CalicoPenn

One of the Packs in our District always has their PWD in February combined with the B&G (The Blue and Gold is a celebration of the birthday of the Scouts - which is traditionally celebrated in February) because they rented a track from another Pack that happens to meet the same night they do. They'll set up the tables around the track so the PWD is the entertainment for the evening. The meal comes from an events caterer that brings the food and utensils, sets it all up buffet style and leaves. As each Den goes up for weigh in they grab their food - by the time folks are ready for seconds, racing is beginning. They have a great time - and it's well organized. The BSA only gives suggestions as to how to run a B&G - there is no hard and fast rules on what you must do. So go ahead and combine the PWD and B&G - just have fun doing it.

What will be discussed is what the media will decide to cover as major issues regardless of what we, the people, think is important. And they'll tell us that all they are doing is covering what we want them to cover even though they never ask us what we want covered. As for the primaries - what is it with Americans and the desire to start thinking about what's next when we haven't even gotten a handle on what's happening now, and what just happened. Can we get through 2011 before we start to wonder about 2012? Heck, in November 2009, people were already wondering who would run against President Obama, and he hadn't even been sworn in yet. It's bad enough that Halloween shops are opening on July 5, and Christmas Decorations are being put up in stores after Labor Day. On December 26, I went into my local grocery store and saw that they were putting the finishing touches on the Valentines Day merchandise displays. An awful lot can happen over the next year for this speculation to start so early. After Ms. Palin's statement this week, I'd be really surprised if she even gets much serious media coverage for a run in the primary, given how she tried to deflect responsibility for what some see as incendiary rhetoric on the media.

Russell Henderson, one of the two thugs that beat Matthew Shepard and left him to die entangled in a fence is an Eagle Scout. Note the present tense word IS. The BSA has not revoked his Eagle Scout. Unless you think the action's of the Scout you're thinking of trying to get the Eagle Scout rank revoked is worse than this, then it might be best to just let whatever is bothering you stop bothering you and just move on.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

If you know you can't outrun your buddy - drop and curl up - let your foolish buddy run all he wants - bears love to chase things

"Junior Partners" can't generally fire the "Senior Partners", can they? The BSA has the option, at all times, to pull the charter of the organization. The CO agrees to offer the program that the BSA provides - and gives the CO limited options to tweak it to their organization. A CO can decide that it won't offer the advancement portion of the program, but they can't change the requirements for ranks (we can argue somewhere else if a CO should say advancement won't be earned). There are also certain things that the CO must adhere too. A CO can't opt out of mandatory background checks for the volunteers. In most cases, committees shouldn't need to vote on anything. The program as the PLC has planned it, with input from the SM, is presented to the Committee. It's not the job of the Committee to approve the plan - it's the job of the Committee to help get the plan moving. When the Quartermaster says that 3 tents are in very bad shape, can't be repaired, and need to be replaced, the Committee doesn't vote to replace three tents. They come up with a way to replace 3 tents. If the old tent's are no longer available and it's time to go to a new model, it's not the Committee's job to vote on what kind of tents to get - the Committee should go back to the PLC (through the SM) and ask the PLC to do the research and choose the new style tents (the Scouts have to live with them, not the Committee). In the course of the year, the only thing a Committee may need to vote on something is informally, after the meeting, where the Committee is going to go for a bite to drink and a coffee/tea/soft drink/adult beverage after the meeting to just hang out as friends for a bit. A Unit doesn't need bylaws. The BSA provides every thing you need to operate the unit. The only "bylaws" you need are The Scout Oath and the Scout Law.

Eagle - that's a good question - why "POR" patches for advisors, and not for Lodge/Chapter Officers. I suspect a large part of it is that for the adults, being a Lodge Advisor or Chapter Advisor is their primary position. Lodge/Chapter Officers are not primary positions. The primary positions of youth members of the OA is the positions they hold in their units. If you are over 18 and an ASM - ASM is your primary position. Even if you are a youth with no primary position in your unit, you're primary position is still with your unit. Remember, an OA members primary responsibility is to their unit - and in the OA, even though youth membership is under 21 - you can't be a youth member of the OA without being part of a unit.

Why would the Chapter/Lodge officers need to wear any color loops other than the ones they wear on the uniforms their unit wears? Our chapter/lodge officers never wore silver. They aren't members of the District Committee/Council Committees. The Chapter/Lodge Advisors were the OA reps at the committee level. Chapter/Lodge officers were invited to serve as advisory or honorary members, but were not actual members of the committee. If you were over 18, you either were an Explorer (now Venturer) or an ASM - and you wore the appropriate loop, if your uniform had a loop (Explorers could choose their own uniform - my unit didn't have a uniform with a loop). The position patch you wore was the same position patch you wore on your regular uniform. If you were an SPL, you had an SPL patch on. ASM? You had an ASM patch on. No position (meaning you were probably an Explorer or an under 18-year old Eagle not working on Palms that didn't need a position)? Then you simply had no position patch. My recollection as to why there is no Chapter/Lodge officer patches is because of what some might consider a quirk of the program, though I consider it the true strength of the program - true egalitarianism. In the OA, there are no ranks. Once you have completed the Ordeal, you are equal in brotherhood to everyone else in the OA. Brotherhood is not a rank, it's a re-affirmation of your dedication to the principles of the OA. Vigil is not a rank, it is a recognition by your peers that you uphold the traditions and purpose of the OA at the highest level - you aren't superior - you're the example. When you're a Chapter/Lodge officer, you aren't putting yourself above any other in the OA. You are a true servant leader - you are serving because you enjoy serving - and you are serving the others. The best Lodge Chiefs are those that refuse to leave their place in the meal line to take a position at the front of the line just because they are the Lodge Chief. Being a Chapter/Lodge officer is about offering service to your fellow OA members - if you need a patch to announce it to the world, then, in my opinion, you aren't deserving of the position.

Info, Based on the question about French Toast, it sounds as if the Webelos may have been invited to participate/compete in the events and not just watch - and the individual survival kits may be one of the things being judged.

Ingredients for French Toast: Eggs Bread Serve with Butter & Syrup (whichever kind floats your particular boat), or Butter & Sugar/Cinnamon, or Butter and Fruit. Or just Butter. Did I say Butter? (I think I may live too close to Wisconsin). Milk/cream is optional - all it is used for is to stretch one of the main ingredients - eggs. 4 eggs, no milk, is generally enough to provide 6 pieces of French Toast. Only have 3 eggs? Add milk. Need 8 pieces of French Toast and only have 4 eggs (or don't want to use more than 4 eggs)? Add milk. I like the idea of adding vanilla to the "batter" (let's face it, the batter is really just whipped eggs). I'f I'm going to use cinnamon, I shake it lightly on the un-cooked side of the bread while the bread is cooking. I never put it in the eggs before dipping - cinnamon does not mix well with raw eggs, so most of the cinnamon you add ends up on the bottom of the dipping pan when your done. For the most part, you shouldn't have to worry about the ingredients freezing if you aren't leaving the ingredients out overnight. In my experience, eggs that have been pre-whipped freeze faster than in the shell eggs. What Moxie said for transporting. Get creative with the bread - I like using raisin bread. Other options are a small loaf of "French", "Italian", or "Vienna" bread rather than just plain ole' white bread. Edited Add: A thought on packing. I'd try to make things a little easier - Rubbermaid (and others) make some really nice square or rectangular storage containers (not the sandwich size) that you could probably pack most of the ingredients and some of the tools in. The amount of bread, eggs, liquids, the tools (I'd use a small wisk rather than a fork) needed for this event could probably all fit into it. The container then doubles as your "dipping pan" since you'll empty the container, pour the egg mix or crack your eggs and mix in the container. Then you don't need a pie tin. Afterwards, your trash, tools, eggshells, small containers, go into the "dipping pan" which now becomes a self-contained trash container. What needs to be washed can be washed later - and there will be less mess(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Let's keep in mind what the purpose of a survival kit is. It is an emergency kit with the bare minimums in it. Extra mittens, socks, change of shoes - great to have for a winter trip - but not really survival items. Eliza, looks like you've created a well thought out survival kit. I like that it fits in a quart ziploc - though I'd be tempted to find a quart sized nylon bag to put the ziploc in - ziplocs can tear more easily that a nylon bag. The only things I would add are a small pocket knife (and if they don't have whittlin' chip - get it), and a small lighter, as a redundancy in addition to the matches.

If you treat LNT as a set of hard and fast rules, you're going to be unhappy. If you treat them like the ethical guidelines they are meant to be, you'll be just fine.

I'm no expert but I do enjoy a research challenge. As AK-Eagle said, the first patch is Army National Guard - specifically the 40th Infantry. The second patch appears to have New Mexico's sun, so may be related to the New Mexico National Guard. The third patch appears to have a griffin - which is Michigan's National Guard insignia, so it may be a Michigan National Guard patch.

If only there was some kind of word for what I noticed...something like Irony.

I do like the idea of spelling it out first, then using the acronym later. Just hope we don't have some speaking of Den Chiefs, District Chair and District Commissioner in the same post.

I'm not on the same page as those who think that survival of the fittest means whichever species dominates wins. In classical terms, survival of the fittest means that the fittest individuals of a species will survive and thrive and reproduce. In classical terms, it means this finch will thrive on this island because it's beak is just right for probing into narrow cracks while that finch with the broader beak will thrive on that island whose biggest food source for finches is those big seeds that need to be cracked open. It is not about zebra mussels being introduced (accidently in this case) being able to out-survive native mussels or being able to thrive in an ecosystem it doesn't belong in. Typically, when a species is introduced where it doesn't belong, it triumphs because, unlike the natives, it has no limiting factors in its new location - limiting factors such as natural predators, or bacteria/viruses, or natural competition, or built-up resistance. Emerald Ash Borers thrive in our native Ash trees because the trees have not developed natural defenses against them, unlike the trees where EAB comes from. EAB is not about survival of the fittest - it's about battling a pest with no native limiting factors that has the potential to wipe out several billion (with a b) trees east of the Mississippi. Wisconsin and Michigan aren't restricting firewood movement because of the relatively small numbers of ash trees that were planted in cities and towns. They're restriciting firewood movement because of the incredibly large numbers of ash trees in those state's forests - and the devastating economic impact the loss of those trees could have. Zebra mussels may mean the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan are "cleaner", but it also means they are changing the eco-system and threatening natives. When non-native Purple Loosestrife takes over a cattail marsh, some see a gain of "all those pretty purple flowers", while others see a huge loss of species diversity - no more muskrat, fewer birds, only one kind of flower. I wish I could take you to a prairie remnant I help maintain and do an insect sweep of the prairie and the neighboring "European" meadow. For every insect species we'll find on the meadow, we'll find 10 in the prairie. And yes, as Seattle points out, there has been a shift of thinking in our wildlife agencies. As we've become more knowledgable, we're no longer doing the same things we did for decades, and are, in fact, trying to reverse it in some cases. 50 years ago, no one really gave much thought to how doing one thing, or not doing another thing, affected the whole of the eco-system. But we've since learned otherwise. When you introduce a non-native species (even if it's native to one pond, it might not be native to another), that pond is changed. One of the factors of the extinction of the Michigan Grayling was the introduction of non-native (to Michigan)Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout (other factors included destruction of habitat). In Maine, there is a species of endangered trout native to a couple of small, mountain lakes. Inland Fish & Wildlife has been working to save these endangered trout by capturing them, then killing off the non-native trout that have been carried up the mountains and introduced. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Illinois no longer releases Ring-necked Pheasants, a non-native, but they do release Wild Turkey, a native. I think most sportsmen approve.

By "Southern Border", you are, or course, referring to Massachussets.

Some of what LNT covers is common sense - or so it seems to those of us who were raised in the Boy Scouts. But not everyone was raised in the Scouts. I've mentioned my college before - a small, environmentally focused school with an excellent Conservation Law division and Outdoor Recreation/Education division. One would think that the Outdoor Recreation program and the Con-Law program would be full of former Boy Scouts - but it isn't. In the mid-80's, when I started, of the 25 males in the Outdoor Rec program, 2 - that's right, just 2, were Boy Scouts. Of the 45 males in the Con Law program, only 6 were Boy Scouts. So where did the other 62 males in these programs get their love of the outdoors? LNT was designed for people like them - people who didn't have something like the Boy Scouts in their lives. And there are a lot more folks out there without something like the Scouts getting into the woods. It makes sense that the Boy Scouts would adopt LNT principles, since that is pretty much the standard. LNT also covers a lot of things that are laws, rules and regulations without trying to beat us over the head with them. For instance, letting people know they shouldn't keep blue jay feathers is not just because it diminishes other people's opportunity to find and enjoy them - it's also a matter of law. Feathers, eggs, and nests - even shed, hatched, or abandoned, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act - you can't legally possess these items. Antique Bottles? Protected under a federal antiquities law. And as others have mentioned, there are state and local regulations that LNT covers without beating us over the head with. But perhaps the issue is more basic than that. Perhaps the issue is that the BSA seems to present LNT as if it should be taught as a single unit. Maybe folks think we need to teach LNT in some kind of classroom setting. Just like the old days, the best way to teach the LNT ethics is to lead by example. I've told the story before but it fits here - at a state park, after I had packed up my gear and before I left my campsite, I walked around my campsite, and in the neighboring vacant sites, picking up trash. The Scout Troop that had camped across from me had also packed up and some Scouts who had taken the trash to the dumpster asked me what I was doing. I explained that I was taught in Boy Scouts that Boy Scouts always leave their campsites better than they found them. This set the Scouts racing to their Scoutmaster who told him what I told them - and that got the SPL to set up a trash patrol of their site. Lead by example. Leave No Trace. It's a pretty simple concept - we just have to do it.

What's sad is that 170 years later, we still recognize how apt this is in our own society. So much for the forward march of time.

I had been struggling to put into words my thoughts because there were so many, from so many different angles. Beavah pretty much sums up what I'm thinking. However, I do want to respond to the idea that all we need to do is remember to "be prepared" and to follow outdoor ethics we were all taught. The thing is, you can't be prepared unless you're taught how to prepare, and what to prepare for. You aren't automatically "prepared" when you join the Boy Scouts at age 11 because the motto is "Be Prepared". You don't automatically know outdoor ethics just because you're a member of the BSA. LNT helps us prepare our Scouts, helps us instill those outdoor ethics. They aren't rules, they aren't bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, they aren't political (or environmental) correctness. They are guidelines to help us be better prepared, and be more ethical in the woods. When I've hiked 15 miles into a campsite, I don't want to see that someone has been there before me using a saw on everything in sight. I certainly don't want some clowns to set up near me and start playing a radio loudly. When I leave my campsite in the morning, I hope that if you come across it a few hours later, you'll never know I was there. And trying to justify potentially destructive human activities because animals are worse, that's got to be some of the most arrogant thinking there is. Remind me to tell that Grizzly Bear that is rampaging through your campsite because LNT is hogwash that we're the master. So why LNT? Apparently, folks have missed that back in the day (I was a Scout in the 70's - and yes, a lot of the LNT stuff is stuff I learned back then), there were less than 10 million people that actually headed into the woods on a regular basis, but the BSA had about 5 million members so it's likely that a large number of people that went into the woods had a pretty well developed sense of outdoor ethics. Today, more than 30 million people are heading into the woods on a regular basis, but we're still at 5 to 6 million members - easy to extrapolate that there are fewer folks gaining a sense of outdoor ethics within their lives on a regular basis. Not only do we need to set the example, we need to understand that we are no longer the biggest example out there.

Are you sure it's the Scout (Council) Executive and not the District Executive? Most Scout Executives have too much to do to be bothered with driving to camp to see someone's tour permit. It would be pretty unusual for someone to make their way up to Scout Executive if they have the attitude you've described. If it is the District Executive, then the Institutional Head making a phone call to the Scout Executive to politely inquire why the District Executive is targeting the Troop his organization is chartering should be enough to get the DE pulled into the SE's office and told to knock it off. If it is truly the Scout Executive, then a call by the Parish Priest to the Council Relationships Chair politely asking why the Scout Executive is targeting the Troop his Parish is sponsoring and "innocently" asking if this is something he's going to have to take up with the Archdiocese will surely get the attention of the Council President. In the meantime, file the tour permits and fundraising permits - if they're denied, do the trips/fundraisers anyway. The unit might not get to use the Council's camp, but they can't really stop you from going to state parks. And they can't walk into your fundraiser demanding that you cease and desist. If the permits are denied, send a copy of the denied permits to National with a note stating that Council has denied these for no good reason, and that you are bypassing Council and filing them with National - and that you will continue to file them with National until their rogue Council is brought back under control. Finally, if the Charter is denied without proper justification, then the Parish Priest is simply going to have to be asked to go to the person at the Archdiocese who deals with relationships with the Boy Scouts and ask him to get involved. Once call from an organization that sponsors a good number of units through their Parish can really shake up the organization. And since I'm not adverse to playing hardball if nothing improves, a call to the Council warning them that the media may be contacting them to ask why the BSA is now discriminating against Catholics (I'm assuming Catholicism based on the use of parish) is something I'd be holding in my back pocket as my trump card.

Good Innovation: The Red Beret Bad Innovation: Getting rid of the Red Beret for a baseball cap - and an ugly baseball cap at that. Good Innovation turned Bad: Leave No Trace - would have remained a good innovation had Scouting understood what it really was about and didn't muck it up by trying to use it to make changes in their outdoor program, or try to make it a one size fits all situations program. Bad Innovation: COPES. The BSA should have left that to the folks that do it well, like Outward Bound, and the myriad of organizations and private companies that only do these kinds of programs. Good Innovation made better: Okpik as the Innovation offered at National High Adventure Bases made better by rolling it out to the local level. Bad Innovation: Aluminum Pinewood Derby Tracks. Like Aluminum Baseball Bats, some things should never have been greenlighted - somtimes we need to let tradition reign. Good Innovation: Tiger Cubs Bad Innovation: Webelos 1 & 2. Why fix something that wasn't broken? Bad Innovation turned Good: Venturing - for a time, it appeared to be the death knell of the entire Exploring program - but in time, the separation of the outdoor adventure oriented Venturing from the career exploration oriented Learning for Life was successful for both programs, and the death knell for Exploring was just the bells tolling for the loss of the name.

Understanding fully that this response is pedantic - if I need a fire built, I'm not looking for an Eagle Scout. I'm going to look for a First Class Scout. I'll look for the Eagle Scout to organize and lead a team to gather materials and build the fire, but would expect that the Eagle Scout be confident enough to delegate building the fire to someone else.

Small world, Broken. The fact that it was so small was one of the things that attracted me to it. My first semester of college, at a state school in Illinois, was spent in 150 people lectures - not fun to a hands-on learner. Had it not been so small, I never would have gotten the opportunity to teach one of the classes (as an independent study for credit).

Are we getting into "myth" territory here too? I've found nothing in the policies that water down the program in a way that prevents a Troop from offering a challenging program that would prepare Scouts for those "Survivorman" situations. I suspect the reality is that adult leaders don't have the skills or don't want to do these things and cover by saying "it's against the rules". I see nothing in G2SS that says you can't use safety gear to climb trees. I see a prohibition of Technical Tree Climbing, which is a whole different animal that putting a harness and rope on a Scout as a safety precaution so that he can climb a tree safely without it being a technical climb. I see people saying we can't build Monkey Bridges over 5 feet tall, or build towers like in the old pioneering books and climb them, but I can't find anything in G2SS that says you can't do this. G2SS states that, as a general safety precaution, you "should" build your Monkey Bridges no more than 5 feet high, and that you "Should" not attempt to build COPES course high ropes elements. Words mean things - and while Should suggests you have a duty to follow a recommendation, Shall suggests that you must do something. I don't see these Should's as "Cant's". I see them as "if you're going to do it, be darn well sure you know what you're doing, and are prepared in case something goes wrong. Or am I wrong in thinking this?

Gee - if an activity is prohibited, it just must be because the BSA is afraid of litigation and the risk management folks are just going overboard, right? It's just not possible that there could be other reasons for some of the prohibitions. Sure, BB guns are prohibited at the Pack level - but they aren't at the District or Council level. Must be because the BSA can't trust the volunteers. It's just not possible that they do it so that there are special things that can only be done at Day Camp or a district webelos camping trip which helps make these events something special, and not just a weekend or week long den meeting, right? Same goes for canoeing or row boating - it's just not possible that Packs should have more than enough fun things to do without having to do something that Boy Scouts can do, huh? Why, there's no need for age appropriate guidelines, which have as much to do with keeping some things as special for the older lads (and gals) as it does with making sure the boy is old enough to handle it mentally and physically. I don't hear of many Troops that do Pinewood Derbys, Raingutter Regattas, Spaceship Derbys and Bicycle Safety Rally's, do you? Can't there be some activities that are off-limits to one or two parts of the program so that they are reserved for the other parts? If not, then why even bother with Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts and Venturing. Why not just call it Scouts and have everyone from Tiger on be in the same unit? Same goes for Hunting - There is no ban on hunting for Venturers. Why can't Hunting be reserved as an activity that Boy Scouts just don't get to do - just because they aren't Venturer's? Is not being allowed to use ATV's and Jet Skis in the program really all that onerous? What is the point of including these in the program? Do it because it's fun and who cares that ATV usage has never been a traditional part of Scouting? Instead of backpacking trips, we'll do ATV camping trips instead. Is that what Scouting should be? There's a thread in the forum with a lot of people moaning about the video game awards that Cub Scouts can get - the gist being that it's just not Scouting. Shouldn't the BSA be able to point at certain activities and say "Those just don't fit in with Scouting" without being accused of being overly cautious and anti-fun? Karate isn't allowed - is that really a big deal? Sure, it's popular with a lot of folks but what does it have to do with Scouting? What can Karate do that Tai Chi (allowed) can't? Must we allow everything just because it's popular? I see folks moaning about the potential for becoming "Soccer Scouts". Isn't that really the same thing? I've never heard a Scout, or a parent of a Scout, complain that Karate isn't being offered in Scouts. (On a side note, I don't see many units doing Tai Chi - and that's a shame. Can you imagine, as I can, Troops coming down to gather at the summer camp flag pole being greeted by the site of a Troop that has come down early so that they can warm-up for the day by performing Tai Chi together?) As for lazer tag and paint ball, let's make sure we don't describe them as entirely prohibited. Lazer tag and paintball are allowed for target practice, as long as the target is not alive or in the shape of a human. Sure, it's popular to do lazer tag and paint ball tag games shooting at each other, but doesn't that send a very mixed message when the BSA is also sending out a very strong message on gun safety? I suppose you can look at the "thou shalt nots" and conclude that the BSA just doesn't want Scouts to have fun. Alternatively, you can look at all the things that Scouts can do and realize that "Holy Schnikes, there's so many things we can do that we'll never even miss the stuff we can't or shouldn't do".