Eagledad

We never sent a scout home, we gave the parent who was asked to come to camp for their misbehaving son, the choice to stay and escort their son to all the activities. Parents always chose to take their son home. But, after the first three years of running our troop, we never had any scouts misbehave that badly. Not sure how but the peer pressure among the scouts matured to a point where that kind of behavior wasn't tolerated. I can't say for sure, but maybe it was because we pushed camp more for fun and adventure and not so much advancement. We also had 90% of our 14 and older scouts go to summer camp up until they aged out. That may account for our lack of bad behavior, I don't know. Barry

Well the Girl Scouts certainly believe that. Even if the discussion were raise to higher level, the BSA and Girls Scouts have an agreement for NOT merging. Something dramatic would have to happen for that to change. Barry

Human nature of boys before puberty is to hang around in herds. The female nature is more independent thinking, so yes they accel in leading up to puberty. However, boys who come from a good leadership program before their puberty are very good leaders after puberty even with females because their more forward nature is equal. But the boys who weren't in good leadership programs are the ones who struggle with their aggressive opposite gender because they simply don't have the skills to lead the group. I don't have a problem mixing the genders after puberty because the basic development of character has been programmed. But that doesn't mean it will be a good mix, hormones are still a problem and should be considered as a very powerful challenge in the development of young adults. One of my boy run mentors that taught me a lot about scouting quit because he grew tired of the challenge. The sexes shouldn't be mixed before puberty because it distract everyone (youth and adults) from the task of building moral and ethical decision makers. I find that two out of three adults who push for mixed scouting are coming from the political correctness agenda, not the character development agenda. Barry

Is that really fair? Tell me what group deserves that kind of discussion, especially with the youth? I have been frustrated many times with the way youth are discussed here when their behavior isn't considered appropriate. Ok, maybe there can be some allowance for bully's and discipline problem scouts, but what about young Eagles or scouts who don't camp much. I could go on, but you understand what I'm saying. I can't believe what adults here will say about these youth. Dangerous Maybe, but certainly terrible. Why must specials rules be set for special groups when it should apply to everyone equally. And, what about discussion of gay adults? How can one be discussed without referring to the other? Lots of slippery slopes that would not be needed if the forum were held to higher standard for everyone. Barry

I'm not close to a good editor, so I'm speaking only from your last two paragraphs. The rest of your post went into left field and spoke of your life or something. Oh I understand, I'm getting old and my responses are getting long and rambly as well.. For the record, my comment that I feel unwelcome here has nothing to do with anything that happen to me personally. It's more of a tone I've notice by all the moderators the few last weeks. The mods seem to be making a more concerted effort to bring the difficult discussions to a conclusion instead of letting the die on their own merits. There is some threatening as well and suggestions of moving on. That in my view is not the job of the moderators. Terry's comments I felt supported that tone.. I've known you Pack for over 15 years, so I know the difference in your personal opinions and your moderating and I felt you did a pretty good of keeping the two separate until lately. I have many times accused your of thinking you are the smartest person inthe room, or discussion. Your magnanimous defense of yourself supports my reasoning and the why I struggle to feel sorry the reprocussions of your positions. You knew exactly what you were doing. My opinion of your moderating lately is that you are so emotionally invested to the subjects of some of the discussions lately that you can't tell the difference between the progress of a discussion from or an endless plodding. Being fair requires an univested pragmatic unbiased approach. You are being hit from all sides because you aren't being fair and you intrude with the wrong reasons at the wrong time. I believe the reason Terry and all the moderators are loosing patience with the discussions lately is because they thought the debate was over when the BSA made the membership policy change. As Pack, Terry (and others) keeps pointing out, we won, you lost, move on. But, that doesn't mean the debate was over, as new members came in and fueled new discussions with old arguments, many of us weren't going to be talked down and insulted. The reasons for opposition to gays are still the same. To many many of us those who believe they are the winners, as pack implies, are still wrong and more youth will suffer than will gain from the change. I don't think things will change until we all feel we are in this together. I don't get that feeling from you pack, the other moderators or Terry that you want that unless it is on your terms. that's why several of the post that stand up for the moderators and Terry feel the need to say they agree with the gay decision. I keep asking myself, why do they feel the need to say that. Can't you see it's devisive? So maybe Terry is right, maybe the only solution to this situation is not allow the discussion. Scouter.com would not be the first forum to remove the politics and religious discussions.

I don't think so Pack, Terry's post is pretty clear that it's us against them, or him and you against us. You only have to compare the active membership between now and the old days to recognize how the forum has changed. Clearly the moderating is part of the problem. When a line is drawn, the one has become two. What, do you really think you could go back to being fair and unbiased like the tone of the forum was 20 years ago? From the beginning you have always played the biased antagonist, was that really the right place for a moderator? When a society or group are unwilling to enforce its untouchable rules of decorum (scout oath and law), then they are stuck with the fallible (emotional) laws of the guy with the most power. Some of us are hurting. Barry

Thanks Matt and well said. I have been here a long time and feel I have contributed a lot, as well as have a lot more to contribute. But I have also never felt less welcome to the forum than in the last couple of weeks. Barry

Why would they, it still says they are not normal in society. They will not tolerate a system that does. Barry

My pack cut out the Tiger program after I left and had just as many scouts five years later. Requires a little more recruiting for wolves, but the benefits of less adult burnout are worth it. Even while I was there we required so little of the Tigers that our numbers increased. This subject is my number one complaint of the BSA.

What about orientation of the scouts? Barry

Yes, you are correct. New staffs of every course have different experiences, goals and approaches to the material provided. I think this is why the WB course before 2000 was abandoned, the staffs got so far away from the objective of the course that it became negative training in some instances. But this is a problem with every training course from unit level to council. Consistency has to be controlled by the training chairman. I've said before that if you want to change a trend among the units in a district or council, change the training chairman because training is where units learn and develop trends. The more a trainer gets away from the material of the course, the more units run into policy and proceedure issues. It is a challenge to develop a course that everyone understands the objective. I created and run a boy run council Junior Leadership Development course that was well liked and considered very successful. But we eventually killed it because it required a good understanding of the boy run concept and very experienced adult troop leaders, which just can't be guaranteed. If a volunteer with one year experience can't be expected to run a course in the BSA, it isn't practical for long term use. Hard lesson learned on my part. Barry

The problem with WB is that the trainers don't understand why the teach the material. The reason tickets loose sight of the objective of running a more boy run program is because the staff approves those tickets. If the staff doesn't get it, how can the participants? You think that would change on a more ground level approach to scouting? I had the responsibility of approving tickets once and I was able to control ticket goals, but very few adults really do get it. In fact, very very few adults understand a ground level boy run program. Some of us here on this forum are legends in our own mind when it comes to a boy run and we don't agree on some specific aspects. So, I don't think you will ever see or get the WB of your dreams. Personally I like the management style of WB because it focuses on setting goals and team building, which I believe are the main causes of broken programs at the three cub, troop and Venture levels. Especially at the Cub and venture levels. If you want to teach more specific basics, then create training that gets more specific. As for what to expect from National in the next couple of years, I shudder to think. I've been very disappointed a lot lately because their changes don't seem to appeal to the heart of ground level scouting. Barry

Hmm, maybe they need to teach me. Service hours are required for rank and yet a BOR would have no trouble accepting that experience as noble even though the scout is required to perform the service. When I was a new scoutmaster, I was not happy about the SPL's performance. Frankly he was not meeting my expectations and it bothered me a lot. I asked the forum how to approach the scout and a very wise SM asked me how the scout felt about his performance. I had not thought of it that way. So I called him up and we met for pizza before the meeting and I asked. He spent the next 15 minute listing out all his accomplishments and skills he was learning in his position. I was very proud of this young man after that dinner. And I was also very humble. I change my way of thinking as a scout leader. I made scouts' performance less personal and more about measuring a scout by his expectation, not mine. It's easy to be critical of scouts' choices in our world, but what about their choices made in their world. If the scout isn't approached carefully, more harm than good could caused. This is not about the service, it is about the scouts choice of NOT presenting the whole story. But in his mind, was he being deceptive? Why don't we ask before we get too wrapped around the axle about this. Barry

Why don't a few adults just sit down with her and have a pleasant chat with her to find out what happen. Everyone has a bad day. If this is just one bad day, sheesh we should all be fired. We have asked parents (and leaders) to stay from scouts, but they were guilty of several incidents. Barry

Washing planes is not the only fundraiser in scouting. I am a cancer melanoma survivor, so scouting activities are challenging for folks like me. I should own a sun screen company for the money I've handed them. I admit that I'm pretty persistent (nagging) at the scouts until they apply sunscreen. You know me, I'm the preacher of learn by your actions, but burning during the youth can have dire consequences. So I nag. You can often here in camp, "put on some sun screen or he will show us his scares again". To the OP, let the scouts do what they want, but keep nagging and nagging and nagging. Barry

I know of two boy scout babies (teens now) as a result of Venture Crew tent mates. Barry

Ironically Stosh your definition of First Class is how it was pushed in the traditional program, but changed when the BSA started encouraging your same age patrols system with the NSP and FCFY program. The natural intuitive result was every scout in the patrol advancing together at the same pace, which disregarded scouts advancing at their own choosing or maturity. Advancement became more about stature and less about development. Sadly the BSA has been changing the requirements to fit a more self-serving marketing agenda instead of a character development agenda. It became obvious for me when they added requirements for Webelos to visit troops and fill out Troop applications. Barry

A scout is courteous. Our troop doesn't have quiet time rules, but there is an expectation of keeping voices low so others can sleep. Usually are SPL takes care of the loud ones because the adults are too far away to really be bothered. Once in a while we have scouts (usually first year) who can't seem to control themselves. When the adults were forced to camp a little closer, I have been known to take these scouts on a little hike in the middle of the night. No lecture or anything like that, I just quietly ask them to put on some walking clothes because we are going on a hike. At the end of the hike I do ask these scouts what part of the scout law was not being used to respect the sleep of the other scouts, and I go back to my tent without waiting for an answer. It's bit of a pain, but it usually fixes the problem for the rest of camp, especially summer camp. As for the scouts being tired and exhausted, that is normal for summer camp. Usually peaks about Wednesday or thursday. I always brief the adults to be ready for some pretty cranky scouts and to just keep a happy face.Adults are tired too, but we try to not to let it get us down or just find a quiet place in camp with a book to get away from it all. Barry

Of course, that makes it easy to disregard. But history of other youth scouting programs show the evidence, so it doesn't require a brainiac to figure it out. Remember the days that posters came on this board pontificating that all the BSA had to do was to be more inclusive to raise the numbers. The few of us who knew the facts and history laughed. Sadly we are right, but we aren't laughing because truth hurts. Far more boys will not get the opportunity to be a scout than those that were saved by self-serving activist. You can say it all you want, but the BSA didn't do this to themselves. The were used for a much bigger agenda. Barry

Ah, it's all about the moderators. You and Pack have been resisting discussions of the big changes, but it's going to blow here eventually. Nothing has been settled, the BSA is now a political badge one must wear if they join. Which is going to drive people to make a choice of not making a choice. It's not worth the hassle anymore. Even you and Pack have to admit the irony of how inclusive policy changes are reducing the size of membership. It seems scouting really isn't for every boy. I'm sure there is a silver lining in there somewhere. Barry

I ran into this at summer camp once. Our troop always does a troop campfire in the middle of the week for our own fun. During the campfire each patrol performs a skit, then the scouts vote for the best skit that will be used at the summer camp campfire. The winning skit had a small part where a doctor has the patient bend over and he simulates doing a proctol exam with his finger. Later that night I visited the SPL and told him that I found that little part of the skit offensive and would rather not see it performed again, especially in front of all the other troops. He was perplexed because he didn't see it as being offensive at all. He said he would bring it up at the PLC meeting and let me know. The whole PLC agreed with him. I asked him if he would allow that in front of his mother and sister, he had not thought of it that way, but he still didn't think it offensive. I asured him that the decision was up to him, but I was offended. It bothered me for the next couple of days because I wanted boy run to work and I felt this was a test of it. At dinner before the camp fire, the SPL approached me and said that they change that part of the skit because if one person was offended, that was one too many. And he walked away. But I have never felt more proud as a SM than that moment. As for the skit, they replace the finger with a fake syringe so that the doctor was giving a shot instead of proctol exam. Our Troop got a standing ovation for the skit, something I have never seen before. So, it was a good night all around. My point is that the scout law is to be applied to everyone. It doesn't matter if only one person is offended, as the SPL said, one is too many. Barry

I know this doesn’t directly contribute a lot to Eagle94’s OP, but it stirred up a lot of memories. Watching adult volunteers over the years I've come to realize how fragile the program is. We watch the politics, the angles, and the games adults play to our frustration, but it doesn't take much to upset the present trend. Businesses survive or fail by the quality of their product. If an employee is the cause of poor quality, then our culture expects and understands when they are asked to move on. But volunteer organizations are desperate to keep the program moving, even it that movement is going backwards. We are pretty much left (stuck) with who we get and as a result you would be amazed with the acceptance of really bad volunteers. I mean I have seen some horrible volunteerism accepted by the masses just because nobody else is willing to just say "no, that is stupid". Ok, stupid is unscout-like, but you know what I mean. A long time ago while I was on the district committee, I learned that the adults in our districts 2nd largest troop turned a blind eye to the PLC using hazing to drive out the weaker scouts. Nobody seemed to care because the troop had a good reputation on the whole and their adults volunteered for a lot of district activities. But I guess it got to me because when I bumped into one of their ASMs at the scout store one day, I quietly and politely let him know that I knew it was going on. I can't say our discussion is the reason, but the SM suddenly retired within 6 months and the hazing stopped. But come on, that went on for years. Bad acting goes on all the time from the Cubs down to council level because the show must go on. I've worked with a lot of scouting professionals and some aren’t very good, but I developed a respect for them because they have to deal with really bad volunteers every day. If you could follow a DE around for one day, you would understand. If you don't see the DE very much, it is likely because you have a sound program and their efforts are needed else where. However, as I said the system is fragile and can change quickly. Good or bad, typically adults with strong personalities change the routine at all levels of the program. I have caused change myself at all levels of the program many times. The reason it is so fragile is because 90% of volunteers are followers and/or don't like confrontation. So when a strong personality gets in the mix, they generally will change things up a little. That can be good or bad depending on the person. But I see it over and over as I observe the program. Consistent training is the best way to resist a fickle program. That is why you see me call out extreme untried philosophies on this forum. As the pros have shown me, a little of the bad is acceptable so that the good can move forward because there isn’t enough time in the day to fix every problem and make every program perfect. So they apply their energy where it can have the most positive effect. Usually in the long run it eventually balances out. We all hope that adults eventually get it and things turn around, but sadly my experience is adults don’t change and we have to wait for the circle of life to come back around to make the fix. Likely this SM won't change and the program will suffer until a new volunteer takes over. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to get rid of bad volunteers, but they are like trying to untangled a child's fingers from fly paper. Get this, I even tried to kill a troop once with the objective of starting it back up again with a new committee. Even with some support from the DC, we couldn’t pull it off and the troop still struggles with the same committee 20 years later. Shesh. My apologies to Eagle94 for my wandering off and venting. Barry

And that is important. We found that while they are a bit of pain, pump filtration filters the most water the fastest. Boiling is faster for the amount of water, but that requires fuel for stoves in areas where weren't allowed fires. We take tablets for back up. One thing for sure, practice using whatever system you choose before the trek. I can remember one trek where we spent more time reading the instructions than purifying the water. Barry

Boy, you got some really good suggestions. Swearing is a problem because the adults don't see it as a problem. Like qwazse, there is no swearing in our troop because the the SM stops it every time. But you have to approach it differently because of your adults. As was said by one of the wiser SMs here, if a couple other members of the PLC agree with you, then get the PLC to set some standards for the scouts. Once you do that, then ask the SM and CC to meet with the PLC and ask them to hold the adults accountable to the same policy. As for too many adults, distance is how our troop handles that. We don't set limits on who can attend campouts, but we put enough distance between scouts and parents that it is difficult for them to interfere. Again, the SM can help here by guiding the parents to observe at a distance. That may also help the scout problem you mentioned as well. He is using his parents to get what he wants over the PLC. Given enough distance, the scout and parents will have to make a choice for him to either grow up, or not. Sounds like you have a pretty good troop. I don't have a feel for how your SM leads, but if he is willing to listen to a strong PLC and help you guys in your request to improve the program, you can lead in these changes. Barry

Yes, same thing with cleaning fish, it takes a lot of scrubbing to get rid of that smell. The blueberries were so thick in the Boundary Waters one year that we actually brought enough home to freeze and enjoy for a year. The Canadian ranger (Mounted Police?) told us that bear problems are rare when the blueberries are out because they fill their bellies with them. I don't know, we still played it safe. Barry