clemlaw

>>>If a boy is taught to be responsible, there isn't a whole lot of need for volumes of the rules that seem to grow daily in our neck of the woods.

>>>>>>If the electricity went out in your house, could you go out in the back yard and make dinner? Sleep? Survive? I'm thinking most kids today can't.

I told our Tiger Cubs (and their parents) that the great thing about Scouting was one of the few places where they will get to do dangerous stuff. Then, I quietly told the parents that it's really not very dangerous, after all. From what I can tell, they still get to do about the same amount of dangerous stuff as I did in the 1970's. (And no, my troop didn't take the "improved scouting" too seriously, so for us, it was about the same as what had been done in the 1960's.) A few dangerous things are gone, but there seem to be a few new dangerous activities. Cub scouts get to do a few "dangerous" things that I didn't get to do, such as BB guns, archery, etc. In fact, when I was a Cub Scout, we didn't even go camping, other than one night when I was in Webelos. Yes, there are rules that go along with those things, some of which might be slightly more strict than they need to be, but they seem to be rules that can be worked with without much difficulty. >>>>>>We had special campouts specifically for staying out without a tent in below-freezing weather.

For many years (when nobody was looking, of course), I used what I thought might be the dreaded "granny knot" to tie things down. It turns out, the know I was using was actually the "trucker's hitch". I was extremely relieved to learn that my knot had an actual name, thus making it an official knot. (It works a lot better than the taut line hitch, but it can be practically impossible to untie.) Calico, thanks for the list. It sounds like your troop made it camping slightly more often than we did, but that looks pretty similar to my old troop's calendar. Whew. What a relief. Not only am I not tying granny knots, but it turns out I didn't come out of an Eagle Mill after all. (And last weekend, another guy and I had to tie a clove hitch. I did it with the "figure 8" method. I don't think the other guy had ever seen it done that way. And truth be told, I bet he didn't remember how to do it the "right way" either.)

I've already confessed that, as an Eagle Scout, I've forgotten how to tie a clove hitch the right way! I remember how to make a figure 8 and slip it over the top of a post, but I don't remember how to tie it if you can't slip it over the top. I'm sure that if I stood there with a piece of rope long enough, I would eventually figure it out. But the fact reamins that I've forgotten this skill! Now, I'm wondering whether my troop was actually one of those dreaded adult-led Eagle Mills that didn't go camping often enough! This was during the 1970's, so I'm inherently suspect! But in our defense, we really didn't pay much attention to that new "hip" version of the Boy Scout--oops, I mean Scout-- Handbook. One historical curiosity of that era was that there was no such thing as a Patrol Leader's Council. We did have one, and we decided what to do with our program (with the gentle nudging in the right direction by our Scoutmaster). But those who were around back then might remember that the name had changed, to the "Troop Leaders Council". Of course, that actually sounds more important, until you get tired of writing, and want to abbreviate. I'm glad to see that they've gone back to calling it the PLC. Now that I'm back as a Tiger Den Leader, and starting to have some exposure to scouting again, I have been pleasantly surprised at how active scouts are, and that the new improved scouting that was rejected by my troop has been universally rejected. But I still wonder a little bit about the prevailing wisdom that "good" troops go camping once a month, because we did not. In our troop, and most other troops that I had dealings with, the norm seemed to be that a troop went camping four times per year. There were three weekend outings, generally known as "fall camp", "spring camp", and "winter camp". Sometimes these were district camporees, and sometimes they were troop events. We also had summer camp, which our troop alternated between council camps, and semi-high-adventure. (I say semi, because they were set up such that new 11 year old scouts were usually able to be included.) There might have been a few extra camps squeezed in (for example, a few "shakedown" weekends prior to the high-adventure trips). But in general, that was it for actual overnight camping trips as a troop. But I've noticed that there does seem to be one big difference between then and now. Back in the day, there was usually pretty close to 100% participation in these four camping opportunities. They were not "required", but almost everyone always went, unless they had some kind of unavoidable conflict. And the unavoidable conflicts seemed to be pretty rare. I think there were about six scouts in my patrol, and as far as I can remember, all six of them were present at every camping trip. It was just what everyone did--if you were in scouts, you went camping when the troop went camping. Initially, I was a little bit awed by the fact that so many troops go camping every month these days. But on this forum, I'll occasionally see things that make me realize that we did things pretty well after all back in the day. Basically, it looks to me like 100% participation is no longer the norm. I'll see someone comment that they had 15 scouts last month, 12 scouts this month, etc. In short, it seems more like a cafeteria, where scouts pick out which camping events they want to attend. Am I reading this right? Does the typical scout in a "good" troop really go camping 12 times per year? I suspect that in a few years, my son will be one of the gung-ho scouts who actually goes camping 12 times per year, because he likes doing "dangerous" things. But is that really the norm? Or does the typical scout actually go camping about the same number of times that I did, but he just picks and chooses the opportunities that meet his interests?

Don't worry, it's only slightly heretical. My son (a Tiger) seems to like stuff on his uniform, so a den number strip is one more decoration. Come to think of it, when I was a Cub Scout, I thought it was kind of cool that the combination of council patch, pack number, and den number narrowed down my identity, so that anyone in the world could figure out where I belonged. Yes, I was kind of weird about things like that. But I have no idea what den number I was in back then. One thing that I have noticed that does seem heretical is that in two different packs, I have noticed people refer to Cub Scouts as "first graders", "second graders", etc. I haven't spoken up (yet), but IMHO, they're not "first graders", they're Tigers!

I have the perfect solution, which will put the ball back into her court. Tell her you'll be able to help her out. She just needs a letter from her son's school, on school letterhead, stating that the son didn't complete fifth grade. If she talks the principal into retroactively flunking her son, then IMHO, the son is entitled to AOL.

I think we usually used rope, or maybe even twine--whatever was handy. But I vaguely recall using clothes pins a few times. I agree, unless you have to haul them very far, I prefer the canvas wall tents over almost anything else. We had a large council camp this past summer and a big windstorm blew through. Many things blew down. But two groups seemed to get through it unscathed. One was the Civil War reenactors, and the other group was the 1910 Boy Scout reenactors. In both cases, their tents seemed to stay standing just fine.

With our Tigers, I told the parents that the requirement says "learn", and not "memorize", so they shouldn't worry excessively about having them memorized. I planned on doing them "repeat after me style" for the first few meetings. But at our second meeting, we accidentally got locked out of the building and had our meeting outside. It was starting to get dark, and I didn't have my cheat sheet handy. (Hey, they changed it since I was a Cub Scout!) So we just started reciting them, and lo and behold, everyone (including me) had them memorized, even though they didn't have to! So if you just recite them at every meeting, the kids will learn them without really trying. IMHO, I would just have the parent (Akela) go over it at home, and sign it off as long as Junior shows some understanding (and, of course, is able to do the handshake!) IMHO, the main thing is that the parent and Cub go through the Youth Protection informaton at the front of the book, and he makes an effort to "learn" the other requirements.

Oh, yes, it's vaguely coming back to me.... If you have the tent stake going into sand and it rains a lot during the night, the thing can fall down on top of you. OK, maybe those new-fangled things aren't quite so bad after all. I guess I'll ask my wife to brush up on the EDGE method so that she can show me how to set it up.

All these years, I thought they were saying "to", but someone told me that it was really "two", because "one" would mean "salute", and "two" means "stop saluting". I don't know whether that's true, but it sounds like as good a theory as any. If I had been called upon to come up with a theory, I probably would have said that it means that you can once again put your hand "to" your side.

In the other thread, jblake47 wrote: "I'll take a wall tent over a dome tent any day for coolness. Ever wonder why there are grommets in the 4 corners?" OK, this brings up a question I've had for a while, along with a horrible confession on my part. What kind of tents do scouts use these days, and why have they moved to what appears to me to be a poorer alternative? I've been away from scouts for 30+ years. I still don't have a lot of experience with the way things are done these days. But from my limited experience of Cub Scout camping, and looking around at neighboring troops, it looks like most scouts are using nylon "dome" tents. My family owns one of these, because when we got around to buying a tent, there was a cheap one on sale at Target, and it seems to meet our needs just fine. But frankly, it doesn't seem like "scout" camping. When I was in scouts, as far as I can remember, there were only three kinds of tents. The first was the canvas "wall tent", which was held up with two poles, and about a half dozen stakes (unless there was an immovable object nearby that could take the place of some of the stakes). These, of course, were heavy, and you wouldn't use them somewhere if it was too far away from the car. But you could mostly stand up in them, they were large, the sides could be opened for air, etc. They looked somewhat rustic, but there were actually much more convenient, as far as I can tell, than the "dome" tent of today. The troop (and/or possibly the council camp) owned these tents. The second option was the "pup tent", which was used in situations where the tent needed to be packed in. It was also supported by two poles (which could be replaced with sticks in an emergency), and a half dozen stakes. They were nylon, and AFAIK, no heavier than a comparable "dome" tent. They were also easy (and very intuitive) to set up, especially if you knew how to tie a couple of basic knots (which presumably, Boy Scouts ought to be able to do). The "pup tents" were owned by individual scouts, and they were very cheap. The third kind of tent that our troop sometimes used were "family" type tents, that were probably for sale at normal department stores. They had exterior frames, but still required some stakes and ropes. I'm guessing that the troop bought these because they were cheaper than "wall tents", yet adequate for many purposes. Now, my horrible confession: I'm an Eagle Scout, but my wife is in charge of setting up our "dome tent". The thing is just too complicated for me, even though it does not require tying any knots. If I go camping without her, I bring the old "pup tent", because it's obvious how the thing works. With the "dome tent", I'm never quite sure whether I'm sliding the poles through the right loops, sticking them in the right grommet, etc. The thing comes with _instructions_, which AFAIK, the "pup tent" never had, since it was so simple. Why has there been the shift from the "wall tent" and the "pup tent" to the now ubiquitous "dome tent"? As far as I can tell, the only advantage is that no knots are required. Are there really that many knot-phobics in the world? And even if there are, it seems to me that a "wall tent" or a "pup tent" put up with granny knots would still be superior to the "dome tent". Yes, the new tents are more complicated. But as far as I can tell, there not any better. Have I just seen a skewed sample, or are most scouts really using these monstrosities these days?

In response to the original post (which I realize is rather old now), there's probably no need to fight this particular battle. The pack leadership doesn't want to _require_ that uniforms be worn to den meetings. So it's not required. But even if they are not required to do so, surely they are _allowed_ to wear uniforms, and nobody can argue with you as den leader if you _allow_ them to wear uniforms. Therefore, as den leader, I would take the initiative and announce that henceforth, the Cubs are allowed to wear their uniforms to den meetings. Make it sound vaguely like this is a change of policy. Maybe find some cheap temporary patches and hand them out to Cub Scouts who are in uniform at the next meeting. (Manage to only have enough for those who are in uniform. After all, if they don't have a uniform to put it on, they don't really need a temporary patch anyway.) This will change in a few years, but most Cub Scouts still think their uniform is cool, and they want to wear it. So take advantage of this while you can. And as for the nitpicking about what kind of pants to wear, at our first den meeting, I told the parents that the official pants are quite durable, and the kids like them (with all of the pockets, secret unzip legs, etc.) But I also pointed out that I really can't tell the difference between any other pair of dark blue pants.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think everyone is overlooking a major difference between LDS scouting and "normal" troops. Isn't it true that in the LDS church, all or virtually all boys enrolled in the Scouting program? If so, that's very different from most other scouting units. In most troops, the boys are there either because they have an interest in the program, or (perhaps more likely) their parents have an interest in scouting. So it seems to me that the sample is rather skewed. Kids who are there because they have that interest, or even because their parents do, are probably going to excel somewhat at doing the activities, versus a kid who is there because he has to be there. Now, there's nothing wrong with making kids do things that they don't really want to do. In fact, perhaps those kids are going to get more benefit out of the program. But if you compare the two groups, the ones who are there because they want to be are probably going to have better skills than the kids who are there because they have to be.

Welcome! Is your web site live yet? I'm notoriously cheap---I mean thrifty, so I probably have a few ideas!

I did look over the G2SS, and here's my take. Admittedly, the first paragraph of the G2SS is somewhat confusing, because it prohibits "overnight camping by dens as dens", but doesn't really define what it means with the term "as dens". It seems pretty clear to me that the intention is to prohibit the den from going on a campout "as a patrol", so to speak. The activity of "overnight den camping" by Webelos is allowed, so it seems to me that the first paragraph makes clear that other Cub Scouts cannot participate in the particular activity described in the Webelos paragraph. The second paragraph states that Tigers (and presumably Wolves and Bears as well) can participate in "pack overnighters" or "council-organized family camping." (If read literally, Wolves and Bears are nowhere specifically allowed to go to day camps, pack overnighters, or council-organized family camping, even though Tigers are allowed to do so. So the only reasonable construction of the second and third paragraphs is that the second paragraph applies to Tigers _and above_, and that the third paragraphs lists the _additional_ activities that Wolves, Bears, and Webelos can participate in. In your case, the council is not organizing it, so it's not "council-organized family camping." The only way the event is permitted is if the activity qualifies as a "pack overnighter". The definition of a "pack overnighter" is that it is (1) pack organized, (2) involves "more than one family from a single pack", (3) focused on age-appropriate Cub Scout activities, (4) conducted at council-approved location. Then, there are additional requirements, such as BALOO, etc. Notably, the definition of a pack overnighter does not require families from all dens, nor does it even require families from different dens. It merely requires "more than one" family. In other words, there need to be at least two families. But even if both of those families are from the same den, the fact still remains that they are "more than one family from a single pack". Therefore, two families from the Bear den would make up a (very small) "pack overnighter", as long as it is pack organized and the other requirements are met. The critical factor, it seems to me, is not the identity of the families who show up for the event, but whether it is "pack organized". Therefore, it seems to me that it needs to go through the same process as other pack activities, which would probably mean being approved by the Pack Committee. The way I read this, there is no requirement that all members of the pack be invited, as long as it is "pack organized" and at least two families participate. However, unless there's a good reason not to, IMHO, I would invite other dens as well. That would pretty much lay to rest any doubts as to whether this event was indeed a "pack overnighter". But again, that's not really necessary, as long as there is at least "more than one family from a single pack" participating. Keep in mind that this is a _safety_ rule. When you do that, it becomes clear that the event is OK. The inclusion of Tigers and Wolves would make it more clear that this was a "pack overnighter". But why would the mere inclusion of Tigers and Wolves make the event any more safe than it already is? (But again, having said that, I would invite the other dens, just to put the matter to rest once and for all.) And, of course, if the council approves the tour permit, then they have resolved whatever ambiguities exist, which is their job to do. But when applying, I would bill it in terms of being a "pack overnighter". However, a scout is Trustworthy, so you should probably make clear when applying that this pack overnighter will consist mostly or entirely of families from one particular den, if that is indeed the case.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

Back when I was a Cub Scout, we never went camping. At the end of Webelos, we had a one night campout. I think the reasoning was that we might be attacked by dinosaurs, who still roamed the earth, so it just wasn't safe for us to spend the night out of the relative safety of our caves. Instead, we spent most of our time doing various "craft" activities that the Den Mother had gleaned from the pages of the even more ancient issues of "Pack O' Fun" magazine that seemed to be handed around from den to den. In short, Cub Scouts was kind of boring back then. But many of us stuck with it anyway, and eventually graduated to Boy Scouts, where we were allowed to camp in actual tents. I have been pleasantly surprised to learn that Cub Scouts are actually allowed to do "dangerous" things these days, such as sleep in a tent. They seem to enjoy it, and I don't see much evidence of very many of them getting burnt out on the concept of camping. (Some _parents_ might get burnt out on the concept of camping, so that might be a valid concern.) Doing it six times a year might be ambitious, but I doubt if even that will get kids burnt out on camping, especially if it's just one night. (If you're going to break camp without breakfast, then I would recommend having some kind of instant breakfast, maybe just donuts and juice, along with a confirmed source of coffee for the adults.) To help avoid burnout, it probably would be a good idea to have some warm dry facility nearby (possibly their own house) where they could retreat if the whole family was miserable at 3 AM. I suspect that in most cases, the parent will make the "too miserable to continue" call before the Cub Scout does. In short, I think it's an excellent idea, as long as the kids who are camping actually want to be camping. And I suspect they do. As for the legalities, I haven't read all of the guidelines that have been quoted, but if you're going to do it, you really ought to do it completely on the up-and-up, with no attempt to twist the rules, no matter how tempting. Right off the top of my head, I would say that you can probably do so by: 1. Making it a family camp, where each Cub Scout is under the direct responsibility of a parent or adult family member, and 2. Having the pack committee sanction this as an official pack event. It might also be advisable to have other dens invited. In that case, as pointed out above, the invitations should be real, and not, "you're invited because of the rules, but please don't come."

Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing President Nixon at the 1973 Jamboree! I bet he was saying, "I feel sorry for the Scouts. They won't have Nixon to kick around any more."

Yes, it turns out the podium makes no difference. I guess I should do my research _before_ writing the answer. Here's another link that goes into a little more detail: http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html (And I hope this stuff is still to be found in the Boy Scout Handbook!) Yes, the U.S. flag always needs to be to the right or in front of the other flag. So when walking into the gym, the person walking to the right of the other person should be carrying the U.S. flag. When it gets switched to the "other right", the easiest way to do the crossover is to have the U.S. flag go in front. Of course, you could also have the U.S. flag in front the whole time. I don't see any reason why you can't play taps. It's normally played when the flag is lowered at night, but I don't see why it couldn't be played then as well. I do have one suggestion, though. Instead of playing a recording of taps, it really seems a lot more appropriate to have it played live. If the troop doesn't have a bugler, since this is going to be done at a school, does the school have a band with a trumpet player who could be called upon to play it? IMHO, having a real bugle (or trumpet, which is really the same thing) is a lot more impressive than a perfect recording, even if the kid playing it misses a couple of notes.

Ah, yes, this is always the subject of untold confusion. The short answer is that, no, the U.S. flag should never be to the left. A quick Google for "US Flag Etiquette" brings up the following page as the first result, and from my quick perusal, it appears to be accurate: http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html Assuming that there is a stage where the speakers will be speaking, then you have correctly determined that the flag should be to the right of the speakers on the stage, and the state flag should be to the left of the speakers. Think of the flag as being one of the speakers, so it is to the right of everyone. If the flag were on the floor at the front of the auditorium, then you could think of the flag as being a member of the audience, and it is to the right of the rest of the members of the audience. However, when the flag is coming in, it's still part of the audience, so to speak, and it must be to the right of the other flag, as seen from the audience. The problem, as you have figured out, is that at some point, the flag needs to change sides. The easiest solution is to keep in mind that if more than one flag is in a line, then the U.S. flag should be at the front of the line. The easiest way to transition is to have the person holding the state flag pause when they reach the stairs going to the stage, and then have the U.S. flag go in front of the other flag. That way, the flag is always in the correct position. It's at the right when it's coming in to the auditorium, it's in front when they go onto the stage, and it's to the right of the speakers on stage. Edited to add: I'll leave my mistake there for everyone to see, but the Flag Code has been changed slightly since I was a Scout, and made a bit less confusing. The flag is displayed to the speaker's right, "on or off podium". But my advice in this particular case remains the same--the flag needs to process down the aisle to the right of the other flag, which means it will need to cross over before being posted. And the easiest way to do this is to have it go in front of the other flag when they reach the stage. (If the stage is big enough, I suppose they could also come up together, and then jointly make a U-turn on stage.)(This message has been edited by clemlaw)(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

Well, I think it's a bad idea, because it would probably turn Scouting into an exercise class, which would have turned me off as a Scout. Don't get me wrong--being "physically strong" is a good idea. In the other thread, I commented that I was the least athletic kid in the world. This was a slight exageration, but still, the idea of having to do pushups to earn First Class could have easily driven me away. But Scouting, done right, did make me (at least minimally) physically strong. I did have to learn and demonstrate things that required physical strength, but it wasn't mere physical strength. There were added elements, namely, the activities required some special skill, and/or the activities were fun. For me, some of them were extremely challenging, such as learning how to swim. But learning how to swim wasn't billed as a form of exercise--it was billed as learning a skill (that just happened to involve physical exercise). And once I got past a certain point, it was actually fun. The same is true with paddling a canoe. It involves physical exercise, but it's a distinct skill, and it happens to be fun. Other activities in scouting, for example hiking, don't necessarily involve any particular skill, but they are an opportunity for exercise, and are presumably done in a way that they are fun. Other activities (such as the dreaded times when I was assigned to "water" on the duty roster), weren't very fun, but they were a necessary part of an otherwise fun activity. IMHO, if scouting focuses on those kinds of activities, and scouts learn and are tested on these activities, then much of the physical fitness will take care of itself. When I was a kid, I was probably in the bottom 10% when it came to most athletic activities. Today, I have noticed that I probably would have been about average. Push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, etc., are probably a good way of _measuring_ physical fitness. But I don't think very many people consider them to be fun activities, and they don't involve any particular skill. If they were a rank requirement for higher ranks, I suspect that a lot of troops would turn their meetings into exercise classes aimed at getting kids to pass the test. And I think that would drive away a lot of the kids (like me) who really need the physical activity the most. That's not to say there's not a place for it. Had I been confronted with the current Tenderfoot requirements, I probably would have grudgingly exercised for 30 days, and I probably would have eventually managed to do a pull-up. And having done one pull-up, I probably would have figured out that it was physically possible for me to do two pull-ups if I really wanted to. But I doubt if would have thought to myself, "doing pull-ups is fun." I think most requirements should be things where a Scout, even if he's only grudgingly doing them because they are requirments, should be the kind of things where there's at least a chance that he might actually conclude that they are fun. Maybe everything won't be fun for every scout, but it should at least be a theoretical possibility. And no matter how well you do them, I doubt if push-ups ever become "fun".

We didn't have this requirement when I was in Scouts. I was the least athletic kid around, and I don't think I did a complete pull-up ever in my life. But for some strange reason, I was capable of doing basically an infinite number of sit-ups. So let's assume that for the first test, in my youthful exuberance, I decided to do some insanely large number of sit-ups. Thirty days later, would I be obligated to repeat that same number, plus one? IMHO, these kinds of questions call for the application of a little bit of common sense. And if a kid is held back for three years, it seems to me that the common sense might be lacking somewhere.

I had a similar experience, although I think I was 13 at the time. It was done at summer camp, and we had to swim a course, and then shout out our number when we passed the starting point. It was probably 20 laps or something. For the last 10 laps, I was the last one, but I kept dutifully shouting out my number, much to the amusement of everyone who stuck around to watch me finish. IIRC, I missed supper, it was almost dark by the time I finished, and I didn't feel so good the next day. But yep, it was a big ego boost.

I'll join two other posters to report that my first merit badge was Coin Collecting. When I earned Tenderfoot, the rules had apparently just changed so that I could start earning merit badges right away. Since I was already quite the numismatist, that one was a natural. I felt quite important when I got the counsellor's name (he was from outside our troop) and called him up to make an appointment. I guess my favorite would be Radio. I spent many a Saturday morning working with a former SM of our troop, mostly to earn my Amateur License, and when that was out of the way, I finished off the remaining requirements for the MB. In retrospect, I guess that Lifesaving was probably the most important. I never saved any lives, but for a nerdy non-athletic kid, that one (and swimming before it) was quite a challenge. It was no longer required when I got it (IIRC, Emergency Preparedness was an alternate, which I also earned), but I'm glad I did get it (along with all of the other ones that had been required before I started). Canoeing was also an important one. For a nerdy non-athletic kid, I actually got pretty good at it!

---whether you use two fingers or three fingers when a priest blesses a person---- That one is easy. It depends on whether the priest is a Cub Scout or a Boy Scout!