CalicoPenn

I don't get it - what part of earning Star, Life and Eagle don't fit into a Venturing agenda? At those levels, Troops aren't offering skills training or anything like that - they are offering POR opportunities - which Venturing Crews do, a leader to sign blue cards for merit badges, which a Crew Adviser can do, assistance in tracking requirements and service project hours, which isn't that onerous. What exactly in the requirements for Star, Life and Eagle would put any kind of pressure on a Venturing Crew to do something different just because John needs something for rank? At the Venturing level, earning advancements and awards are truly an individual thing - and at the Boy Scout level, earning Star, Life and Eagle is truly an individual thing - so there should be no more work to shepard a lad through to Eagle than sheparding a Venturer through to the Silver or Ranger awards. Calico

To get back to Lisa's question, and to build on emb's response. Back in the 1930's, the BSA developed a "senior scout" program which included Sea Scouts, Air Scouts, Rover Scouts and Explorer Scouts - with advancement appropriate to each program. They did this to try to head off the rapid drop out rate of Boy Scouts at and after age 15, so they created these more challenging and specialized and adult like programs. In 1949, the Senior Scout division was turned into the Explorer division and all of the senior scout programs became Explorer programs - Sea Explorer, Air Explorer and Explorer Scouts which became plain old Explorers, and kept their own separate advancements. In 1959, the Explorer division was renamed Exploring and their separate advancements were discontinued. A new advancement scheme was created, allowing Explorers to earn the rank of Eagle using Exploring specific rank requirements - at this time, the Eagle Scout rank had two different sets of requirements for earning it - the Boy Scout division requirements and the Exploring division requirements - a lad would choose which set he would follow to get the rank. Now, Eagle Scout was both a Boy Scout AND an Exploring rank. In an interesting twist, Explorers could earn the Eagle Rank and Eagle Palms up to the age of 21, provided they were also registered as Assistant Scoutmasters in a Troop. Talk about incentives to keep older teens and young adults interested. In 1972, the Exploring requirements changed again - Eagle Scout would still be an Exploring rank, but now Explorers had to use the standard Boy Scout requirements to earn the Eagle Scout rank - including earning Star and Life ranks, and earning it by age 18. Of course, to earn Star, one has to earn First Class - which has generally been considered to be a Boy Scout basic skills rank. (When first introduced, Star, Life (I should say Life, Star), and Eagle Scout were considered "Merit Badge" awards - they were awarded based on the number of Merit Badges one earned as a Scout.) Thus it makes sense that one would have to earn First Class as a Boy Scout. Star, Life and Eagle Scout were, in essence, shared ranks of the Boy Scout and Exploring programs. The requirement for First Class as a Boy Scout first also served to prevent attmpts to award Star, Life and Eagle Scout to girls, who, in the late 1960's (69 I think), were allowed to join special-interest Explorer Posts. Eventually, Exploring was turned into Learning for Life, and replaced on the Boy Scout side by Venturing. It's likely that Tradition plays a large role in the continuing to award Eagle Scout (and Star and Life) through the Venturing program - even though there are program specific awards in Venturing. I'd say it's also likely that the BSA still recognizes that a key drop-out age for Boy Scouts is 15 - and if it takes allowing the Venturing program to continue to award Eagle Scout to keep a 15 to 18 year old Scout in at least one of the Scouting programs, then the BSA will continue to use Star, Life and Eagle Scout as both Boy Scout advancements and Venturing advancements. Remember the key here, Star, Life and Eagle Scout are not just Boy Scout advancements, they are also Venturing advancements. I'd guess that the majority of the folks who earn Eagle Scout earn it either as Boy Scouts (doing their advancement work through their Troop) or as Venturers - rarely cross-working - and that the BSA just doesn't worry about where cross-registered lads complete requirements like Merit Badges and POR's, and that Scoutmasters and Crew Advisers are smart enough to look a lad in the eye who wants to try to play one unit off the other and tell him to get real. So that's the story as I know, and see it. I think it's great that Venturer's can earn Eagle Scout through their crew - but then I'm biased - I earned my Eagle Scout through my Explorer Post, and not my (cross-registered) Boy Scout Troop. Calico Ok - after reading it over again, I realized I should probably clarify something. It's obvious (in the Duh, Calico - tell us something we don't know) that Scouts either earn Eagle Scout as Boy Scouts or as Venturers. One has to be one or the other to earn it. My point is that most of the time, one either works on the rank in his role as a Boy Scout or works on the rank in his role as a Venturer - and most likely, rarely crossing over to a cross-registered unit to earn something (in other words, most lads aren't likely to go to both their Scoutmaster and Crew Adviser for merit badge blue cards - he'll usually choose one or the other - of course, there are exceptions, which leads to frustrations - but the BSA doesn't appear to consider that a serious issue, so perhaps we shouldn't either). (This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

In other words, Cricket would never have been played on the planet Vulcan.

Ok. I was confused but I think I figured it out - it appears that it was the "Protestant" Packs turn to set up the city-wide fall roundup, which has traditionally been held on a neutral site, and where all three Packs recruit. Is that correct? In which case, a simple phone call to determine why a non-neutral site was chosen could go far in reducing angst (as someone else mentioned, possibly the neutral site was not available. Or perhaps the neutral site is now charging money and the roundup sponsoring Pack figured it could save everyone some money by holding it at their sponsor's location - a Scout is Thrifty - and Cub Scouts isn't too early to model that). I don't think I'd be too quick to judge this as being some kind of underhanded trick. On the other hand, if they are advertising it as "Pack XXX's" roundup, then the other Packs better get on the stick and set up their own fall roundups. If this is the roundup for everyone, just forget getting into a tiff over "fairness" - when I hear "It's not fair", I think of 5th through 8th graders - not adults. The adults just need to get over it - and work with the sponsoring Pack to publicize the event and site to their own constituencies. Then next year, the "Catholic" Pack can hold the event at the Catholic Church, and the year after, the (apparently) "Secular Sponsor" Pack can hold it at their meeting place. As for the Den Chief issue - what exactly is the Pack leadership saying? There's a big difference between "We'd like some Den Chiefs from your Troop but are going to encourage the boys to join the other Troop" and "We'd like some Den Chiefs from your Troop but we can't guarantee that any of the boys from our "Protestant" Pack will join your "Catholic" Troop, and we know how Den Chiefs are considered an important part of a Troop's recruiting arsenal and we'll understand if you say no but are really hoping you'll say yes." If the first scenario, I'd be inclined to respectfully decline - if the latter, I'd be inclined to say "Sure - how many do you need and I'll see what I can do" (after all, even if you don't get Scouts for your own Troop, you may still get Cubs into Scouts, and will get leadership positions for members of your Troop - and while the logic holds true for the first scenario too, it comes down to "being used" or "being useful" ) Calico(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

All I can say is "Fall into the GAP" CP

The Great and Powerful Oz has Spoken - let's have no more of this nonsense of real life intruding on what BSA books say the program should be. Because those of us grounded in reality know that if parents present a unified consensus to the CO, changes will be made, regardless of what the books say about the BSA program. Those of us grounded in reality know that if an entire committee tells the CO it's time for a new CC, or the unit will be decimated by people leaving, the CO is likely to make the change, regardless of what the books say about the BSA program. Those of us grounded in reality know that in most cases, if a committee votes in a new CC, or fires a Scoutmaster, without approval from the CO, that the decision of the committee is likely to be fully accepted by the CO because the CO just doesn't really care what happens internally to the unit, regardless of what the books say about the BSA program. But never mind reality - the Great and Powerful Oz has spoken, and thus it shall be.

Kids do tend to model what adults do, especially what their parents do (even if they won't admit it). Most people I know that fish, hunt, camp, go boating, garden, had a parent (or parents) that did it when they were growing up. Most people I know who read recreationally had parents (or at least one) that read recreationally when they were growing up. Conversely, most people I know that don't like Brussels Sprouts (or any other kind of food) had at least one parent that not only didn't like Brussels Sprouts, but was vocal about it. What parents do when they don't think they are actively teaching their children has as much influence on their children's behavior as what they intend to teach their children. And it isn't limited to parents either - Hillary Clinton wrote a book titled "It Takes a Village", based, if I remember correctly, on lessons from villages in Africa. It it, she said that children were raised as much by their village as by their parents - of course she was excoriated by the anti-Clinton right wing - but the truth of the matter is she was right. As Scout Leaders, we are important role models for the youth in our units. How many tales do we hear of Scouts and former Scouts who look back on their Scouting years and recognize a Scoutmaster, or other Scout Leader that was particularly influential. If you're in a position to do so, start bringing books of your own on camping trips - every single one - and settling down for a 1/2 hour or so just to read - if I'm right, within just a few camping trips, your Scouts will start doing the same thing. Back in my Summer Camp days, we always had a camp wide enforced (meaning no activities were available) siesta right after lunch. Ever try napping in a hot canvas tent at 1 in the afternoon? The most popular activity in our Troop's campsite was reading - why? Because the adults took advantage of the quiet time to read, so we did too. To this day, I love listening to Jazz - why? Because that's what my parents played on their stereo when I was growing up. I also can't choke down rutabaga if my life depended on it - why? Because both my parents were vocal about their extreme distaste of rutabaga. Yet a serving of nicely caremelized sauteed brussel's sprouts is delicious to me - even though my mother never made it when I was a kid - but she also never told me how horrible it is either. Calico Calico

I'd sure like to know where those suburbs full of liberal progressives are. I live in a "rich white" suburb of Chicago - a city of mostly blue collar workers, pink collar workers, service/retail industry workers and white collar middle managers. Most of the suburbs around me are full of the same kind of people. There are a few suburbs where the residents pretend to be rich, but are mostly over-extended middle class people a couple of paychecks short of serious financial problems. There are a very few "rich white" suburbs. One common theme in these suburbs is that liberal progressives are a decided minority - most people living in these suburbs are conservative staticists - people who want things to stay just as they are, and who will vote for a democrat only if the democrat is further to the right of Ghengis Khan than the republican is. So where do we have to go to find liberal progressives? The big city (which also happens to be one of the biggest cities in the country) - and liberal progressives in the city aren't just limited to the lakefront, or the north side - you'll find them in the blue collar and rough collar neighborhoods of the city too. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy the argument that one needs to be white and rich and live in the suburbs to be a liberal progressive - I just don't see that in the worldview I experience on a daily basis. Calico

OGE - I suggest that the opposite of Progressive isn't Regressive in this case, but is Static. Progressive implies forward movement while regressive implies backward movement. Traditionalists (or conventionalists) aren't neccessarily looking to go backwards, usually they are looking for things to remain the same - but as has been pointed out - how to define tradition is a rather big problem. So, I offer a newly coined word (maybe someday it will become accepted) - Staticist (not to be confused with Statist, please) - meaning "one that likes things just the way they are and wishes no movement in either direction". As for traditional - it's rather difficult to define just what is meant by traditional mostly because society has changed - as one starts going back in historical time to try to determine just what is traditional, it becomes apparent that one can just keep going on and on and on without ever getting to a stopping point - yet we have to stop somewhere - it's where each of us stops that causes arguments about what it all means. For instance, since it's being brought up - the so-called traditional immorality of homosexuals. The fact is that being gay was not seen as immoral in modern times until just after World War 1 - it was quite accepted in this country during the 1700's and 1800's. In "biblical" times, it was only seen as immoral among the Judaists - and mostly because it was seen as an impediment to the growth of the Judaist people's - growth needed to rise up in opposition to the stable populations of the dominant cultures of the time (in fact, if you analyze things, you can see that a modern version is occuring right now - population growth amongst most races in the US is pretty stable - the exception is in Hispanics, where population growth is outstripping everyone elses - its this baby boom amongst Hispanics in this country that is leading them to a significant minority, (and possible majority in a few dozen years)). In the grand history of human population on this planet, homosexuality has been seen as "immoral" for an extremely brief period of time. So too, the tradition of marriage, which gained its strongest foothold when the Church decided to use the "institution" to ensure that their property remained within the Church - at one time, the Church (as an entity) was not allowed to own it's own property - monasteries, chapels, churches, etc. were owned, in the eyes of the State, by the individual priests and monks, and when they died, because most had no legal heirs (they could not name the Church their heir), the property reverted to the State. The Church got around it by embracing the State institution of marriage and issuing a same sex marriage ceremony - which gave a male priest an heir in a generally younger male priest or acolyte of the church - and which was recognized by the State. So we could go back to that point and say it's tradition that people of the same sex can get married. Anyone who has ever remodeled a home will understand this concept - the question of "where do you stop?" As for so-called "moral relativism", it has pretty much been the way societies have advanced throughout the centuries - at one time slavery was considered right - it was "moral relativists" that brought about a change in that thinking. I, for one, hope we never regress in our society where slavery is once again acceptable. Jesus Christ is arguably the most famous "moral relativist" in history - he of the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" outlook - which is classic moral relativism. Calico

Welcome to the forums, and thanks for taking on the role of Merit Badge Counselor for these badges. My first suggestion is to become familar with the role of the Merit Badge Counselor and learn what they may, and may not do, in the course of their counseling - you should be able to get information on that either from your district advancement chair, or from the BSA website. My second suggestion is to read the requirements of each badge, and the merit badge books - become very familiar with them. I think as you do, you'll notice that none of the requirements even suggest any kind of written exam, or any kind of exam at all. A requirement may say "List the six functions of the government as mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution and discuss with your counselor" but it doesn't say anything about listing them from memory, or anything about being tested on it. In fact, none of the requirements mention a test at all. Now there may be some Merit Badge Counselors out there that are giving some kind of written test, but that just means those are poor counselors that shouldn't be counseling the badge in the first place. I know if I were a Scoutmaster and knew of a counselor who gave written tests for these badges (or pretty much for any badge - none of them require a written test to the best of my knowledge), that counselor's name would not be provided to one of my Scouts. Let's take our example above - the lad can show up to your agreed upon meeting place with the list already written out - if he read the preamble, he should have gotten it correct. The next step is to discuss with you what he thinks those mean. The list serves as a device to have the lad read at least the preamble, and then as a jumping off point for the discussion. It isn't really conducive to a test, is it? All three of these merit badges are about learning something, then discussing what was learned with the counselor. Discussion is the key word, and a discussion is not a test. In fact, in many cases, what the lad thinks about some aspect, and what you think, may be quite different - but that doesn't mean he (or you) is wrong. Especially those that say something along the lines of discuss or explain how this or that affects you (the Scout) or your family, or how you feel about it, or what you think about it. There may be more suggestions to consider looking at a middle school constitution test - but that really shouldn't be of any use to you because they are completely separate things (or are likely to be). I remember my middle school constitution test asked such questions as "What are the qualifications to be President" and "Which branch of the Legislature initiates revenue bills" and "What amendment prohibits the government from quartering soldiers in civilian homes". Not a single one of these questions (or any other questions) on a constitution test applies to the merit badge, because the merit badge doesn't require the Scout to memorize the constitution - or for that matter, to even read it. They need to be familiar enough with certain documents (like the Constitution) to be able to discuss them, and how the US would be different without them, but that can be accomplished by reading about the documents as easily as reading the documents themselves. Good luck with the badges - and most importantly - HAVE FUN. Calico

My Troop didn't tear off a corner of the Totin Chip. Our "punishment" for transgressions was to sharpen and hone every axe the Troop owned (7 of them). Occasionally, axes were sharpened and honed a few times in a weekend without being used between sharpenings. Our Scout leaders were of the opinion that true respect of the tools is gained by caring for them, not by removing corners of a piece of paper. I remember having to do this once (I'm pretty sure it was because I didn't bury or put a sheath on the blade of an axe when I stepped out of the axe yard to get a drink of water), and it made a far bigger impression on me than having a card torn ever would. A few years later, my former Scoutmaster travelled to Maine to watch me compete in a collegiate woodsmen's meet where I took first place in both men's axe throwing (using a 3/4" double-bit (sometimes known as a Michigan bit) axe, and in the standing block chop (stand on a log, legs in an astride position, then cut the log in half. One would chop the log between one's feet, at about 1/2 way through, jump and twist and chop the other side - that day, I chopped through the 12" diameter log in 28 seconds). I came in second in the vertical block chop. He teased me about how many axes I would have had to sharpen if I had every tried to do any of these things in Scouts. He was very impressed by just how sharp my axes were. Calico

Insect Study is the only merit badge that requires a Scout to collect and kill things. Nature Merit Badge, if a Scout chooses the insect study as one of his options, requires collecting and mounting 10 insects, but it is one of many options, and can be avoided. Read the requirements for fishing and fly fishing only - it doesn't require a Scout to kill any of the fish he catches. In fact, the requirement states they should release at least one of them, which implies he can release all of them. It does state that the Scout needs to clean a fish - but it doesn;t say clean a fish he's caught. There is nothing that says he can't buy the fish to be cleaned. If butterflies and moths are the issue, what is to prevent the lads from collecting pest species - gypsy moths, cabbage butterflies, etc.? Calico

What a great idea! One thing, though - consider going on e-bay and finding a non-mint SPL badge of the same design, rather than a mint SPL badge. Leave the mint badge in a protected place, and wear the non-mint badge. That mint badge has some value to it - even if its value is as a donation to a Scouting Museum at some point in the future. While on e-bay, see if you can find the same era position patches for all of the Scouts who have positions - PL, ASPL, APL, etc. etc. etc. That way, everyone gets in on the celebration - then as the positions lapse (hopefully around the time of a court of honor) have the lads turn in their old badges to the troop, get them framed, along with the latest style position patch, with a Troop XXX - 75 Years kind of motif, and present them back to the youth leaders as a memento. Calico

Of all the changes I've seen in the Scouting program, the worst (even worse than the program changes of the 70's) was the addition of the Tiger Cub program (did we really have to compete with the YMCA Indian Guides program?), and the two-year Webelos program. Back in my day (now using the same voice as Grampa Simpson), we were able to earn the Webelos Badge AND the Arrow of Light, and most (if not all) of the Activity Pins in one year, all while wearing an onion hanging from our belt. Now, these weren't red onions, or those white onions with the flimsy skin, these were big, honking yellow onions that you could buy for a nickle - now back in those days, we called nickles bees - give me five bees for a quarter you'd say. (umm - sorry - still channeling Gramps Simpson) I crossed-over in November - the month I turned 11. Some in my Webelos Den crossed-over before I did (and were replaced by Bear Scouts that had turned 10) and I left some in my Webelos Den behind (and they crossed over when they turned 11 - if they didn't drop out). I remember that my first Boy Scout outing was not a campout, it was a Klondike Derby, and I spent three weeks with my patrol collecting discarded Xmas trees, limbing them, and building our Klondike Sleds out of them), and my second "outing" was the District First Aid Meet (which was held in February, and I spent the time between Klondike and the First Aid Meet learning First Aid in Troop Meetings). But that doesn't really answer GW's question - the last few years of the Baby Boom (which ended in 1960), were also the years with the most growth, population wise. The number of babies born in the early part of the boom was much smaller than the numbers born from about 1955 to 1959 - then a decrease started in 1960 - with the baby busters starting from 1961 to 1965 (Baby Busters are considered by most sociologists to be either the beginning of Generation X, or one of the occasional short-spanned "bridge generations" between two significant generations - only media people, who are just unable to fully explain anything they come across (maybe because they just report in soundbites now, or maybe they just have short attention spans) consider this to be the tail end of the Baby Boom). Of course, the early 60's were still affected by the Eisenhower years of post-war prosperity, and were being affected by the Kennedy Camelot era - so since everything was hunky-dory, and peachy-keen, and rah-rah patriotic, the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts really benefitted from the huge numbers of Boomers available to join. Towards the late 60's and early 70's, as the Baby Busters/Gen X'ers started coming on stage, things changed in America - the Vietnam War was really dividing people, as was the Civil Rights struggles, and the Youth Movement. Many people took off the rose-colored glasses they seemed to be wearing, and started to really take a hard look at their country. Patriotism, while not out, was being redefined to reflect personal beliefs - and individual rights were taking center stage. Add a healthy distrust of the Military (not the Troops, but the Generals and Leaders) and groups that were strongly identified with Country (and to an extent, the Military), were losing their attraction. Guess where the Boy Scouts of America fits. The so-called "Inner-City" emphasis by the Boy Scouts in the early 70's was, in my opinion, a direct response to those issues - an attempt to remain relevant in a world that was changing right before our eyes. Couple all that with marked decrease in the number of potential recruits (remember, starting in 1961, we were starting what most were calling the Baby Bust), and there was a decrease in numbers in Scouting. I have to admit, I hadn't given it much thought, but in hindsight, I'd guess that a majority of my cohorts who earned the Eagle Scout rank didn't also earn the Arrow of Light. In fact, looking back, most of the Boy Scouts in my Troop didn't earn the Arrow of Light, or if they did, they didn't wear the patch. Calico

I'd like to see Nature added as a required badge. What good is camping or backpacking if you don't know what's around you when you go. I'd add an or to Citizenship in the Nation - my or would be American Heritage (many schools teach the stuff found in Citizenship in the Nation as a graduation requirement, depending on the state - I know that Illinois requires passing grades on state and federal constitution tests in order to graduate from both Elementary School and High School, and when I went to school in Maine, college students were required to pass a federal constitution test in order to get a degree, unless the student's state required them to pass such a test to graduate (I think Maine High School students were required to pass a constitution test too - other than the students from Maine, I was the only other student who didn't have to take the test). I would get rid of Citizenship in the World and add, in it's place American Cultures OR Disabilities Awareness OR Indian Lore - I think Scouts should have an awareness of our multi-cultural heritage. I like the addition of Wilderness Survival though I would make it Wilderness Survival OR Backpacking. I think between camping, cooking, and Backpacking/Wilderness Survival (and the Or called Hiking), Scouts will have a good sampling of outdoor skills, so we don't need to add Pioneering or Orienteering. Instead, I would add something for building/mechanical skill set: Home Repair OR Auto Mechanics OR Farm Mechanics (why Farm Mechanics? Because for many of our rural Scouts, Farm Mechanics is an important part of their everyday life). I would eliminate Family Life from the required badges to make room for this. That's my opinion Calico

Cad - sorry - my simple answer was a misstatement. The simple answer to YOUR question is "No". (I answered it as if you asked "is it ok to take unregistered adults camping with the Scouts" which is completely different from your question which was do they have to be registered) So no, they do not have to be registered. Calico

The simple answer is "Yes". There is nothing in the policies and procedures of the Boy Scouts of America that prevents unregistered adults from attending a camping trip. You, and your fellow leaders, simply have to ensure that Youth Protection Guidelines are followed at all times. I'd be welcoming the CO on a trip - it could lead to even better relations, and great internal PR (can you see the conversations later on? "Hey Jim (the IH) - I went camping with the lads from the Troop we sponsor, and boy, were they an impressive group of young lads, but I noticed that their tents are starting to get a bit worn - is there something we, as the sponsor, can do to help this great bunch of lads out?"). However, my caveats are: * What does the PLC say about this? Have you asked them if it's ok to invite these people who may be strangers to them? And if it is, have you worked with them to make sure the weekend is a smashing hit? * I'd ask the folks coming along to sign on to the BSA website and take the Online Youth Protection training. It will just take a few minutes of their time, and will go a long way towards alleviating any parental concerns that might pop up. You don't have to be a member of the BSA to take the training, though you do have to create a log-in account. So, to summarize - Go for it!! Calico(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

This will be my final post on this subject, as I don't like beating my head against a dense brick wall. To say a whipping (knot), a square lashing, a diagonal lashing and a shear lashing aren't knots because the Boy Scout handbook doesn't mention that they are, in fact, knots, is like saying the sky isn't blue if the Boy Scout Handbook doesn't say it's blue. Lashings are knots. Whipping (knots) are knots. They meet every definition of the term knot, and if you ask a knotmaker, they will tell you they are knots. The Boy Scout Handbook even shows how to tie these knots, even though it may not call them knots. That the BSA has failed to accurately portray these knots as knots, does not make them any less than a knot, though it speaks volumes about just how accurate the Boy Scouts are in conveying knowledge and skills. The question was "What knots are required for First Class" It wasn't "What knots identified as knots by the BSA are required for First Class" or ""What basic knots are required for First Class" (lashings and whipping would be an advanced knot, not a basic knot). The fundraising clause very specifically states that Boy Scouts cannot be used as solicitors of money for their chartered organization, the local council, or other organizations". Those words have very specific meanings, and an example is even given of Boy Scouts ringing the bell for Salvation Army bucket collections. Soliciting money means asking for cash donations without real goods in exchage. My using the word loophole was unfortunate - I was being lazy, and was trying to figure out another way to get the point across. In fact, what I originally stated is not a loophole at all, because this policy DOES NOT APPLY IN THE FIRST PLACE. Eagle Scout candidates can identify themselves as Boy Scouts when soliciting donations for their projects - they are NOT soliciting money, they are soliciting donations of labor and materials (though cash may be donated - it is converted into materials - excess cash MUST be returned to the donor - it cannot be given to the project beneficiary). Just as Popcorn Sales do not violate this rule (goods are exchanged for cash payment), neither do Scouts working on their Eagle Scout rank. The lesson to take from this is that just because someone claims to be speaking with authority, using Boy Scout resources, (and passive/aggressively claiming that if you don't accept that what the person is telling you is absolute gospel, then you aren't delivering the Boy Scout Program) doesn't mean that person is correct. There are interpretations that differ (what is an elective merit badge for Star), there are different readings of rules (eg. what the fundraising clause on the Unit Money Earning Application means - is it a total ban, or is it a specific ban), there are even ommissions of facts in the resources (identification of knots), and even conflicts in BSA resources themselves (some resources indicate that Scouts do not sign off on their own rank requirements, some indicate that it is possible for a Scout to do so). You need to make up your own mind about what is accurate and what isn't. It's been said by some already that the questions on this quiz leave an awful lot of room for interpretation. CalicoPenn

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Read both this and the language in the Eagle Scout Service Leadership Project Workbook carefully. A Scout working on an Eagle Project is raising money to support his project for an outside organization - not to raise funds for an outside organization. It's made very clear that any excess funds must be returned to the donors. Since the Eagle Candidate is not raising funds for an outside organization, he would not be in violation of this rule. Call it a loophole if you want, but the loophole exists. An Eagle Scout candidates project benefits an outside organization. The funds raised benefit his project. And yes, I want to know what BW is considering as a knot (and yes, that includes lashings and whippings (which I missed)). Calico

The short answer is not "No". The short answer is YES. The Unit Money Earning Application DOES NOT apply to an Eagle Scout candidate. The Eagle Scout Candidate is therefore, not subject to the limitations listed in the Unit Money Earning Application. And to head off further argument, ask yourself this simple question - since when is an Eagle Scout candidate a Unit? The Unit Money Earning Application applys to UNITS, not to Individuals. Individuals are covered under other rules. The relevant rules for Eagle Scouts is found in the Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Handbook (an official BSA publication). It states that a project can't be a fundraiser, that excess funds be returned to the donors, and that it must be made clear to donors that the funds raised benefit the project sponsor, not the BSA. It does not say anywhere in this publication that any other rules apply, or that a Scout cannot identify himself as a Scout when asking for donations for his Eagle project. And no, Bobwhite has not given us the answers - he has told us what he believes the common errors are and expects us to suss out what the correct answer is. We still need his answer key, and there will be answers that he claims are absolutely correct that he has wrong (like the Eagle fundraising question) because he is coming up with the answer from the wrong source, or is interpreting words in a question in a way that is questionable (such as Elective Merit Badges for Star - his answer could be correct if Eagle Scout is considered some kind of graduation rank - but Eagle isn't a graduation rank. All ranks are considered separate ranks. They may need to be earned in a sequence, and there may be some pre-req's that apply from a previous rank, but every rank is considered, by the BSA, as an end-point rank. Advancement is a method, not a requirement. Every Star Scout can stop earning ranks beyond Star if they so choose - and that makes the 2 non-Eagle required merit badges, elective badges - even if the Scout elected to earn two other Eagle required merit badges). We still await the answer key. I'm still curious to know what is considered the correct answer for knots (beyond "Thinking Sheet Bend is a required knot "). Calico

If you want an overview of this type of sleepaway camp, from the campers perspective (these kids aren't going to camp for one week - they go for a season - usually 8 weeks - these are the kinds of camp featured in movies like Meatballs), go out and get the book Camp Camp (or just go to the blog - campcampbook.blogspot). We should spend less time focusing on the cost of the camp, especially in comparison to Boy Scout camps. Camping on Boy Scout property can be cheaper because most Boy Scout camps aren't paying property taxes, and most councils get an awful lot of donated time and materials for camp buildings and maintenance. These are private, for-profit camps that have to pay for everything, including property taxes. That's why it's much more expensive. If the Boy Scouts had to operate under the same profit/loss structure, a week of camp would be closer to $1,200 or so too. What we should be taking away from this article, in my opinion, is the continuing movement of "helicopter parenting" and try to figure out how we just nip this in the bud. At what point will Boy Scout Summer Camps need to hire a "Parent Liaison"? Calico

Jet - how could you cover this at your ASM meeting? How do you know what the answers are, and what the real answers are? We still haven't seen a posting of the "answer key" - and there are some legitimate challenges to some of the answers provided. Heck, I'm still waiting to see what the knot answers are. How about it BW - post your answer key. Calico

At most weigh stations I've ever seen, there is no vending machines. Weigh stations are not the same as rest stops - and at least accroding to the posted article, the Scouts have been setting up at weigh stations. If there are vending machines at a weigh station, they tend to be a limited to a single soda machine. I still believe we need more information. All we've gotten is an editorial, with no real reporting behind it. It may as well have been a blog entry on the National Enquirer's web site.

These kinds of decisions, and changes to policy, aren't generally made in a vacuum or on a whim. What has happened in the state since the last Labor Day donut fest? Did someone stop at an unmanned weigh station one night to catch a few z's and were robbed, carjacked, raped, or killed somewhere in the state this past year? Did the state get sued because something like this happened (and lost)? Did a driver that stopped for a cup of coffee and donut decide he could drive another 150 miles when he should have pulled off for some sleep get into an accident down the road? Is the State Police redeploying resources on a busy holiday weekend to be more efficient in these times of high gas prices and don't have the time to drive through the weigh station every 20 minutes? Maybe its just no longer a risk the State is willing to take in these litigious times. Imagine how the press would crucify both the State and the BSA if something were to happen to the Scouts. And don't give me the "but nothings happened in 25 years" argument - that just means that so far, they've dodged an incident. I think we need to get a fuller understanding of all the issues before we can make any kind of judgement ourselves. Calico

FireKat, Wow - speaking of a baffling question! I think most would have to say that technically, the lad is 18, and if the project isn't finished, the answer is no. A good debater might be able to argue that a boy whose 18th birthday is on, say, the 15th of the month, but was born at 8:30 pm, doesn't technically turn 18 until 8:30 pm on the 15th of the month. I'd prefer to avoid this at all costs - which is why it's important to be kept in the loop. I'd argue for the "substantially complete" definition of complete, and if the project beneficiary agreed, sign off on the completed project the day before, as long as the project beneficiary signed off too, with a tacit understanding that the Eagle will go back and finish the little tasks that need to be done to fully complete the task. And since I'm not one for strict interpretation of every single rule and regulation, if I were faced with this, with a lad I knew to be busting his hump to complete the project, I'd probably pre-date the completion. But that's me and my nature - I prefer not to be a gatekeeper on Eagle, but a faciliator. Calico