Northeast Region National Camping School. If it is any consolation, the aquatics director at the Northeast Region Camping School was one of the people who wrote the old requirements and swimming handbook.(This message has been edited by YoungBlood)

Bob, I don't understand the intention of your post towards me. I never once said that I was going to or expected anyone to change requirements not published by BSA. Nor have I never not followed BSA policies or methods. I am somewhat offended and dumbstruck as to how you came to the conclusion that I was not following BSA policies and or methods and that I needed to change!(This message has been edited by YoungBlood)

Ed, Nowhere in the book does it say they can't wear a PFD while doing inflation either!(This message has been edited by YoungBlood)

I don't see why we even bother to teach them a survival skill then. What good will it do them when they actually do fall off some cruise ship and need to use inflation. They won't have their nose plugs and goggles then! Somebody else stated on this thread that if they can do it with goggles and a nose plug then they can do it without. I agree, with a little bit of pushing and some reassurance. I have watched firsthand kids try to swim with out their nose plugs and or goggles for the first time and then come up choking and panicking. Get them past their reliance now before it becomes a problem.

Just another thought, lets say the boy who passes the swim test then takes the swimming merit badge. Would you expect the staff to allow him to do inflation with goggles and a noseplug???

jps, There is no specific requirement for completing the swim test without the use of aids. However, it does state that the swim test must be completed in a strong manner. In my opinion, if the aquatics director, who is taking responibility for the safety of all of those boys in the water, does not believe using aids is showing he is a strong swimmer then by all means let him do so. There is no denying that the aquatics director is legally responbile if something should ever happen to anyone of those boys. I think it is only fair and appropiate to let him define a strong manner!

Speaking as a camp school certified Aquatics Director I would not pass that boy as a swimmer. I may give him beginner but not swimmer. If that boy can only swim with a nose plug and goggles then we will have a problem when I allow him out on a sailboat in the middle of the bay and he falls out. Or we may have some major trouble when he is in the crowded deep end of the pool and a fellow swimmer knocks his goggles off. It is not safe or responsible to pass anybody when they are not a STRONG swimmer. I would qualify a strong swimmer as somebody who can pass the swim test without aids and with a strong stroke. I see boys at summer camp all the time who are reliant on nose plugs and goggles. We generally ask them to do it with out or give them begginer and let them take the test again later on in the week after a little confidence building session or two. My suggestion is to let him take the test with the aids once and keep building his confidence untill he is ready to do it again with out them. Goodluck!

I might not like it, Youngblood doesnt like it, but the rules be the rules. You cant add or subtract from them Yeah, you are right, I can't add to them and you can't add to them. However, BSA can add to them and I would like to think that our thoughts and ideas may have a little influence on what they decide!(This message has been edited by YoungBlood)

Bob, I think Ed's question is close to what I was describing in my troop. We are talking about boys returning to troops very shortly before their 18 birthday for the sole purpose of finishing up last minutes badges and or their eagle project. These are also boys who left simply because scouting wasn't "cool" anymore and they wanted to spend more time with their friends. Well you know what, that is fine with me and I have no problem with it up untill they come back to cram for their eagle rank. For whatever reason you seem to think that this doesn't happen and that anybody who left scouting left for a noble or justified cause. I will tell you firsthand that this was not the case in my troop where I watched numerous boys return with 4 months left just to get their eagle badge. Doesn't seem right to me, maybe it does to you.

OGE, Well, I think both scouts are equally undeserving of the badge honestly. I wouldn't have a major problem with someone coming back to the program a year before their 18th birthday, because they now have a year to make up for some lost time and show some honest dedication to the program. I would still be slightly dissapointed that he left the troop in the first place, but I understand that boy scouts may not always be the top priority when you are that age and that I would know! I do have a problem when kids come back to a troop with 5 or less months untill they are 18. Why do I feel this way? Like many have always pointed out on this forum, there is much more to scouts than rank advancement. Any boy who returns that close to his 18th birthday is certianly after the Eagle Rank. I think it is wrong for these kids to be able to do this. I think it is unfair to other Eagle Scouts who have put so much into the program. It is also unfair to the boys in the troop he left. Like I stated in my first post, as of now there is no way to stop boys from doing this without adding to the requirements. That is why I would like BSA to publish a requirement that would ensure boys had atleast 6 months of solid participation right before they would be allowed to have his scoutmaster conference. I realize this wouldn't stop the 15 year old eagle from leaving the troop right after his badge, but it would cut back on the other problem of these last minute guys squeezing everything in! Just my two cents!(This message has been edited by YoungBlood)

acco40, First of all, when I speak of what I want for BSA in my troop, I do not speak as a SM, I speak as a boy in the troop. I have now just recently become an ASM. The frustration that I spoke about was watching many young men, many of them my friends, and many others that I once looked up too, abandon our troop and then return just a few months before they were 18. Yes, you are right, we should encourage boys who return to scouting, but we shouldn't give away eagle badges to do so. Nor is it unreasonable to ask that scouts who want eagle to remain active in the troop for a set time period of around six months!

Well, I too had this discussion at camp school. I was also under the impression that this activity is ok for Cub Scouts.

Unfortunately, there is no real way to stop this from happening. I too get very frustrated when I see these older scouts come back just in time to finish off the eagle rank. In my opinion, there should be a requirement that ensures these boys are active in the troop for a solid six months before they can have a scoutmaster conference. Any time a boy goes inactive he should have to start his six months again. Earning your Eagle should show dedication to the program.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....sorry, that is about all I could come up with for a response!

At my summer camp, designated smoking areas are any outdoor area away from those under the age of 18.

ASM1, either you are unaware of Russia's position or you are purposely distorting fact. Whichever it may be, I am frustrated to read false information. First, as far as I have read, the quote from Putin that you are referring to came from an interview on French television, not a surprise press conference. Here is the exact quote, "I am convinced that it would be a grave error to be drawn into unilateral action, outside of international law." Secondly, Putin has also publicly acknowledged that he agrees with US and Britain that Saddam is a threat that must be dealt with seriously. Thirdly, Russia has also acknowledged that war after two months of inspections is a little premature. However they have stated, "Give Saddam Hussein until September 15th and we will go there together," Clearly Russia is much more supportive then you would like many to believe. And finally, please tell me where you read that Putin has Mobilized 300K troops!

ASM1, I find it funny that you will not take the words of the intelligence community and this administration to be the truth or even close to the truth. Yet, the second Bin Laden, the man who ordered cowardly attacks on Americans, you immediately take his word as the truth. If Bin Laden has ties with Saddam would he really want to announce it to the whole world? Is it really unreasonable to believe that Bin Laden is scared that we may oust Saddam and he may lose a great ally? One thing is certain; I will trust the United States intelligence community far more than I will trust the word of a er like Bin Laden.

ahhhhh, I get it, we're going to beat up the weakling because we know he can't fight back and be afraid of the stronger guy.....which we actually happen to be much stronger than The point is, NK is a serious threat to us and the world. Saddam has been under our thumb for 12 years and is contained. NK is the greater threat. Our resources nned to be pointed in that direction. No, we are going to beat up the weakling before he can become the next NK. The point is, Saddam is not under our thumb and will soon be just as dangerous as NK. Why don't we deal with Saddam now before we have another NK to worry about? I would certainly agree with you that North Korea is probably the greater threat. However, every beast needs to be dealt with differently and we are dealing with them now.

We had 2 smouldering buildings for all the convincing you needed. I want the same for Iraq. kwc57, I hope that you really don't mean you want to wait for two more smouldering buldings to convince you that Saddam needs to be dealt with now. I would think that acting now would prevent another 9/11 and that is why I support the U.S. in taking action with Iraq.

There is no place in Scouting to teach value judgements about sex acts and sexual behavior. Oh really, what about this? "Abstience until marriage is a very wise course of action." Page 376 out of the scout handbook. The section is called sexual responsibility. Why not judge homosexual leaders by their actions as leaders? What a novel idea! Sure, why not judge alcoholics, drug users, Dallas Cowboy fans and bank robbers by their actions as leaders as well? Umm, the reason why we don't allow these people to be leaders is the same for homosexuals. BSA finds homosexuality to be immoral and not a healthy way to live one's life(just kidding about the cowboy fans). Therefore these people can not be good role models to our youth.

So in practice, BSA was out of line (although within its legal rights) to require Mr Lambert to express a belief in a deity. You know what! You are absolutely right. They should not have even given him a chance to express a belief in God after his "coming out of the closet". Even if he did, how sincere would it have been? I am sorry, he knew the policy and he just decided to ignore it. Ambrose is right on a much larger scale. Political correctness and this desire for "tolerance" are destroying American tradition and roots. I support tolerance of other religions one hundred percent. I don't however support this notion that tolerance means freedom from exposure to a religion that was significant in this Countrys past. I think a perfect example of this would be the issue with the Ten Commandments being removed from schools and courts. There was a reason why those Ten Commandments were there! People in our past decided that the Commandments were an appropriate code of values for our country. We weren't forcing religion down any ones throat, we weren't giving special privileges to any one religion or person, all we were doing was taking a piece of our past and preserving it with a small reminder of a plaque. What is American culture? I don't think we have much of a culture anymore. I truly believe that political correctness and the idea that we have to be so careful not to offend others is ripping away our own identity. This is our history! I am sorry, if you find a country that preserves its traditions and roots to be offensive then go find another country to live in! There are plenty of free countries that are very serious about preserving its culture and traditions. Take for example Canada; it is a country that has not yet been hit by a political correctness wave. You are perfectly free to live in Canada and have your own faith. However, that doesn't mean one bit that the Canadians aren't going to show off their tradition and culture. Yeah I know this is off topic and probably something that will warrant some nasty responses. Why can't America be a little bit more proud of its past?

Yeah, Bob White is right when he says boys may be quite proud of their tent. I remember when I got my first tent. It was the ugliest tent in the entire world, but it was MY tent. I was proud of it and I took it everywhere. Luckily for me it still kept the rain out. In my troop we allowed boys to bring their own tents aslong as it wasn't a trip that we wanted to look uniformed. For example on camporee's we all used the troop timberline tents just so we would look sharp.

Wow, looks like scoutparent got you on this one Bob White, "WHEREAS, the national officers agree with the report that "duty to God is not a mere ideal for those choosing to associate with the Boy Scouts of America; it is an obligation," which has defined good character for youth of Scouting age throughout Scouting's 92-year history and that the Boy Scouts of America has made a commitment "to provide faith-based values to its constituency in a respectful manner;" and"

That they teach people to distance one self from and hate people who do not hold the same religous views as themselves? Give me a break! This barely warrants a response. As misguided as BSA believes these people to be, they don't teach the boys to hate them. Having just completely finished the program as a scout I know plenty of great boys my age and older. I don't know a single one of them that now has hatred towards Atheist or even gays. (This message has been edited by YoungBlood)