fred8033

Thank you. The rare useful comment by someone who stays on topic.

I absolutely enjoy the company too. It's the "far away" that I rarely see.

We filled out the paper one for every trip we went on ... I hope. I only did the camping paperwork a limited amount of the time. But I remember seeing it in with the stack of health forms. Always a pain as 30% of the time we were camping at scout camps and they wanted the tour permit for scout camps too. I have faint recollections of an online version, but it would have been a very short time window. Less than a year. My recollection was a council signed tour permit was explicit evidence (aka liability) of the council agreeing the leaders had a good plan and were qualified to do that activity. Thus, the tour plan approval was eliminated.

Yep. It happens. I cringe every time added hoosp are explained as life lessons or helping them with a future objective. If a scout comes asking for a proposal approval, scouters should be friendly, courteous, kind and supportive. A pet pieve is when scouts are forced to face a Eagle project proposal BOR. It's supposed to be a friendly discussion. Proposal reviews are NOT a BOR that helps scouts prepare for their EBOR. Exactly. Let your SM be your advocate. It's not your place to correct misdirected adults. But if you can, congrats. It's a valuable skill. On the other hand, imbalances of power are best left to your SM. They must. But you will have to appeal up to get tings corrected.

I don't remember that. Here's the only legacy versions I could find. http://www.troop880.com/PDF Forms/LocalPermit.pdf https://www.jerseyshorescouts.org/files/2003/Tour-Plan-Form-pdf The only reference to ratios or a 10 limit vehicle limits for transporting scouts. That's a driving issue, not a camping issue. Most of our weekend camps are within an hour drive. It's usually easy to get drivers.

Maybe we don't have enough trees.

"In the field" ??? ... Most troops I know camp "mostly" at scout camps, state parks or something similar. Camps filled with support if truely needed. I'd agree that backwoods activities require a different level of support ... potentially. But even then, I've seen eight scouts and three adults do a long hiking trip multiple time. It really depends on the situation. I've camped with 30+ scouts multiple times with just one or two other leaders. It's not tha big of a deal. Yeah, two does feel thin at times. Having one or two extra is fine and nice so that you can play Hearts or able to play cribbage when one of the adult is napping. I'm really trying to draw the distinction between a limited set of adults and 10+ adults on a camp out. You just don't want that as the normal pattern. It hurts the nature of the program. This thread is really about advancement function and whether an ASM can perform much of that role. ... I'm not sure how we changed topics ... I suspect I'm the guilty party ...

Five years ago, we did a high adventure. Two adults. Eighteen scouts. The high adventure camp staff treated our troop like all stars for letting the scouts enjoy their own trip and minimizing the adults. ' I'd encourage every troop to consciously work to minimize the adults on the camp outs. It is a youth program.

Scout camps have a ranger on-site with a house usually within a mile and other troops are near by. Most state parks have 911 coverage, other campers and county sheriffs respond quickly. If you have scouts with special challenges, the situation changes. And then I'd really ask the question ... are you comfortable taking responsibility for that specific scout? At that point, I'm not sure any number of adults will help ... unless you require the parent to attend. In my 15 years of troop camping, we've camped with 30+ scouts and two adults about five or six times. It worked great. I also found scouts avoided the adults much less and stayed together more. .... Most campouts were 3 to 6 adults. It was okay. ... The worst campouts were always when we had 10+ adults or a ratio of 1 adult to 3 scouts or 1 adult to 2 scouts.

Insane? Legal liability? We empower scouts with stoves, axes, knives, rifles, etc. We take them out into the wilderness (usually a state park or scout camp) with weather, animals, etc. If you want to avoid liability, don't volunteer anywhere. We do have G2SS to explicitly follow and parents sign waivers for each campout. Beyond that, I'm not sure having extra adults would really help with liability. Would it prevent incidents? Probably not. Would it help when incidents happen? Maybe. That's why 3 or 4 adults can be nice, but it's just not that critical.

Yeah, that's pretty normal. Though I support the BOR rule, I find hypocracy in the requirement that BOR can't have SM or ASMs. Often committee members interact with the scouts more than ASMs (who can't be on BORs). That seems wrong and breaks the idea that you want someone separate to judge program quality. "Ideally", scouts work with scouts. SM is the liason to the adults. ASMs support the SM. The SM/ASM side interacts with the scouts. ... committee members don't. I've seen way too many troops where ASM seems like an entry level spot that will eventually step up to a functional committee role such as advancement, treasurer, etc. The best camp outs I've seen are where we have two adults and the scouts. Even when it's been 30+ scouts. I wish the BOR rule was ... BOR can only be staffed with people who don't interact with the scouts. (camping, advancement, etc)

This is not a live or die issue. Scouters can be flexible on this. BSA does clearly intend the Advancement Chair is a member of the committee. BSA then again, BSA also clearly intends the SM is the person who interacts with the scouts. ASMs support the SM. ... aka ... committee members don't work with the scouts. Yet, I continually see the committee members interacting with youth and pretending to be SM/ASMs. Perhaps, committee members should not camp with youth. Not attend troop meetings or PLCs. Not make announcements to scouts. Seriously, this would be good. It's the SM with his ASMs that should be working with the scouts. Quality control? The BOR is the quality control check, not the advancement chair. See below duties. If you really want a separation for quality control, then separate the committee members from the scouts. Huge benefits here in many ways. Stop having committee members camp with the scouts. Stop having them in the room during troop meetings, activities or doing announcements. Far too often, the BOR members behave exactly like a troops ASMs and then put the committee member hat on for the BOR. I learned from the above linked Committee Guidebook years ago. Advancement Duties: Encourage Scouts to advance in rank. ... Perfect for an ASM. Work with the troop scribe to maintain all Scout advancement records. ... Perfect for an ASM. Arrange quarterly troop boards of review and courts of honor. Develop and maintain a merit badge counselor list. ... Perfect for ASM as SM gives a suggested MBC name. Make a prompt report on the correct form to the council service center when a troop board of review is held. ... Now ScoutBook. Secure badges and certificates. ... Order online. Delivered before next meeting. Work with the troop librarian to build and maintain a troop library of merit badge pamphlets and other advancement literature. ... Perfect for ASM. Report to the troop committee at each meeting. ... I usually see many SM/ASMs at commmittee meetings ... not all, but many. My thoughts are ... Do what you need to make your troop work. Don't overwhelm one volunteer with too much work. Clearly assign responsibilities. Who buys the advancements? Who encourages the scout? Who works with the scout master of ceremonies to put a program together for the next court of honor ? Who ###, etc, etc, etc ? BOR members must NOT be a SM or ASM from the same troop. Can be SM/ASM of another troop, but not the scout's troop. Personally, I'd go further and say not any adult that regularly interacts (attends mtgs, camps, activities, etc) with the youth in the troop. One option ... split the advancement chair job into two roles. One scout facing (ASM) and one committee facing (MC).

Such weeks bring smiles for months / years.

I am strongly leaning in the same direction. This may be my opporunity to find somewhere else to spend my time. I was hoping to do far more than 20 years as a volunteer, but this September is 20 years since I brought my first son to his first meeting and bought him his orange Tiger t-shirt and hat. Perhaps, it's time to move on. I was glad to see many of the recent membership policy changes. But it has been 20 years of issues starting first with 1999 Dale vs BSA. Now yet another self-inflicted issue ... and this one very political.

The issue was the statement on facts. There are many "facts" out there. The question is which facts do you choose to emphasize and which do you ignore.

Value statements such as the above are usually not political. The daily application can be political. How it's taught especially now is usually very political ... especially now.

Very well said and I understand. It's why I'd like to see a separate adult leader requirements guide. Let's put the intent and legalese details in that document. I just want writing the scouts will really read.

I do agree with Barry on this. I'd like to see at minimum half the MBs for rank be electives. Let the scout explore and choose their path. Isn't that a key part of scouting? Further, I've never liked the huge overlap between MBs and rank. This is true with cooking, physical fitness, camping, first aid, communication. I'd rather see "rank" be about the core of being a scout. MBs be about the scout choosing to explore the world. "REQUIRING" MBs seems like a contradiction. Maybe some required as they don't fit in "RANK", but let's reduce the huge overlap. Just to repeat my long-standing requirements protest. Let's re-write requirements to be worded for scouts, not lawyers. Since I've joined, the number of words have doubled and become so contractual that scouts are not reading the requirements themselves. Re-write the words for the scouts. Add an interpretation guide for the adults. We already have a platform in the annually published BSA MB requirements booklet.

Proably best for me to back out of this discussion. My views and frustrations with this badge are well known. I just don't want to promote the badge. I agreed to get my sons into scouting to learn camping, outdoor activities and some amount of self-reliance. Glad it was a chance to build friendships. I was 100% ok with the citizenship and patriotism. Religious parts were fine and I'm glad they were there, but it was not a driving part. This badge crosses the line into politics. It's not for me or my time.

Not a activity or basic learning. Camping and cooking are explicit core activities our scouts do continually. Exposing political views is not an activity or part of the core program. Further, D,E&I focuses on teaching views. Should we make the Scout Oath and Law a merit badge?

Agreed. Eagle is just not that important. Our scouts benefit from hiking, camping, service projects, etc. As much as I've helped a huge number of scouts earn Eagle, ... it's just not that important. I've wanted my sons to get Eagle not because it's a huge achievement or they will grow from it that much. I've wanted them to earn it because then they are stuck for the rest of their lives living up to that image of an Eagle scout.

So, thru work I've taken 30 years worth of annual training on non-discrimination. As part of interviewing and hiring, I've had to take additional training. Can I use all that 30 years worth of training and experience to be vetted? Or is it something more. ... sounds like vetting will be a form of discrimnation.

It's easy to be anti-trump. I'd say the guy is a putz, but that would be too generous. America is pro-inclusion from the heart of the Constitution. Absolutely agreed that we need to listen to all sides. My experience though is that these are such heated discussions that we can't openly discuss without breaking relationships. Isn't it the old adage to never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table? But we think it's the safe place in scouting to do that? Reverse discrimination. Identity politics. Failure of the drug war. Breakdown of the nuclear family. Failure of progressive policies --> example federally backed college loans have exploded the cost of college and created a new expectation that to earn a liveable wage you have to have a college degree.

Well said .... I'd upvote your post, but I fear the last statement. Exactly how it should be. Keep leader politics out of scouting. Exactly how it should be. Activities over sit-down meetinsg or power-point merit badges. IMHO, there is little place in scouting for power-point and lectures. ... Perhaps we should adopt a rule from my work about daily status meetings. Applied to scouting, all scouting lectures / teaching should be done with everyone STANDING, huddled together. It encourages lecutres to be five minutes or less so that scouts can get back to being active. Many recent changes were about making scouting neutral. Membership changes were pretty much exactly about that. Let the charter org use the membership policies that reflect their values. The result I've seen is that even the most conservative charter organizations are open to all scouts and the membership changes have not affected the program. Absolutely agreed. There is a direct inference that our scouting unit and myself have been discriminatory, racist and bigoted. Even further, I would be extremely offended if this MBC requires a different vetting for the MBC than other merit badges. I pushed to keep my sons in scouting and my wife really wanted each to earn Eagle. In hind sight, I continually wonder if I should have let them drop and find other activities as they matured and had bad experiences in scouting. I talk about the value of sleeping in a tent you setup yourself. In parallel, there is extreme value in choosing your own path. Each has had a different path. Each has benefited significantly, but three of the four also had at least one year where they did not want to be there anymore. Two sons had great patrols that mostly stuck together until 18 and are life-long friends. I also wonder about why not Disabilities Awareness being a required MB. Each and every scout will encounter multiple scouts with ADHD, etc, mental and physical disorders. Why is Disabilities Awareness not a required MB ? Be careful. This is exactly the sterotyping and labeling we must avoid always. Protesters and movements have absolutely valid issues. All protesters and movements are not criminals anymore than all cops are bastards. These are extremely hard, complex, ugly issues that should NOT be brought into scouting.

Maybe not pencil whip, but they will add their views, opinions and twists on it. If I look at the mix of scout leaders that I know, they help all and are very equal minded people. BUT, they are old-fashioned and take more direct action. The more I think about this, perhaps BSA and I are headed in different directions. I'm 100% supportive of teaching scouts by example; using Scout Oath and Law as fundamental principles. Scouts learn a huge amount by having to sleep in a tent they setup and having to cook and clean their own meals. Outside activities are a great teaching mechanism. I'm 100% supportive of helping all and treating each other equally. But, I don't think focusing on labels and words we've never used before is a good mechanism or something I want to promote. Maybe I'm just sensitive to this. I just experienced nine months of people calling all cops bastards and accusing the right of violence when the left was violent, censoring and intimidating.