fred johnson

Good discussion above. Exactly right. Another reason some camps or SMs put an age limit, many give up. Most first years don't complete shotgun. Their smaller size makes the challenge much more difficult. And if you don't do it right, it definitely can hurt. We want younger scouts to have positive experiences and to walk away with the MB if possible. So age 14 is listed as a restriction, but it's more of a guide to avoid a bad experience. Personally, I hate when groups add restrictions. I see it all the time. How about just a guidance note saying it's harder for first years

I agree. Conflict, scout behavior or specific incidents ... It's best to address them early. Things fester.

No FOS ?? ... I'll believe that when I see it. Money drives everything.

I love your post in many ways. I agree that Too expensive. I can't afford to have more than one fully assembled uniform. Too decorative to be functional. Poor quality. I've had letters fall off and seams fail. Different versions have been quality hit and misses. Mostly misses. After the Centennial version, I've bought similar looking pants elsewhere. The Centennial pants failed, were replaced and the replacements failed again. Belt failed too. ... And no, not because of my size. Not comfortable to be worn all the time. On really hot days, most versions just don't breath well

The issue I have is with "SM/ASM". It's a minor issue, but key. It's not an interchangeable either/or. "The SM would meet with the scout..." .... "If not, the SM would have to do more prodding." ... It's only when the SM is not available that an ASM needs to do this and even then it's in the exact same mode and same content. And the moment the SM returns, the ASM defers to the SM. The key I'm trying to point out is all leading, prompting, coaching is funneled through the SM whenever possible. I've seen whole weekends where 20 or 30+ scouts only work through their SPL with the SM and th

I think it is fortunate too. Unfortunately, it means some charter orgs might walk away when BSA makes membership policies consistent with the teachings and practices of other charter orgs. That's really this situation. One charter org has a key membership criteria that is not really that important to other chater orgs.

I didn't miss anything. I know what you are saying. And yes at some point, an expert needs to teach the teaching scout so the scout can teach other scouts. I challenge though that it should be an ASM. It could be just an expert parent. It could be almost anyone. The issue I have is referring to ASMs as "self-starters". Perhaps the SM and one ASM have agreed that that ASM helps pick up the trailer from storage, drives it back to storage, locks and unlocks it each night. Beyond that though, there is no need for "self-starters". You need knowledgable people so that if a SM is busy de

"Is this what you see?" Similar, but there is a significant nuance. The idea is the troop committee is involved to make the scoutmaster's job lighter. The committee does NOT interact with the scouts. They interact with the scoutmaster to lighten his load. Similar, ASMs do not ever "guide the scouts". The SM coaches the scouts through asking supporting questions and ASMs support and defer to the SM. IMHO, troop committee and ASMs are very similar. It's just one is behind the scene and the other is visible to the scout (activities, camping, etc). But all interaction with the scout

I'm interested in your view. If LDS used Venturing for years and Venturing allowed girls and LDS simply did not register girls in their Venturing crews, isn't that parallel do how LDS could function if girls were allowed in Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts? Or is it the additional mixed perception (materials, words, etc) that would cause trouble? I know many camps already have LDS only weekends. Going to state parks and other areas are already co-ed type of events. I'm just curious. This is always the challenge. Most churches have co-ed youth programs. Even my conservative church had co-

I agree. BSA and GSUSA are different programs. Gender membership is one issue, but the fundamentals of the program are very different. BSA should stay focused on the achieving it's goals (physical fitness, citizenship, leadership, etc) through a strong outdoor program. That's why I value scouts. It's not the gender issue. I value having my sons learn through experiences that stretch their comfort zones.

I agree with the idea. IMHO, you need way more on the committee than you do as SM / ASMs.

I strongly disagree. Using your example, I'd view that more as a committee role. Scoutmaster tells committee that the scouts want to do a canoe trip on this date and asks the committee for an experienced canoe person to look at trip plans and provide him information so he can support the scouts and their planning. Maybe, the SM would ask the committee member to mentor the instructors. Maybe serve as an expert for training. But that's 100% through the SM. Beyond that, a good ASM shouldn't do squat. It defeats the scouts taking initiative and defeats the SPL working with the SM.

BSA is not trying to take over GSUSA. BSA has had a huge membership drop and they are competing with many other organizations for participants. We are lucky that given the huge membership drop that 50% of the camps have not closed. If it continues, BSA won't be able to afford it's own infrastructure. GSUSA and BSA have never had a healthy relationship and have never been interested in working together. GSUSA leaders (professional and volunteers) for a long time have snubbed BSA leaders as participating in a out-of-date, discriminatory program. I find the GSUSA letter to be protesting

I always thought the "Cub Scout" program resembled the Girl Scout program. Seriously. Crafts. Go-see-its. Minor camping.

It's funny how people flip flop and then reverse accusations that could easily be said about the speaker. For decades, GSUSA has allowed GSUSA leader to speak badly about BSA being stuck in the past and have not wanted to coordinate camps, resources or program. GSUSA has represented themselves as more current and progressive and not discriminatory. I remember GSUSA paid employees commenting about BSA and how BSA was discriminatory because of membership orientation policies ... unlike GSUSA which was more accepting. The GSUSA leader accuses BSA of allowing derisive and bad mouthing of

Glad the program is working. I always want to hear about year 6. That's the first boy scout year. Of those 18 Lions, how many will complete year six. My bet is on average 5. Just too much burn-out and re-doing the same thing. Plus, cub scouts is way way more work for the adults than Boy Scouts. I'm really amazed at that. My fear is impact. The Boy Scout program can have a HUGE impact on kids even if they are in it for just a few years. I doubt Cub Scouts has the same long lasting impact that Boy Scouts has.

It really is. You could have a conversation with your sons about how they could help others. About how they could focus on their own progress. About how they could enjoy the program they are in. About how the other scout's path is different and what may appear as easy awards may be equally difficult for him. About how your sons may choose to feel bad for the other scout as he isn't getting a real scouting experience given how much his mother is stepping in. Ultimately, we'll always feel bad or slighted if we measure ourselves against others. Look for the fun and adventure. Ig

I agree. NSP is good in that everyone's joining together and it's a chance for them to have new friends starting at the same point they start at. But if they want different, fine. If they want to switch later, fine. IMHO, the question is why have patrols? Teaching or doing. IMHO, more senior scouts can always mentor younger scouts. I want the scouts to form patrols around those who they want to spend time with and go do things with. I've seen too many times scouts ditch their patrols to hang with their friends or ditch their patrols because the scouts are doing starting-age activi

We've never had a post-project review. In our district, that's the EBOR purpose. I never saw that documented in the process before and definitely not in the GTA now. I've heard of some groups doing this. I always wondered why. Our turn around is now days. Scout is there as proposal is read. Almost always signed at the same meeting. I like this as it keeps the success or failure on the scout and not waiting on another group.

Maybe your district was an ideal district. Our district was a pain before the GTA and eagle workbook were re-done in 2011. In our district, it was one chance to review with district committee per month on a shared date. Scouts had to pre-submit the workbook. Reviewed as a committee without the scout. Then review findings were shared on that shared review date. Get workbook back and make changes. Then, resubmit. It was not uncommon for scouts to go through 3+ months of reviews before being approved to do a project. I remember some taking 5+ months. I still know districts that ev

Your answers are correct, but I'd emphasize we need to follow a consistent direction. If everyone adds their own twist, then expectations keep growing and it's hard for the scout to fulfill a moving threshold of expectations that are not clearly communicated in his scout handbook or in the published Eagle workbook. For #2 ... I'm against trying to make an Eagle project mimic what adults or professionals have to do, but I've seen many times documentation that is much more rigorous in the professional world than in Eagle projects. Eagle projects using the current BSA eagle workbook are

I suspect you know the answer. But to state it, there was huge differences district to district and council to council on what was expected. Perhaps a simple drawing was enough in your area. In our area, scouts were bounced around for months to get approval as their project documentation grew and grew. I've seen scouts take six months of reviews and the project binder routinely be inches thick. I view the current PDF process as pretty innocuous and quick and easy to do. If you protest filling the proposal section out, you'll probably protest anything. The "proposal" section could

ASM's and patrol method are two different issues. You don't need ASM's to make the patrol method work. In fact, too many ASM's subverts the patrol method and the troop. ASMs often feel entitled and look for opportunities to show their value. Often this is in conflict with the scoutmaster and the patrol method. The simple fact is you don't need many adults to take a troop camping. You need drivers, but not camping adults. A small troop of 20 camping needs one SM and one ASM or parent camping. Over 20 scouts, a 3rd camping adult is nice. Over 45 scouts, maybe a 4th adult. As

The workbook PDF was a major step to simplify the process. Maybe the current process is too much, but it's way way more simple than it was six years ago. If the workbook is a problem now, it's because of adults that want to add their contribution to making sure scouts earn Eagle ... and thus making the process more than it was supposed to be.

Yes. This nuance should have been anticipated.