Eagledad

I’m not a professional. I’m an old time retired scoutmaster with passion for the traditional patrol method program. I’ve been very critical of the recent changes, including admitting gays and transsexuals. Not because I have phobias, I believe I’m more compassionate for these kids. But National is putting volunteers in the position of encouraging behaviors that these youth may regret when they mature into adults. I don’t believe accepting girls 14 and younger is good for the program because it will take away from the boys at a National level. It doesn’t matter if some troops are totally male, National will have to direct the whole program as mixed genders. Girls and boys don’t mix well in a patrol method type program before reaching puberty because boys generally think in the big world picture while girls are very detailed oriented. Patrol method works for boys because they are forced to build habits of working details. Girls, by instinct, won’t let them do that without heavy adult interference. None of that works well in a patrol method program. But, I’m also pretty good at looking at things pragmatically. What I posted is an honest assessment of what I see coming based from observations of the program and National for the last roughly 50 years. Troops will become adult run after school camping programs and eagle factories. The addition of girls will bring in more adults without a scouting experience, and those adults typically push advancement the hardest over the other methods. They can’t help themselves; they don’t know how to do the other scouting stuff very well, but they know how to follow a checklist. It’s human nature. Barry

The next four years will be interesting to watch. The BSA looses around 50% (give or take) of Scouts crossing over to troops. Actually I believe it’s slightly more with crossovers who join troops but never show up. Those numbers don’t count as dropouts until next rechartering. Anyway, the main cause of the large drop out is a boring program. But the girls, and parents of the girls, have a different motivation for crossing over. I have said for many years that parents have a lot of say in their kids staying in scouting. More so at the cub ages, but a significant amount at the troop age as well. If you want to keep the youth, build a program that appeals to parents. We have seen even on this forum a lot of adult energy for girls in the program, so I don’t see a boring program holding them back. Eventually the passion and energy of the new program will settle down and balance back to the quality of program content. I’m curious how the numbers will fall. I believe family scouting will change the present troop program a lot. Not so much in written program structure, but more of how the adults will interrupt implementating the program structure. Personally, I believe the troop program will morph closer to a Webelos III. But, if that style of program keeps the parents more energized, then a Webelos III may not be bad when National’s main objective is maintaining BSA numbers. We’ll see.(I need a popcorn eating emoji) Barry

I got to hand it to you CP, you are consistent. Your creatively stretched reasoning reminds me of Evil Knievel jumping the Grand Canyon. And when creative reasoning doesn't work, intimidate change with threats. Yep, sounds very inviting. Barry

I didn't imply anything. I asked a question that would simply guide a frame of thought in working with Den Chiefs. A lot of times scouts of this age have a different perspective of the responsibility than the Den Leader, pack leaders and Scoutmaster. Den Chief is a lot of responsibility for both the Troop and Pack and how the scout perceives that responsibility is important or for both units. A negative experience can hurt the troop program a lot if the pack has a bad experience. So, how the SM guides, coaches and mentors Den Chief is important. Barry

Good post. I believe "reasonable" is a good base for judging performance. The struggle for many of us is the individuality of each scout in their effort to perform. I'm not one who cares one way of the other about "adding requirements" because I respect the challenge of judging a scouts performance. But, I do like to caution scouters that as soon as a fixed rule is set in stone, it will be challenged with an unexpected situation. It's great to add a hard expectation to draw lines between success and failure. But at the same time, these rule often restrict creativity of unusual situations. I typically ask adults, what is the troop gaining by adding requirements like the 50% meeting rule. I mean really, how did they come up with that number. But, I understand that some added rules or guidelines are needed for a unit to move forward, especially new units. However, at some point the unit should mature past the added rule and used their hard earned wisdom to judge individual effort. I had a 15 year old Life Scout volunteer to run a Boy Scout Skills day for a Webelos leader who had requested it. He knew exactly what to do and was excited about it. But, he informed me two weeks before the event that he couldn't be there. However, he promised he would make sure the event would occur as planned. And it did. The Den Leader said her scouts loved it. Now, was that scout irresponsible by not showing up to an event he promised to lead, or should he be complemented for his performance delegating, training, and planning a very successful activity. By the way, the scout didn't ask for, nor did he, recieve any credit for the activity. Well, I did brag about him a lot. His dad is my neighbor and is a little tired of hearing about it after 20 years. That scout has two kids now after all. Still....... When general rules are set for groups of individuals, individuality will eventually force the rule to get in the way of the main objective. Our troop pushed the PLC to take as much responsibility as possible, so they also would set rules like the 50% rule, or discipline rules, or something to help them in their responsibilities. But as the scouts learned and matured, the rules were replaced with wisdom. Always keep and open mind so the path to the goals is always clear. Barry

LOL, ok ok. Seems folks are afraid of the big questions. Maybe one of the hardened adults has an opinion. Barry

I'm not judging, so don't take this question in that context; How do you answer to the "adding requirements" question? Barry

I'm curious, how would you as a SM feel about the scout if he considered his responsibility with the den was completed after 4 months? Barry

Boy, if this requirement is challenging, .......... The struggle with legalism is that it distracts away from the true intention of the requirement. Remember, scouting is about growth of character and integrity. Don't concern yourself with the details so much that you can't see the benefits of the responsibilities. Learn from the scout how he served. When the SM ask the questions in the right manner, the scout feels encouraged to brag about their experience. Along with a quick call from the Den leader, you will have more than enough for a productive SM Conference. By the way, the way our troop sets up Den Chief's duties is we start with training them with the Den Leader together. It doesn't take very long (an hour) because all we are really doing is setting the expectations for each of them. Truth of the matter is Den Leaders are clueless of how to use the Den Chief, so they are very appreciative for the training. The Den Chief is the assistant, but basically runs 80% of the meeting when he gets up to full speed. The Den Leader learns to sit back and actually assist the Den Chief. Works very well once everyone learns the responsibilities and system. Barry

Interesting post, thanks. Mrs. Barry and I brought home a new puppy to replace our Australian Shepard we recently lost to old age. My son brought our 2.5 year old granddaughter over to see the new puppy, but she was suddenly distracted by a ladder I left up after installing a ceiling fan. To her dad's (and grand parent's) surprise, she quickly ran strait to the ladder and climbed halfway up before her dad could get close enough to be a safety net. Later, my son said watching his daughter run to the ladder so quickly was the first time he understood his parent's concerns for when he took off to ride his bike down a hill as fast as he could go, or climb up large boulders at the state park. My response, "your daughter hasn't earned the scar under her chin yet", caught him a bit off guard. He paused for a minute, then smiled and asked her to go play with the puppy. In that moment, the puppy was safer. Thanks again T2eagle, I enjoyed the post. Barry

Good post. My wife broke her ankle on a trail hike near Hana Hawaii. During a frank discussion with the doctor who was treating her, he said his bread and butter where hiking injuries. Tourists come from the mainland with a, what he called, a "Disney Land" frame of mind. Meaning that most tourist from the US mainland are accustomed to sanitized risks. There are many danger signs everywhere in our culture, but liability has forced us to add additional safety with equipment like railings, paved paths, hand holds, and so on, to reduce the risk of accidents. We have become so accustomed to low accident rates as a result of the signs and additional safety that we don't respect the risk they prevent. So, when we tourist from the mainland visit areas outside of the mainland, we assume a higher level of security that isn't there. Thus, the result is a lot of accidents. Our doctor said the Hana emergency rescue professionals risk their lives retrieving many fatalities every year because hikers ignore the many signs that say "Stay on the trail", or "Do not go past this point". Hawaii is a volcanic island of very rough and very sharp rocky terrain, so falling even just a few feet causes a serious enough injury that he said often leads to fatalities because of the time required for rescuers to reach the location. As a youth in scouts, I learned a lot about recognizing dangers in the woods and environments that we visited, and the importance of training for those dangers. I mentioned recently that while I was already a petty good water skier in my youth, the Water Ski MB taught me a lot about boat safety while pulling a skier. I taught those same safety habits to my friends and family over the years. I agree with qwazse that scouting should be the go to program for learning the dangers of the environments we visit and provide the safety training for those environments. Barry

Yes, in an idealistic world. Leaders of a teams focus on the objectives, coordinates the proper resources to the required tasks, and maintains motivation toward the vision of the tasks. Without consistent direction and correction in any of those three processes , the group will tend to stall and sway away from the vision. An observer will note that the most successful organizations are, in one way or another, constantly and continually reminded and motivated toward their objective. Modern communication of emails, tweeter-twaters, texting, and even phone conversations are far more challenging in leading a group to the common task than consistent group meetings. Led properly, meetings require far less of a team members time than one on one coordinating. And, brainstorming is almost nonexistant. Doing ones job without some reminder of the big picture and some realignment of each team members task generally leads to slowed or stalled program. That being said, while I can see the committee members performing their task without guidance for a short time, team leadership should be a priority, one way or another. Barry

As a pilot, aero engineer, licensed aircraft mechanic, flight instructor, and one time EAA member, you touched my soul this morning. Barry

Yes, I've said several times on this forum that I like the idea of the administrative part of the MB process being completely out of the hands of the unit, thus giving the scout more independent control of advancement. I think that was possible 25 years ago, but not with todays youth protection culture. Barry

The white card provides 3 copies, one for the scout, one for the counselor and one to turn into the council. All the scout needs is a copy by the counselor. I like our system better because the scout is done with unit checks after the SM signs it. But that is also what I'm used to. Barry

Hmm. So, would you say then that the 2nd signature is just to prevent the scout from turning in the paperwork to the council by himself. Since I've never used the Blue Card, I'm trying to understand the overall purpose of the 2nd signature? Barry

I don't think there is any official reference that I remember. Our Council uses the White MB Cards that only have one line for the SM signature, which is required before the scout starts working with the counselor. The White Cards don't provide any administrative path for a denial. I always wondered if the 2nd SM signature on the Blue Cards was specifically to provide a path for denial. Once a scout gets the SM approval on a White Card to start working the MB, there is nothing to stop the awarding of the badge after the counselor signs off the completion. Barry

Bash? The thread is one person relaying an account of one adult loosing patience "once" on a younger adult in the troop who had fun and wants to go back. To turn this discussion into more than that is in my opinion an over reaction. In my post, I was just relaying some facts (truths) along with reasonable explanations of those facts. My example wasn't about you and it wasn't about women. It was a bigger picture description about a demographic of BSA adult volunteers who struggled under trying conditions. My career is developing data, analysing it, and recommending changes for improved performance. Honest reliable data tends to show ugly truths. But it is required to implement the correct changes for maximum desired performance. I didn't even give any details in my examples, which are much uglier. If you want the recent major membership changes in the BSA to succeed for the long future, you need to fasten your seat belt and accept whatever truths are required to make that happen. National has proven to be terrible predictors of future program performance, which forces reactionary corrections that are typically very messy. If membership isn't willing to be honest of the causes for program stumbling blocks, they must accept a bad program. I already have. Barry

I'm still thinking about this one. I got my Water Skiing MB when I was 12. I already knew how to ski when I got the badge, what I gained from that experience was better safety as a skier and boat driver. Pulling a skier through rough water or crowded lakes requires specific knowledge and skills to bring everybody back safe. Since many of the propeller accidents are the result of the boat running over the victim, I'm not sure the ends justifies the means. I did notice a new design for ski boats where the propeller is in front of drive putting more under the boat like an inboard drive. That would certainly be safer for ski safety. Barry

I understand, thanks. All of us here on the forum contribute our opinions based from our life experiences and personal principles. I have a lot of experience on this subject, and many similar reflections on this particular situation. So I'm not sure there is anything you could add for me to consider a different opinion. I've been to many many camps. Upon reflection, I believe a camp director would say that they deal with more adult misbehavior at Webelos camps than Troop or high adventure. And, I believe they would admit that the adults they have to call down generally moms. The female biology isn't the issue, the cause is lacking the experience of herding cats for several days in a row in dusty 95 degree heat and eating camp food. Like a good hot sauce, the stress is gradual, but eventually builds up to where the adult leader patience and nerves have been grated down to the nubs of their emotions. Of course men also loose control and have to reined back as well, especialy at the troop level. That's not to say some of adults shouldn't be restricted from personal interactions with scouts. I have experience there as well. And please don't consider that my response is flippant or without some thought. Quite the contrary, my opinion, like yours, came from a heavy price of many years dealing personally with adult behavior. I'm not trying to change your mind, I don't believe I could. I just suggest keeping an opened mind that there are other possiblities. Barry

Peer pressure can have amazing results. What works well is a supportive culture and it sounds like your troop has one. At summer camp I had an adult meeting Wednesday night to remind everyone that stress seems to peak in the middle of the week and to guard ourselves from over reacting. I was speaking from experience. Everyone needs a change to prove they learned from bad choices. Barry

I'm not really worried about the present generation of leaders changing the implementation patrol method. The new membership change will dilute the adult membership pool with more leaders who don't have any patrol method experience. The general expectation of patrol method will change, I think a lot, in a few years. It happened exactly like that when women first joined troops. If one hasn't experienced patrol method, understanding how the method changes and matures a young mind is hard to conceive. It's just hard to believe that it works. Also, just the promotion of a more family program will enable parents to assume they have more authority to drive the program to their way of thinking. The program will have to regress just to survive at a common agreeable objective. Barry

Yes, in most cases there were no hard feelings for us because the scout got what he wanted. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case for Eagle94 as well. The only time I can remember any hard feelings was families where the parents wanted their son to earn Eagle in a certain time frame and had to find another troop that would push their son that fast. Those parents turned away when I ran into them at the store. Barry

These things don't happen in a bubble. You read one post and assume the one scout is the victim and the adult leaders are the bad actors. But just as in my example, these things grow over time to a point of forcing hard choices to be made. Instead of assuming the scout was being forced against his will, maybe you should assume the troop gave in A LOT. Then ask questions to fill in the blanks. You and I clearly have different opinion of when adult leaders should step in. My boy run philosophy is to let situations force choices before the adults get involved, if they even need to get involved at all. Maturity grows from the application of humility when confronting the right and wrong of our choices. In both examples, the parents are the main characters because they are taking the lead in determining what their sons would get out of the program. The troop is the victim by appeasing to a family that doesn't like the program. The adult leaders acted nobly giving the parent time to make their a choice. Barry

That is not a completely fair statement because there is a whole troop of families who want their sons to benefit from the program. The program has goals and processes to reach the goals. Once the quality of the program is diminished by needs of a single family, then choices have to be made. Your troops program isn't for every family. It is OK for families to make the tough choices. Barry