CalicoPenn

It may be a Cub Scout outing, but the Den Chief is an important part of the Webelos Den. I would think it might be odd if he wasn't invited to come along - I'll bet the Webelos would wonder where he is. Your Den Chief will be a great resource for the weekend - he should be involved with the planning of the activities for the campout, and should be given important tasks to do, not just serve as a den watcher. By important task, I don't mean do all the camp chores, but lead a scavenger hike through the woods, or set up and run a short orienteering course - with instructional time involved, or demonstrate fire building techniques, etc. etc. In fact, I wouldn't expect the Den Chief to do any chores the WDL isn't going to be doing too. He's going to be a great resource when families set their tents up - and take them down. He can lead the Webelos in a post camp walk through to pick up litter and make sure the site is left better than found - modeling Leave No Trace camping. If you're cooking as a Den (suggested, rather than having each family pair fend for themselves), he can be involved in helping that go smoothly as well (just make sure he's not the one doing all the cooking and cleaning up - you have a partner, not a maid, along for the weekend). In furtherance of that thought, If it were me, I think I would build in the cost of the food for the Den Chief(s) into the cost to the families - it would be a nice thank you for the help he's giving over the weekend. If you're worried that he'll feel an odd man out - it's not unheard of to invite another Den Chief from the Pack to join the campout, even if it's a Wolf or Bear Den Chief. Two Den Chiefs sharing the duties can really help make the campout a success (I'd give them the duty of setting up and MCing a Saturday Night Campfire) - and a bonus for your Pack is helping to retain a potential future Webelos Den Chief. If you don't have a second Den Chief, use the opportunity to let your Den Chief invite a friend from his Troop - now you have a potential Den Chief recruit coming along.

My take is that the BSA is celebrating 100 years of Scouting. For 70 of those 100 years, the Scout's "Timeless Values" were part of the nation's value system as well. 30 years ago, change started occuring in society. Societal values began to change, as was inevitable. Any student of history can tell you that values change in civilizations all the time, that there really isn't such a thing as "timeless values". 30 years ago, the values of the nation and the values of the BSA began to diverge. For the first ten of those years, the BSA tried to expand their reach by introducing the so-called "urban" program (which was as much suburban as it was urban). The BSA got it half right. They assumed suburban and urban values were pretty much interchangeable - they got that wrong - but their program was successful in strengthening the program amongst the blue and white collar workers of suburbia. The growth of suburbia didn't really start until the 1950's, it took the BSA 20 years to get a good handle on that. In the 1970's, suburbia experienced explosive growth - the sleepy bedroom suburban communities of the 1950's and 1960's became self-actualized cities, with retail and industrial tax bases urban areas would envy. During the 70's and early 80's, the BSA seemed to be able to keep the divergence of values to a minimum - they were aligned with middle america suburbia, which became the defacto values of the nation. Then suburban values began to change. The farm crisis, coupled with television shows showcasing urban settings (how many shows were set in farm country in the 80's & 90's?)or urban sensibilities in rural areas (NYC doctor in Alaska), compelled many young folks living on farms to seek their fortune amongst the bohemian urban areas. Societal values now began to change even more - especially among young people. Migration from the (white) middle class urban areas slowed as most of the migration took place before 1980. Migrations from ethnic middle class urban areas and from diverse lower class urban areas to the suburbs grew - a lot. For 20 years, the BSA fought to maintain their "timeless values", paralleling the fight to maintain the status quo by the so-called angry white (middle class) man. It's been a losing battle, and was bound to fail (the backlash against President Obama by the white, middle class "taxpayer" is sounding more and more like the last desperate death calls of a great beast). It seems to me that National may finally realize they can be one of those dying great beasts, or they can start to adapt to the changing reality of the times. I think they finally realized that the societal changes aren't some kind of cosmic hiccup, but are here to stay. The question they're asking is one that many of us have asked over the past few years - How does the BSA remain relevant in an ever diverse society. The question they're really asking, in my opinion, isn't what will the BSA look like 10, 20, 50 years down the road, but will the BSA be around to celebrate a 200th anniversary. I think they know that the BSA is going to have to make some changes, some perhaps radical changed, in order to be around for another 100 years. I think what they're doing is subtley suggesting that change is going to happen, be prepared for it, be open to it, and be part of it.

I agree with starting a new Troop. I'd like to think that I would have quietly gotten up from the campfire, woke my son up and had him pack his gear while I packed mine, and left that very night. The next opportunity, I would have contacted the Institutional Head of the Chartered Organization to let him/her know what the leaders of their Scout unit were modeling (do you really think that none of the boys heard what the adults were saying? If so, I know of a bridge in an Arizona desert I'd be willing to sell you). The District Commissioner and DE would know the reasons why I was trying to start a new Troop in town as well.

In the other thread, someone mentioned that it was the PLC's choice to shut down for the summer. My reaction is why would you allow your PLC to vote to shut down during the summer? The PLC should be making decisions within the framework of the Boy Scout program, not making fundamental changes in the program. The Boy Scout program is set up to be a year-round program with weekly meetings and regular activities as a fundamental part of Boy Scouting. Certainly, reasonable adjustments are expected - not meeting over the holidays, not meeting right after returning from camp - but to shut down for two full months? Doesn't seem reasonable to me. You're denying (or allowing your PLC to deny) the Scouting experience for a long stretch of time. How does a Tenderfoot get signed off on Second Class advancement requirements if the Troop isn't meeting? How does a Scoutmaster help guide his Scouts if he isn't meeting with them for two months? Summertime attendance may be lower - but so what? Do you stop providing the Scouting experience to the lads that do show up just because 50% don't? If the adult leaders set the cultural expectation that the Troop will be meeting year round, the boys will follow - it may look hopeless at first but if your meetings are full of things to do (as opposed to just sitting around planning), those that don't attend in the summer will start coming. Who says a meeting can't be held in the Scoutmaster's back yard where cooking skills are polished up - in a relaxed atmosphere with cobbler and ice cream served up afterwards.

There are no minimum requirements for Eagle. Minimum's suggest that their could be things required beyond what's written - but we all know that we can't add to the requirements. There are just THE requirements. If a Scout meets those requirements, he's Eagle material. How do you solve the conundrum of a Scout meeting the requirements but still not being "Eagle material" in the "eye of the beholder"? You sit down with the "beholder" over a cup of coffee and ask him/her why they feel their judgement is more important than the BSA requirements. You ask point blank if they can work with the requirements, as written - and if the answer is no, you suggest politely (or not, depending on your mood) that perhaps they should find something else to do. If you're an SM trying to reign in a rogue committee, you advocate for the Scout. If your a committee trying to reign in a rogue SM, you advocate for the Scout. If, at the end of the day, you can't advocate for the Scout, then why are you involved at all?

Just the statements made by the police and fire departments, Ed.

The public doesn't demand it - corporate profits demand it. The media love to claim they're only giving the public what it wants - and they make that claim by stating that the public is tuning in to the pablum they're feeding us so therefore that must be what we want. The media delivers what the media wants to deliver - and since most of the media outlets deliver the same pablum at the same time, if you do want hard news, you have to sit through the pablum. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media shows some stupid story about Paris Hilton, we don't bother to change the channel (because it doesn't matter - the other guys are telling the same story), and therefore that means that's what we demand. The driving force isn't the public - its the so-called 24-hours news cycle - all news, all the time, that is the result of cable news networks. When 911 happened, we were treated to a continuing loop of the twin towers being hit and then falling - over and over and over again. Why? Because there was nothing else to talk about. Any talking was pure speculation by so-called "experts" brought on to talk through larger periods of non-information. Unfortunately, the cable news model has infected network news too (and network news is still where most people who watch news get their information - cable news network ratings combined don't even match the lowest rated network news program). At one time, we would have heard "We interrupt this program for a special news bulletin", the interruption would have been for 10 to 20 minutes, and then we would have been "returned to regularly scheduled programming, already in progress". The last time I heard that was in coverage of the Challenger Disaster. Networks now feel they have to cover it non-stop because the cable news networks are covering it non-stop, and the cable news networks are covering it non-stop because they frankly have nothing else to do. The saga of Balloon Boy?? Are you kidding me? This didn't merit the coverage it got - and we never demanded it - it's just something ongoing that the news media could cover live. Other notable non-events - the chase of a white Bronco containing OJ, and the return of Michael Jackson to his Neverland Ranch after being found not guilty.

Maybe because you aren't listening to right wing radio, or watching Fox News.

LFL didn't fund the Explorer Posts, the City and County of LA funded these Explorer Posts. LA paid a fee to LFL for administrative and programming materials support. If LA couldn't afford the cadet programs, it wouldn't matter whether they were under the LFL rubric or not - the programs would disappear. But that's not what's happening - the programs will remain - they just won't be Explorer Posts anymore, and won't be paying a fee to LFL. Again, the Youth who are interested will still be served - the only ones that lose out is LFL. Civil War? Is there really ever such a thing as a civil war? War seems pretty uncivilized to me. Wait, was that a loathsome statement, or just an irksome statement. If it's just irksome, can I still become a member of LIA? Maybe I could be Irkel? Did I do that???

Let's explore it a little more - does your unit elect the SPL and PL's, the way they should? If they're removed from office for the sake of not getting POR credit in the summer, are they re-elected in September or do the adults just re-appoint them? If they're just re-appointed, are you really following the program the way it's intended? If the Troop has no youth leaders for two months, is a Scout Troop still a Scout Troop? Are the boys really Scouts during July and August? If they can't earn POR credit in July and August, is it fair to say they still must have Scout Spirit in July and August? Why would they have to meet that requirement if they're not allowed to meet the other requirement? Are you still Scoutmasters and ASM's in July and August? If the boys POR's are suspended, shouldn't the adults leadership roles be suspended too? What happens? On July 1, do they magically become non-Scouts and on September 1, they magically become Scouts again? Here's my challenge - find anything in the Scoutmasters Handbook, the Patrol Leaders Handbook, the Boy Scout Handbook - in any official BSA literature (not a website from a Troop - official National BSA Literature) that makes even a suggestion that POR's aren't part of the BSA program in the summer, anything that suggests that POR's are suspended in the Summer. If you can find that, if you can find any suggestion in official literature that states that POR's don't count if a troop doesn't meet for a month or two - then rest assured you're doing ok. If you can't find anything that suggest is (I should say WHEN), then you might just want to rethink your policy because there must be some reason the BSA never mentions this. Sure, there will be quite a few people on the forum who will say "It's fine, it's what our Troop does" - but that doesn't make it right. If 9 out of 10 people tie a granny knot and call it a square knot, does it really make their granny knots square knots? The fact that you're even asking this question suggests that there is something in the back of your mind, or even in the front of your mind, that bothers you about it. I think you know it's not kosher - the question is are you going to do the harder thing and buck the rest of the program leaders in the Troop to make sure the Troop's policy is changed to reflect what it should be, or will you take comfort in folks who also do it your way as proof that it's ok. You asked if it could pose a problem - let me give a hypothetical. You have a Scout who turns 18 at the end of September. He earns his Life on March 14 and wants to earn Eagle. He's got a project ready to go which will be completed well before times up. He's got all his merit badges and needs to make sure he's got 6 months of time in on a POR. He starts his Eagle-required POR (say Instuctor) on March 15. By September 15, he served the 6 months in POR - he can have his SM Conference and schedule his BOR before he turns 18. But wait!!!! Your Troop's policy is that POR time doesn't count in July and August - which means he only has 4 months POR time - sorry bub, no Eagle for you. Is that really how you want it to go down?

Do you remove the lads from their POR's during the time your unit is "inactive"? Do you remove the lads from the charter during the time your unit is "inactive"? No? Then they are actively serving their POR's, even if you aren't meeting as a Troop. If a lad has a POR, then the BSA considers him to be actively serving in the POR. The only way a lad is not actively serving is if he doesn't hold a POR, and the only ways he isn't holding a POR is if he hasn't been elected/appointed to a POR, or has been removed from his POR. It matters not one whit if the unit is not meeting for two months - if the lad still holds a POR then he is still actively serving in the POR - and he gets credit for serving in the POR. My question is why the heck is your Troop (and the majority of Troops in your District) acting like Cub Scout Packs and not Boy Scout Troops. Cub Scout Packs generally run on a school year calendar - with perhaps a couple special activities in the summer. The BSA even gives out a Summertime Pack Award to Packs that hold summer events. Notice there is no such thing as a Summertime Troop Award? That's because the Boy Scout Program is set up to run on a full year calendar, not a school year calendar. Boy Scout Troops and Patrols should be meeting and active all year round. Maybe in the summer, the Troop meets every other week, but they should still meet. Patrols should be encouraged to use a down activity month (like August) to plan their own campout/hike/outings. I can't imagine the record keeping nightmare of not giving credit in the summer for PORs - what about the Den Chief who attend Summer Camp with his Troop in June, helps out his Den at Day Camp in July and helps out the Pack at the Pack's annual picnic in August - he's still "active" - do you give him credit and not the SPL that approved the Den Chiefs appointment? Or does he get penalized because no one else holding a POR was "active"? What about the winter months? I know many Troops that stop meeting during the schools winter holidays - usually a period of two weeks - do you not give credit for PORs during those two weeks? As Scoutmasters and ASM's, shouldn't you be spending more time trying to encourage Scouts to advance rather than putting artificial roadblocks in their way? How encouraging is it to tell your SPL that "you weren't SPL in July or August"? Were you folks still Scoutmasters and ASM's? I guarantee if you were going for one of the adult awards for Scoutmasters and ASM's, your time as SM and ASM during July and August would count towards any time in service requirements. Shouldn't the same be true for your own Scouts??

I've noticed an awful lot of claims being made that the youth of LA is going to be losing out. My understanding is that the police and fire departments in LA will be continuing these cadet programs, just not under the rubric of LFL so who really loses out? Certianly not the youth of LA who will still have access to cadet programs in LA. Certainly not the police and fire departments who will still be running cadet programs. The only folks losing out appears to be LFL, who loses membership numbers, and perhaps some financial benefits (I'm unsure how much of a financial hit LFL will take - it could be significant or it could be peanuts). LFL loses the prestige of being able to say "The LA Police and Fire Departments sponsor Explorer Posts". Sure, the cadets would probably lose out on being able to send folks to compete against other cadets on a regional or national platform but to be frank, in a city the size of LA, the youth would be better served by having intramural competitions between the various participating stations in LA rather than having to choose an "elite" squad of cadets to compete on a national platform.

Maybe it would be helpful if we had an idea of what the BSA says are the responsibilities of the position of Instructor: Teaches basic Scouting skills in troop and patrols Sets a good example Enthusiastically wears the Scout uniform correctly Lives by the Scout Oath and Law Shows Scout spirit That's it - nothing more - that's what the BSA states the position of Instructor does. Did this lad set a good example? Did he wear his uniform? Does he live by the Scout Oath and Law? Does he show Scout Spirit? Did he teach basic skills during his time as Instructor? I don't know about anyone else, but I can't find a single thing that says an Instructor must teach at least one class per month, or for that matter, must teach a minimum number of classes. In fact, I believe an Instructor could meet the requirement without "teaching" a single class - there is a lot to be said about being a resource and teaching as the opportunity presents itself. An informal 2 minute review of a taut line hitch would be instruction time. As far as actively serving goes, if the unit allows a lad to serve a full 6 months in a POR, then the unit is saying he served actively. If he wasn't serving to the unit's satisfaction, the unit has the obligation to remove the lad from the POR before the time in service is up. I'd suggest that the SM and the CC chat with the Board and ask them what their interpretation of the requirements for Instructor is, and if they are out of line with the requirements, the CC needs to reign in the Board - and if they're reasonable, the SM needs to ensure that future Instructors know what the Board is looking for. In the meantime, on the surface, it appears that the lad has completed the requirements as written, and the Board should pass him through successfully. In Eamonn's vein of thinking, if I were Scoutmaster, I would tell the Board that the lad completed the POR to my satisfaction, and offer the Scoutmaster patch to any member of the Board or Committee that wanted it - and if my resignation was accepted, trust that I would land at a new Troop and would then begin to poach as many boys as I could from the other units program. Scouts generally have a lot more loyalty to SM's than they do to Committee Members.

From the picture, this appears to be the Order of the Arrow 75th Anniversary Award which could be earned by individual arrowmen - youth and adults - in 1990. If you're looking to return it to the owner, contact your local scout service center and ask them if they have a list of their arrowmen who earned the award in 1990, and if they can identify the person based on your address. This might be a conversation best had in person with award in hand because a phone call will likely be viewed with suspicion.

I now present to you, in it's entirety below this sentence, the Republican Counter Proposal: Impressive, isn't it?

Just to clarify something, which I had meant to do in my response - in case anyone is puzzling over why I suggested a double pad on bare frozen ground in the "why should that matter" sense. With bare frozen ground, depending on where you live, the ground will be frozen to a depth up to 24 inches. In Northern Illinois, the typical depth of a freeze is 18 inches. That is essentially an ice block 1 1/2 feet deep - and sleeping on ice saps more warmth than sleeping on snow.

First, don't just run out and buy a new sleeping bag just for cold weather camping - unless you plan on camping regularly in cold weather. On the other hand, if you're getting cold drafts though the zippers on the bag you're currently using, you might want to get a new sleeping bag anyway - a good "three season" bag will be fine for most camping trips - look for a sleeping bag that "hides" the zipper behind a flap that runds the length of the zipper (Think about the zipper hidden behind the flap on your blue jeans as the concept). Second, ignore all the 20 below, 10 below, 0 below, 10 above, etc. ratings except as very general guidelines. There are no industry wide standards in the United States for what that means. In general, in the US, manufacturers often fudge these numbers up to 20 degrees either way, so a manufacturer might rate a bag at 10 below but it's only good to 10 above, or might rate it at 10 below and its really good to 30 below. Because of this, comparing bags rated at 10 below is an exercise in comparing apples and oranges. You can look at 5 different bags rated at 10 below and have a range from 10 above to 30 below. You're still better off with a "three season" bag that you know and like. What you really want is not a specific sleeping bag, but a sleeping system - and that's a system that works best for you. Starting from the ground up, you want either a closed cell pad (which isn't always very comfortable on it's own, especially for adults), a closed cell pad AND an open cell pad (for better comfort), or a Thermarest-type insulated self-inflating pad (which can also be used with a closed cell pad underneath). Never use just an open cell pad. The pads aren't just for comfort, they're an insulation barrier between you and the cold ground. An open cell pad alone doesn't insulate as well - it can actually help move the cold from the ground to you. An aside - if your sleeping on frozen bare ground, consider doubling the insulation - 2 closed cell pads, or the closed cell pad and the insulated self-inflating. Sleeping on a good layer of snow, you can usually skip the double pad (except for the open/closed cell double pads - never skip that). Snow on the ground is as much air as it is ice crystals - and snow, because of all the air spaces in it, is a fairly good insulator itself - that's why Quinzhee's (snow huts) work so well. The next part of your sleeping system is your bag - starting with the three season as a base, add a sleeping bag liner inside - sleeping bag companies often make fleece sleeping bag liners for use in cooler weather (or for warmer weather when a sleeping bag is too hot but you still need something for a bit of warmth at night). You can use a wool blanket as a liner, or an old army sleeping bag liner which is a synthetic quilt. Many also make outer bags - usually a thin bag with a hood and tougher exterior material (something like a 60/40 denier cloth - for better "wind" resistance) that can be used. This outer bag may contain a layer of it's own insulation, or may just be a bag. You may even find a full sleeping bag system that you might like. Or you may be like me - fleece or flannel sheet on my sleeping pads, a thin fleece blanket, a wool blanket, and an unzipped sleeping bag for the top layers (with perhaps an extra blanket available if I need it), and some good pillows with flannel pillow cases - and I'll sleep all night. For me, at least, if my head isn't comfortable on a good pillow (or three), I never get a good nights sleep. This is what I use to sleep with in Northern Illinois, and Wisconsin, and what I slept with when I taught Okpik at Maine National High Adventure Base Howland.

It seems to me that the Troop did a great job in choosing a summer camp. The program staff suggested to the committee that the Troop should do some research and find a camp that offered something for as many Scouts as possible - and the committee bought in. Then the Scouts were presented a number of different camp options, which were already pre-vetted by the program staff, and the program staff wisely let the Scouts make the choice of which camp to attend. Program staff is asking the boys to make the decision on what high adventure program the boys want to participate in. So far, so good - especially given that you seem to be trying to move the Troop into a Boy-led Program, which presumably means the PLC doing the research and making the decisions in the future. Presumably the SM and ASM's were all on the same page, and the Committee had your backs. Is the SM backing away now because of this irate parent/Commissioner type or are there other reasons for his second thoughts? I'd say it's time to have a friendly chat over coffee with the SM and all the ASM's and decide what the plan of action is. You make a great point, you gave the Scouts several options, and allowed them to make the choice - all on good faith. To overrule it now will leave a bad taste in most of their mouths. Do the rest of the ASM's feel as strongly about honoring the Scout's choice or are they willing to just cave in to irate parent's demands? Perhaps the SM just needs to know that the ASM's and the Committee will fully back him up if he tells this irate parent/commissioner type that the Scouts made the decision to go to Blue Ridge, and that's what the Troop is going to do, and if he's unhappy with that, he's welcome to send his boy to a provisional unit at a closer camp if that's what he prefers. And if he tries to pull the Commissioner card, tell him to go pound sand. If, on the other hand, the SM and the ASM's are just going to cave because this guy is some kind of District weenie, then I'd seriously consider whether it wouldn't be better to just become a parent of a Scout and stop being an ASM - who needs to deal with that kind of brain-damaging, soul-draining garbage.

Yet no one comments on the oil industry exec who danced around the question and refused to state how they could guarantee that prices would go down if they could drill in pristine wilderness. I agree with Maxine - if the oil companies want to drill in ANWR, they must give us something in return - a guarantee on price caps - and if they fail to live up to the guarantee, let them put up their firms as collateral to the American people. If the oil companies had devoted more time and effort to alternative fuel sources when the US first told them no, we wouldn't need to be holding hearings again.

We need an update to Arlo's Alice's Restaurant. Instead of telling the murderers and rapists of Group W that he was in for littering (and creating a public nuisance), he could claim he was in for brandishing a spork.

Zero Tolerance policies exist because the electorate votes in board members who decide to implement zero tolerance policies that either the senior staff come up with, or they themselves come up with, and no one cares enough to run against these board members and make this stupidity an issue.

gwd - hope you don't mind but I thought it might be appropriate to clarify something in your post. Most of us probably understand what it means, but there will be some, I'm sure, who will interpret it in a different way. Thr First Aid Merit Badge and the Pioneering Merit Badge speak of the knowledge of certain requirements from Tenderfoot through First class, as gwd has pointed out. But, they only need to demonstrate the knowledge of what's there, they don't have to be First Class before earning these badges. A Scout can certainly learn all the knots, whippings and lashings needed for those ranks long before he earns the rank - he has the knowledge, if he can demonstrate it successfully to the Merit Badge Counselor, he can earn the Merit Badge. Same with the first aid requirements. He can learn all those things before he earns the rank. If Bobby Tenderfoot wants to earn the First Aid Merit Badge, and can demonstrate all the knowledge of first aid required for the T-FC ranks to his Merit Badge Counselor, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. I recall earning my first Merit Badge (Dog Care) while I was a Tenderfoot - that was in the early 70's so it's been quite a while since the FC before Merit Badge rule was in place. I've known some Scoutmasters who will ask a new Scout within the first couple of meetings if the Scout has looked through the list and requirements of the merit badges and if he saw any that interested him, then give the lad a blue card and list of merit badge counselors for the badge on the spot.

Tort reform? 30 states have tort reform - we already know the results - it hasn't made a lick of difference. Indiana has tort reform, Illinois doesn't. If one listens to the right wingers in Illinois, this state is the absolute worst when it comes to lawsuit abuse - if you want to sue, sue in Illinois. Yet malpractice insurance costs are essentially the same in Indiana (which has tort reform) and Illinois (which doesn't). So are health insurance rates. Even if tort reform worked, it would result in savings of aprroximately 1 to 3 percent. Not a very significant savings. Fraud and waste in Medicare? Sure, there's no doubt that there is - there's fraud and waste in just about everything. Heck, even the BSA is not immune - you might recall the scandal concerning inflated membership numbers that hit some councils - and I'll bet every single one of us could point to something Council does that we'd consider wasteful. But - the administrative costs for Medicare is about 3%. For private insurance, the administrative costs run 20 to 30%. Put another way, for every $100 Medicare spends on health care, $3 goes towards administration, $97 goes towards health care. For every $100 private insurance spends on health care, $20-$30 dollars is spent on administration - $80 to $70 dollars is spent on health care - who is being wasteful. Pre-existing conditions should not be a barrier to obtaining affordable health care. Pre-existing conditions, if properly (in the medical sense) managed, don't necessarily result in more expenses than is paid out for someone without a pre-existing condition. Someone like me, with a chronic lung disease (not caused by smoking, or anything I've done), is going to be visiting doctors a bit more often, is more likely to get an annual flu shot, and to have more preventive care than someone who doesn't have a pre-existing condition. Sure, it may cost my insurance plan a few hundred dollars per year, but in the long run, I may end up costing my insurance company less than the guy without a pre-existing condition who has a sudden heart attack, or the guy who slips and breaks his arm while playing soccer. So why don't health care providers want to cover people with pre-existing conditions? Because it's a regular source of expense - we are more likely to visit the doctor regularly, and get that flu shot, and take advantage of preventative care - and that's a drain on profits. They prefer the guy who might have a sudden heart attack, because they're gambling the guy won't (and the odds favor the house), and this guy is less likely to get anything more than an annual check-up - maybe. How many of us went to the doctor on an annual basis in our 20's and 30's? How many of us in our 40's, who believe ourselves to be healthy, get an annual check-up. Not as many as we are led to believe (let's face it, people lie to pollsters, we tell them what we think they want to hear - if some stranger calls on the phone and asks if you visit a doctor for an annual check-up, most people will answer yes, even if they don't, because we don't want to be faced with potential disapproval, even from people we don't know). Pre-existing conditions are a drain on profits - sudden conditions are not (and once you've had that heart attack - you now have a pre-existing condition). Pre-existing conditions are also not cut and dry - most of us can list heart attack, cancer, diabetes as pre-existing conditions. How many of us recoil at the thought that being a victim of demostice violence is a pre-existing condition? Most of us I imagine, yet there are States that allow insurance companies to call domestic violence a pre-existing condition. There are States that allow rape to be considered a pre-existing condition. Do we really want to get into morality?

Ignoring the idea of a dad taking his son hunting while out on a Scout trip, I have a question - is the Troop going backpacking during deer hunting season in a natural area that is open to hunting? Based on the ASM's request, it seems to me that if they're able to join you at a site you've backpacked into at night, they'll be hunting fairly close by. Even if the ASM decides not to hunt (and I too would suggest that they need to choose between a hunting trip and a trip with the Troop), won't there potentially be other hunters out where you folks will be? If you're going backpacking in a potentially active hunting area during hunting season, might I suggest that you folks invest in some blaze orange vests, hats, etc. and that every member of the unit wears it, prominently, while you're backpacking, and hanging around camp.

What do I have to say to those previous winners who think it's too soon, or to anyone else who thinks it's not deserved? It's STFU, and go crawl back under the rocks you prefer to live under, you ignorant worm.