CalicoPenn

"Cancelin' events because of possible snow and ice on da roads? Southerners should really learn how to drive, eh?" Great example of why Go/No Go dscussions would be helpful in training. I never said I would leave because the driving might be bad. Indeed, I look at the possibility of icy roads as somewhat of a red herring in this scenario (though I doubt that was the intention). Tossed in there in an attempt to have us zero in on the transportation issue. I had the pleasure of driving down to Paducah, Kentucky about 2 months ago. About 6 miles north of Metropolis, Illinois, I noticed that the tops of most of the trees along the highway were snapped off - all at about the same height. This same damage pattern was pretty consistent in the entire Paducah area. Littered at the base of all of these trees was the tops of the trees - ranging from 5 to 25 feet in length. There was some significant size branches and tree tops laying about. I wondered when a big windstorm had come through for about 30 seconds until it occurred to me that the damage was too uniform for a windstorm, and that there was a major ice storm in the area in February. Yep - all these trees had snapped off in the ice storm. Now imagine your group of Scouts in the woods with the potential for an ice storm to come roaring through. Now imagine that storm coming through and causing tree tops to shatter throughout your campsite. Even if your in an open field, what will a build up of ice do to your tents? Can they withstand the weight of ice? Now would you cancel or pack up and leave?

I would discuss my concerns with the decision maker, making sure he has all the information I think I have and that I have all the information he thinks he has. Shouldn't that be step one anyway? Make sure we're all reading from the same manual? I've learned that most of the time when these kinds of situations pop up, it's because someone (and, sorry to say, it's usually the one threatening to withdraw) just doesn't have all the information - and once they get all the information, things become hunky-dory. Sometimes a river looks worse than it really is. Sometimes a dark forboding sky in the distance is no where near ones destination. Sometimes, Plan B has been planned but not advertised. Most people just need to know that their worries and concerns have been addressed. A good leader will be able to handle this fairly easily. Being the person I am, if the decision was made to go despite my misgivings, I'd still go - but be extra vigilant. Part of that comes from experience. I've encountered massive thunderstorms after 10PM on a Friday night making me think it's time to go that have lasted an hour then have gorgeous weather the rest of the weekend. On the flip side, what would you do if you were the decision maker and the other driver/leader bailed because of their safety concerns and their judgment over-riding yours?

""If Kahlan, 18 months old, of Nanaimo, British Columbia, is grumpy at a time when her mother has made plans, Mom says she is obligated to consider other plans." (From that news of the weird article) I'm speechless. The very concept eludes my understanding. OK, I'll admit it, I tried to read this out loud to somebody and started laughing almost to the point where I started crying. This is absurd." On the other hand: If your plans include bringing your grumpy 18-month old to the same movie I'm planning on seeing, or to the restaurant I'm planning on eating at, then please - I beg you - consider other plans. In fact, I more than beg you - I demand it of you. Stay Home! In other words, the above, though apparently absurd, is really quite considerate of every one else that shares this planet too - so perhaps we should be encouraging this kind of thinking, and getting away from the spoiled brat thinking of many modern day parents that their kids are special and society's niceties don't apply to them.

On the other hand, if the kid really wants to wear the Halloween cat costume every day for 6 months straight, who cares? It's not harming anyone. I doubt there is a Scouter who would seriously object if a Cub Scout or Boy Scout wanted to wear their full uniform every day for 6 months straight.

"A storm front is moving in. We are well equipped for the weather but there is a 70% chance of an ice storm. The roads may become skating rinks and dangerous. We are scheduled to pack up and leave tomorrow morning. Do we leave early to avoid potential (but not certain) dangerous driving conditions tomorrow morning or stick it out?" This would be a good question for a go/no-go discussion at a roundtable or other training - and also for individual units. If I were the PIC, and the 70% figure wasn't some randomly generated number but was estimated by more than one source (unless, perhaps, that source was a direct connect to the National Weather Service), I would cut the outing short and head on back early. Of course, this leaves another question. At what threshhold would I stay? 60%? 50% 40%. Tell me 10% and I'll take my chances, but north of 40? I'm probably leaving.

"where we had to learn that while we may be good to go, the group may be good to go" Oops - my bad (and my flying fingers). This should read: "where we had to learn that while we may be good to go, the group may NOT be good to go"

How many of us saw the James River? I know I didn't. 20/20 hindsight may lead me to wonder "what were these people thinking" but then again, it's much easier to be a deskchair commentator than the guy on the ground. We don't know why these folks felt they could canoe that river at this time. Given that this occurred on a Sunday, isn't it possible that the unit also spent time on the same river on Saturday without incident and felt it was relatively safe? There was another rescue mentioned meaning there were other canoes on the same river. Could it be possible that the unit saw other folks canoeing down the river and felt it was relatively safe? We also don't know, by this article, who owns these canoes. How many Scout Troops really own their own canoes - enough for a group of 13 people to use. For all we know, the Troop rented the canoes from a livery outfit. If that's the case, is there not some responsibility there too? Most livery outfits won't rent canoes to people if the river conditions are that treacherous. We also don't know how far these folks had traveled - they may have been on the river for a few hours already, without incident - and when the one group of Scouts got stranded on a rock, a decision was made in haste to land in a spot that might have been easily passed by had they not tried to land. We just don't know - so let's not judge these folks. We've all been there, regardless of skill level - caught in a situation we normally wouldn't have been in because of events beyond our control, or making a quick decision because someone else is in a bit of trouble, and just getting ourselves in trouble too. I can, however, say to Kenk, I think you did make the right decision. I've seen the Rock River the past 2 weekends. I wouldn't have gone out on it in a canoe. Heck, I don't know that I would have gone out on it in a power boat. I don't live on the Rock (but pretty close) but I do live between the Des Plaines and the Fox. I know both of these rivers have also been running high and fast, and that the Fox has been closed to boat traffic. It doesn't surprise me that the Rock would be pretty much closed as well. I'm just surprised that the camp master was just strongly suggesting. Seems to me that the camp master should have the ability to say "no, absolutely not" regarding the use of the camps canoes when the river is in this condition - after all, he's the one that lives on the river in the area and should know the conditions better than the Scout Leaders driving down from Rockford or from whereever.

No matter what, there needs to be one person who makes the ultimate call when it comes to safety matters - and that should be the Adult in Charge (be it the Scoutmaster, or a his/her designated agent). All we can do is train the Adult Leaders about how their responsibilities are not to the planned trip at hand but to the unit community as a whole, then hope for the best. The parents are entrusting the safety and well-being of their children to the adults on the trip, and most expect that there will be one who makes that ultimate call. It shouldn't matter if the adult in charge is an expert on the activity or not - his/her role goes way beyond the activity. The role is to ensure the safety and well-being of ALL of the people on the trip. If there is any reasonable doubt, then that person, expert or not, should be making the call to cancel. We should hope that the PIC (person in charge) would avail of themselves the advice of folks with more expertise and experience in some activities (and we increase the chances of this happening by training) and that they don't overrule an expert saying "Don't do it - its not safe". At the same time, I have no problem with the PIC overruling an expert who says "it's fine, let's go" and say's no because they've considered things the expert may not have. We should also hope that if the PIC is the expert, that they take into account that what may be perfectly ok for them may not be perfectly ok for the bunch of amateurs standing in front of him/her and be able to say "nope - sorry - we're not taking that trip this time", or that the PIC take into account the feelings of the other adults who may be telling him/her that the trip shouldn't happen if that is coming from serious reservations and not just "because I want to hang around in camp". Maybe it's because of my degree program in just this kind of trip planning and executing but we spent much of our time going over "Go - No Go" situations where we had to learn that while we may be good to go, the group may be good to go. Perhaps training could be enhanced by a few roundtable discussions throughout the year running a few "Go - No Go" scenarios.

I'll bet if it was suggested that a permanent Jamboree site be built at Philmont Scout Ranch, where the BSA has plenty of land, we'll see an awful lot of Scouters develop an interesting brand of Nimbyism. I've visited this area - it is beautiful. I can't blame the residents for not wanting a facility with a permanent arena potentially seating up to 100,000 people to be built there. And the economics? 250,000 people once every 4 years isn't some great boon the the local economy. Unless the BSA ponies up the bucks to pay for all the services used during that time, it will likely cost the people more than they could possibly make from it. I'd support a deal with the US Government for part of Fort AP Hill. Turn over management of 10K to 20K acres of Fort AP Hill for the construction of, and use of, a Jamboree site in exchange for making the National Park Service the undisputed recipient of Philmont Scout Reservation should the BSA ever shut down.

I discounted this the moment it became clear that this was an opinion piece about a group of people written by someone who was not a member of the group of people in question. The fact of it being an opinion piece automatically means it has a bias. It also means that no factual matters need be addressed. It's much the same as claiming that Democrats are socialists, Republicans are fascists, and right-wing radio talk show hosts are feeble-minded clowns (though the latter may very well be true). The best part of opinion pieces like this is that people like me can stand up and say "It is my opinion that Charlotte Allen is a feeble-minded clown" without needing any facts to back it up.

We already have a "Scout Marketing Week". It's called Scout Week, and (sorry Eamonn) it's in February. Scout Week starts on Scout Sunday and ends the following Saturday (sometimes known as Scout Sabbath). Back when I was a lad, the local Scout units would set up Scout Week displays in the windows of local retail and service businesses - mostly in strip malls. My town had 5 Cub Scout Packs, 4 Boy Scout Troops and 4 Explorer Posts (+ fed a Sea Scout ship and 3 other Explorer Posts from other towns). The Packs would compete agains the other Packs to create the best display, the Troops would compete against the other Troops, and the Explorer Posts cooperated together on one display (to show the diversity of the Exploring program). It would get really interesting sometimes when "sister" Packs and Troops would try to outshine the other. I never see Scout Week displays anymore. Either people don't/won't take the time to put them together anymore, or shops won't provide the space anymore for whatever reason they have.

The fool who named it ping pong was a very prescient individual who knew that one day, Christopher Walken would be pronouncing it in a ping pong movie spoofing the 1970's Bruce Lee flicks. Walken's pronouncement is arguable the penultimate.

I was an Eagle Scout. I was an Eagle Scout for about 4 months. I am no longer an Eagle Scout. See where I'm going here? I am now an adult who earned the Eagle Scout rank when I was a Scout. As an adult, I can no longer be a Scout. I can be a Scouter, but not a Scout, and there is no such thing as an Eagle Scouter. I've always felt that the "Once an Eagle Scout, always an Eagle Scout" meme was sloppy phrasing of an intent to remind Eagle Scouts that they have a greater responsibility to uphold the principles of the BSA as they move through life, and then mostly because of the perception of the Eagle Scout rank that pervades American life, a perception not shared with the equally impressive Girl Scout Gold Award. There are those who earned the Eagle Scout rank that have not upheld the principles of the BSA. One that comes to mind is Russell Henderson, who pleaded guilty to beating and essentially crucifying on a wire fence a young man in Wyoming. Still an Eagle Scout? I wouldn't say so. On the other hand, I AM a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow. This honor does persist through adulthood (as long as one maintains their membership in their lodge). In many ways, I feel much more honored, and honor-bound by the Vigil Honor. It wasn't something I worked toward, or aspired to. It was bestowed upon me by my peers and was not expected. I have friends who are Vigil Honor members who have bemoaned not getting the Eagle Scout rank - but I always remind them that Vigil is rarer than Eagle (the year I was inducted, only 7 youths from my Lodge were inducted - there were a couple hundred Scouts earning Eagle Scout that year), and while not an accomplishment the way Eagle is, Vigil is a recognition of one's true spirit. Calico

A McDonalds in Boston sells a McDonalds cheeseburger consisting of one meat patty, one bun, a sprinkling of onions, 2 pickles, ketchup, mustard, salt and pepper - the standardized McDonalds cheeseburger per the book. A McDonalds in Seattle sells a McDonalds cheeseburger consisting of one meat patty, one bun, a sprinkling of onions, 2 pickles, ketchup, mustard, salt, pepper and a tomato slice. Is it a McDonalds cheeseburger?? Answer - no, it is not a McDonalds cheeseburger - a McDonalds cheeseburger is defined - adding a tomato makes it something else - it's similar to a McDonalds cheeseburger, but it isn't a McDonalds cheeseburger. Now maybe you like tomato slices on your burgers, so adding to the ingredients isn't that big a deal to you - but you still didn't get a McDonalds cheeseburger. I feel I'm channeling a poster many of us know - but someone's got to say it - you're either delivering the Boy Scout program as franchised by the Boy Scouts of America, or you aren't. If you're adding to the requirements, no matter how much you try to justify it as "character building", you aren't. You're providing a program that is similar to the BSA's, but you aren't providing the BSA program. Once again, the question becomes, "What makes you think you're smarter than the BSA?"

Just how badly did you lose your cool? Did you become a snarling beast or did you just sharply raise your voice? Did the parent's cringe, just raise their eyebrows a touch, or even secretly smile? Has anyone else talked to you about this or are you just beating yourself up over your own sense of guilt? Only you can judge that for yourself. Unless you were incredibly over the line, in which case a talk with the committee where you offer your apologies and resignation may be in line, (and from your description, it doesn't sound like this is the case), you need to let it go and stop dwelling on it. At the next meeting, have the Totin-Chip card as promised - when you give it to the lad, tell him that next time he loses it, he will have to re-earn it (you're sure that other leaders haven't snipped a couple corners already, and that he's just conveniently "lost it" right?). Then file this away until your next Scoutmaster's Conference with the lad when you have a chat with him about his behavior at camp-outs and how it causes his leaders to become frustrated with him, lessening the enjoyment of Scouting for everyone in the Troop.

I wanted to separate this out from the thread it was in because I think it something we should be looking at without it getting lost in a much, much (much, much) larger thread. Unfortunately, I don't have the capability to have posted Dan Kroh's response too (sorry Dan - maybe you could summarize the response here too). The post said: "There are two boys in my son's school who have "two moms". One of the moms came to our school night to join scouting. She seemed to be upset by the fact that when the other boys went to Dad and Lad camp, her boys would be left out. She wanted to send some other male with them to Dad and Lad. We didn't know what the rules were on this, but we suggested she take the boys to Mom and Me camp. She didn't like this, because her sons would feel left out. You see, if these people have their way, we can no longer have father/son activities, because some boys don't have fathers and it's not fair to make them feel left out. This is a perfect example of how these people want special treatment, not just equality. I have never heard any of the single, divorced, or widowed moms ask if they could send some other male friend to Dad & Lad in place of their sons' father." I've seen plenty of cases where a single mom want her son to be able to get the full benefit of Scouting that the rest of the boys get, and that includes participating in "dad and lad" campouts (a lot of fun things can happen there) - and want to send a male other than dad to act as substitute dad. I've never seen this to be an issue - sometimes it's grandpa, sometimes it's an uncle, occassionall it's been an older (above 18) brother - and sometimes it's just a close family friend - yet I've never seen a lad not be allowed to go if he has a dad or a "dad" coming with. I can't see this being an issue with a Cub or Scout with two mom's either. What say the rest of you?

Ceremonies are open to parents - it's just not well advertised. Most Lodges understand this and word their invites and announcements in such a way as to not admit that non-member parents can attend the ceremonies without saying that non-member parents can't attend the ceremonies. I'd say the reason this became an issue is because the District Commissioner DID know better. He knew that non-member parents may attend the ceremonies and chose, as a parent, to attend the ceremony. For whatever reason he had, he was well within policy on his expectations that he would be allowed in to observe. Unfortunately, we don't get details on how this Scouter was turned away from the ceremony and all that then came about. One possible scenario I can see is the youth acting as the gatekeeper refused him entry and the Scouter making a ruckus right there. If this is the case, the Scouter has some fault for not showing restraint, however the Lodge failed to properly train the ceremonies team and also failed in that there was no escort provided to ease the parents way in (was there no one at this event that knew this District Commissioner and knew he wasn't an OA member who could have walked him through?). The other scenario is he was told by the Lodge leadership before folks started gathering to go to the ceremony that he wouldn't be allowed - in which case, I hope he raised holy heck with a Lodge leadership team that failed to understand the policies. If he raised a ruckus and was disruptive while in line, it would have been best to have the Lodge Adviser take him aside (down the trail), get him calm, then go in after everyone else was there - and expect an apology from him to the youth member that stopped him, after the Lodge Adviser apologized for not foreseeing this issue. If, on the other hand, he was denied entry right from the get go, then I, for one, would hope the District Chairman, Council Commissioner, Chapter Adviser, District Executive and Scout Executive would be behind him on this 100% and make sure the Lodge never fails a parent again. I remember almost being turned away from my brother's Ordeal ceremony because I didn't remember the admonition. It was the same weekend as my Vigil induction, and I was corralled into doing the Brotherhood qualifications when the person who was going to do it failed to show up - unlike my fellow new Vigil inductees, I got no time during the day for a snooze - by the time of the Ordeal ceremony, I could barely remember my name, let alone the admonition. It was very fortunate for two youth members that day (me and the gatekeeper) that my Chapter Adviser was right behind me because after he said he couldn't let me in, I apparently started a low-throat growl that raised some goose pimples on a couple of folks nearby and I know I was gearing up to bring down a rain of fire on this poor young lad. My Chapter Adviser just propelled me forward, told the lad I was one of the Vice Chiefs of the Lodge, and if he had an issues, talk to the Chief.

Ok - let's drop the phrase "adding to the requirements". Let's stop sugar coating it and start calling it what it really is: "Over-ruling the BSA". Because that's exactly what takes place - individuals, well-intentioned as they believe themselves to be, over-rule the policies and procedures of the BSA in order to what? Defend the virtue of the BSA? Prove that they have power? Prove that they're smarter than the BSA? The uniform is a prime example. The BSA says the uniform is an important part of the program, even making it one of the methods of Scouting. They also say that the uniform is not required in order to fully participate in the BSA. Fully participate - that doesn't mean they can attend meetings and go camping but can't advance - it means they can fully participate, including advancement. Yet peoples personal expectations that an Eagle Scout candidate should somehow be in full uniform is more important than the policies and procedures of the BSA which doesn't expect a Scout to be in uniform in order to fully participate in Scouting? Being in uniform is great - and should be encouraged - nothing is wrong with that. But instead of complaining about the folks looking askance at leaders that are adding to requirements (which is specifically not allowed), how about instead we stop enabling people to make up their own rules that have the effect of over-ruling the BSA. By what rationale do we have to over-rule the BSA on their prohibition of adding to the requirements? The answer is "none" - and any thing else is just an attempt to justify a belief that we know better.

Scoutldr, I remember my time as a Cub (a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away), we all brought a quarter to the weekly Den meeting. This was the money used by the Den Mother (a hint on just how long ago) to buy supplies. If we missed a meeting, we were still responsible for paying the dues for the missed meeting. It was part of the weekly routine that the Den Mother, or the Den Chief, would collect the quarter from each Cub and mark the chart showing the dues were paid. As I recall, part of this routine was to teach responsibility, part to teach citizenship, and part to instill the knowledge that the crafts materials didn't just appear out of thin air. As I look back, I sense that a shift started a few years after popcorn sales started when the "Scout Account" mentality really took off and migrated down to the pack level. Selling Scout-O-Rama tickets helped raise money for the Council and Pack. We didn't expect money from those sales to be available to individual boys, or to Dens. In Boy Scouts, the "Scout Account" was money we paid into the account throughout the year to put towards the big ticket items like Summer Camp. It was more like the old fashioned Christmas Club accounts many banks used to offer. There was no "share" of the fundraising "profits" that went into the Scout Accounts, it was money from parents, allowances, paperboy jobs. Today, "Scout Accounts" seem to have more in common with earning a paycheck from the Troop. A Troop holds a fundraising event, and members "earn" a certain amount towards their "Scout Accounts" depending on how much work they put in. I wonder how much of that is driven by parents who expect that their children be "paid" for raising money for the Unit.

Although it left a bitter aftertaste, you did the right thing by a young Cub Scout caught in the middle of a dispute amongst adults. Take some comfort and pride in that. As Scoutldr suggested, your next step should be a certified letter by the Chartering Organization telling this ex-leader that her relationship with the Pack has been terminated. The letter could include a sentence to the effect that should she be in possession of any Den or Pack equipment and/or supplies, they should be turned over to the Pack. Have a meeting the with parents in the Den. They may be angry now but you need to diffuse that anger - perhaps the Pastor can help you with that. The message should be that it's a new day with the Den, that the members of the Den will still get a great Cub Scouting program (if you haven't already, appoint a new Den Leader)and that it's time to let go and move away from the past. It's time to embrace the future. Perhaps the Pack can help out the Den a little financially for a month or two while the new Den Leader works with some of the parents to develop a more realistic, and frugal (thrifty) budget for Den activities. Don't get caught in the trap of reimbursing these parents for past Den dues - they can't prove or disprove that the money wasn't spent appropriately, and if they can prove it, they may have cause to go after the former Den Leader. Then it's time for a "lessons learned" reflection. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that this Den Leader wasn't removed from the Pack for cussing at the Pastor of the Chartered Organization - if that did indeed happen. Talk about a negative impression on the people holding the charter. It might also be wise to create a new Pack-wide policy on Den Dues - it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the Den Leaders meet at the beginning of the year and hash out a single dues amount for the year so that if the Cub in Den 1 are being assessed $5 a month, a Cub in Den 5 is also being assessed $5 a month. The exception may be Webelos dens, whose expenses may be a bit more - but even then, it could be a function of the Den dues (for example, the Webelos Dens can't chage any more than 50% of the Den dues - if Dens charge $5.00 per month, Webelos Dens can collect $7.50 per month) - and it should also be announced at that initial leader's meeting so that everyone knows what is being collected from the unit's members.

I'm going to suggest something completely different. How often do you camp together? Your answer to that will be your guide. If you and your two Cubs barely fit in a 7x7 tent, upgrade to a larger tent - a 10x10 will be more than enough room for you to grow into, and hold your gear for a long time to come. Coleman makes some fine 10x10's that aren't too expensive - and you're going to need a new one fairly soon anyway if you already have a tight fit in the 7x7.

Right you are Pack. They could be blonde bimbos that posed topless at age 17, got implants because they didn't like the body God gave them, makes a living posing in swimsuits and lingerie, and now claims to be some kind of Christian.

I don't recall taking an oath to defend the flag of the United States of America when I took the oath upon being commissioned an Ensign in the Coast Guard Reserve. I do, however, recall taking an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Maybe it's because of the kind of people I know but most of the veterans I know never say they fought for the flag. They say they fought for the country, for the principles of the country, and for their friends and family. I doubt that they would agree that their friends died for the flag. If pressed on the issue of deliberate disrespect for the flag, most of the veterans I know find the practice personally abhorent yet insist they fought to protect the rights of the people to do so. If Congress decided tomorrow that the offical Flag of the United States of America would be orange and purple with white polka dots, I'd salute it - just as long as they didn't trample the Constitution to make that decision.

What I can't believe is that it took the BSA so long to do it. Then again, they've always been aboult 15 years behind the trends and colorful boxer shorts really started taking off aboult 15 years ago. Fluer-di-lis thongs won't fly at gay pride parades - the pattern would be too distracting - if you catch the drift.

So let me understand, it's ok to be disrespectful of a living, breathing person as long as the disrespect is to correct a perceived disrespect of a cloth on a staff? Yes, I know the flag is that cloth and therefore no ordinary cloth - but still the point is as much as we would all agree that having the flag displayed properly is it not more important to be considerate of the chair and the people in the room? Does not people take precedence over objects? By taking this action, weren't you deliberately being disruptive of a meeting in progress? Would this not have been better handled by a quiet word at the end of the meeting? Ask yourself this question - in correcting the flag placement to be in line with the flag code, was there any points of the Scout Law that were bent? I'd say courteous took a hit, friendly may have taken a hit (I can see how someone might consider this to be a bit of passive-aggressive hostility), kind may have taken a hit, helpful may have taken a hit. I'd send a mea culpa note back to the Chair. Calico