CalicoPenn

Welcome to the forums Navigator. It sounds to me as if the casual conversation and comment has simply led to a misunderstanding. First - a Scout can start working on any merit badge at any time (don't let anyone tell you that in order toearn Personal Management, a Scout must be 14, or First Class, or any other nonsense). There are no merit badges with pre-requisites or age limits. Second - once a Scout has earned a Merit Badge, the badge is earned - and the badge is earned when the Merit Badge Counselor says it is earned - there is no review by the Scoutmaster, Troop Advancement Committee Chair, a Board of Review, etc. When the MBC says the badge is earned - it's earned so no one has to earn it a second time. Third - there is no requirement to earn any Merit Badges to become First Class - the requirements to earn Merit Badges begin with the Star Rank. These requirements are fairly simple - for Star, it is earn 6 Merit Badges - it doesn't say "While a Star Scout, earn 6 Merit Badges - it only says earn 6 Merit Badges. The rank requirements don't care when they were earned - just as long as there are 6 of them. Where the confusion may come from is the additional part of the requirement - "Including 4 from the required list for Eagle". In other words, of the 6 Merit Badges required for Star rank, 4 must be from the required for Eagle list. If your son has only 3 Eagle required badges left for Eagle then he's fulfilled this part of the requirement - and there's a good chance he's fulfilled the requirements for Life as well. Here's a hint - it's tempting to use all Eagle rank required merit badges for the Star Rank - don't do it - the Life rank requirements are worded slightly differently than the Star rank requirements - Life rank reads "earn 5 MORE Merit Badges including any 3 MORE from the required list for eagle" - I think most would interpret that to mean if you've already counted them towards Star you can't count them again for Life. Of course it's possible that the ASM was a bit fuzzy on the requirements as well - a friendly conversation with the Scoutmaster should clear that up if that is indeed the case.

le Voyageur - the local phenomenon we were referencing wasn't about the weather itself, but about the media coverage of weather. I don't think the Pineapple Express had anything to do with the "Storm Tracker (It's going to snow/rain/be foggy everybody panic!)" phenomenon - unless of course Pineapple Express was a potent adult beverage served at a television news convention and resulted in drunken discussions that led to the "Storm Panic" phenomenon. We have a running joke in our office - using snow as an excuse to leave early - we're always trying to top each other - so far, I'm the winner with "It's supposed to snow in Iceland this coming Saturday - better get home before traffic get's bad".

JoeBob - let us know when your snow melts off your roads and parking lots after tomorrows storms. I'd be pretty curious about that.

OGE - yeah, it's a local phenomenon - unfortunately, it's a local phenomenon that has infected the entire country - and the infection is so widespread that no one can say for sure just where the it originated (though I suspect it was Los Angeles). Once some stations get the idea for "storm tracker" or "health beat" or "consumer watchdog", it becomes viral and every station ends up doing the same thing. Part of this may be related to corporate ownership of certain affiliates (I may be wrong but I believe that ABC, NBC and CBS actually own the affiliates in the big three major markets - Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City - and they all seem to roll out format changes at the same time - while most smaller markets have so-called independent owners (meaning not ABC, NBC or CBS)). It even happens here in Chicago - but of course in Chicago (and Milwaukee, Madison, Rockford, Buffalo - and anywhere else in the snow belt) we just laugh at the reporters on television and consider them to be foolish namby-pambys that need to go back to Dallas or wherever they crawled up from. 12 inches of snow forecast and a Principal cancels school? Parents are outraged by this - why should the kids get a snow day when we all still have to get to work. Calling in to work because of snow? Just isn't done. Forecast of snow showers? Translated means 1 to 3". To be fair to our Mid-Atlantic friends, we are better prepared to deal with snow removal - heck, O'Hare Airport alone probably has more snow removal equipment than all of Baltimore. And though the amount of snow the Mid-Atlantic states will get is probably half of what we will see by seasons end, we didn't get it all at one time.

Thank goodness my Den Mother didn't look like that - I would have run off screaming into the afternoon, never to return...and I liked my mother's cooking. No, seriously - this is one scary looking Den Leader - though I'm sure she's a perfectly nice woman and it's all the photographers fault for making her up and posing her looking like a clown.

I looked and I looked and I looked and I couldn't find anything in my bible that says "Thous shalt not be a Scout Leader if you're gay".

Yeah, I always did think being a parent is an alternative lifestyle. Thanks for confirming that.

What a great idea. Have you looked at Ma-Ka-Ja-Wan Scout Reservation in Wisconsin (Northeast Illinois Council)? They offer some high adventure programs including some off site programs to some prety nice places (like the Porcupine Mountains). They also have their own horse ranch.

Inert - "The state a Senior Patrol Leader and Scoutmaster devolve to after returning home from a weekend campout with a Boy Scout Troop"

I don't see this as a new definition of active at all - it's the same definition, just clarified. A Scout is active as long as he is registered and regularly engaged, and as long as he hasn't been removed from the Troop for disciplinary reasons. It clarifies what being regularly engaged means (which answers the question of whether that means the Scoutmaster has to contact the Scout every week, or is once a year enough) and it makes crytsal clear that a Unit may not develop it's own criteria for defining Active as far as advancement goes - in other words, National is telling the units that have created attendance percentages and requirements to knock it off. Is there any reason other than advancement to create attendance percentages anyway? All a percentage attendance requirement accomplishes is a Scout making sure he earns Eagle Scout before he leaves middle school then leaving a unit. Dumb. So who is most likely to benefit from this clarification? The Scout who has earned Life Scout and since becoming a Life Scout, has served the time required POR for 6 months before he turns 16, who then becomes more active in school sports or activities (because it looks good on the college application), works a part time job to help pay for college (or a car), and has less time for Scouts than he did when he was 11-14 who still attends meeting and outings as best he can with his busier schedule, and still has maybe an Eagle Scout project to complete and a couple of Merit Badges. Although not around as much, he's still engaged with the Troop, and in just under two years he manages to finish the service project and Merit Badges before his 18th and is ready for an SM Conference and BOR. Do we really want to deny this Scout Eagle Scout because he didn't attend X percent of meetings and Y percent of outings over the last 2 years? I really hope the vast majority (meaning 99%) will say "No - we aren't going to deny him rank". Unfortunately, that's not what's happened in the real world so the BSA has stepped in to let the volunteers know what the standards are. Note carefully the phrasing "dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons". I think that should make it clear that Troops shouldn't be dismissing Scouts from their unit for attendance reasons. Any DE/DC/UC worth their salt will look at a units recharter application and wonder why Billy Scout, who was just seen at the Fall Camporee, is no longer a Scout in your unit - and will, with kindness, explain the error of your ways if you removed him from the charter for not attending anough meetings. Besides, why would any unit want the extra headache of keeping track of attendance percentages? p.s. how does national have the authority to dictate otherwise? National owns the program - they can make the rules - the CO's are like franchisees - they either follow the rules, or they can decide to forgo the program. The BSA states Cub Scout Dens are not allowed to camp as a den - a CO can't overrule that policy and say yes they can. The BSA isn't overly onerous about rules and regs and policy - but what rules, regs and policies they do foment, CO's must abide by them, as they agreed to. It's the same principle as a McDonalds franchisee being told they can't serve Whoppers.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

Bylaws are the governing document for a corporation/organization/association. They spell out such items as membership rights, election procedures, voting rights, quorums, annual meeting requirements, board membership requirements, board officer responsibilities, standing committees (if any), compensation limits (if for-profit), and what happens upon organizational dissolution. Bylaws should not be used to set meeting schedules (with the exception of 2 meetins - an annual "members" meeting and an annual "board" meeting, which seems to be the minimum requirement in most states - and even then, the requirements should be about as specific as "The annual meeting for the XYZ organization is to take place upon 30-days written notice to the members (which may be in such form as the Board of Directors shall direct) in the month of October" (as an example). They shouldn't be used to set up Troop meetings as "The Troop will meet every Monday from 7:30pm until 9:00pm at ABC Community Center" because that prevents flexibility. In general, bylaws, which are often considered part of the legal documents of an organization and may be required to be filed with your State upon creation or revision, are amendable only by vote of the membership (in a BSA council, the members are generally not the volunteers but are the CO's - they vote on bylaw amendments - and most council bylaws are probably written so that a quorum consists of a minimum of 1 COR present at the annual meeting). A committee really can't just amend the bylaws on a whim every other week because they've changed their mind on something (ok, they "can" in the sense that no one will stop them - unless someone really understands what governing documents are and how their state requires them to be amended - and if they do, they've pretty much made an argument for needing bylaws moot anyway). Every thing needed to operate a Unit is available from the BSA. Need to know what the committee does and how to choose it's chairman and members, and what their roles are, etc. etc.? The BSA has a guide just for that - left a bit vague on some things to give the Chartered Organizations the flexibility they need to operate their unit in a manner consistent with the Chartered Organization's values and mission. The only units that should have such a set of documents are those organized by so-called "Friends of Troop XXX" groups and even then, the Unit itself should not have bylaws, it's the "Friends" group that should have them - and it would be wise for such "Friends" groups to try as much as possible to separate the operation of the "Friends" group from the Troop Committee and Troop program. Parents don't need to be handed a set of bylaws, or a Troop Handbook, to know when a Troop meets, or what neckerchief should be worn, or where a Troop meets, or what expectations the Troop has for uniforming. All they need is a two page paper (if that and at most) that gives the information on meeting nights, times, locations; has a calendar of outings for the upcoming year, uniforming abd book expectations for Scouts, SPL's name and number or e-mail address, Scoutmaster's name and number or e-mail address, Committee Chair's name and number or e-mal address (notice who comes first on that list), Dues (if any), responsibility of Scouts for negligent damage of equipment, requests for occassional assistance from parents (driving, etc.), fundraising opportunities and maybe a statement on Scout Accounts (if Units are dumb enough to have them - personal bias - I don't like Scout Accounts). A Troop Committee can cover questions on how funds are accounted for, who signs checks, etc. with a simple standard procedures manual (vetted by the CO). Bottom line on bylaws - a Units bylaws don't trump BSA policy, rules and regulations, and don't trump the Chartered Organization's rules (or even whims). Hypothetical question: say your Troop Committee puts together a set of bylaws then uses them a few years down the road to replace the Committee Chair who is friends with the Institutional Head who objects - what do you do? This isn't so hypothetical - I've seen it happen - a Troop Committee used a set of bylaws they created to get rid of the Committee Chair with the support of the COR. The CC complained to his friend, the Institutional Head, someone who actually knew something about Scouting and what the CO's role is. The IH asked the COR what was going on, decided that there was a power play at work in the Troop, and told the COR that as far as he was concerned, his friend was still the CC. The Committee and COR balked and called in the District Commissioner to help. The District Commissioner called a meeting of himself, the District Executive, IH, COR, and Committee to discuss it - much to the Institutional Head's annoyance. The meeting lasted about 5 minutes. As soon as the DC called the meeting to order, the IH fired the COR and the entire committee, appointed a new COR, appointed his friend the CC and told him to recruit all new committee members, demanded the checkbook by 12:00 noon the next day (he received it) and told the DC and the DE that next time, he would just fold the Troop. I was at the meeting - I was appointed by the IH as the new COR. The Troop lost 8 members right away and struggled for 2 years to get it's footing and is doing ok today. The old committee formed a "Friends of" Troop that folded in a year. None of the 8 Scouts that left the Troop stayed in Scouting. Oh, and those "bylaws"? Disappeared never to be seen again.

Gee Beavah, I didn't get the impression that Scoutfish is like the Cub Parent (usually a dad) that is ultra precise with the kids Pinewood Derby car at all - my impression is we've got a fairly new leader just trying to get a handle on what's important, what isn't, what's real policy, what's quasi-policy, what's fake policy, what's guidelines, what's the squishy middle, and is trying to figure out what is important to interpret as musts (such as certain G2SS rules) and what can be interpreted a bit more loosely (such as insignia rules, like those stating where a world crest badge must be placed (loved the bit about the badge being off kilter by a couple of degrees - shows a good sense of humor). Oh, and trying to figure out how so many of the oldsters amongst us (not neccessarily meaning age) can possibly have so many differing interpretations of the same policies and guidelines and how does he (or any other new leader) decide which interpretations have more merit and which are off base. I figured John's comment was meant as a way to reinforce what we've been saying - certainly the majority of the posters on this thread aren't bona fide members of the Uniform Police - and perhaps meeting a bona fide member of the UP would show why none of us are that picky.

"So what you are saying is that a troop can create their own uniform, kinda like Venturing's distinct Identity dress?" Hard to say, Eagle92. On the one hand, my answer would be no because unlike Venturing's uniforming options, where there is a recommended uniform but not an official-by-policy uniform which means any Venturing Unit's uniform is, if properly adopted by the Venturing Unit, "official", there is an official-by-policy uniform for Boy Scouts so a Troop can't create their own uniform. On the other hand, my answer is a coy maybe since there doesn't seem to be a policy absolutely prohibiting a Troop from creating a uniform that suits them best - only a policy that states that such a uniform can never be an Official Uniform, and as the BSA is trademarked and registered and all kinds of legal thingies 20 ways to Sunday, such a uniform couldn't be properly refered to as a Boy Scout uniform. I'm guessing that the Boy Scouts of America is relying on the first point of the Scout Law - a Scout is Trustworthy - rather than specifically forbidding the creation of a Troop uniform. I'm guessing they are also being flexible enough not to worry if a Troop decides to allow the wearing of jeans instead of the official Scout Uniform pants and probably won't make a fuss if a Scout calls it his Boy Scout Uniform. The Uniform and Insignia rules, as I read them, seem to be far more concerned about protecting the BSA's copyrights, trademarks, registrations and other legal thingies in the "marketplace" than they are about what and how Boy Scouts are wearing their uniforms and badges. Perhaps the BSA should follow their own example of bold-face in the Insignia Guide those policies that are really rules like they do in the G2SS which might eliminate half of the controversies amongst good folk about uniforms and insignia.

OGE, No one has ever openly brought a semi-automtic weapon to an anti-administration rally before - especially when the President is speaking just blocks away. No one has ever been stupid enough to hold up signs saying "Keep government out of my Medicare" before. No one has ever inflated their claims to the number of people present in such a belief defying manner before (yes - others have inflated their claims but they chose a number and stuck with it - this bunch acted more like one of Jon Lovitzes characters on Saturday Night Live as they disputed the 60,000 to 70,000 estimate by the fire department when they started claiming 250,000 people and worked their way up to a claim of 2 million).

Scoutfish, I feel your pain - but I think I can help. The Guide to Safe Scouting is an attempt to provide both guidelines to ensure that Scouts can enjoy age-appropropriate activities with minimal, acceptable risks, and to provide policy on certain activities. In the introduction to the G2SS, it states specifically that Bold Type throughout the Guide to Safe Scouting denotes BSA rules and policies. Anything in bold type is a policy and/or rule - and not a guideline. Anything not in bold type is either introductory material, summary material or a guideline. Under age guidelines, the bullet points related to Cub Scout camping are in bold type (which may be hard to tell in the online version since the BSA is using a gray scale type rather than a big, bold black type). That makes them policies - not just guidelines. If a unit leader is ignoring those, that unit leader should be removed. As for the Insignia Guide. You're correct that it is policy. Beavah is also correct, that it is a philosophical statement. But unlike the G2SS, where a policy is a rule, here the policy is a statement. The statement is that the BSA is a uniformed organizations, and provides reasons as to why. One very important thing missing from the policy is a statement that uniforms are required. When we get to the rules, again there are no rules stating that a unform is required. What the rules do is define what the "official" uniform is, and who decides what the "official" uniform is, and who may wear the "official" uniform. Nowhere does it state that a Scout must wear the "official" uniform. If a Scout Troop is wearing the uniform shirt with blue jeans, under the rules, the Troop isn't wearing the "official" uniform - but that doesn't mean the Troop isn't a Boy Scout Troop and the Scouts aren't Boy Scouts. What's interesting to note (something that occurred to me as I was reviewing that part of the document for the umpteenth time), no where in the uniforming rules does it state that insignia may only be worn on an "official" uniform. Hmmmm.

I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion on by-laws, but I will say this, if your Troop needs a by-law in order to let Scouts and their parents know what neckerchief the Scouts should wear, the Troop has problems well beyond neckerchiefs.

Seems to be a film exploring the twisted fantasies of right wing tea partiers.

If I were CC of this Troop, the first thing I would do is stand in front of all the parents, Scouts, Scout Leaders, Commitee Members and make a show of tearing the by-laws in half. Troops don't need by-laws. When it comes to running the program, every thing a Troop needs is available in the official Boy Scout Literature. The problem with by-laws is that if they conflict with the policies, procedures and standards of the BSA, a Unit will defer to the by-laws, which they made up, in the very mistaken belief that they know better that the BSA. The Boy Scouts may be a uniformed organization, but the BSA does not require anyone - let me repeat - does not require ANYONE - to own and wear a uniform. They strongly encourage it, and uniformed Units are very sharp looking indeed, but it is not REQUIRED. By Boy Scout of America standards, a boy could become a Tiger, move through Cub Scouts, crossover into Boy Scouts, and then go on to earn Eagle Scout without ever once put on a uniform. Should that be common? No - that should be very rare - but, it is still allowable under the standards of the BSA. I'm always wary of Troops that have "by-laws" that require a full uniform, with sash, as part of the Board of Review. I have never heard anyone adequately explain why they must have a special "by-law" telling Scouts they must wear a full uniform at their BOR. To me, this by-law suggests that the Troop is just fine with a Scout NOT wearing a full uniform at any time other than a BOR. I've never seen a "by-law" that says a Scout must be in full uniform at all Scout meetings, which would have the same effect. As for this SPL - yes I agree - at the very least, the shirt should have had his rank and POR patches sewn on, and have been presentable. But, if the Scoutmaster is modeling jeans and Scout Shirt, then that should be good enough for the BOR. If the Committee wants the Troop to be a fully uniformed Troop, then they need to meet with the Scoutmaster to express those expectations, and express that he needs to set a proper example.

Depends on the hike. If it's a strenuous hike and you're worried about weight, bring cool water (not ice cold). There will be times you're going to want to take a big slug of a drink and it's not pleasant gulping down a hot drink. If you're not worried about weight, then bring both. Use the cool water for keeping yourself hydrated on the trail and have the hot chocolate at the end of the trail as a treat.

The Great Lakes continues to face threats from species introduced via the Atlantic Ocean. One of the latest is the Round Goby which has established populations in all of the Great Lakes, and is affecting the perch populations now. Sea Lampreys, Zebra Mussels, Alewives, Rainbow Smelt - all made their way into the Great Lakes from the Atlantic Ocean. The biggest factor in these introductions was the improvements made to the Welland Canal which allowed large vessels to enter Lake Erie from Lake Ontario. No one has sued Ontario to try to get the Welland Canal closed down, yet there are still potential threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem coming from the Atlantic Ocean. No one sued Michigan and Ontario to try to stop the Round Goby from entering Lakes Michigan, Huron or Superior when they were found in Lake St. Clair. No one has sued Ontario to shut down the Trent-Severn Waterway, a canal system between Lake Ontario to Lake Huron to prevent the possible migration on non-native species through that channel. (I write this under the assumption that everyone understands that the St. Lawrence Seaway/River is a direct connection from the Atlantic Ocean into Lake Ontario, the Welland Canal a connection between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and Lake St. Clair being a natural lake in a natural channel between Lake Erie and Lake Huron, which in turn is directly connected to Lakes Michigan and Superior). The Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Illinois have been working together since 2002 to stop the spread of the some species of Asian Carp. They've been pretty successful so far considering scientists thought the carp would make it into the Great Lakes by 2005 no matter what was tried. No such programs were tried to prevent the Round Goby from leaving Lake St. Clair when it was found. Now the Army Corps of Engineers states that Asian Carp DNA has been found in Lake Michigan. What I find interesting is they don't say what they sampled to find Asian Carp DNA. Was it a fish? Was it the stomach contents of a fish that may have eaten a carp fry? Was it blue-green algae which is known to move through the digestive tract of carp without being digested? If it was a fish, which species of carp was it? Lake Michigan has Grass Carp in it right now - and Grass Carp is one of the "Asian Carps". It's always interesting when the media and politicians report or use what scientists say without thinking about what they're really saying. They tend to find one or two sentences that support the slant they want known even if everything else in a report indicates something completely different. Since 2002, Great Lakes scientists have indeed said Asian Carp "may" have the worst impact on the Great Lakes than any other invasive species. Of course, with that "may" is the non-stated "may not". The reports from Great Lakes scientists, even those that worked for the State of Michigan, also said they just didn't know what kind of impact Asian Carp could have on the lakes, and that there might not be a big impact on the Great Lakes (it's hard to believe that any invasive species could have a greater impact on the Great Lakes that the Sea Lamprey which wiped out the fisheries in Lake Michigan). Many of the Great Lakes scientists said that the bigger possibility is that Asian Carp would have the greatest impact on the comparatively shallow Lake Erie and would likely be concentrating along the shorelines of the other Great Lakes because they are not a deep water species. If that's the case, the impact on commercial and sports fishing may be much less than the alarmists are saying (but then again, may not). Reports in the past have also said the Round Goby may be have the greatest negative impact on the Great Lakes. And let's not forget that Bighead Carp were already caught in Lake Erie back in 2005. It's possible that Bighead Carp will find it's way into Lake St. Clair from Erie rather than from the Mississppi River, and from there into Lake Huron. We just don't know. It's possible that even if we shut down the canals in Illinois, the Silver and Bighead Carp will eventually make it's way into the Great Lakes anyway. Again, we just don't know. It's also possible that these carp have been in Lake Michigan since the 90's when these carp first escaped from fish farms and made their way into the Mississippi River and we just haven't seen them yet - again, we just don't know. For all we know, the fry of these carp will be food to salmon, trout, perch and whitefish. Again, we just don't know. Finally, let's not give in to the overblown hype of the media and political alarmists. First, the Great Lakes ecosystem is not "fragile". The ecosystem really doesn't care which fish are in the lake - as long as a balance is maintained - and Ma Nature is pretty good at bringing damaged ecosystems back to balance if we give her a chance to do so. A $7 Billion dollar commercial and sports fishery isn't going to vanish overnight sinces it's spread out over an awful lot of real estate. The commercial and sports fisheries made a pretty good comeback after they were devasted in the 1950's. The recreational tourism isn't going to be affected much at all, no matter what's in the lakes. (Where did that $9 Billion come from? Every report I've read has stated $7 Billion directly attributed to the Great Lakes not $7 Billion + $9 Billion). We're making an effort to prevent something that may have already occurred - no one has their head in the sand over this, and no one ever has. But now we have a politician who wanted to make hay with his constituency and as a result have another non-crisis crisis on our hands.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

The first attempt to introduce Chinook Salmon into the Great Lakes was 1873. The first attempt to introduce Coho Salmon into Lake Michigan was 1933. Alewives didn't appear in Lake Michigan until 1949. The Sea Lamprey decimated the local, native fish that were able to keep the population of alewives down during the 50's. In 1959, the commercial take of alewives was 220,000 lbs. With the extirpation of Lake Trout from Lake Michigan, the population of alewives exploded, crowding out the small native fish like chubs and Lake Herring. By 1967, the commercial harvest of alewives was 41.9 million pounds. Coho was re-introduced to Lake Michigan in 1966, the year before the alewives really messed up the beaches. They were introduced to revive the sports fishery in the lake. They were introduced not as alewive control but because there was a ready supply of food in the form of alewives and biologists thought there was a very good chance that the reintroduction would be successful this time. Because of the food source, it was. Because of the success of the Coho trial, more Coho were released, as well as Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. Most were raised in hatcheries and released before the alewive explosion became a public relations challenge. Again, they were released to boost the sports fishery - and biologists thought it would be successful because of the abundance of alewives in the lake. Of course, when the alewives became a problem, there was a serendipitous solution - fish that would eat alewives had been released - and now it could be said we were doing something about it - so now we get entrys in Wikipedia (which can never be wrong) saying Chinook Salmon were introduced to control the alewive problem. The reality is Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon were able to be successfully introduced to rehabilitate the sports fishery because there were alewives in the lake, and the reason they were introduced was to rehabilitate the sport fishery. The state of the Lake Michigan fishery is still not a native ecology. Though there are larger numbers of Lake Perch, and Lake Trout have been reintroduced with a small margin of success, the majority of fish in Lake Michigan are still Alewives, Smelt (also a non-native), Coho, Chinook (King) and Steelhead. Coho, Chinook and Steelhead are still mostly stocked year after year (there is some natural breeding of salmon - but not enough to sustain any sort of sport fishery) and Lake Michigan is considered a "Put and Take" sport fishery (we put the fish in the lake, when you catch the fish you take it with you) and catch and release isn't really an option - most charters won't even consider it. Since 1967, there have been other alewive "explosions" that ended up with beaches full of alewives, despite the millions of salmon released into the lake each year. It appears that alewives have natural population explosions and declines on a 4 year cycle probably having more to do with numbers of fish available for spawning in a year, and the washing of alewives on beaches is likely the result of sudden and unexpected changes in lake temperature during spawning season damaging a fish that is not physiologically adapted to living in freshwater.

Scoutfish, I've got to say that if I was a Den Leader planning a trip to a junior ranger program and was told by the park that a parent had to accompany each Cub Scout, and I knew that single mom "Julie" wasn't going to be able to make it, I'm not going to bring my Den to that event. And - I would make it a point to tell every other leader I could get a hold of that this park's program requirements are so unreasonable that Scouts should just avoid it altogether. But then again, I don't know of many county, state or national parks, or even private nature centers, that would have such a policy.

Fair question Beavah. The $16 billion figure comes from US Representative Deborah Halvorson of Illinois. I can't tell you where she gets her figures but am willing to accept that her figures are as accurate as the figures about the affects on the fisheries and tourism. I've been working on Great Lakes issues for the past 18 years as an active member of the Audubon Society, including activism working on passage of the Great Lakes Compact. I'm an environmentalist, but not one that takes statements at face value. If someone tells me that wind farms hurt bird populations, I say show me the data and prove it. When someone says "Asian Carp could decimate the fisheries of the Great Lakes", my first thought is "sure, that COULD happen - but then again, that might not happen - so prove that it will". The fact is we just don't know what affect Asian Carp will have on the great lakes. What we do have is the type of alarmism that give environmentalism a bad name. It's interesting that Ontario has joined in - they certainly have standing as a member of the Great Lakes Compact so that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is that the US Geological Survey says that Asian Carp were found in the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes several years ago (both Bighead Carp, one of the two species of real concern - the other being the Silver Carp - and Grass Carp). If that's the case, then the Great Lakes already has a population of Asian Carp. I'm not saying we shouldn't prevent more from entering the Great Lakes. I'm saying we need to stop this panicky reaction and go back to thinking rationally about the subject. The USFWS, Army Corps of Engineers and IL DNR have been working on this issue since the beginning of the decade. The Army Corp built a temporary electrical barrier just to see if it would be effective back in 2002 and the results were so surprisingly good, that they built permanent barriers. If it was that big of an issue to Michigan, why didn't they protest back then? Why wait 8 years until the Army Corps announces a shut down of a barrier for maintenance?

I'm of the "parent's should be encouraged to attend" camp because as Buffalo Skipper notes, Cub Scouts is designed to be a family program. However, I don't think you should make attendance by a parent an absolute requirement for a non-Tiger Cub to attend. If you have 1 or 2 parents that can't attend but would hate to see their boy miss out on a fun and educational program, a good Den Leader will figure out a way to make it work so as not to penalize the boy. I can't imagine a quicker way to lose a boy to Cub Scouting than to tell a boy "Sorry, Bobby - you can't come with us to the Jr. Ranger program because your mom or dad won't be there". Obviously, if a couple of parents are using Cubbing as a babysitting opportunity, then you need to speak with those parents, but most of the time, there should be enough flexibility to be able to keep an eye on an "extra" lad. Do you have a Den Chief? If so, he can become the Cub's "Buddy" on the trip (not to be confused with the normal expectation of a Den Chief to be a buddy to all the members of his Den). But it also depends on the type of activity. When I was a Cub (and Den Chief), my Pack always did a winter hike at a nearby forest preserve with a fire after the hike for cooking hot dogs and marshmallows - a parent (preferably Dad if possible) or parentally approved substitute (such as a sibling over 16 (dark ages - I know), grandparent, uncle, etc.) was required to attend because of fire/cooking issues (one year, we all tried the bacon and eggs in a bag trick - surprisingly, it worked). But it makes sense with that kind of activity. Heading off to the local nature center to take part in a Junior Ranger program? I'd be more flexible with that. You won't find an absolute rule by the BSA on this, other than the G2SS guidelines, because the BSA just doesn't think it's needed.

The Zebra Mussel and the Lamprey Eel came into the Great Lakes through the locks along the St. Lawrence Seaway and in the ballast tanks of ships coming into the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway. I've yet to see Michigan even hint at suing Canada or New York, Ohio or Pennsylvania for the damage this has caused in Lake Michigan, Lake Huron or Lake Superior. I'm wondering what Michigan's real agenda is. I consider the states that have joined in to be bystanders jumping on the bandwagon - Michigan has something else going on. Acco mentions that the Great Lakes provides $4 billion in tourist revenue to the state. The canals in Illinois linking the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes provides $16 billion annually in economic benefits to the State of Illinois, as well as economic benefits to the State of Indiana as steel is moved from their plants through the locks to the Mississippi River. The Army Corps of Engineers just recently shut down an electrical barrier in the locks designed to prevent the migration of the Asian Carp into the Great Lakes for maintenance. The Illinois DNR used rotenone to poison all of the fish in the river from that barrier to the next lock downstream (and closed the locks to use during this time). In a previous survey, the DNR had found dozens of Asian Carp in this stretch of waterway. In this latest round, they found one Asian Carp. It appears that the barrier is proving to be effective and successful in keeping the Asian Carp from migrating up into the Great Lakes. There is no issue of water diversion in the Great Lakes. All of the Great Lakes States, through the US Government, and two provinces in Canada (Ontario - borders the Great Lakes, and Quebec - St. Lawrence Seaway), are part of the Great Lakes Compact, which grants each state and province a set amount of water that they can divert for use. In Illinois, water is pulled from Lake Michigan for the water needs of the city and many of the surrounding suburbs. Wisconsin does the same in parts along their share of the coastline. In Michigan, much of the water that is allowed to be diverted has been sold to a commercial water packaging company (bottled water). I hear that Michigan has come under pressure to somehow increase the amount of water they can sell to bottled watering plants. I hate to sound cynical but I can't help but think this is really a ploy by Michigan to get Illinois to agree to a revised diversion schedule. Is there a possibility of Asian Carp getting into the Great Lakes? Yes. Will closing the locks and canals in Illinois lessen that possibility? Given the preventive measures that Illinois and the Army Corp have been taken, probably not. Will the Asian Carp decimate the fisheries in the Great Lakes? Potentially. Is it a certainty that the Asian Carp will decimate the fisheries in the Great Lakes? No. The same was said about the Lamprey Eel and it hasn't happened yet. More damage was done to the Lake Michigan ecosystem by the States of Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois stocking the lakes with non-native salmon to bolster their sports-fishing industries. Will the Asian Carp have a greater negative economic impact than closing the locks in Illinois? No.