DeanRx

A couple points to ponder: 1) The form states the practitioner must be certified and licensed... it does NOT say "in good standing". As one who does practice, most states (unless the license has been revoked) still considers someone to be licensed even if they are under investigation, stayed, or on suspension. Most practitioners can remain "licensed" even in an inactive manner (costs less per year to renew). They cannot legally practice untile they bring their licensure out of inactive status and make up any and all CE credits required by their given state. Maybe she falls into that category, if she's not working? Does that mean she cannot sign the form? What about DC's and Pharm.D. that have collabrative practice agreements (just as NPs and PAs do) - can they sign? According to the form, no - but they have the same credentials as the NPs and PAs. BSA took NONE of this into account when developing the form. They only want to have a practitioner to lay the blame on if something happens to the scout or scouter said practitioner signed the form for. They want to "share the risk" - thats all. True - most states have web sites where one can verify such data. However, WHO THE HELL IS TAKING THE TIME TO VERIFY ALL THIS ON EVERY MED FORM TURNED IN ON A SCOUT? If you're not doing it for all - you sure as sh*t shouldn't be singling her out just because she chose to sign both lines. 2) Is the unit (or the camp for that matter) reviewing and returning ALL illegible copies back to be filled out again? If not - then once again, I ask why should SHE be signled out for this additional scrutiny? Because she's a pain in the *ss parent? Does that make it justified? Heck - any parent can fill out the form and sign a fake MD's name to the thing. The form doesn't even ask for a state lic. #, an NPI, or any other ID credintial (DEA or otherwise). All it asks for is the printed name, a signature, an office address and office phone. Any patient of mine can get that right off the front of ANY prescription they carry out of the office. There's not even a requirement for an office stamp to be provided. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of these being done for an office copay, are being done by the RN and rubber stamped anyways. Are those any more valid, if the scout being evaluated doesn't even see the doctor? The way BSA has this form written and set-up its not worth the paper its written on and certainly not worth whatever amount they paid to their lawyers that advised them that it would mitigate risk and cover their collective *sses for campers' injuries any more than they have been covered in the past. Just one more "hoop" that national decided everyone has to jump through to send kids off to camp. Most likely because NOT having the form would result in a higher premium (or a higher than normal annual increase in premium) on their unbrella insurance policy. Some dumb smuck at an insurance agency convinced a lawyer that BSA could save $$ on overall premiums if they passed this policy, so it got passed. The form is stupid and could be accurately filled out and submitted my anyone with 2 years of LVN training. You guys are splitting hairs over something that doesn't even matter. If this mom is going to sue, she's going to sue.... signing a stupid form absolves BSA from nothing, just gives their lawyers something to hide behind and someone else to lay blame on if, God forbid, something happens to a scout and the sh*t hits the fan. Don't even get me started on the HIPAA implications (and lack thereof) of ANY HIPPA disclosure statements on the forms. Yet they'll happily collect them up and pass them via 4 or 5 changes of hands before they are deposited with the camp medical officer.... NO HIPAA privacy violations there.... nooooo. I'd be much more concerned about that than a purposefully misrepresented medical form turned in by a parent in good faith. What about the jr ASM that happens to be collecting the forms at camp and now knows that little Johnny is on Ritalin and takes DDAVP to combat bedwetting symptoms? Then razzes Johnny about it while at camp? Bingo - there's a potential 25K fine from the federal government for every occurance of protected health information unauthorized disclosure. You want to be afraid of lawsuits - be afraid of those handling / mishandling the INFORMATION contained on this very poorly written document. I wouldn't want to be a camp medical director the way things are currently configured... there's not enough pay for me to buy enough malpractice insurance to cover the possible HIPAA violations. Foreget about the malpractice for an injured scout - I can deal with / mitigate that. I can't mitigate what multiple folks do or don't do with private health information before its stored in my shop at camp. There's the real risk being run.... and for what? The form is crap - I wouldn't use it to replentish the TP in the camp latrines.

Some good points already made. 1) Use of the Denner system. AS they get older, your job as a DL should be to plan and task assign the meetings. Then as much as possible, have the scouts carry out the "plan". example - have the denner in charge of leading the pledge at the start and help with handing out supplies, etc... durring the meeting. Than have another scout be in charge of leading the game at the meeting. Have a 3rd be in charge of setting up the snack / etc. Have a 4th lead the closing with the Cub Promise or Law of the Pack. Make it very short and very specific in the beginning, then build from there. 2) Have the scouts come up with THEIR den rules and what the punishment should be for breaking them. Write them all out on a poster board for them to see every meeting. Keep it short 5 to 6 rules max. Try to encourage them to wright positive rules... more on what they SHOULD do than what they can't do. They are more apt to follow the rules and police themselves when THEY made them up to begin with. 3) After Tiger year - try to have the scouts do as much on their own as possible. Mom or dad can come to the meeting, but should only help if truely needed and only if ASKED by the scout. Too often, at this age (especially early wolf), kids are used to a parent jumping in and completing or perfecting stuff for them and far too many parents are more than happy to play that role. There are great lessons to be learned in small "failures", but we as parents must first be willing to allow the child to "fail". This is how they learn that everything is not always "perfect" and life still goes on. Its how they learn to ask for help. Its how they learn to control their emotions when things don't go exactly as they want or planned. Only provide direct supervision when meritted by the activity. (i.e. whittlin' chip - knives) As bears, I would plan some longer, more strenous activities / hikes and have the leaders hang to the back (even 50 yards off so long as you have line of sight) and let the youth figure out where and how to go. Late in Wolf year, at a council campout, my son and I were doing a basic compass course. He turned to me ans asked if the heading he had chosen was the correct way? My reply, "I don't know, you tell me." I assured him that I would not let us get lost, but if he made a wrong decision, the hike was going to be longer than orginally planned. He was upset that I would not allow him to check it on the GPS in my pocket. I told him, "I get the GPS because I already KNOW how to do this w/ a map and compass. Just like I get to do my math on a calculator, while you have to do it longhand. You learn the 'hard way' so that you don't take the easy / electronic way for granted." He got mixed up once, but soon discovered the error on his own and made the correction. The amount of pride built into that one activity when HE actually did it and HE actually was responsible for the decisions was priceless. If you are regularly getting both the kids and sometimes the parents outside of their "comfort" zone for at least part of the meeting, then you're doing good. You know when its going right, because as the rowdiness breaks out - one of the scouts in the den puts up the CS sign before the DL or any other parents do it and the other scouts actually responde to it. (yes, this really happened, and YES I about had a heart attack in disbelief) If its done well, by Web II year - the scouts should be able to be told what the meeting is going to be about and actually conduct the meeting with very little direction from the DL or other adults. That should be the ultimate report on whether you've done the job of DL well.

I tend to side w/ Beavah on this one... 1) The guy appologized, to both you and your kid (which at the time it happened he probably thought it was just fun and games... a water fight and a kid gets pulled overboard into waist deep water... WHY was this an issue in the 1st place)? If he got a little rough, then tell him so and move on with life. 2) Then the guy makes a general appology to the unit b/c the "offended" women don't want to be named. Well, my first question is: Did these women (including Mike's wife) ask him to STOP and tell them it made them feel uncomfortable at the time the supposed inappropriate "touching" took place? If not - then why the heck was this guy banished for a year? At a minimum the guy should be allowed to KNOW who accused him of what and at least given a chance to defend himself against the accusation. YPG or innapropriate behavoir with any sexual undertones tends to be good fodder for knee-jerk, guilty until proven otherwise type of actions. After all, one wouldn't want to fail to protect the victim(s) in the situation, so one must ASSUME the worst case until shown otherwise.... or instead of looking into the validity, one can just ASSUME the worst and tar-n-feather the offender and ride them out on a rail. A good ol' fashion witch hunt is what it becomes. Not saying that's want happened in this case, but by the OP info given, it certainly sounds that way to the causal observer. 3) This guy sits out a year and now wants to come back. He played by the rules set forth by a committee (whether it was fair or not can be debated ad nauseum) that frankly sounds like it was on a witch hunt for a reason to get rid of this guy. How can you with a straight face not allow him back? BTW - he doesn't need to be a different race, creed, or scocio-economic standard than the rest of the unit to go crying "descrimination" to the council and worse yet the local press. All he needs is one other instance in which one adult in the unit did "wrong" by another adult in the unit and the offender was not met with the same punishment metted out for him.... applying a different standard of justice to a like offense by another is enough to get the charge of prejudice leveled at your unit. Hope no one else in the unit has ever touched Mike's wife's shoulders at a unit function... but I forget - sexual harrasment (which is what we are really talking about here) is based on the perception of the victim, not the intent of the offender, right? So if someone else touched Mike's wife's shoulders, but she happens to like that person, then no offensive behavoir has taken place? That's why its paramount that the women involved needed to make it KNOWN that it made them uncomfortable. Jack might be a clod, he might just be a touchy-feely person, he might be a pervert. But if he was asked to sit out 1 year, then why wasn't a police report filed? Why weren't charges pressed? Is it because he's really that big a threat, or just beacose some (or maybe even a majority) in the unit just wanted him to GO AWAY! Now, if the gals involved were to come forward w/ specific issues, dates, times, and the fact that he was TOLD to stop and he didn't, then he should be invited to take an indefinate leave. But thats not how you present it and its obviously not what happened. As for Mike, strong willed or not - he needs to be made to understand the GROUP is more important than one person. He had his say, the committee made a decision, and he can either live by it or go find another unit. Otherwise, not only will you loose Jack and his kid, but you might as well disband your unit committee and just let Mike run the show from now on. As a cubmaster for a pack of over 60 kids, I can tell you the unit leadership and the committee are ALWAYS going to have people that disagree with what you decide. Doesn't matter if its a big issue or a small one, it comes with the turf. However, I would offer Jack a 2nd chance (as he was led to believe he'd be given) and I'd offer Mike the standard answer that I offer to any and ALL sideline Monday morning QB's I deal with in our unit. Which is, "The committee took your thoughts under advisement, but as a committee decided that x,y,z was the best course of action for everyone in the unit. I'm sorry if you feel your concerns have not been adequately addressed, but the committee made the decision, and I as the CM am charged with carrying out the program as designed and directed by the committee." If Jack made a pass at Mike's wife - frankly, its between those two couples to deal with it outside the realm of scouts. If divorced parents can share the room with each other because they understand its for the good of their son's scouting expirience, then these bozo's can share some common public space and still be adults and act accordingly for the good of the unit. Otherwise, you don't want ANY of them involved long term, even if Mike "walks on water" as an ASM. There's no rule that says a scout (or scout parent) must like and get along with EVERYONE in the unit. That's just not real life. Some people you want to hang around, others you meerly tolerate because thats what a decent human does for another human that they can't stand. Let the guy back in. Make it known that any SUBSTANTIATED claim of improper behavoir will get him uninvited for life. At the same time, make sure Mike KNOWS this guy is coming back and that Mike is expected to conduct himself in a scout-like manner, lest he be asked to leave the unit. If they can both play well in the same sandbox, then great. Otherwise - address any future issue (with either party) as a new issue. What's happened in the past has been dealt with and the punishment paid. Live in and deal with the present and future. Period. Good luck, its was the 1/2-hearted attempt (in the 1st place) to deal with the situation by the committee that has placed you guys in this crappy situation. Its not going to be easy to get to closure on it. I'd bet at best you loose one or the other of these families to another unit (likely both of them). The larger issue, is if the issue is allowed to destroy the unit altogether. Its your job as a unit leader to make sure that does NOT happen. Good luck - you'll need it.

fbh1 resurected one of my FAVORITE threads of all time !! Best part about this thread.... the banner adds that automatically link to the topic on the sidebar !! Too dang funny

Eric- I'm going to assume you are not a troll and this actually happened the way you say. I would STRONGLY adivse that you keep any and all discussions regarding ANYTHING about sexuality as brief as possible and refer anyone that might ask you to a trusted adult in their own family OUTSIDE of the scouting environment. I'm not saying how you handled the situation was "wrong". Only that something you view as a well intended education session, can easily be viewed by an over-protective parent as obscene and inappropriate. Discussions of masturbation can easily slide into the "have you ever had sex" or "do you think about so-and-so" or "do you think about guys" or "do you want to try it sometime" area very easily with a curious kid. Do NOT go there ! I would advise if approached again by the same scout or another scout, the standard response should be, "Some people choose to, others don't. Its a very personal thing. If you have specific questions about the physiology of arousal and sexual acts, I strongly suggest you find a well trusted adult in your family to discuss the issue(s) with. I'm sorry, but this is NOT something I should be discussing with another scout on a scout outing." Leave it at that. Keep the conversation in confidence and move on with life.

I'm jealous !!! Wish I could be on staff at NT !! Haven't been there since I was 15, but if I could get out of that pesky go-to-work-to-pay-the-mortgage-and-buy-food-and-diapers rut I'm in... I'd be there for the summer. Hope he has a BLAST !

I think they are all great suggestions... I have used the Code of Conduct (Have the scouts make the rules... they'll police themselves). I have used the group reward candle (it stays lit until someone breaks a rule - one warning per meeting - them its blown out)... candle gets to the base - its a pizza party for next Den meeting !! Those two items and a gentle reminder at the start of each meeting is really all it takes. Also - I would advise having a game or two dispersed thru the meeting. My den meetings always go like this: Flag Salute structured event / discussion / advancement task High energy game craft / build something sharing / den leader's minute High energy game closing snack / treat (only if all goes well) The two big things to remember: 1) these kids are asked to sit and listen all day at school, the last thing they want in a den meeting is to sit still and listen, get them up and moving / "do-ing" as often as possible and attention spans increase and need for discipline decreases. 2) Most of the trouble comes with scouts all talking at once, talking over each other, or not taking turns. If this is an issue - make a den "talking stick". Nothing fancy, but try to get lettered beads and leather thongs or each scout to string their name on and tie it to the "talking stick". In doing so, they agree that whoever holds the talking stick has the floor and that it is THEIR turn when the stick is passed to them. The Lord of the Flies "Conch" shell actually works very well to get them to listen and take turns. Good luck and remember "Keep it simple, make it fun" KISMIF!

evmori - Problem is if one uses your definition o f"firearm", then it would be OK to allow the scouts to shoot at each other with air-rifle BB-guns... no gunpowder or black powder used.... just air... While I think the reg as it satnds is vague and ridiculous, I also do not advocate for allowing scouts to pick each other off with BB-guns. lagosscouter - asks what can be done to get the rule changed? Thats a VERY good question. As many a pro scouter will hurriedly offer up when confronted with a volunteer that asks "WHY?" something is the way it is... the often repeated answer is, "Well, BSA is not a democracy. It is a private organization, and if you don't want to abide by the rules and regs, then you are free to join a different group." I, personally, think it would do national wonders if they had a "volunteer senate", that would field, discuss and vote on program regulation changes BEFORE national just jams it down every volunteer's throat. It could very easily be done via online forum such as this, with a constituents area for fielding input, and a seperate "senate member's" area where final discussion and resolution takes place and then would be presented to the national steering committee to at least take into consideration. It would go a LONG way to putting common sense back into some of the decisions, and go even a LONGER way to removing much of the animosity and tension between high level / long term unit volunteers and many of the pro's who don't seem to understand why people who don't get paid to scout get upset so fast, when they are told of yet another thing they must do or not do in THEIR unit's program. Anyone know if national has any feedback method for their policies, or is it just a "do as I say" attitude?

If its something you do not feel comfortable addressing, or if it is taking so much time from the meeting that you have to disrupt meeting activities (for this one scout) on a regular basis, then YES the DL should ask for parental involvement and support at the meetings / activities. We have a scout in our Den with a very mild form of autism. He is mainstreamed in the classes at school, so most the boys don't know anything about his condition. He does from time to time get out of hand. Usually, not physically distruptive, but he'll sometimes decide that he doesn't want to participate in our activity and either try to wander off or wants to go in the other room and play with the dog, or watch TV. Once he decides this, there is really no reasoning with him to change his mind. Therefore - we've had to ask that a parent be there so if he has a "change or heart" about participation 1/2 way through a meeting, we have an adult that can be with him without detracting from the rest of the group. Bottom line - if they routinely take away from the group being a "group", then its reasonable to ask for additional help in supervising the scout (disability or not).

From the online G2SS... Unauthorized and Restricted Activities "Pointing any type of firearm or SIMULATED FIREARM at any individual is unauthorized. Scout units may plan or participate in paintball, laser tag or similar events where participants shoot at targets that are neither living nor human representations. Units with Council approval may participate in formally organized historical reenactment events, where firearms are used and intentionally aimed over the heads of the reenactment participants. The use of paintball guns, laser guns or similar devices may be utilized in target shooting events with Council approval and following the Sweet 16 of BSA safety. Council approval means the approval of the Scout Executive or his designee on a tour permit specifically outlining details of the event. (However, law enforcement departments and agencies using firearms in standard officer/agent training may use their training agenda when accompanied with appropriate safety equipment in the Law Enforcement Exploring program.)" I have been told both at BALOO training, at council sponsored Fun w/ Sons, and at roundtable meetings that a "Simulated Firearm" includes a pop-gun, cap-gun, water-gun, stick, or even a hand pointed with thumb up and pointer finger out. So no, LisaBob - seems the supersoakers are a serious question under this guideline as one major council seems to view them as a 'simulated firearm'. The thing I don't understand is that BSA will not allow lazer tag or paintball, but will allow scouts to participate in "historical reinactments" so long as the firearms are pointed "above the heads" of the participants. Black powder muskets firing blanks at others without protective gear (especially eye protection) has GOT to be more dangerous than paintball or lazer tag... so I just don't get it. Also, I thought we were NOT a para-military organization, but its OK to dress up as either Union or Confederate soldiers, or Revolutionary soldiers or British soldiers? Wonder if I could get BSA's approval for a "Battle for Bagdad" historical reinactment, so long as we used blanks in the M-16's from the local National Guard Armory and fired "above the heads" of the participants?

JoeBob writes, "I can see both sides here, but I'd have to agree with TwoCubDad. 1- For Eagle to be withheld in the first place, something has to be seriously amiss. 2- If the problem is indeed the scout, and not the troop's leadership, to circumvent whatever stain is on his record by using politics demeans the Eagle Award. 3- Why should the SM endorse this behavior and further cheapen Eagle? " Well - I guess I would say for a council or national to over-rule the unit on the matter (most times the council and national want nothing to do with unit policits, unless its a YPG, atheist, or gay issue), then the "something seriously amiss" must have been on the part of the unit, not the scout. If there is something "seriously amiss" with the scout - why would the council / national not side with the unit? AS for demeaning the Eagle Award - if the scout in question has not been a good scout or has done something to bring dishonor to himself in his advancement, then does he not taint the LIFE rank he wears as well? What difference does it make? Then again, I guess it takes us back to the arguement on other posts about Eagle being the only rank that really matters.... Everyone else who participates in scouting and fails to obtain Eagle has failed in some way, they are the "also participated" scouts that really don't count for anything. Without trying to be offensive - if an adult leader (SM, CC, ASM, etc...) puts themselves ahead of the scout, ahead of the program, and ahead of the area and national office - then yes - they can deny to award it. But, its not about the adult and their feelings. Its about the culmination of the scout's efforts, whether the adults think those efforts are tainted or not. (This message has been edited by DeanRx)

What is ther reason? Cost? They sell the Program Helps, right? Why not just adjust the cost to reflect the actual price needed to break even on publishing them? I don't know of a DL, CM, or committee what wouldn't be willing to pay 3x as much as face value right now for that resource. Fast tracks is fine, but its ALL about advancement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought advancement was only ONE of the cores of scouting, not THE core. Great - less fun and games and more homework at the Den Meetings... we should have no problem with recruitment / retention after next year. If this in fact TRUE - anyone know a POC at National that we can blast e-mails of complaint to?

2Cub- Sorry to hear you had to go through something like this. I fail to understand WHY it should ever come to this point in an Eagle's journey, but I guess it has and will in the future for some. That being said - if (for some reason, I would think / hope it would be rare) that the council / national would side with the scout and overrule the unit, then the unit shoud be obligated to present the award in the same manner it would present the award for any other receipient. They are a scout from your unit, they earned the rank, you present it to them - period. So the father called you an SOB... So the scout was the center of a riff in the Troop... So some in the troop (even maybe the SM and CC) don't think the scout deserves the rank as it stands... BE THE BIGGER MAN and do what is right by the council's decision and what's right by the scout. You'll be remembered MORE for the fact you rose above the crap and carried out your duties with honor, than if you continue to throw fuel on the fire (even if the fuel is only a non-participation, or less than enthusiastic presentation of the rank). Guess what - once the matter is settled, then it should be settled. Otherwise - WHAT exactly are you teaching to the others in the unit? Some would state that you are teaching to stand on your priciples, OK I can go with that. However, others would say you are teaching the other scouts (and dare I say all others involved in the unit - adults and otherwise) that: A) You are a very sore looser and very unscoutlike when you don't get your way B) Anyone that crosses the SM or committee will be ostracised and scorned (aka Scarlet Letter Style) C) It is appropriate for scouts and scouters to treat others poorly, just because they have been in disagreement with them (basically that its OK to harbor a grudge) I have always thought there needs to be one more point to the scout law, "A scout offers forgiveness", but I guess the founders thought maybe that was covered in the whole "reverent" part of the law. I would think that for a council or national to over-rule the unit on a scout's appeal, they must have some legit reason for thinking the unit leadership has acted in a overly harsh manner in applying the standards - otherwise, WHY would they over-rule? Its kind of like a bench judge declaring to the local paper and populace that he believes the accused is guilty even though the orginal ruling was over-turned by the appeals judge. Its not his place to say that anymore - they decision was taken out of his hands. Whether we like it or not - we "work" (or volunteer) for national. What they say goes. If they say award the Eagle rank, then do so as you would for anyone else. Otherwise, go find another organization to get behind. There are several rules, regulations, protocols that national has that I don't agree with. Does that mean I disregard them? No. Does this mean I change the program to circumvent them? No. I might come on the forums and bemoan the fact they exist and ask what can be done to change them, but as they stand - I abide by them because I made a promise to deliver the BSA program as it is intended. The Eagle award and ECOH is part of the PROGRAM. If not an outright part of the program, it is certainly a part due to tradition and history. If you can't / won't deliver that part of the program for a scout you have open distain for... then time to rethink what and who you are volunteering for.

Horizon- While I'd agree that the photos on the flyer could have been done by a "volunteer", they were distributed from the COUNCIL ACTIVITIES OFFICE, I personally picked them up for our unit, from the council office. They were physically handed directly to me, by a professional scouter in the council scout office. That means that they were at least viewed (if not reviewed) for accurate information by a PROFESSIONAL SCOUTER in the COUNCIL office, prior to being handed over to me. I think its stupid personally. Stopping kids from pointing even their fingers or sticks at each other and yelling BANG!, BANG! is not going to stop another Colombine (it didn't stop the VT shooting - even though these silly rules had been in place at all schools and scouting activities since the Colorado incident). How about we TEACH scouts the difference between make believe and real life? I wonder if a scout (or another child of scout age) stole a car and ran over a few folks, that meant we'd have to stop doing PWD or building cub-mobiles? It follows the same logic. Or maybe at least the PWD cars should be used only on a rangemaster controlled, council sponsored track... that way there is no horseplay with the cars.... after all - horseplay leads to accidents on the real roadways! We don't want them simulating cars crashing, b/c they might try it in real life, right? The painball, I can see. They have a decent muzzle velocity and could hurt someone if not properly trained in the use. Thats why many commercial paintball sites won't let kids on until they are over 12 or 13 y/o. However, the lazer tag and squirt guns are just plain stupid. Its also stupid trying to tell an 8 y/o they can't play with a stick like a gun or a sword, or even make a pistol with their thumb and pointer finger... I'll now sit still in my Ritalin induced coma, criss-cross applesauce style (can't be Indian), while one of the ALL-KNOWING, safety nazi grown-ups tell me WHY my logic is flawed in this thought process. BTW - why isn't 'World of Warcraft' (or some of the other mild to medium violent video games) advertised in the pages of Boys Life on the list of "unauthorized" activities for scouts? Pretty sure you shoot simulated weapons at simulated people (creatures) in most all of those games.... then again, they do PAY for the add space....

This is a common issue that comes up for many "requirements" for various ranks. Just because an activity is a requirement for a rank does NOT mean that younger scouts are automatically banned from the same activity. One should consult the G2SS as the authority book on age appropriate activities. However, the G2SS, does not trump common sense and personal responsibility. Trust your best judgement. In our pack, yes, boys can earn their Whittlin chip as early as age 8, but we try to encourage them to wait until they are Bears to do so. It gives them a goal and something to look forward to. Also, I don't want to have to look after every pocketnife on a campout. If they are below a Bear, they shouldn't have one. IMHO(This message has been edited by DeanRx)

Here's a heaping dose of irony / hyprocrisy to throw on the campfire.... G2SS bans the pointing of "simulated" firearms presumably because BSA (whether right or wrong) has decided that they want kids to be taught to not point weapon-like insturments at other humans or even human shaped targets. OK, I don't agree, but its their policy, so I enforce it for scout outings. Now for the irony - had a pack campout a couple months ago where it was brought into question because it was going to be HOT and the boys wanted to have a squirt gun fight. Reasonalbe people prevailed on this one and the scouts were allowed to have squirt guns (provided by our unit). The unit provided them so that they all had the same "armament", instead of one kid with a small water pistol and another showing up with a super-soaker-backpack set-up. Anyways, as CM, I took a little heat form a couple parents and the whole G2SS issue. Fast forward 3 weeks to our spring roundup... I go down to the COUNCIL office to pick up the OFFICAL BSA recruitment fliers printed with our unit info for the roundup. These are color, front and back, flyers with pictures of scouts doing 'scout' activities as a border to the flier. Well - guess what was in 3 of the pictures along the bottom margin of these OFFICAL BSA, COUNCIL PROVIDED, recruitment fliers ?? Wait for it...... Yup, 4 scouts engaged in what looked to be a very fun and wet waterfight. ALL had a super-soaker or other extra large caliber water "cannon" in their hands blasting the other scouts. Go firgure ? Guess they can use the activity to recruit, you just can't do it once you are actually in scouting?

Tony- I agree, but I'm not sure I have a good answer. My expirience the loss of W2 before transition to a Troop can be directly linked to 3 factors: 1) Parental burnout by the time Webs comes around 2) Kids choosing different activities that compete for time / talent (i.e. sports, band, drama, etc...) 3) The fact that these boys are placed in limbo, somewhat by national BSA policy. They've already DONE all the cute craft stuff and shot BB-gun / Archery a bunch. They want to go canoing on a river, they want to rock climb, they want to shoot a .22-cal, they want to do high COPE. However, BSA national and G2SS restricts many (if not all) these activities until a scout is at least 14 years old. So, what to DO with the W2's? I think msny get bored b/c they view a LOT of the cub activities as "baby stuff" and their parents have already been in a leadership role for multiple years. This leads to boredom and burnout, which lends itself to an attitude of getting AOL and out. I would like to see some effort on the part of councils and national to examine WHY webs leave before bridging to a troop and WHAT can be done ot revamp program to provide a more challenging and exciting time for boys of the W1 and W2 age range, so they are looking forward to the next level. Last Fun w/ son I was on w/ my cub, the camp director was giving a impromtu tour of summer camp activities. A great deal of what was stated was, "once you are in Boy Scouts and at least 14, you can x, y, z....". Thats all well and good, but kids and parents want to know what exciting things they can do NOW. Not what might be around the bend if they hang out in the program for another 2 years.

We have a Den in our pack that has been as high as 15 at one point. The DL has been asked about a split several times by both the CC and myself(CM). They want to stay together and have at least 3 ADL's that keep things running smoothly. They often split up den meeting activities into 3 sub-dens, but the boys take turns with who is in each sub-group, so they still get to hang out with all the kids in the den. I'm gald - it works for them. They are affectionately known as our "pack within a pack". Best part is, when these guys get ready to bridge over to Boy Scouts, the DL is already talking about starting a new Troop and they will have plenty of scouts to get things going (no Troops in the neighborhood yet, so we could become the feeder to the new unit). There's more than one way to skin that cat, so long as you have parent helpers (ADL's).

I would tend to agree w/ Colorado... you can always start small and add boys, or if some drop you can always combine dens. Its much, much more difficult to split a den that had become too large to manage. Leave room for growth, if possible. As for setting up Tiger dens... if it really is THAT big an issue, I suggest having each cub submit the names of 3 other Tigers they would like to be in a den with (thier buddies). Then you can promise that most will get 2 out of 3 and everyone will get at least 1 name out of the 3 on their list. Then drop the names in a hat and draw if needed. This takes any perceived (or real) bias out of the equation. As for date / time of meetings - leave that to the individual DL's to work out w/ the families in their dens. If there is an absolute conflict (i.e. one cub is LDS and everyone else in the den wants den meetings on Sunday afternoons... then let them switch dens - but make this the EXCEPTION, not the rule). Nothing says that if you have 14 Tigers, the dens must be 7 and 7. You could start with 8 and 6, or even 9 and 5. I wouldn't go with one den having less than 1/2 the size of the other den. If you do start off with unbalanced dens... be up front that any additional scouts that join will go to the den with the least # of members until the dens are balanced.

No REQUIREMENT that parents have to "volunteer", that kind of takes the volunteer part out of it... We do, however, make up a poster board every summer during our program planning meeting listing the events (and approx. month / time of year) each event takes place. Then at a couple of the summer gatherings, we announce the roster of events for the coming year and that we need volunteers to chair the subcommittees that run each event. If the slots are not filled, then the roster is at the back of the room for every pack meeting, with the CM(me) giving a gentle reminder of the spots still needing to be filled. It usually fills up by the end of September, no problems. It is put out that it is strongly encouraged that a family (or one parent from a family) that does not already have an adult in a position of leadership within the unit SHOULD sign up. I remind them that the pack will be as active or lethargic as its FAMILIES want it to be, and that parents DID take an oath (yes we have one at our new cubbie induction) to support their son and the unit in being successful (that whole 'make the pack go' thing I read somewhere). Usually, a nice, but firm reminder that 'many hands make for light work' does the trick. I can think of only once or twice that we as a committee has put out that we might have to scale back program events if no one signs up.... that has always solved the issue. BTW - as an aside, this IS a very effective way to recruit new leaders. Someone helps decorate and coordinate the food for a Blue and Gold one year, the following year they help plan a pack family campout, then the next thing you know, they're a den leader or popcorn kernal... Small bits of volunteering success tends to build into more commitments in my expirience.

Gern- Sorry to offend and touch off the great conservation vs. environmentalist debate... that was not my intent. My point is, there are factions within the environmentalist movement that a over-zealous in their application. The fact that some advocate for absolutely NO USE of certain areas. Well, if we can't entice folks to go out on a hike and SEE what is worth saving / preserving, then its dang hard to get them to realize the value in doing so. Hyper-enviornmentalism has led to me having a 2nd grader who can speak to you ad nauseum about the hole in the ozone and "global warming" and how "bad" we humans are about our "carbon footprint". Yet, if I ask him to name any of the 5 to 6 animal species on the endangered list right here in San Diego county, he can't do it. But he'll tell you all about the depletion of the rain forests in far off countries. I agree the environmentalists aare out there in the backcountry, so are the conservationist, so are the hunters and those that see nothing but undeveloped sub-divisions where the trees now stand. Thats not the point. The point is, some in the "green" arena have raised the fear level to the poin that LNT has become 'don't tread at all'. That does nothing but a disservice to those who hope to have a positive impact on saving our wilderness areas, because as I stated earlier - people will have little interest in saving / preserving what they are not allowed to see and interact with. It was one point of a long post - sorry it turned into a hijack... I now return you to your regularly scheduled banter about how BSA needs to change to keep up with the times... However, I still say people are afraid of the outdoors now more than a generation ago.

SSScout- I get your point, but if its the difference between a "regulated" activity and an outright ban, I'm in favor of having a "rock throwing" range. The idea of painting them yellow and having to pick all of them up is a little outrageous, but to each their own. Its better than the last council Fun w/ Son I attended w/ my scout where the camp director let everyone know at the 1st nights campfire that, "Sticks are to be left on the ground... any scout swinging a stick like a lightsaber, sword, or baseball bat will be subject to discipline, up to and including being asked ot leave camp." The smart-*ss in me wanted to ask if the rule applied to live branches ripped from a tree? After all, it wouldn't have been 'picked up' off the ground, therefore the rule should not apply, right? What if they picked up the stick and pretented to conduct an orchastra with it? Is that ok? I say make it a fun, safe activity and let 'em go at it. I agree there is little need for a class on how to throw rocks, but some safety and oversight is fine. Its far better than showing up at the next campout and having the camp director announce, "Rocks are to be left on the ground... any scout picking up a rock and beginning a 'throwing' motion....." See the point? Now - for the 'rock throwing' belt loop and pin requirements.... it can only be earned at a BSA sponsored 'rock throwing' range, etc...(This message has been edited by DeanRx)

Sorry... you'd need to define the 'pornography' and the context before I could comment. Sexting / internet - confiscate electronics (better yet, don't have them at events anyways), call parents and turn Jr and offensive material over to mom and dad, let them deal with it. Last thing I need is an accusation that I as an adult leader was 'looking' at a scout's naked girlfriend on his iPhone. Print media - confiscate, again turn over to mom and dad, let them deal w/ it. Language, symbols, hand-signals, cartoons, hand drawings, etc... I'd start w/ a "knock it off", followed by a SM conference with the offender. My point is - there's a BIG difference between surfing for hard core porn on an iPhone, a scout showing up at camp with a Playboy / Maxim magazine, and a scout drawing a rough 'nude' stick figure in the sand with a stick. I'd make the case that there is a HUGE difference in the type of print media alone. SI swimsuit issue is not the same as a Hustler, etc... How you react to each and the discipline that follows should not be universal. Any occurances would be a very good reason to have a group discussion about porn, the dangers involved, WHY its offensive to some, WHY its contrary to the scout law and oath, how it can affect a man's view of women and the impact of that, why it is or is not degrading, etc... If I ever suspected sexting, camera phone issues, etc... (heck even if you didn't suspect it), perhaps it would be a good topic for a police officer to cover BEFORE its an issue... make it part of the annual YPG training (it could happen to me - type thing). While serious, most teens don't understand until its too late how much trouble sexting can be. Back when I was a kid, it was the 19 y/o who knocked up his 17 y/o girlfriend and got charged with child rape. Now its kids getting charged w/ proliferation of child porn. They need to be informed of the risk, best if that can happen BEFORE an incidence occurs. We teach fire safety, we teach totin' chip, we teach water safety. We do not wait until a scout gets burned, cut, or drowns to address the issue. I say be positive and proactive and it should be a non-issue for the unit. With that said - any blatant disregard or repeat issue would be grounds for explusion from the unit. That decision, I would task to the unit committee.

I'm not sure 'mandatory' is the right word here... how about 'strongly encouraged'. If these are the only two things the CO is really asking of the unit and gives in both time, meeting space, and maybe even money to the unit... its not too much to ask for the unit leadership to strongly promote participation. There's a HUGE difference in, "Well, we're going to do this... but its not mandatory...." and then an adult leader is seen standing on the sidelines during the event. Versus... , "This is an important event. It shows our patriotism, it is really the only thing our CO asks of us, and its important to be there to show respect for our country's veterans, especially those who died for this country. Besides, its good community PR for the unit. I'd really like to see as many people there as possible..." Neither statement says anything about it being optional or mandatory... yet they set very different expectations for the level of participation.

I see a few things impacting BSA's ability to recruit and retain: 1) While the core values of the organization are what draws many a family (i.e. a parent that wants their son in scouting), a couple core values can drive people away. The gay intolerance issue (while I support it) must have an honest appraisal as to its impact on membership. Couple this with the religious aspects (again, something I like and support), and scouting to the outsider can easily appear to be a middle-class, Christian guided, youth organization. Even if folks don't have strong opinions one way or another on these issues, many will shy away from an organization that has recurrent "lightning rod" issues in the press. Homosexuality and atheism are constant BSA lightning rods in the media wether BSA wants it to be or not. I'm not sure how to fix this, but one must acknowledge the impact. 2) People are AFRAID of the outdoors. PLain and simple. A good number of folks in the past 25 years have given in to the idea that the outdoors are best enjoyed in a well lighted, well maintained, city park or organized sports field, not camping and God forbid in the backcountry. A lot of people have the mentality that if the critters don't get you, the boogey man will. Nature has been marginalized into something to be put behind a glass window and viewed from afar... either because its inherently dangerous, OR because over-zealous environmentalists have convinced us that nature is best left alone by us humans, because all we do is destroy it and mess it up. Its the boogey-man, carbon footprint mentality. I've seen it 1st hand. People (mostly parents) physically AFRAID to hike through waist high bushes on a single track trail, because something is lurking in the weeds, or they'll get poison oak, or they don't want to trample the environment more than they already have. This is a societial shift to city living that started in the 50's and continues to accelerate today. Not sure how you fix that one either - but I vote NOT to move away from the OUTing in scouting. 3) In my short time in the cubbie world, it has become apparent that a couple things tend to pull Web-II away from scouting. First, Jr. High is when boys get REALLY serious about sports or other school activities. Before that, if you miss a game on rec league to go to scout function, no big deal... you skip a practice to make a scout meeting, and you ride the pine at the next game. Jr High age becomes a time when many kids have to start making choices about what they want to be in and what they want to excel at. Sports glory (or the faint prospect of it) is a HUGE draw that BSA really can't compete with. No one grows up to make Eagle, become the next Man Vs Wild and ink a multi-million dollar deal with TLC. Yet many see sports as a possible career choice, very early on in life. Parents see sports as a potential college scholarship at the very least. Second, Webelos is a limbo rank IMHO. They are not old enough to do many of the higher adventure BSA things, but they are old enough to think the games / crafts done by the Tigers and Wolves are completely lame and boring... so why hang around? To me - cubbies is highly focused on family and younger scout activities. Webs are trying to get away from their parents and they need big adventures to hold their attention. Many units do a poor job of realizing this. Its almost as if Cubs need to tailor a more robust and challenging program for the webs, so they don't get bummed out doing 1st or 2nd grade activities in 6th grade. Personally, I think BSA needs to focus more time, energy, and $$ into revamping the ADVENTURE in late cubs and early Boy Scouts and less on marketing. Build a strong program and it'll recruit for itself. Yes, there are many reasons that we loose Web-II aged boys, but we need to make sure that the program controls those varibles it can in the equation. I fear the G2SS and litigation fears have done much (and will continue to do much) to attenuate the "adventure" aspects of scouting, especially for senior Webs and Tenderfoots. They're looking for excitement and a sense of risk-taking. We need to make sure the program provides such things with appropraite oversight for safety. Build it and they will come (or stay).