fred8033

I've noticed that the cheap and intellectually lazy way to argue is to call someone else a bigot. I'm not perfect, but I try to avoid that threshold. Hard not to as though as you get upset with the opposition being unreasonable. IMHO, credibility is lost by the 1st person to accuse the other of being a bigot. Same as swearing, insulting or physical violence ... you lose.

You are facing a very stiff up-hill struggle. You might want to re-think what is best for the remaining boys in the unit. ----------- I've seen Kudu's presentation web page in the past. Great idea. The challenge is getting it in front of middle age youth. IMHO, if you have a chance of doing it anywhere, you have a chance doing it at churches or at your charter org. Our schools wouldn't let us do it at a school event. If flyers get lost / ignored, youth won't get to the presentation anyway. ----------- Ask your pastor if you can stage Kudu's presentation at the church for after each and every service for two weeks. Ask for a small room that people have to walk by on their way in and out of the church. Bring the canoe too.

Need to be slightly more specific. Troop and crews run programs differently. --- "Function as one unit" can mean different things. --- "Meet at the Same time and Place?" can mean different things. --- "unit" can mean different things... even though BSA has clear meaning being a pack, troop or crew Generally... IMHO... You can meet at the same time and place, BUT at minimum you'd need two different large rooms and a few other smaller rooms. One for the troop to run their program. One for the crew to run theirs. IMHO, you don't need to meet at the same time and place to work as one unit. But when I say "unit" I view unit as the charter org providing a youth scouting program. IMHO, pack, troop, crew are scouting program levels. And I'd add Webelos to that list as a separate program level.

Qwazse is right Merlyn. You hypocritically hide behind the banner of tolerance and then shout that everyone needs to believe the same as you. Bigot? Really? Many of us cherish scouting because it does have a faith element to it. It's not thrown in your face and many barely notice it, but it is present and an important part of the program. I'm not much for big camporee events. But if you choose to attend faith components... There is something very special about sitting on the grass Sunday morning with the wind blowing thru the trees and being together with hundreds of others for an inter-faith service to reflect and pray. Or at summer camp at a late Sunday afternoon mass with the lake water rolling onto the beach. Or the rained out service that gets relocated into the dinning hall. Scouting has always had a major faith element to it. You have a choice whether you participate in the faith components and you have a choice whether you participate in scouting, but you can't use scouting as a platform to advocate atheism and expect to be considered a member in good standing. Tolerance is working side by side. Camping side by side. Helping each other. Without demanding each other change. In our city, many of the churches work together on basic humanist project such as food shelves, homeless shelters and protecting the vulnerable. All churches I know welcome others being present at their church services. But as a member of my church, I cant use their church to evangelize my faith. Its really the same things with scouts. Belief in a higher power is a core element. You can personally believe different and participate. Thats tolerance. But you cant use scouting as your platform to advocate the opposite. That just not smart.

.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Outdoors: "I find that highly offensive." That's funny. .... Your point is ???? .... Scouting without a component of faith is just camping. You can have all the virtues you want, but without a component of faith, it's just not scouting. That's why Eagle rank accepts Chaplain Aide as a position of responsibility to fulfill requirements. ... I pray that BSA never goes the path of YMCA. I find it hard to walk into our local YMCA these days as the ones in our city have had the crosses removed and have been rebranded "The Y". Go on their web sites and you see a whitewashed history that talks about being formed to promote positive values. That's a half truth at best. The first YMCA organization was started as a Christian bible study to keep young men away from sin. Every YMCA until the last few decades has had Christianity in it as part of the program. I'm against the YMCA as much as I'm incredibly sad when I think what a great organization it once was. I'm sad because they choose to remove Christ from the title. BSA is more inclusive then the YMCA was, but I pray BSA does not go down the same road. If nothing else, let the unit charter organizations choose. If sponsored by a church, why not let the church include a component of faith. If ya don't like it, find a scouting unit sponsored elsewhere.

scoutingagain is correct. All these controversial topics on this forum rarely come up in the units. The most controversial thing in units is usually how to work with the scouts, how to discipline, etc. In fact, most of us try to pull the controversial topics (both sides of the discussion) OUT of scouting.

trailwalker... just following track of posts. Just looked logical. My apologies. CalicoPenn... Get a grip.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

trailwalker = Merlyn LeRoy.... ZZZZZzzzz....(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Units don't work together today mainly because they are taught and structured to be separate units and the BSA documentation emphasizes the pack committee / program and the separate troop committee / program and yet another separate crew program. It's nearly impossible to "LONG TERM" on-your-own work-together because we send our leaders to training and roundtable. BSA teaches differently and structures the paperwork differently. Everytime our unit leaders get training, we'd have to de-program them and teach them our flavor of scouting. They are just as likely to become oppositional as to follow the program. ===================== In all our years as a pack, I've only seen one or two families leave the pack to switch to another pack. I've never seen a boy scout leave our troop for another troop. If personalities can get along for the five years of cubs and then the seven years of boy scouts, it seems reasonable that things could continue to work. I just don't see what's so special about a Webelos transition. Period. Why not after Tiger? Wolf? Bear? 2nd class? 1st class? Star? Life? IMHO, that Webelos transition creates way way more problems then it solves and it's only needed because the pack and the troop under the same COR opperate as separate units. That's the root of the problem. Pull them together and you solve many issues.

SeattlePioneer - What you describe is well meant, but fragile and doesn't go the extra mile. Your fighting against the Webelos program that tells dens to visit multiple troops and to shop around. One bad event and the Webelos den decides to go elsewhere. Then, your troop begins to fight for survival by recruiting Webelos from other packs or other sources ... and thus subverting any continuity that those packs and associated troops already have. Plus your fighting issolation between unit committees and two groups of adult volunteers that barely know each other. In a one-unit approach, the adults know each other because they've been working together for years, building friendships and learning from each other. To be honest, the units would still be pretty small size. It's not like running a 1000 kid sporting association. We're talking on average a 100 to 150 scout unit (40 to 60 cubs, 40 to 50 troop and 20 to 30 crew). Maybe larger. Maybe smaller.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle dad wrote: "And I guess I understand the thinking of the Troop part of the program saving a struggling pack, but I really dont see how the same committee of the unsuccessful pack program could run a successful troop program. In other words, why would one half of the unit be successful while the other half isnt? Doesnt make sense to me. Wont bad leadership take down everybody? " It's not about unsuccessful or poor leadership (i.e. the wrong people). It's that scouting takes time to "get"; to understand. For me, it was about five years. As a Tiger parent, I did a bit, but mainly watched and learned. As a wolf/bear parent, I started reading. As a Webelos parent, I was running the pack but still not quite "getting it". After a few years in leadership, you begin to understand what works. And even then, it often takes 10+ years to get enough experience to be good at it. From my work experience running teams and mentoring people, I've never let anyone go without spending a long long time mentoring them, sending them to training, providing opportunities to learn and addressing issues. .... Scouting isn't that hard, but it takes years to get. Beavah hit it on the head when he mentioned mixed age patrols. Mixed age patrols are useful because of the mentorship. Troops guides work because they mentor. Pack adult leaders have trouble because they struggle and have little guidance. I think we need to stop thinking of it as bad pack leaders failing. I think it's more about lack of guidance and mentorship leaving fresh new volunteers struggling to succeed. The result is frustration, drop-out and failed units. .... I think of this idea very parrallel to local sports associations. Cities often have soccer, swim, gymnastics, baseball associations that provide programs for all youth from the very young thru high school (or until high school sports pick it up).

JMHawkins .... The one-unit approach is the federated model. It's not a consolidation at all as the youth ages have different needs. So you still have a pack, a webelos den, a troop and a crew. You'd still have a cubmaster, a scoutmaster, den leaders, patrol leaders, senior patrol leaders, crew advisor, crew captain(??), etc. The difference is infrastructure and how units working together and support each other. You have a central committee chair and then maybe sub-chairs for the pack, the troop, the crew, etc. Or... a central committee chair and then a chair for cub camping, a chair for troop camping, a chair for cub advancement, a chair for troop advancement, etc. New volunteers benefit from working with existing volunteers who had previoiusly been cub parents. Or had gone to a specific camp years ago. You could actually have a unit trainer position that would have enough people to actually train. And working together is key... From what I see right now, units rarely ever work together except when troops invite 2nd year Webelos to camp with them. Or run a small event for the 1st year Webelos. IMHO, (and at the risk of pushing some of our poster's buttons), it's like taking the district committee down to the chartered org level. In one large area, you don't have one BSA council for packs and another for troops. Likewise, you don't have one district for packs and another for troops. Camps are happy to host cubs or boy scouts. So why within a charter org, are units treated so separately? ========================= JMHawkins "And what recourse do you have when either outfit fails to meet your expectations? " The same recourse that any scout has now. Scouts can switch units at any time. What the current model does is place the future of units at the whim of "parent" preferences. You can say scout, but it's really parents. The result is that troops often bend over backwards toward Webelos instead of just focusing on a solid program. I used to ask our scoutmaster how many scouts he thought we'd get at cross over. His response was always "I don't know" based on that he never knew what parents were thinking or what happened that he didn't know about. And he was right. You get scouts you didn't think were going to join you and you lose scouts you were sure were going to join you. You just never know. But it's a huge distraction to the troop. So much focus on "recruiting". And it's a huge distraction to the Webelos. It's almost like they stop working on advancement, skills and cool stuff and get obsessed with which troop they are going to join and who offers what. ========================= I know change is scary, but this is a change that I hope will happen some day. And until then, I'll help it happen in the units in which I'm the COR.

I like the idea too. I'd be embarrassed asking people to spend money on an indoor meal on yet another night and especially knowing that the food menu will be locked down and more expensive then they can get on their own. Changing the May roundtable into an outdoor pot-luck cookout and short awards ceremony seems right. We're scouters and scouts is about being outside and having a little bit of fun. Seems only right to have an outside, do-it-yourself cookout as the awards ceremony.

This might be a tangent thread, but a neighboring district replaced their formal sit-down district dinner by converting their May roundtable to a pot-luck cookout with dutch ovens, camp fire stoves, etc. Everyone shares dishes. From what I heard, attendance increased to larger than a normal roundtable meeting. In comparison, the old formal district dinner pulled half the district committee and maybe two troop scoutmasters and one or two pack leaders. The only non-district committee attendees were usually the award winners. I'd like our district to consider the format change. Heck, I might get new ideas for camp cooking.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I agree that I think this idea has signficant merit. I see too many packs in trouble that would thrive with a bit more guidance. And my apologies to the UC corps, but I just don't see the unit commissioners cutting it. More is needed than just once or twice a year advice (if even that often). The key need is continuity. Everything else can be worked thru. I really really believe that Webelos troop shopping is a counter-productive model. Of course scouts should be able to jump ship at any time from Tiger to Eagle. But troop shopping promotes cities having one or two strong troops and the other troops fighting for survival. Strong troops end up with excess parents, some of which might step forward if there was more of a need. Other troops starve for fresh energy and fresh volunteers. Luckily, our troop is on the stronger side right now. But I see several troops and packs in our city that are on the verge of failure. If they just partnered together more, they could thrive. It's very sad.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Eagle92 ... Those mixed results are because the units are run separately. If the troop and pack were more tightly linked, with the same leaders, same planning and same oversight, then it would be easier to help the units. The examples you give where the troop is healthy and the pack is in trouble, or vice versa, is because the units are separate. If it was one integrated unit, there would be an improved chance for the success of both.

Well written? I don't know. I often get confused by Kudu's quotes and descriptions. Sometimes he's referencing BSA scouting; othertimes UK scouting and still othertimes a scouting ideal that I'm not sure ever existed. Sometime's he's refering to Baden Powell, the person, and other times he's talking about the Baden-Powell Scout Association, which from what I can see was not founded by Baden Powell as it was created in 1970, many years after BP died. When I see it written as "B-P's Patrol System", that seems to reference the 1970's created B-P scout association and not Baden Powell, the person. ... I'm still fairly new, but I've seen nothing from the past that talked about patrol leaders scheduling regular testing / retesting for rank requirements "on patrol hikes". I'd love to see that training materials. Not saying it's not there, but I'd love to see the reference materials. ... From what I do see, the BSA never had a "First Class Journey" as in a long hike that was part of some cumulative test of first class skills. The only requirement I found was removed in 1948 and referenced taking a seven mile out and seven mike back hike as part of earning first class. Overnight was optional, not required. Then the scout wrote down what was observed on the hike. No create master journey. http://www.troop97.net/pdfbin/bsa_ranks.pdf ... As for whether it's well said or not, I'm not sure. BSA has and always will be about the outdoors. Maybe the scouts don't have to walk five miles thru deep snow to get to school every day. But, scouting has been and always will be about the outdoors. ... I need to always remember that this web site is not strictly about BSA scouting and that every post is not necessarily talking about BSA scouting. There's many other scouting programs and concepts out there.

DeanRx wrote: "would it mean you MUST have a troop for your pack?" ... Our pack has no parrallel troop. I'd hope we could change our charter to be chartered under the same organization that hosts a troop. They would just host multiple packs. DeanRx wrote: "I wouldn't want to be a CM forced into feeding boys into a failing troop" ... I'd bet that units that create successful troops would also have successful packs. And vice versa. ... PLUS, any scout at any time can change membership to another unit. I'd rather see the emphasis on changing to a unit that matches your needs and less on shopping for a unit when you become a Webelos scout. DeanRx wrote: "I don't see this changing if you throw them all in one unit." ... I'd see it as one unit, but not one program. You'd have a Cub Scout program for the K-3rd grade. You have a Webelos program for the 4th & 5th graders. A Boy Scout program for older scouts. They'd come together a few times a year for a picnic or a B&G banquet. But generally, each sub-group focuses on age / program appropriate materials. ... Basementdweller mentioned the stake in where Webelos cross over into. My question is why do we emphasize Webelos shopping for a troop, but not emphasize Tigers, Wolves, and Bears shopping for a better pack each year. IMHO, I don't see any difference. If your happy, you'll continue in the same unit. If your not happy with your unit, switch or help it improve.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Yeah, I've read the label. Understand the differences. I'm just saying the green version is only a decorative replacement for the red version. If you want something functionally equivalent, you need to shop elsewhere. I absolutely hated the disco red color of the old jac shirt, but you could depend on it keeping you warm.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ya know... I was going to write a post about the new green jac shirts. BUT ... I was not going to be as nice. Green Jack shirt PROS ---- Comfortable and less itch'y. ---- Looks nicer then the old one ---- Scout emblem is embroidered on. CONS ---- Less functional. ---- It lets the wind thru and does not keep you any where near as warm. I swear that I could use the old red jack shirt over my short sleeve scout shirt until it was about 5 degrees. I always had my procedure. Button cuffs. Close one or two buttons. Button to near top. Flip collar up. The colder it got, the more I would button The new one is only good to about 30 degrees if it is NOT windy. I love the new look and feel. But I miss the warmth and wind blocking of the old red jac shirt.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

JAY - You said "Requirements counted towards one Merit Badge may not be counted for another Merit Badge." Why? Is there somewhere it says that? I'd be okay if there is an official source. I'm just curious. I ask because we've had times where scouts work on multiple merit badges that have overlapping requirements, often first aid requirements. Summer camp often has any scout doing an aquadics badge show up at the same time to complete those basic requirements. Not once per badge they are taking. Plus how would two different merit badge counselors avoid being gamed by smart scouts or accidentally missing something from an honest / innocent scout. Just wondering if it's a BSA official rule or a troop / counselor rule.

I don't think the COR job description is the same as a group leader concept. COR is more representative of the CO and signs off on the leaders. But not really an involved executive role. The Group Leader concept seems more involved in getting the program running in a specific direction. There is overlap but a definit difference.

Beavah - I think we are confusing each other's words. I agree with you on this topic. COs don't have the skills for recruitment or helping packs provide a good program... as a rule of thumb. But then it's a catch 22. COs could structure their units in the one-unit-style if they are strategic about it. But COs aren't skilled in scouting. So they don't. The result is that units work separately within the same CO and not leveraging each other. Even worse, alienating each other. The COR could do this, if they thought strategically. But most CORs don't. They just represent the authority of their CO. ... I also agree. The failure is not in the CO. It's in the BSA and the councils. I think BSA needs to address the scout unit structure to make up for the lack of CO guidance.

Nicely said. I believe that in a one-unit concept ... those parents of Cubs that move up in rank become the elders that can guide, advise and support the new cub parents that come into the program. I really believe that the lack of such support is a key reason for the repeated pattern of packs problems.