CalicoPenn

Did I catch that right - Group A is trying to force Group B to close down because they don't like what they're doing? That would be like the Boy Scouts trying to shut the Girl Scouts down because they have differing policies. I don't think I'd want to have any involvement with Group A if that's the case. To answer your questions: Can the chartering organization act hostile in this manner? Yeah, hey can - should they is another story. The BSA isn't really in the position to do anything about it other than revoke their charter vor a venturing crew but that wouldn't stop their acting towards another non-profit in a hostile manner - again, this raises the question of "do I want to be involved with an organization like that?" Can they limit a youth's participation based upon their participation elsewhere in scouting? The simple answer is yes they can. The complex answer is the chartering organization owns the unit - they can make rules about who can participate in their unit - if it's a church, they can limit it to just members of the church. They can also decide not to allow individuals to be part of their units - if they decide that participating in another unit is detrimental to their program, then they can certainly say that you have to choose. Being the contrarian I am, I would choose B and take every other member of the Ventureing Crew from A with if I could - build up B and let A end up with a folded unit.

Let me see if I understand this correctly - you have a lad cruising through the requirements to First Class but who actually knows his stuff? That sounds like a Scoutmaster's dream. You have a pushy dad who is rubbing a couple of people the wrong way. You have people making an assumption that dad is doing all the work which seems to fly in the face of all logic if the lad actually knows his stuff and has demonstrated competancy beyond compare. You have a lad that set up an orientation course that only one other Scout took advantage of who someone has decreed that the only person who gets credit for it is the lad who took the course and not set it up? This is more than a "Dad" problem - you have problems with the leaders too. Yeah, maybe Dad is pushing his son - but he must be doing something right if his son is showing that kind of competancy. Normally when a parent is pushing, they aren't pushing the son, they're pushing the leaders to sign off on their sons. Of course, it also seems like everyone is assuming that Dad is pushing his son - has anyone broached that with the Dad? The Scout may have set that goal all by himself - it happens more often that people want to believe. One thing that is always repeated is to let Scouts do advancement at their own pace - this just may be the natural pace of this Scout - and someone wants to slow him up? You might want to have a chat with Dad - broach the ubject of the goal carefully - you might find that his son set that goal all by himself because he's confident that he can master all of those skills. Are you really sure he's pushy? Sometimes people find other people who are enthusiastic and full of ideas to be pushy - expecially when those ideas takes one beyond one's comfort zone. Surely there is a way to channel that energy so the Troop gets the benefit of fresh ideas. You also need to have a discussion with the leaders to find out what the real issue is - if this lad is truly showing the competancy you state here, and the drive to set up an orienteering course, why is anyone holding him back? I would think this is exactly the kind of lad you'd want to help bring up the skill levels of the other Scouts. Someone needs to stand up and be an advocate for this boy - someone other than Dad - now, before Dad gets his hackles up (mine would have been raised the moment some "leader" said all the work my son did on the orienteering course didn't count" - and stop people from making up "rules" just because they want to play God.

Oh sure, Pack - change the parameters of the question after getting an answer - I see how it is The simple answer to "would I be willing to pull the trigger" is that in my training, it was drilled into us over and over again not to pull your weapon unless you were prepared to fire it, so I'd have to say yes, I would be prepare to fire it while hoping I wouldn't have to. But the question to you is, does that scenario make any sense to you at all? At a certain level, training just takes over, no matter what logic seems to suggest. I know - but it's Alaska, why would there be terrorists in Alaska - I don't know - maybe a certain famous pipeling running through the state above ground most of the way from the North Slope, or maybe one of the shipping ports for that particular product. Of course, it's ridiculous on its face to think that a group of presumably mostly white teenage boys could possibly be anything but innocent - maybe I've read too many Southern Poverty Law Center reports and my imagination has gone silly but I can see Alaska as a training ground for supremacist separatist militia groups for survival skills. I know it's not something we think about because again...Boy Scouts, but is it really that hard to believe that there aren't teenagers from supremicist families that might be trained up in militia style? Schiff - good question - why wasn't there better control? Of course, anything we think would be speculation but might I suggest, based on how the news report was worded, that it seems only one of the four vans was detained and it's possible that the people in those vans were under control and it was a Scout from one of the other vans that came by to help. We just don't know though, do we?

Ok Pack, you asked for it - not saying it's right, but I can see a justification. When a vehicle is being searched by customs officer or by a police officer, they will ask you to take down any luggage or equipment in full view of the officer. When someone does it on their own, even if it's just to be helpful, that triggers an almost universal and immediate assumption that the person is going for a weapon which then triggers an instant response - and that response is to pull their gun. It sounds like the Scout thought he might be helpful - but wasn't doing so under the direction of the officer. Overreaction? Perhaps from our perspective or in hindsight but if they weren't really Boy Scouts but were instead a group out to do harm and the officer didn't react as trained and was killed, wouldn't we all be wondering why he didn't think someone might pull a gun on him? I know we don't want to think of it in this way because, well....Boy Scouts, but lets not forget there might be other things at play. So Pack, to answer the question, would I have done the same thing? Given the training, and being assigned to a border where there are likely to be a lot of sportsmen crossing the borders with guns in their vehicles, and given the attitudes of a lot of people in the Norrhwest about "big guvmint" and law enforcement, and knowing to expect the unexpected, then yes, I probably would have done the same thing. I might feel bad about it later, but at the time, I wouldn't feel guilty at all. Of course, chances are pretty good I wouldn't be in that situation in the first place because I don't think I'd make a big issue out of someone taking photographs in the first place - it's not like the border has capability to launch nuclear weapons.

Of course, that presumes that someone is going to report what is a relatively minor event (except to the people involved of course) all the way up the chain to Eric Holder. As a nation, we really need to start stepping back a bit and realize that not everything that is going on in a large bureaucracy is going to be brought to the attention of the Cabinet Secretaries or the President and Vice President. Unless the Scoutmaster filed a formal complaint, it's doubtful that the incident is even being investigated by anyone, and if a complaint was filed, it would be dealt with on a local basis, or at most at a regional office level and would never make it up the chain. Of course, someone at a national media level could pick this up and ask Holder at a new's conference and when he says, rightfully, that he would have to look in to it, the media will jump all over him for not being aware - and I blame us, the American people, for being so easily manipulated by the media that we would instantly scream for Holder's head. So maybe it's up to us to put a stop to such nonsense - to step back and say hold on a sec - we know this is outrageous, but lets concentrate on the folks involved and not jump to blaming the top level right away. Frankly, it's like trying to blame President Obama for the gun violence in Chicago - it makes people who hate Obama feel better but it also makes them look downright stupid.

Officially, the bobcat pin (patch) is not pinned to a Cub Scout upside down - it's already been earned and should be awarded as if it is earned. Pinning it upside down until a good turn is done can be seen as adding a requirement. Officially. Unofficially, it's been a tradition in many Cub Scout Packs for a long, long time (mine was pinned on me upside down in the 1960's. The Packs that took it a step further and turned the boys upside down pretty much ended the wink and nod over the practice - not that the BSA will come down on a pack for pinning the Bobcat upside down but now they won't ignore complaints about it as quickly. Of course, every new Bobcat got the pin turned rightside up as soon as the meeting ended since another tradition in our pack was for the Webelos to come up and welcome the new Bobcats and whisper in their ears that they should run to their cars at the end of the meeting and hold open the car doors for their mothers - good turn done (of course, this was in the days before people routinely locked their car doors).

It's considered bad form - the service component of the Ordeal is meant to provide time for reflection on what it means to be a member of the Order of the Arrow - it may not be clear when the work is being done but becomes clear at the evening ceremony. Would you allow somone to use the same six hours of service work for 3 different requirements? I would hope not. The same principle applies here. I'd take the lad aside and ask him if he thinks that double dipping like that is a Scoutlike thing to do.

I'll bet that Eric Holder doesn't even know about this incident - it's fine to be outraged over this alleged incident (and that's what it is - an allegation - unless you can get a corroborating incident report from that border crossing, that's all it will be) but to project what someone not related to the incident at all, and in all probability doesn't even know about it, might be thinking is just not very Scoutlike. I'm sure you can find enough things that you disagree with Holder about that he actually is aware of without having to make stuff up.

There are plenty of places for Scout Troops to have wilderness (type) experiences - the question becomes does a Council or the BSA have to own them? Sure, National has some high adventure bases, the Katahdin Council in Maine has some nice wilderness bases, and there may be a few others with wilderness bases, but did the Northwest Suburban Council need to keep Namekagon (their primitive summer camp - they sold it) when it would be just as easy for a Scout Troop to plan a wilderness experience along the St. Croix river or up at the Boundary Waters or in the Porcupine Mountains which are national and state owned lands? Does a Council in Montana or Wyoming need to own a "wilderness" camp when there are national wilderness areas all over those states? Does a Massachussets, or Connecticut or New Hampshire council need a "wilderness" camp when one can get a fine wilderness experience in Northern Maine on state and private lands, or on Katahdin Council lands just a few hours drive north? Numbers are down - that's just a reality - we need to utilize our resources better - and that includes utilizing the resources available to us that we don't control.

Camps have been changing since the 1970's, it's nothing new. Platform tenants require replacement canvas and repairs and replacements to the platforms - much better on the camp budgets to phase out and eliminate the platform tents in favor of units bringing their own tents. A lot of units preferred doing so anyway. Camps have had dining halls in them for decades but most also had the option available to units to get their daily grub from the grub or quartermaster and forego the dining hall. Since the 1970's, the BSA has seen a reduction in the number of Boy Scouts and number of units and this has an affect on Council budgets - it comes to a point where Council's need to start making hard decisions - can they financially support 2 summer camp properties and 1-3 short term, near home, camp properties? Often the answer is no and the first "victim" is likely to be the "primitive" summer camp since the "modern" camp has the infrastucture and the "primitive" activities can still be done at the modern camp. Lack of high adventure? Start looking around to other camps - some councils have dropped high adventure programming from their camp programs because other councils with nearby camps have better high adventure programs and some councils are concentrating their camp programs to the first two or three years. Though you still get the occassional professional or scouter wondering why you are going to an out-of-council camp, that's happening less and less. Depending on where you are, the summer camp season may be drastically reduced from what you might remember - when I was a Scout, the camp we went to had 8 weeks of programming in 2 week programming blocks - when I started going there, it was more common for a troop to spend 2 weeks at the camp - you might have 2 or 3 units going there for one week at a time - by the time I was a CIT, it was getting pretty equally mixed between 2 week Troops and 1 week Troops - just a few short years later, there were no 2 week Troops. Now this same camp has a 6 week camp season - other nearby camps that had 8 week programs are down to 6, or 4 week programs. Look around and you'll find Councils that only offer summer camp programs at their camps for 1 or 2 weeks per year. That's a significant change - since a Scout is thrifty, why bother buying surplus tents and lumber for platform repairs when your camp is only open 2 weeks a year. And of course there are a lot more health and safety regulations to follow - there have been siginificant changes to state and local laws over the past couple of decades in regards to camp operations - there are less outhouses and more flush toilet facilities. You'll see more swimming pools and less traditional waterfront swimming holes. For better or worse, that's the time we live in now. But don't despair - the best part of living in the intertubes age is the ability to do some easy research - it's easier than ever to get information about neighboring council's summer camps or neighboring summer camp's summer camps (I'm thinking of places like Wisconsin which might have summer camps for councils from Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota). It's easier than ever to do research on running your own "summer camp" adventure. Better yet, this is something that can easily be assigned to the Scouts to research - some of them are likely to be better at it that we are anyway.

Apparently the council staffers don't understand that "Sorry, I don't have any cash on me" is one of those polite lies that are told when someone doesn't want to buy popcorn but doesn't want to outright reject a 9 year old Cub Scout. I wonder what polite lie will become common when a nine year old says "We take credit cards now". That said, given the price of the product, it's not a bad idea though I would set up a separate account to accept the deposits and link it to that account and not give access to the regular checking account. I'd be worried about someone disputing the credit card charge 2 or 3 months later and the contract likely gives the processor the right to pull the disputed money from the account - far better for them to have to ask you to refund the money from your main account rather than letting them just take it automatically without informing you until the money is taken by them - especially if you're just written a major check for something and don't have enough money in the account to cover both the check and the "refund".

In a perfect world, the Boy Scouts of America at the National and Council level are providing the program and materials (ie the Cub Scout program for ages 7 to 10, the Boy Scout program for ages 11 to 18, the Venturing program for ages 14-21, the OA program - including rank requirements and standardized patches, badges and pins that go with the program); support for the program (such as camps, summer camps, day camps, record keeping, etc.) and granting charters to organizations allowing them to use all or parts of the program (is there really any reason a church couldn't get one charter allowing them to run a Cub Scout, a Boy Scout and a Venturing group while an organization that works only with youth up to age 10 gets a charter only allowing them to run a Cub Scout pack?) with policies geared only to keeping the integrity of their programming intact (Eagle quest, except for rare circumstances, end at 18, etc.) and minimal policies dealing with anything out side that scope - things best left to the judgment of the chartering organizations rather than a bureaucracy in an office building somewhere. Rick points out the difficulty in one size fits all policies. The bulk of any policies affecting units (other than those coming from their chartering organization) should be coming from the local Council where the chartering organization can make their needs and wishes known. Does it really make any sense to have a policy saying 10 year olds can't use a wheelbarrow in an area where those 10 year olds have been driving the farm tractor since they were 6? Does it make any sense to have a rule saying a 16 year old can't use a power drill when he's been wielding a chain saw in the family woodlot since he was 12? The biggest threats to the BSA isn't women, it isn't gays, it isn't girls, it isn't athiests, it isn't sex offenders (I note that the question didn't say boo about adult sex offenders), it isn't DUI's. The biggest threats are people who want to control what other people and other units do, it's nonsensical policies written by lawyers and insurance people afraid of dirt and bugs who think that stepping off the sidewalk onto grass is dangerous, its parents and grandparents that are abdicating their responsibilities and are quick to find someone else to blame (and a lawyer to back them up) and it's insurance companies and lawyers for the BSA who are quick to settle instead of standing up in front of a jury and tell them point blank "Boys climb trees - and sometimes they fall out of them and break their arm - it's an accident - it's happened hundreds of thousands of times before - why does fault have to be assigned to anyone?"

The BSA would still be incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia (unless they decided to move their corporate registration elsewhere) and would still be able to protect their service marks and badges (though they would have to actually trademark them). About the only thing they would lose would be the "bragging rights" but with polls showing public support of Congress below 10%, does anyone really want those bragging rights?

Apparently you're unaware of the controversy over the Puppy Bowl versus the Kitten Bowl.

Mike, There is not one word in the post I had made in an earlier thread that mentions a parade or even relates to a parade - not one single word. Why am I not surprised that you got it wrong. Straight parades? How about the St. Patrick's Day parades in Boston and New York City that refuse to allow gay and lesbian units march? Ever been to a parade with Shriners zipping around on little carpets or go carts wearing fezes? Ever been to a parade with a "precision lawn mower drill team" complete with marchers wearing bermuda shorts and black socks? Or maybe a precision lawn chair drill team? Yeah - you can't get any straighter that that. Are Pride parades political? Sure - in the same sense most parades are - most have politicians marching in them, just like a Labor Day, 4th of July, Memorial Day, or St. Patrick's Day parade - I suppose that makes them political. There will certainly be civil rights groups marching - yep - political - but if the parade were truly political, they wouldn't attract the crowds that they do. In Chicago, this years Pride Parade attracted an estimated 1 million participants and spectators - that makes it the largest parade in Chicago - and it has been one of the two largest parades in Chicago for years (the other is the Bud Billiken Day Parade in September - for the past 10 years or so the Pride Parade would take the "title" of largest parade in June and the Bud Billiken Day Parade would take it right back in September - this year, it doesn't look like that will happen - there was a lot of momentum for the Pride Parade with gay marriage becoming law on June 1st this year). One more thing - I never have understood how people who claim to be so opposed to and upset with Pride Parades can go out of their way to search out, download and post pictures from Pride Parades. For some reason the word Repression comes to mind and I don't mean it in the sense of one group of people trying to repress another group of people - I mean it in the sense that someone is trying, and failing, to repress their own emotions and personality.

Different situation - The BSA wasn't suing San Diego. San Diego was being sued for leasing Balboa Park to the BSA for $1 per year - the argument was that San Diego was advancing religion by leasing at under market cost to a religious organization. San Diego won (and the BSA benefited by the ruling). For what it's worth - the Montpelier parade was cancelled tonight (July 3) because of severe storm warnings forecast to hit at about 7 pm.

Let's not forget that there were a lot of people in support of the Councilman as well.

Seems to me that the Golden Rule is meant to humble us and is not meant to serve as a means of fair exchange. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is just not the same as do unto others as they have done to you. It's really more of a hope that the Golden Rule will go both ways rather than an expectation. I think we all hope that service to others is innate but I think it's learned. We learn it from our parents, from our teachers, our pastors, or neighbors, our peers. We see an example and follow it. I know that there have been a lot of discussions about whether service projects is really community service or doing a good turn when the lads get credit for it for advancement but I think we have those discussions because we come at it from our mature view of community service as being an unselfish act that should need no reward. Perhaps instead we should look at it as part of a progression of learning to become that servant leader, or that servant follower, or that servant individualist. I'll invoke the OA here - I think I've put it this way before but it seems apt to my thinking of learning to serve as a progression. An Ordeal member is handed a broom and told to sweep. A Brotherhood member asks if he can help sweep. A Vigil member picks up a broom and just starts sweeping. At some point during that progression, we learn enjoy service to others as it's own reward and don't expect a quid pro quo. When a service project is predicated on something happening before or after, then it's really not a service project, it it? It's a job that is being paid for. If you've been doing a specific service project for a few years like cleaning a park every year because you get to use the swimming pool one night for free then refusing to clean the park the year the pool has closed for maintenance, then it's not really a service project, is it? It's also not a very good example of following the Golden Rule. Being part of the Boy Scouts of America makes it even more imperative that we offer our services willingly, even if things aren't going the way we expect them too - after all, we have a 100 year + reputation of community service to uphold. How would it have looked if the Boy Scouts refused to take part in the scrap metal drives during WW2 if they refused to collect the metal unless the community gave them a pizza party at the end of the week?

I'm not sure it was the "belicose instigator" that doesn't know where the BSA is located - I think it is far more likely that the reporter who wrote the article said the organization was based in Washington D.C. When I first read about the story I wasn't sure where my feelings lay - now that I've read the Seven Days follow-up, I'm disappointed with the Scout units and their leaders on a couple of levels. The situation seems pretty simple - the town council didn't rubber stamp the Scouts application to sell water as a vendor and said they wanted to discuss it further. At the time, the reporting on it seemed to suggest that the majority on the council were leaning towards the Scouts but were, correctly, exploring the concerns of one of the council members - that's Citizenship in the Community stuff - something the Scouts should have understood. The Scouts (and I'm guessing it was the leaders and not the boys) decided that they didn't want to make an appearance before the council so they pulled their application. No one demanded that they pull their application - they did it voluntarily, on their own decision. It makes me curious why they would not be willing to spend 5 minutes or so telling the town council how important Scouting is to the boys and to the community and how the funds earned were used to further the goals of the unit. Most of the Scout leaders I know would be thrilled to have the oppotunity to stand in front of the town leaders and brag about their boys and their unit - even if it seemed on the surface that it might be an adversarial meeting. Let's not forget that this is Vermont we're talking about - the likely end to this would have been both sides getting to say their piece and the Scouts ending up with their permit since they really can't control national policy anyway and the town council agreeing that they don't want to endorse discriminatory behavior but don't want to punish the local groups for something beyond their control. What is really disappointing about this is that the Scouts (and again, I'm thinking it's the leaders and not the boys that made these decisions) were denied he opportunity to not just see Citizenship in the Community in action but to participate in it. They missed a golden opportunity to have the Senior Patrol Leader step up to that microphone, in front of a room full of Scouts to brag about their unit(s) and about Scouting and to make the case for the Scouts. Then the Scouts (again, probably the leaders) make the decision to not volunteer for post-celebration clean-up as they've done in the past - way to take the PR issue away from the council (who has now stepped up and taken your place) and put iit on your own back. How many people in Montpelier are now thinking that the Scouts will only do service projects if they can fundraise before hand? How many people who were supportive of the Scouts in this issue are now changing their mind and thinking the Scouts are being little brats taking their ball and going home. I think the local Scouts blew it here - they took a great opportunity to promote Scouting and to show Montpelier how much a part of the community they are and tossed it into a stinking pile of horse dung of their own making.

The OA Lodge would be limited to revoking his membership in the Lodge and restricting him from participating in Chapter/Lodge events. The Lodge could not revoke his membership in the OA - only National can do that - but the Lodge can recommend that membership be revoked. I know that sounds wrong but consider that a Scout can be elected to the OA in one Lodge, might leave Scouting and not pay dues to the Lodge for a long period of time, have a family and rejoin Scouts with his own son in a different Council and can rejoin the OA by simply paying dues to the new Lodge without having to go through all the ceremonies again. Since a Scout's primary responsibility is to his unit, the Lodge and/or professional staff (if involved) should be contacting the Scout's unit.

Shouldn't that be "Discuss how a British author's attempt to rename Ketchup as Catsup helped propel the American Revolution and how an American's invention of a new type of Ketchup forever altered the history of the world".

Explain to son that I made a committment to the voters of my district to work on their behalf and that I take that committment seriously and tell my son that he'll get much more out of the trip if I'm not there to bug the heck out of him, then sit back and let my son tell all about HIS adventures on the Philmont trails rather than telling everyone about my adventures on the Philmont trails - then schedule a 2 week long backpacking trip in the Smokies with my sons for August when the legislature is not in session.

First a question - whose program launch - is it a launch within just your Troop and the committee made the decision that Duty to God will be part of Scout Spirit or is it from a district/council program launch? If the Troop committee made that decision, then the Troop committee owes it to the Scoutmaster and the lads to define exactly what that means (though I'd wonder why a non-denomination Troop knowing there is a large number of "unchurched" members, including the Scoutmaster and the SPL, would make that decision). If it's the District - then ask the District to define it exactly or do what should be done when someone from District makes this kind of statement - ignore it and run your program the way you see fit. It occurs to me that it might be someone trying to promote the "Duty to God" program put on by PRAY (which manages the religious award's program for the Boy Scouts). If that's the case, then know that both that program (meant to promote religious awards) and religious awards themselves are optional parts of the program, are not awards given by the Boy Scouts of America (they are awarded by PRAY for the Duty to God patches and one's church for the religious emblems) but are outside awards that the BSA allows Scouts and Scouters to wear on their uniforms - no one in District/Council can require these as part of Scout Spirit for rank advancement - if you have a Scout close to Eagle and are worried that someone will try to deny Eagle rank to the scout because they have neither a religious award or a Duty to God patch, then I would howl my way up the food chain, all the way to National if needed, to keep something like from interfering with the real advancment program. That being said, if you truly want a Duty to God component to Scout Spirit, here is a definition of Duty to God I found that would work with both the "Churched" and the "Unchurched": "Duty to God is an ongoing learning and incorporating of (similar) moral values that ensure that I will be a compassionate and productive citizen" (This was part of a Scoutmaster's Minute I found about Eagle Scouts so the "similar" language ties in to earlier language about patriotism, etc). Now to the most important part - Duty to God comes from the Scout Oath. Let's review that for a second with some emphasis added: "On MY honor, I will do MY best, to do MY duty to God and my Country". Notice the emphasis - the Scout (and Scouter) is saying they will do THEIR best to do THEIR Duty to God - in other words - their Duty to God may not neccessarily agree with anyone else's Duty to God - and their best may not be the same as someone else's best - it's left to the individual Scout to decide what their Duty to God is, and whether they're doing their best to fulfill it. It's not a one size fits all proposition. For some Scouts, a Duty to God may mean serving as an Altar Boy - for some Scouts, a Duty to God may mean attending church every week, for some Scouts, Duty to God may mean picking up litter in the local park a couple of times a month. It's really not up to anyone but the Scout (and his Parents) to determine for that Scout what his Duty to God is.