clemlaw

Even though I think the whole safety issue can be dealt with with a little bit of common sense, that's actually the main reason why I was surprised that this is a Tenderfoot requirement. I don't know how it's taught, but a few of you have mentioned lighters. Personally, I would much prefer using a match or a candle, because with a lighter, there's always the possibility that the molten sludge will drip onto you if you're not careful. With a match, it will drip onto the ground. If you whip the rope, you don't have to worry about that. (Like I mentioned above, even though we considered it sub-par, we still did it with a match, because sometimes, good enough is good enough. It was kind of like starting a fire: If nobody was looking, we might use a little bit of newspaper to get it going. But it was still drummed into us never to use flammable liquids, even if nobody was looking. "Fusing" the rope came under the same general category as using newspaper to start the fire.) But in general, if they're taught this skill, then the teaching should include the relevant safety rules. I don't think it needs to wait until they get the full-fledged fire safety training that goes along with starting a camp fire.

----Give the scouts TIME and a Handbook.----- What does TIME stand for?

Those den meeting plans are available for free download on the internet. Really! They are at: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/Leaders/DenLeaderResources/DenandPackMeetingResourceGuide.aspx These were announced with great fanfare at our Roundtable. They couldn't be found with the instructions given to us. The URL in the glossy brochure that was handed out yielded a "file not found" error. I couldn't find them with the search engine. But after I e-mailed the DE, I got this secret URL. So download them fast, before they hide them again! Isn't scouting.org a great website? Actually, the whole book only costs about $10, and it would be easy to distribute the den plans to each den leader. In your situation, I think these canned meeting plans for an entire year could really come in handy.

I went ahead and put the 1973 Jamboree patch on my brand new uniform. Well, yes, my wife put it on for me. For our "Go See It" to visit an older member of the community, we had a visit from a Scoutmaster who got started as a Cub Scout in 1945. So it was nice to be able to show off another reminder that Scouting has been around for a long time. When the Uniform Police approach me, I'll have my line rehearsed: "Surely you're aware that the word 'current' was removed from the 2009 Insignia Guide." If they're on their toes, they'll say, "Explain it to the Judge Monday morning."

It looks like some entrepeneurial individual with a box at the local UPS Store had some medals made up and is selling them to kids who can sing the Star Spangled Banner and do a few other requirements. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but no, the medals they sell don't go on the uniform.

Actually, I just got a patch for showing up at my first roundtable. It's a good thing, too. I just got a new uniform (the old one shrunk just hanging in the closet for 30 years), and I can't very well go out in public without some kind of temporary patch on that pocket.

I don't think we had Fire Chits when I was in Scouts, so I guess that just came under the category of common sense. And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the G2SS that specifically says scouts need to earn those cards. If it's not, then it seems to me that it comes down to being a troop rule. And since it's a troop rule, it seems to me that a common-sense exception would be appropriate. Incidentally, when I was a scout, using a match to fuse a rope seemed vaguely like we were doing something that was forbidden, not because matches were dangerous, but because of the prevailing view then that scouts ought to "whip" a rope. I haven't whipped a rope in 40 years, but whenever I burn the end of one with a match, I take a look around to make sure my old scoutmaster isn't watching (even though I probably learned it from him in the first place). I'm relieved to know that it's "legal" now.

----Green Bar Bill had to come out of retirement in order to save scouting from the 1970s----- In my troop, Improved Scouting really didn't affect us very much, other than everyone went out and bought a book that we didn't bother using. AFAICT, our entire program stayed about the same as it had been prior to 1972. For example, I'm pretty sure that the merit badges I earned included all of the pre-1972 required merit badges, and this was true of almost everyone that I knew. The only difference was that we occasionally had to stop and make sure that we had finished the advancement requirements. Generally, when we did this, there were a couple of easy things that we had to finish, but it was no big deal, because we had far exceeded the actual requirements just by our normal program. I finished Second Class under the old requirements, and I had First Class almost finished when we were told that we were now under the new requirements. At first, there was some grumbling, but then it was basically explained to us that the remaining requirements (which, IIRC, consisted of earning a few belt loops) were so easy that it was easier just to do them than to grumble about it. So we all wound up with a bunch of things that kept falling off our belts. :-) There was really no change for Star, Life, and Eagle. It did then became possible to skip a few merit badges such as swimming, lifesaving, and camping. However, I'm not aware of anyone who actually did that. I was probably tempted to skip lifesaving, because that was the hardest one for me, but I went ahead and got it, because that was just the thing to do in my troop. (IIRC, the alternate for Lifesaving was Emergency Preparedness, which I had already earned just because it was a personal interest. Yes, the program probably would have been better if we had continued using the old handbook. But we didn't let it ruin the program for us, and most troops that I had contact with seemed to do things the same way. (Fortunately, the Field Book remained in print, and I know quite a few members of my troop had a copy, which they actually read, unlike the Handbook.) Until recently, I would have said that _nobody_ took the new requirements seriously. However, I was recently chatting with one of the staff at our scout shop, and he said that he dropped out of scouts about that time. He said he had been in a troop for 3 years, and they hadn't gone camping yet! So unfortunately, there were a few who let the new program ruin scouting for them, and apparently nobody told that guy that there were better troops available. But fortunately, for most of us, we didn't let National get in the way of a good thing.

Perhaps I'm being overly charitable, but based upon the limited information given, my first inclination is that this could be a mere case of poor communication. (Obviously, there is poor communication, but it seems quite possible that's all it is.) The original poster was appointed "co-scoutmaster", and then two weeks later was "removed". I think it's possible that the original intention was to appoint an _interim_ scoutmaster, they were overjoyed to have two volunteers come forward, but forgot to communicate the part about it being an interim position. It's possible that when they found the permanent replacement, they thought the interim replacements would be happy to know that they were now off the hook, so they announced it at the earliest possible moment. Again, there's not enough information here to know if that happened. But I would consider that possibility. If so, the mistake was made when the original appointment was made, because it wasn't explained properly.

2, 2.5, and 4 sound about the same to me, and get my vote. I was a little amused the first time I saw EDGE in the requirements, especially because it doesn't really make sense to "explain" anything when tying the square knot, other than, "I shall now show you how to tie a square knot." IMHO, when it comes to tying a square knot, the explanation only works when done as part of the demonstration. Yes, EDGE might indeed be part of a worldwide conspiracy to destroy scouting. But if they really want to destroy scouting, they're going to have to try a lot harder than that. I doubt if too many kids drop out of scouting just because they forgot to say, "I shall now show you how to tie a square knot." If the Improved Scouting Program of the 1970's wasn't able to destroy scouting, then I doubt if the EDGE method stands much of a chance.

---Not an urban legend as I know one that did Eagle at that age----- Oh, just because it's an urban legend doesn't mean that it can't be true. (And I doubt if the scout in our legend was actually the same person as your friend.) Incidentally, I didn't get a chance to read the article yet, but the latest NESA magazine has an article about 3 brothers who all earned every single merit badge. (Apparently, you don't need to have your very own cows, chickens, or pigs any more to do that.) So that urban legend is also true, apparently. I suspect they had some fun along the way, and they probably learned the basics of a lot of things that I never did. But I bet they also missed out on some things that I did get a chance to do. AFAIK, "Capture the Flag" isn't a requirement for any MB, but a lot of scouts seem to do it anyway.

One thing to keep in mind about Eagle is that there really isn't any single requirement that's particularly difficult. For most scouts, there are probably one or two that are a real challenge. But for the most part, they need to get 21 little badges. A few of them can be earned in one day. A few of them might take a year or more. Most are somewhere in between. But for about 99% of the available merit badges, almost any scout, if he decided he wanted that badge, can earn it. Most merit badges have 5-10 individual requirements. So to complete the basic requirements for Eagle (other than POS, service projects, etc.), it's really no much more than doing 150 little tasks, some of which are very easy, and a few of which are difficult. So the main thing that Eagle shows is that a scout has set a goal, and has some basic organizational and motivational skills to make sure he completes those 150 requirements on time. As far as I can tell, that's pretty much the way it's always been. Arguably, back in the day, among those 150 requirements, there were more "difficult" and fewer "easy" ones. I'm not sure that's true, but it was still basically the same--most of them were easy, and a few of them were hard. The Eagle award showed mostly that the scout was motivated to do them, and put forth the effort to do those 150 things on his "to do" list. When I was in Scouts, it was theoretically possible to get Eagle at the age of 12 years and 6 months. (Yes, we sat around adding up the time of service requirements as we theorized about this.) There was always an urban legend about some kid who did exactly that, just as there was an urban legend about the kid who earned all of the merit badges (which, we surmised, meant that he lived on a farm, since it would have required keeping cattle, chickens, hogs, etc.) In the meantime, we went camping and did other activities. Occasionally, someone would look at our book, and remind us that we had completed all but one requirement for ___ rank or for _____ merit badge. Then, I guess the "Eagle Mill" would come into operation, and we would be encouraged to get that requirement done. This seems to be the way that most troops operated. Maybe in some of them, the reminders came a little more often, in which case they I guess they were an Eagle Mill. In other cases, the little reminders probably came less often, in which case they had Deathbed Eagles. But as far as I know, nobody worried too much about which category they were in. Maybe some troops had more fun and let a few Deathbed cases slip through the cracks. And maybe some troops were full of overachievers and had a little bit less fun. But nobody seemed to worry about it either way.

----Personally, I'd take the 17 1/2 year old Eagle over the 14...clearly the 14's parents earned the Eagle.----- Actually, when I earned my Deathbed Eagle at the ripe old age of 17-1/2, I had my Eagle Court of Honor with another Scout who was 14 (or maybe even 13). Yes, his parents earned it. And so did mine. They earned it by spending many hours driving scouts places, serving as leaders at camp, counselling MB's, etc., etc., etc. But I can assure you that he also absolutely earned it, just as much as his mother earned the pin he presented to her.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

I was 17-1/2 when I got Eagle. Does that qualify me for the Deathbed Eagle square knot, or am I stuck with the plain ol' Eagle knot?

Interesting. They're not secret, but it looks like they're kinda sorta semi-secret (in an organization that doesn't tolerate secret organizations): "Volunteers requesting copies of these publications _MUST_ contact their local council which _WILL FORWARD_ their request and [$1.50] payment to ... Irving, TX." (Emphasis added)." If anyone told me there was a "no notes" policy, I would hand them the check for $1.50, point to that page, and remind them that they will forward my check (made out exactly as specified) to National. I don't intend to be a troublemaker, but sometimes it's nice to know how to be a troublemaker, just in case the need ever arises.

(Double post deleted)(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

I'm also late to chime in, and I only have a little bit of experience, but I think it could be a very fun activity. The one time we did it with a Cub Scout group, the leader planted some caches, not very far off the camp road, and then took the GPS's we were going to use, and programmed in those spots as waypoints. They were ammo boxes (or tupperware would work fine) with various small trinkets, but also the ingredients for smores for the campfire. Then, he handed the GPS to leaders of the smaller groups. Unfortunately, those leaders didn't necessarily know how to work the things. So my first suggestion, which sounds kind of obvious, is to make sure everyone knows how to use the particular unit that they'll be using! Partly because the leader of our group hadn't been told how to work the particular GPS unit, he spent most of the time just staring at the screen and walking. We eventually got there, but there wasn't much for the Cubs to do other than follow the leader. My suggestion to keep the kids actively involved would be to do it as follows: Start out by looking at the unit and seeing which way we have to go. It would probably be easiest to have it programmed in as a waypoint. Then, the whole group could decide what needs to be done. "It's 432 feet east of here--which way is east?" Then, you could use a real compass, or use the crude "compass" in the GPS to figure out the direction, and start going that way. Put the thing away, and then start pacing off the distance in that direction. Then, stop and repeat the process. That gives everyone something to do. For the Cub Scouts that are math impaired, you can probably do a pretty good job of guessing what their pace is, and tell them how many steps they need to count off. Tell them to announce when they think they've gone X feet, and when the consensus is that you've reached that distance, stop, take out the GPS, and repeat the process. I would probably err on the side of stopping too soon, but it's no big deal if you overshoot it. Again, I've never actually done it that way, but it seems to me like that would work better than the one time I did do it, which amounted to a bunch of kids following an adult who kept staring into a little electronic gizmo. Not only will it give everyone something to do (count paces), but it probably ties it in better with the real world, which might come in handy if they ever need to use an old-fashioned navigational device known as a "map".

I wonder if the lack of preparation was his fault, or if maybe some adult leader told him, at the last minute, to toss on his uniform and head over to the roundtable to tell them all about the Whatchamacallit-oree next weekend. In other words, I wouldn't read too much into one example of a kid giving a lousy speech in front of a large group.

So it looks like poor public speaking skills are now lumped in with drugs, vandalism, and theft. One of my Eagle merit badges was Public Speaking. Apparently, for the scout in the original post, it was something else.

IMHO, I would just put any ambiguity to rest by writing a brief explanation. I would write the name of the owner, the number of the license of the driver, and underneath, write in something like, "this is the license number of John Smith, who will be the driver of Mary Jones's car." The worst that will happen is that they'll ask for Mary Jones's license number as well. To forestall that possibility, you could just write it in with an explanation.

I was the Secretary of our OA Lodge. And if I do say so myself, the meeting minutes I took were probably the best minutes in the history of the Order of the Arrow. I bet they're still tucked away in some file cabinet somewhere. And that newsletter I put out wasn't half bad either. On the other hand, I knew arrowmen who were absolutely lousy at writing anything or at public speaking. But they knew how to work a shovel, a saw, an axe, a post hole digger, etc., better than I could ever dream of doing. We were both important. I took care of the irksome task of cranking out the newsletter. He took care of the weighty responsibility of building a fence. But was one of us more deserving of wearing a white sash and an Eagle medal? I would say he was. Incidentally, at roundtable last night, there was a presentation by a scout of an upcoming project by the OA chapter. (I know it wasn't the same roundtable, because this guy was a Life Scout.) IMHO, he did a pretty good job. There was also a presentation about something by a member of the council staff. (I couldn't quite make out his square knots from the back of the room, but I'm pretty sure one of them said he was an Eagle.) He also conveyed the information he needed to convey, but I actually remember thinking to myself that was disorganized, unimpressive, and frankly unprepared. I don't want to pile on to the poor professional scouter, but it was bad.

The temporary patch that I'm currently displaying is from 1977. IMHO, it's OK, because that's pretty much the last thing I was at while wearing that shirt. It has the date printed on it, so I've been making a point to brag about it. I have to admit, it's kind of fun explaining when a Den Chief walks over and asks, "why is your uniform that color?" For any uniform police out there, don't worry--just one more meeting, and then I'll go buy a new shirt that actually fits. But this thread got me thinking....should I dig out that 1973 Jamboree patch and put it on the new shirt?

Well, from reading this thread, I realize that we stumbled into a pretty good pack just out of blind luck. (And we were equally lucky with the pack we stumbed into last year from which we had to transfer just because of a conflict with meeting nights.) The committee seems to run very smoothly, mostly from consensus. They seem to operate mostly under Bob's Rules rather than Robert's Rules. There were no votes taken on anything, and there was no need to. There were differing opinions, but decisions were made based upon what the majority wanted, even though nobody bothered to formally count to see whether there was a majority. If things were such that the SM's or CM's vote actually was the swing vote on any important subject, then it seems to me that it's not a very healthy troop or pack to start with. And when someone feels the need to break out Robert's Rules of Order, that's also probably a bad sign.

>>>>>>>>The committee should be stable with experienced leaders guiding the Pack, Packs get in trouble when they have inexperienced leadership and no mentoring. Taking the kids swimming is a great idea, they just need to rent a pool that provides life guards is all. no big deal.

OK, I'm still at the Cub Scout level after many years. And when I was a Scout, as shocking as it may sound, the EDGE method had not yet been invented, yet most of us still managed to figure out the square knot. In fact, fire hadn't even been invented yet, so there was no requirement for us to light a fire. We were required to invent it ourselves! But the way I read the requirement, the scout needs to "teach" another person how to tie a square knot. IMHO, it's definitionally impossible to "teach" someone something they already know. So in order to complete this requirement, the scout needs to find one person who does not yet know how to tie a square knot. There are a finite number of such people in the world. And every time a scout completes this requirement, that number is reduced by one. Most importantly, unless everyone is asleep at the switch, there probably isn't anyone present at any scout meeting who doesn't already know how to tie one. Therefore, there's nobody who can be "taught" at a scout function, and in the vast majority of cases, the person being taught is going to be a friend, a younger brother or sister, etc., and most of the occasions to do this teaching are going to be outside the presence of any scout leader. Therefore, it seems perfectly normal for this requirement to be tested by the scout reporting something like that he taught his little brother how to tie a square knot. A little bit of follow up discussion should put to rest any doubts about how successful this was. Sheesh, this topic seems to make everyone awfully EDGEy.