Scouter99

There's a FB page with scans of the rosters: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-was-a-Boy-Scout-Make-it-known-and-Honor-him/193776697304458

Somewhere in the past week-2 weeks I saw a headline about Virginia preparing for a constituional convention (phrased like "WHY is VA preparing for...") but I can't remember where and the only thing Google is giving me is Glenn Beck which I don't read, but apparently VA and SC have already called for the convention http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/12/04/is-a-constitutional-convention-just-around-the-corner-south-carolina-virginia-call-for-a-convention-of-states/

Why should they? In the case of Ryan, if he's mature enough to go on national media and become a spokesperson for gay rights, then he's mature enough to know what "on my honor" means and that when he said that oath it meant nothing because he does not believe in God and he was ineligible to be a member. If you're one of the people of the mindset that Eagles are a special class of moral giants, then Ryan is a liar. If you're of the mindset that Eagles are just guys who met a list of requirements, then Ryan was not eligible to be in scouting to begin with. It's a shame that he lied to himself and it's a shame that the adults around him lied to him, but he picked his moment to come out as an atheist homosexual and he has to live in the real world like the rest of us. If there are younger boys who've left or been dismissed in the past because they were gay, and they want to continue with scouting, then they should find a unit and pick up where they left off. But, no, I see no reason to start backdating Eagle awards to homosexuals.

Welcome to the forum. I think the better question is is there a GOOD reason to create a crew in the first place? Unless they want to hunt, shoot pistols, go on horse treks, rock scramble, or fly airplanes, you can do the sorts of high adventure things associated with Venturing with older Boy Scouts. Venturing is a separate program, if you don't plan to do anything except use it as an enticing label to do more challenging Boy Scout things, then I don't see any reason to create a crew. As to the original question, if "because you're supposed to and you can't become a Venturer without applying to be one" isn't good enough, I suspect nothing will be. Next you'll be asking for a good reason to do the Venturing training.

Hahahahahahahaha WHAT?!!!

The software is crap, there are lots of forums that work, I don't understand why this forum isn't locked down as an archive and a new, working forum installed. SMF, phpBB, Invision Pro, take your pick from free to $150, and they all work perfectly out of box.

You are conflating two separate rules/policies: "2 deep" and "no 1-on-1." They are different and they address two different things. As a MBC, you cannot be alone with a single youth because of the no one-on-one contact rule, not because of the rule that requires two-deep leadership on outings. You can meet the requirements of no 1-on-1 by having your MB student bring a buddy, or by holding your MB session in the Starbucks, or by having your student's parent sit in view of the scout in another room. But by introducing a second person (youth or adult) you are not fulfilling no 1-on-1, not 2 deep. I most certainly did not say that an an adult can hold a conference with a scout in a closed room--that is your personal misunderstanding of what I said about the application of 2 deep based in your conflation of two different rules. SM conferences must be held within view of others, and that is, again, in fulfillment of the no 1-on-1 rule, not 2 deep. Those "others" can be youth or adults. I am saying that there are two rules, and 2 deep does not apply to meeting scenarios. No 1-on-1 applies to any/every Scouting situation. 2 deep only applies to outings, and the definition of "outing" is not complicated, either.

At least your boys got their time, the Safety Nimrods in my troop overruled all of the outdoor components of our meeting tonight, and the boys ended up doing some lame doodoo that I didn't force myself to sit through. As for your tightwad's specific complaints/charges: 1. Flashlights. So what? Is the CO butted up against a rocky ravine or something? 2. Specificity. Again, so what? The Scoutmaster is responsible for the program on the adult side, and if he is satisfied that's that. 3. Two Deep. The Guide to Safe Scouting's wording on 2 deep and 1-on-1 are very plainly written, so of course 98% of people have no idea what they mean. 2 deep applies only to outings, and to outings only. Not to troop meetings, not to SM conferences, not to PLCs, not to breakaway portions of an activity. Outings only. Now, for the sake of argument only, because he is wrong, but say 2 deep applied to troop meetings. OK, you were at the meeting, he was at the meeting, that's 2 deep. When 10 boys go around to the other side of the building, they have not suddenly become their own activity requiring 2 adults. How stupid? Does he think there need to be two adults at every station of a round robin? Does he think there need to be 2 adults with every patrol during patrol meetings? No. Each thing some scouts are doing during an event does not magically become its own event. I have no patience for these sort of people who quote policy without the slightest idea of what they're talking about. It's written in the simplest language possible. I had a guy try to tell me the same thing in a game situation one time, so I handed him the copy of the GtSS and told him to show me, when he couldn't find it there, he insisted we pull out the Scoutmaster Handbook, when he couldn't find it there, he insisted he was right just because. I told him the solution was simple: If he thought I needed a second adult to watch me while I watched 15 boys playing their game, then he was welcome to leave his chair and follow me. Guess who's butt stayed planted inside. The GtSS is cheap, it's worth it to buy your own copy and carry it around when you're dealing with people like this guy.

No point fighting the CoR unless you think the Institutional Head is going to step in favorable to you. Weather things out, and like Q said if the boys are having fun AND the program is holding to standard, stick with it. If they're not having fun, or the program goes south fast, then start shopping. The SM is approved by the CoR and CC, so the current SM might have picked his own replacement, but, no, the CoR isn't bound by that decision. There's a revamped Committee Guidebook hot off the press, you ought to get a copy and read it through. The new Leader's Guidebook is a few months behind schedule, so keep an eye out for it, too.

Should've kept the house on its leash.

Soooo, a kickstarter to kickstart something that already exists? I think I need some money to kickstart my idea, I call it: The Wheel.

If other troops use age-based patrols then they would naturally send patrols of uniformly older boys to the derby. Just because someone loses doesn't mean someone else was cheating.

The question is "We are having a hard time moving kids and gear to the various events [because of very low parent participation] . . . How do you folks handle this?" I'm, just throwing out ideas. Your idea is to pay people to drive the kids if parents won't do it--where do you think that money comes from? "A Scout is thrifty, he works to pay his own way" Your idea is just a different form of punishment, but instead of punishing the people who are the problem, it punishes the people who aren't necessarily the problem. The OP notes that those who are doing the lion's share of driving are getting burnt out--you can't pay away burn-out. If enough drivers cannot be found for any given trip, there is no "get over it" the trip can't happen. But if the pool of participants is smaller, less drivers are needed. The most equitable way is to reward those who've done their part. That is a solution, it's just not a solution you like.

1. The Cub salute, sign, and handshake are not changed. (p. 5)

If it has gotten really terrible, and you try some of the approaches already mentioned, then you could try informing the parents that beginning on X date scouts whose parents haven't helped out with driving once in the past X months won't be able to camp. At least for you it's parents. All of a sudden the ASMs in my troop have adopted an attitude of "well my scout isn't going so I'm not going." Try getting enough drivers then

BSA's Program Features volume 3 has meeting and campout ideas on the wilderness survival theme, you can download a copy at http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/boyscouts/resources/troopprogramfeaturesvol_i_iii.aspx Since you're running the trip and you've got until March, you need to make sure you know the basics. Get a survival book (Tom Brown's "Field Guide to Survival" is what I read as a scout, amazon has used copies for $6) and read through the Wilderness Survival merit badge book. Daniel Carter Beard, one of Scouting's lesser known founders, has 3 books that are diagram/illustration-rich that you should check out: "The Book of Camp-Lore and Woodcraft," "The Field and Forestry Handbook," and "Shelters, Shacks, and Shanties" You can view his books here: http://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Carter-Beard/e/B001IQWJC2/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1388767923&sr=1-2-ent I like DC Beard's books because his style of writing is fun to read and he has LOTS of illustrations so you know what he's talking about. BSA has released a wilderness survival book for sale in Barnes & Noble right now, but I don't care for it, it's all illustrations and no instructions. Speak to your treasurer about reimbursing you for the books. Explain why you need them and that they will be troop property when you're done. I stress this preparation reading because you can plan a great campout, but your boys will only enjoy it if they've got the skills necessary. Use the 4-5 meetings ahead of your trip to make sure they know how to build different kinds of shelters; show them different kinds of fires; show them different ways to cook without a stove; show them some edible plants that they can find in March (don't tell them all about berries and things that won't be out til months later); show them some ways to start fires with just one or two matches, and no matches; show them how to fold blankets into a sleeping bag. Make sure you know how to build a trench latrine and a lashing seat for it. Show, show, show, don't talk. And have them do, do, do. If your meeting place doesn't have a wooded lot behind it, then you need to have a meeting somewhere that does so they can practice shelter-building (and so you can demonstrate it). If you have not already booked/paid for your camping place, see if you can find a private landowner who doesn't mind if you're out there cutting down small trees and tall grass; it's difficult to build great shelters while you're constrained by LNT, and in a real survival situation LNT is out the window. If your campout was in the fall, you would have lots of dead fall, but in March the leaves (your main insulation) have been on the ground for 4 months already (remember that when you're planning for next year), so it would be helpful if you can find a landowner who will let you cut things. As for the actual planning, you will find your own ideas as you read. Since you're concerned about their lack of experience, this first time maybe make some of the more advanced elements into games, while making allowances for their lack of experience in their actual camping. For example make a patrol competition out of building a fire without matches, but let them light their cooking fires however they need to. Or, use games to enhance their camping, like rewarding them with meat like Horizon mentioned (I know you can buy frozen rabbit and quail in the grocery store down there). BUT, also keep in mind that no scout ever starved to death in 2 days. It's OK for them to be uncomfortable as long as they're having fun and learning--if they're having fun, they will tolerate some discomfort, but if they feel cheated by the situation (poor preparation), then they will get angry.

Again, Moose, the issue is what do you mean by "molester." If you mean only pedophiles, then you are correct, sex selection isn't prevalent because there's no sexual development in the victim. If you mean any person who forces themself on a minor, then sex selection becomes the norm for pubescent victims. Stating that fact does not equal an implication on my part that homosexuals are inherently abusers, and your BSA quote has nothing to do with what I said. Whether the adult is 18 or 68, if the pubescent (sexually developed/ing) minor is the same sex as the adult, then the adult is engaged in a homosexual sex act, and if the adult is exclusively attracted to the same sex, that person is a homosexual. That is what homosexual means. The rest of your post is you putting thoughts in my head that have never been there because you don't like what I have to say--I have no illusions about closeted homosexuals already being in Scouting, and I have no false sense of security based on illusions I do not have. Your attempt to paint me as someone afraid of the gay pedophile boogeyman highlights your continuing inability to understand what a pedophile is: I am not worried about gay pedophiles because most Boy Scouts are pubescent, they are not attractive to pedophiles. So, stick to what I have actually said and stay away from attempting to apply tropes to me.

Exactly!!! When I was a very young ASM, I did YPT at summer camp, and the next day I saw a middle-aged guy grab a kid by the collar and shake him. I was really upset but I was also pretty scared of the prospect of walking into the office to report it. A few minutes later I saw a middle-aged guy that was in the YPT session with me and I told him what I saw and what did he think, and he says "that's all for sex stuff, anyway he didn't hurt the kid and it's probably his son." I was an idiot and I let it lay at that, and I'll kick myself forever. The YPT is great for prevention, but it overemphasizes sexual abuse and doesn't talk enough about physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect, and people can't much be blamed for walking away thinking that it's only about sex.

The problem with a comments feature alongside a quote feature is it allows for a lot of off-topic banter. Whereas a person might not quote and add an off-topic reply, the comment invites side conversations.

The difficulty with an absolute statement like "molesters aren't aroused by the sex [of the victim]" is what do you mean by "molester"? Molester means everything and nothing. As I've noted in issues/politics before, "pedophile" is a specific diagnosis with a specific definition--it is exclusive to people who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children 13 or younger. Regardless of how people use it in the vernacular, that's what it means. A pubescent person might be a minor and a child, but whether they're 10 (as many girls and increasing numbers of boys are) or 17, they're not attractive to pedophiles because of their sexual development. Now terms get sticky, and your absolute statement is absolutely false: A person who just wants sex or to overpower people might abuse or rape a pubescent male or female without regard to their sex. You could call them a molester or a rapist. However, a man who is engaging in sex acts with pubescent males under 18 is engaging in homosexual sex acts, not pedophile acts. If in his everyday life he's dating women or married or whatever, then maybe he's picking boys not because they're boys but because boys are more eager to engage in sex acts, and you might call him a heterosexual molester or rapist, and his actions are homosexual (or homoerotic) by convenience. But if he is attracted to/selecting those males because they are males, then he is gay (and the ladies are a cover) or bisexual. If the abuser is a female, same thing. There is a growing movement to label people who are attracted to pubescent people "ephebophiles" (after the Greek term for the youth in a man-teen relationship) and regard them as having a sickness like pedophiles. All of these terms also presume victimhood, which is not necessarily the case in every situation especially as the minor approaches 18 and the adult is closer to 18--and there are cases in the Ineligible Volunteer files where the expelled leader was younger than 20 and the scout was 16+. Again, teens and young adults do force themselves on younger teens and children, in which case they're an abuser/molester/rapist, but the hard line at 18 as a legal concept does not change who people are attracted to within a close age range. A law can state that a 16-yr-old cannot give legal consent to an 18-yr-old, but that does not mean that actual consent was not given, and the 18-yr-old might be a "criminal" but that doesn't automatically mean "molester." Despite all these actualities, 90% of people refer to a simplistic and wrong dichotomy of molester-not molester. I've heard boys in my troop goes so far as to call junior or senior classmates who are dating a freshman or sophomore "pedophiles" and that attitude is pretty much the norm, but it's ridiculous. You see quickly how this issue is complicated by the patchwork of vernacular, biological, medical, and legal terms and definitions. But people who engage in sex acts with pubescent people most definitely do select their victims/partners based on their sex.

While well-meaning but misguided folks like you have been giving me funny looks for daring to be a man working with kids, 3 women in my district have been arrested for screwing students. Your mindset is inherently flawed because it presupposes falsehoods and overemphasizes sex abuse thereby increasing opportunity for abuse.

Correction on myself, virtually every photo of Scouts--not "a few"-- in the 10th ed of the handbook shows them in the official Activity Uniform (khaki shorts/red polo/white socks), including the cover. They're only wearing the Field Uniform (khaki shirt/green bottoms/green socks) in photos showing "formal" things like flag handling. I find it pretty strange that these uniforms didn't dominate given their very availability opposite complaints about the Field Uniform and BSA's obvious emphasis in the handbook. I can't even find them on eBay.