Hunt

It seems to me that BSA walks a tightrope with regard to how prescriptive to be. If it establishes too many requirements, it will get harder to get volunteer leaders. On the other hand, as you point out, if it's too loose, there may be some bad units. Personally, I think they are about right. My guess is that there are a minority of bad troops, a minority of troops that are really getting the best out of the program by following it carefully, and a majority of troops that are doing a reasonably good job of delivering a valuable Scouting experience to boys. You might look at youth sports as an analogy. Only a small minority of parents are willing to get involved in "travel" teams, which require meetings, extensive training, multiple jobs (like hydration manager, sportsmanship coordinator, tournament manager, and on and on)--very tough to get volunteer, unpaid people to make this level of commitment. But for rec level sports, the coach is a dad, and maybe somebody helps him and somebody keeps score. It's still fun, and the kids still learn and play the sport. I think I see Scouting as somewhere between those two levels, and that's where I think it should be.

I agree that the 20 days should be since becoming a Scout. On the backpacking part, here's the requirement: "On any of these camping experiences, you must do TWO of the following, only with proper preparation and under qualified supervision: Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet. Backpack for at least four miles. Take a bike trip of at least 15 miles or at least four hours. Plan and carry out a float trip of at least four hours. Rappel down a rappel route of 30 feet or more." I think the "backpack" requirement is a bit vague, and MB counselors could reasonably take different positions on it. Didn't this requirement formerly include an option for a longer "hike?"

I have a vague recollection of people disapproving of Scouts bringing folding chairs to camp. Does anybody have an issue with this?

Let me throw out a hypothetical example. I will admit I don't know the answer. Joe Scout: Mr. SM, is it OK if I bring my MP3 player along on the campout? SM: Well, Joe, there's no rule against it, exactly, but I don't think you'll need it. Joe: I know I won't need it like I need my mess kit, but I like to listen to a little music when I'm in bed and falling asleep. SM: I'm also concerned that electronic devices might get lost or broken. Joe: I'm very careful with my stuff. Also, this isn't a very expensive MP3 player--I bought it used. SM: Wouldn't you rather listen to the natural sounds of the forest as you fall asleep. Joe: Sometimes I do, but other times I prefer music. If I have my player with me I can make the choice depending on my mood. SM: Won't it distract your tentmate? Joe: No, I play it very low. If somebody speaks to me, I can hear them as well. I'm not sure what this proves--maybe it proves you simply need a rule banning electronics to keep the outdoor experience pure, or maybe it means you should let boys make decisions for themselves, even if you don't agree with them. But it seems to me that something like this is very different from fireworks, or something else dangerous or in inappropriate.

People who are not U.S. citizens should stand respectfully while the Pledge is being recited, but there is no reason for them to join in. In addition, some religions do not believe in reciting the Pledge, and their views should be respected as well. I don't think a non-citizen should be expected to lead the Pledge, either. Such things should be handled matter-of-factly. "Since I'm not a U.S. citizen, I will ask Joe to lead you in the Pledge of Allegiance."

"If you take the time to teach them good camping skills then they will know what not to bring without the need for rules or lists." I want to question this a bit. I think it's probably true for backpacking--it will be pretty easy to get somebody to understand why the cast-iron Dutch oven doesn't go. And I think it's true with respect to learning what TO bring. But when we're talking about camping without much of a weight or space limitation (car camping), I'm not sure how it would apply to some of the things that have been discussed here. For example, cell phones. Long term, good camping skills will tell you to bring a cell phone--after all, the adults have them. Whether they're a distraction depends on how they are used. For other electronics, there are certainly good reasons not to use them at certain times, but it seems to me that these are not necessarily good reasons not to bring them. The potential for loss, theft or damage is a reason, I suppose. As for something like soda pop, sure it's not good nutritionally, but there really isn't a strong reason to ban it at a campout that doesn't involve highly stenuous activity (assuming the boy's parents allow him to drink it.) It seems to me that what's going on in some of these rules is primarily a desire to shape the camping experience in a certain way--i.e., you should hear the sounds of nature, not the sound of your iPod. I'm sympathetic to that idea, but I think it's better of that kind of shaping is boy-led.

I get depressed reading about delinquent Scouts, so here's a slightly different topic. How do you deal with a scout who's a "goofball?" This boy is basically well-meaning, with nice parents. He's not bad, and is not exactly poorly behaved. But you have to watch him constantly. If you hear a splash, that's him falling out of the canoe. If someone gets conked on the head with a paddle, you know who's probably holding it. If a tent collapses... If the pancake batter spills out all over the ground... If a pair of hiking boots don't fit...you get the picture. It's exasperating to the other boys (not to mention the adults), and you have safety concerns, especially about high adventure activities. What if this kid wants to go to Philmont? Does anybody have thoughts on (1) how to help a boy like this grow and (2) how to help the other boys deal with him?

I agree that it really depends on the circumstances of the boys in the troop. My son's troop is basically inactive in the summer after summer camp. This is because most of the boys are away for large chunks of the summer. My son, for example, will be away for seven weeks of the summer (including camp). I'm hoping we can schedule a few "casual" events (ball game, day hike, etc.) for boys who are around, but I know only a handfull of boys will be available for any one event. During the rest of the year, we try hard to have at least one outing a month--but we don't have very many two-night outings. These kids have lots of activities, and lots of homework. It's just something you have to work with.

"If after a year, a troop can look back and say that all its scouts had the opportunity to earn first class by attending events on a regular basis,then they did their part. The scout also has to make the effort to be at events when advancement opportunities occur." I think this boils it down very well. But when you look back, what do you measure? I submit that you should first look at that FC tracking sheet and see whether you in fact had activities that would have allowed an active boy to accomplish all the requirements. If you did have those activities, and a substantial number of boys still didn't make FC in the FY, then you probably have a different problem--most likely spotty participation by a number of your boys. The solution to that is probably not adding on more advancement campouts, but to see whether your overall program is fun and appealing. I continue to believe that boys will stay in Scouting if and only if they're having a great deal of fun.

Here's a radical thought: maybe the fact that the requirement doesn't provide any real criteria for what "service projects" should be approved by the SM means that the SM is supposed to use good, sensible judgment in deciding what to approve. Thus, he might approve altar service for a very active boy who performs lots of such "routine" service (like AwHeck's daughter). On the other hand, a boy who never shows up to help with Eagle projects but who wants to squeak by with some routine service that he's required to do anyway as part of his confirmation class, say--maybe not. Of course, when you give discretion, you take the risk that some people will construct all kinds of elaborate requirements for what they will approve. You also take the risk that the SM may not apply judgment evenhandedly (or may be perceived as being unfair).

"The boys ought to achieve First Class in a year. Hmmm." I submit that even you have fallen into the trap. You should have said, "The boys should be able to achieve First Class in a year." This is the problem, as I see it--the idea of FCFY as a measurement, rather than a reminder of what the program should be like.

At the troop meeting last night, the Scouts discussed what Merit Badges they'd take at camp. There was a wide discussion, with many considerations, and advice from adults and other Scouts. No scout was prohibited from taking any MB (unless it had a prerequisite), but some were encouraged and others discouraged. Some examples of advice (some taken, some not): "If you take Riflery and Archery, you stand a big chance of just getting a partial in both." "If you're a Patrol Leader, you may not want to take a MB class that starts at 9:00, because that's when campsite inspection is." "Don't get your heart set on Waterskiing, because they only take 10 each session and give preference to the older boys." "You might want to do Trail to First Class rather than MBs, since you haven't been to a number of events and still have a lot of advancement requirements to do." (When I called this kid over to chat about what he wanted to do at camp, his first question was, "Am I going to camp? I thought I wasn't going.") "Don't you think it's kind of lame to only take classroom MBs? Don't you want to get outdoors?" "Small boat sailing is great, but you have to have Canoeing or Rowing first." "Several of your buddies are doing Fishing at 11:00--do you want to do it with them?" "Are you sure you want to do that many MBs?" "Are you sure you don't want to do one more MB?" So far, nobody want to do Communications or Citizenship, and there was no issue about the quality of the instruction.

The law often recognizes necessity as a defense to criminal liability. Thus, for example, if your small plane loses power and you make an emergency landing in my wheatfield, you're not going to be convicted of trespassing, even though it's against the law for you to land your plane on my land without permission. This is perhaps the analogy to the Safe Swim Defense example that Seattle Pioneer is giving--an emergency can make it necessary to perform acts that would otherwise be prohibited. Would you break into a car to get a fire extinguisher to put out a blaze that was threatening another person's life? Sure you would, and you wouldn't be convicted of a crime for doing it. However, this idea cannot be readily extrapolated to any situations in which you think a greater purpose will be served by violating the law--to avoid being punished and criticized by others, your evaluation has to match the common understanding. Thus, if you broke into a car to get a fire extinguisher to put out a tiny trash fire in a metal trash barrel, I think you might find the outcome very different.

I think the pamphlets aren't a bad idea (I prefer the FAQ) version, but I think the future of this kind of information delivery is online. I recently took the Safe Swim Defense online training, and although it's pretty rudimentary, I think it probably sank in more than reading the same material in a pamphlet would have.

I'm pretty tired of the main topic, but I am interested in what it means to call somebody a "piece of work." I've heard this all my life, and it's not at all the same as calling somebody a piece of something else. I would say that it rather means that the person is somehow extreme. It probably usually has a pejorative sense, but not a really strong negative. Its closest synonym is probably, "You really take the cake." A common exchange might be: "Can you believe that guy?" "Yeah, he's a real piece of work." This would be said after an outrageous act or statement by the person. This is what you say about a person who makes you shake your head when you hear about what they're up to now--for example, Bill Clinton is definitely a piece of work--even if you like him. Newt Gingrich is a piece of work. But neither Dennis Hastert nor Al Gore would be referred to as a piece of work. It might be said about somebody who always has some kind of wild scheme cooking, or who is always in trouble with the ladies. It's like saying somebody is a "character," only stronger. How negative it is meant depends on the tone, and on the body language (mournful shaking of the head v. grin v. sneer), and you can't really tell that in print.

My son is on a baseball team, and the coach uses lots of epithets--calls the boys names, questions their intellectual capacity, etc. He does it to all of them, including his own son, and it's generally pretty funny. He doesn't tease boys over real issues they have. This doesn't bother me too much, and it doesn't seem to bother my son at all. However, I don't think it's the best way to do things. It takes away from the seriousness that the coach would like the boys to have toward the game. And there was one boy--who's now left the team--who did seem to take it personally, even though it wasn't directed at him any more than anyone else. So I guess I want to echo FB and say that we should be even more careful about this in Scouts.

"Hunt, I respectfully disagree. Few of you will be surprised to learn that I view BSA's exclusionary membership policies are morally wrong. I think they justify disobedience." Here I think you have to distinguish between open and secret disobedience. If, for example, you were to openly defy the exclusionary policies, tell the Council you were doing so, and take the consequences, I can see that as a morally defensible act. This is civil disobedience, and it has a respectable pedigree in this country. On the other hand, to secretly defy the policies would require you to take other morally questionable steps, such as lying on registration forms, etc. I recognize that even secret disobedience can be morally defensible--for example, people who hid Jews from the Nazis were justified in doing so, and in lying about it, in my opinion. (Many people may think that Mark Felt was justified in being "Deep Throat," for another example.) But this, in my mind, is limited to situations where there is not another acceptable alternative, which isn't really the case with membership in an entirely voluntary organization.

I see a big difference between "discourage" and "prohibit." I may hear myself saying, in the next couple of days, something like the following: "Are you sure you want to do Communications at camp? Wouldn't it be more fun to do something outdoors, like Swimming or Canoeing? After all, there are several Communications with the troop who would be happy to work with you during the school year. If you want my opinion, you should do MBs at camp that aren't as easy to do other times." I also think that it would be fair to recount prior experiences, i.e., that the MB is difficult to complete at camp, or that the facilities to do it aren't that great, etc. But I agree that if the boy really wants to do it, and the counselor is approved, then he shouldn't be prohibited.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet." If this were really true, everybody in advertising would be out of a job. Seriously, because this is an "emphasis," I do think it is important how it is presented and "sold" to unit leaders. I think the way it is currently named contributes to a likely misunderstanding, that the emphasis is about achieving the rank in the first year. After all, the whole program is named after the rank--it's not surprising that people would think it's the rank that's of primary importance, rather than the experience. As I said before, I think the emphasis is a good self-analysis tool--it makes us ask ourselves if we're really providing an active enough program, and the failure of boys to advance is pretty good evidence that we're falling down in that respect. It also reminds some people that they shouldn't hold back advancement.

Maybe a way to phrase this question might be, "How should the group of adults attending a campout organize themselves?" Generally, they will camp and cook separately from the boys. It's obvious to me that the way they do things will serve as an example to the boys. I don't know how many times I've read about adults inspiring boys to better meals by example. I understand that some folks don't think the adults should BE a patrol, but don't you think that in many respects they should function LIKE a patrol? I can see why one would not want the adults to compete with the youth, but what, exactly, is the harm to the program that is averted by avoiding having an "Old Goat Patrol" with a flag, or even a yell? How does this interfere with the adult leadership roles at a campout (where the adults should stay out of the boys' hair as much as possible anyway)? Could it be that the materials don't discuss these practices because they are usually harmless fun that don't harm the program at all?

Imagine if the emphasis were called "First Year Fun!" The program could emphasize how important it is for a scout's first year with the program to be a full, exciting, and fun program, with lots of opportunities to learn and use Scout skills. It could have the same elements, and could, if followed, lead to First Class in the First Year--but the emphasis would be about the Scout's experience, not his advancement--which I think is the point of the program anyway.

I think there is a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem here. Is the fact that most scouts obtain FCFY in a troop evidence of a good, active program, or does emphasizing FCFY generate a good program? I have to agree that in a good, active program, it should not be too hard for scouts to achieve FCFY, as long as the troop leaders organize some particular events the boys will need (like an orienteering course, and swimming). It ought to be quite easy if the year includes a week at camp. But you have to be careful about extrapolating that fact to specific situations. Thus: 1. The fact that all the new scouts in a troop make FCFY is not sufficient evidence in itself of a good program. It could be a "FC mill," or not boy run, or no fun. 2. The fact that some, but all of the new scouts in the troop make FCFY doesn't tell you too much, except that the troop at least has an active enough program to make it possible. 3. If none of the new scouts in the troop make FCFY that may be a sign of a problem with the program, but not necessarily. They may have dropped the ball on a couple of advancement opportunities, but might otherwise have an excellent program. I guess I'd say percentage of scouts reaching FCFY is a good way for a troop to do self-analysis, but you need more info to analyze another unit.

In criminal law, there are situations in which actions which would otherwise be criminal are justified--self-defense, use of force to defend another, trespassing to rescue someone, etc. You can mince words over whether the law was actually broken or not--but the point is that there are situations in which the letter of the law becomes inapplicable. I could well take some bravery and leadership to ascertain when such a situation exists. Second, there are times when a law is unjust, and it is morally defensible to disobey it. But this is not really applicable to the rules of Scouting, because if you really think one of its rules is so morally wrong as to justify disobedience, the appropriate action would be to quit. But I return to my point--it's fairly useless to discuss these concepts in a vacuum. Rather, it's better to discuss particular elements. I think Bob's response to my last post proves the point. Although he says you wouldn't get too far in discussing how often a troop should camp out in order to have a good Outdoor program, he does just that and makes some valid points--that other activities besides campouts can be part of a good outdoor program. You could have a nice discussion on what makes for a good, exciting outdoor program, and how big a part camping should play in that. The conversation doesn't end with what it takes to be a Quality Unit.

Fscouter, are you asking what those resources say because you don't know, or because you do know and are trying to make a point? I wish folks would stop using this particular rhetorical device. It's not very helpful. I assume that they don't say anything about it, and that your point is that you shouldn't form an adult patrol. That point has been made before by others. Would it satisfy you if the adults camped and functioned as a "group" that wasn't called a patrol? If one of them "coordinated" joint tasks, such as cooking, as long as he doesn't claim to be a "patrol leader?" It certainly seems to me that a group of adults sharing a campsite could model behavior that would be a good example to youth patrols--you don't have a problem with that, right? What, in your mind, is the line that this adult group shouldn't cross in forming a patrol? Can they put up a flag with a picture of an Old Goat on it? (For what it's worth, I don't think the adults should compete with the youth patrols.)

It seems to me that if you ask, "What sorts of things do groups of friends like to do together?"--you have the answer to the question. As long as its something allowed by the Guide to Safe Scouting, there really is no limit on what can be a troop or patrol activity.