JMHawkins

Please tell me another way to inculcate the ethic of service to others in a young person. Altruism is not a natural behavior of mankind. It must be learned. No other way needed KC. I didn't suggest we do away with service projects, I suggested we not put on green eye shades and tally up the hours like some wretch from a Dickens play. "Five minutes short, Cratchet! No Star rank for you this month! What do you think this is, some go-and-have-fun-with-your-friends club?" I think service projects are important, but they're not important because x hours of work got done. They're important because the Scout learned about caring for his community and the people around him. I have a hard time understanding why "double-dipping" for volunteer work is even a problem - unless the goal isn't to teach an ethic of service but instead to wring free labor out of kids in exchange for our approval. "Sorry kid, I'd like to congratulate you for clearing the brambles from the old pioneer cemetary and reminding the community to respect our departed forefathers, but your teacher already patted you on the back for that. You'll have to do something else if you want me to like you too." I know, I know, probably too harsh and I partially apologize if anyone dislikes that remark. I know getting free labor is the last thing any of us - or National - is trying to do. Honestly, it would be cheaper to hire Union-waged contractors most of the time, when you factor in all the support we adults have to give for the "free" service. But I still get the nagging feeling we're on the wrong track with the whole hours and double-dipping debate. Service isn't about the time spent, it's about the ethics learned. Right?

I'm a little uncomfortable with the time requirement for service as a rank issue. Like the comments about "is it really volunteering if it's required?" point out, it's a bit of a line to walk. I'd prefer focusing on service as something the Scouts do to strengthen their community rather than something they do to earn a reward (rank, graduation, extra credit, etc). Maybe a way to clarify my unease would be to ask if we'd like to replace the Scout Spirit requirement with one that said "Behave in a Trustworthy manner at least twice since joining your Troop" or "Spend a minimum of 1 hour being Kind while a Star Scout..." Seems to cheapen it by quantifying the requirement. I think I'd be more comfortable with a service requirement that said "demonstrate Scout Spirit by contributing to one or more Service Projects appropriate for your rank that are approved by your Scoutmaster." Then we're tying the notion or recognition to the quality of the act rather than the quantity. The Advancement handbook or the Scoutmaster handbook could give guidance on how to judge appropriate projects, including perhaps time commitments where reasonable, but overall stressing the goals of improving the community and spreading goodwill in some way. Also, that would pretty much eliminate concerns about "double-dipping" since the Scout is engaging in service projects and learning about giving selflessly to the community, which really ought to be the lesson. Plus that also helps avoid accidentally teaching the wrong lesson - namely that it's okay for people in charge to conscript slave labor when they can get away with it.

I agree 110% with the folks saying First Class should imply outdoor skills competency. In a well-run program, a Scout who earns First Class ought to not only be able to take care of himself on an outdoor trip, but be able to contribute to the well-being of his Patrol, including looking out for and teaching the new guys. Some guys can do that in a year, but I think it's a little rushed for many, especially when they're starting at 10 1/2. In particular, they won't get it if they're signed off the first time they do something sort of, kind of, like a rough approxiation of the requirement, instead of when the demonstrate they really have learned the skill. I watched a SM running a Trail To First Class session at a MB weekend sign off a bunch of our Scouts on the Tenderfoot First Aid requirements after lecturing them (poorly, I would add) on the topics, without even asking them to demonstrate any of the techniques or skills. That's just sad. Caused a slight amount of grief in our Troop too when we wanted to go over those skills again with the Scouts. Most understood, but one guy got a little upset because he thought he was being denied credit when "it was signed off." Good kid too, but he's been brought up* to expect low bars for everything and it'll serve him ill in his life if he never learns otherwise. I like to tell them that the patch on their shirt won't tie the knot for them, so focus on the skills and let the advancement come naturally. Anyway, the Scouts get excited about getting parts signed off. Each time they get one of the reqs signed off they know they're a step closer, so "Advancement" is more or less continuous for us. No need to rush it. Let them have the experience of setting and pursuing their own goals. Most of them get plenty of forced marches through lesson plans in school as it is. * edit to clarify: I'm not singling out this Scouts parents, I think it's just part of the "self-esteem" culture we've foisted on our kids. There's a lot of focus on the recognition rather than on the accomplishment. (This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Last year I (as the Pack CC) turned in some new Scout apps to our DE at Round Table. The families had paid, but their checks were made out to the Pack and I had missed syncing up with our Treasurer to get a check for Council. The DE asked if he could use money from our unit account to cover the apps, and when I said "yes, of course" he then asked me to write out and sign a note authoirizing him to use the funds. Overall, I think our Council is pretty good compared to what I've read about elsewhere. I have my quibbles, but the local pros seem to be more Scoutlike than the average. FOS presentations will probably be an evergreen complaint until National realizes that making the presentation to unit families is poorly targetting marketing - those people are probably already giving a ton (dues, uniforms, popcorn, *TIME*) and don't really appreciate being asked to give more. FOS needs to target the community, not the units.

I learned the hard way last year that the phrase "Eagle Mill" can, shall we say, ruffle some feathers and generate some unscout-like responses. Plus, the more I think about it, the more I figure it's a slightly incorrect moniker - the problem isn't limited to the Eagle rank, it impacts everything else too. I ran across a First Class scout recently who couldn't teach or tie any of the T-2-1 knots. Took three tries to get a square knot right (to borrow a phrase from the recent Winnie the Pooh movie, the lad could not knot). So I think a better phrase is "Advancement Mill" and I'd say the definition is an Adult run unit that focuses the majority of it's energy on awarding as much to the Scouts as possible as a resume/ego booster (for the scout, for the unit, and for the adults). It's really just another example of Credentialism run amok in our society. Too many people are more impressed by the credentials someone proffers than by the individual. I believe it's a result of over bureacratization and an unwillingness to practice good judgement. When you evaluate a person based on their character, ability, etc., you have to make a judgement about that person and - horrors! - you could be wrong. But if you defer to their credentials, well, if they don't work out than it's the fault of whoever gave them the credential so you can avoid responsibility... So we have some parents who think pencil-whipping a kid through the requirements, pinning an Eagle on his pocket, then hustling him off to the next checkbox (Lacross, Debate, DECA, Piano, whatever) is doing something for him. We have some Unit leaders who think advertising that 110% of their scouts make Eagle reflects well on their unit and themselves. But you can't spot those folks just by looking at numbers, you have to look at the program and at the young men coming out of it. If a Troop is really boy-led, is going outdoors on adventures every month, is infusing the scouts with skills and knowledge through practical experience, it doesn't really matter what their Eagle percentage is - it could be 95%, it could the 1% - it's still a good program doing good things for the youth in it. On the other hand if a unit is a helicopter parent brigade running MB classes and nothing but dump camping with extension cords running to all the tents, it's a bad program no matter how many ECOHs per week it has. The mark of an Advancement Mill isn't the raw number of Eagle Scouts, or the average age it's awarded - it's not the presence of Advancement so much as the absence of the other methods (especially the Patrol and Outdoor methods). But back to Engineer61's question, I think the root cause of Advancement Mills is that advancement is probably the easiest of the methods to do - you just fill out some paperwork, hand it in, and give the kid some cloth. The requirements for each rank and each badge are spelled out with handy spots to make checkmarks. And kids love getting awards, and their parents love seeing them get awards, so nobody is going to object. What could be easier? The other methods take a little more work. The Uniform has a nice checklist to follow too, but scouts aren't always as eager to wear a uniform as they are to get an award, and parents aren't always keen on the cost. Patrols? Personal Growth? Ideals? Where are the checklists? Association with Adults? You mean beyond sitting through the adult's MB classes? Outdoor program? Yikes, that's real work. And there are mosquitos... It's easier to run an advancement focused program than an outdoor focused one. It's easier to tally the number of MBs on a kid's sash than to evaluate the character of a young man. It just doesn't do as much good. (This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Camp Brinkley is pretty much flat. Camp Pigott is built on the side of a hill and you are pretty much climbing or descending pretty much anywhere you go. Tell me about it! - we were at the Mt. Pilchuck campsite, which is at the top of the hill. Up the hill, down the hill. Up the hill, down the hill. I think we earned a Billy Goat award or something. Brinkley is just for Cub Scouts now, isn't it? Camp was at capacity, but aside from the dining hall, the swim test, and the parking lot on the last day as everyone tried to leave, I didn't really notice the crowding. Seemed like there was plenty of staff, enough capacity at the activities, etc. There wer occasionally lines at the rifle and archery ranges, but overall I think they were able to put on a good program even at capacity.

Very cool video. We were there the week before when the message was beamed down (almost live, about 6 hours after he recorded it). His brother was SM with one of the other troops in camp, and before they played the video for us, he told an inspirational story about how Scouting helped the two of them escape growing up on the wrong side of the tracks.

SeattlePioneer, you were a Commissioner at Camp Pigott for Session 4, right? How'd it go? Perhaps we are blessed in Chief Seattle Council with two largish summer camps - Parsons (the oldest on the West coast?) and Pigott ('brand new' at 8 years old). There is definitely competition between the two camps. Does it help? I don't have any reference for comparison, but I was happy with the experience this year. We went to Pigott, 21 Scouts, 3 adults. We were required to have two adults (2-deep) and the first two adults going with the unit were free. Additional adults were $125 each. Scouts were $225 each (in-council, $275 each out of council). Overall a pretty good value. It was crowded though. 20 troops and nearly 400 people in camp for the week, it was basically at capacity and meals were rather crowded. I wouldn't want to increase the number of Scouts any more - it seems like they have a "capacity" number that is their actual capacity to run a decent program rather than the maximum number of bodies they can cram into camp.

We just got back from our first summer camp (brand new troop). A handful of our new scouts took Wilderness Survival. Overall the Scouts we took averaged almost 3 MB each (59 earned for 21 Scouts). My thoughts: -The Scouts had a lot of fun. It wasnt a full-on wilderness adventure, but it was enough outdoor fun and excitement to keep (most of) them running around and thrilled with the overall experience. -A bunch of the MBs were ones that are difficult to offer outside of Camp (or other Council-level facilities): Swimming, Rowing, Small-boat Sailing, Canoeing, Archery and Rifle Shooting in particular. Over time, I think our Troop would like to build up our resources for offering several of those on our own, but for now the BSA rules about those MBs means it will be a little while. We encouraged Scouts to take those MBs. -The guys who took Wilderness Survival had a blast. They lit fires, built their own shelters, and slept in them Thursday night. Well, slept might be an exaggeration they stayed in them, but Im not sure they slept much they all thought it was very, very cool to be doing what they were doing. Are these 11 year olds ready to be dropped in to the middle of the Amazon and survive? No, but they are excited about learning more and we will try to leverage that over the years they are in Scouts. I didnt go over to the WS camp area, but I heard several dads from other troops were over there helping their sons build their shelters, etc. Our guys did it on their own. Just because other Units are cheating their Scouts doesn't mean we are going to cheat ours. -A bunch of MBs were gimmies like Fingerprinting and Art, but our SM said something I really liked they might be easy MBs but sleeping outdoors, hiking up and down the hill to our campsite, and eating camp food for a week were part of what the guys had to do to earn them, so fairs fair. Overall it was a better experience than sitting around indoors doing those MBs. -A few guys took and earned First Aid at Camp. It was a one-off, they convinced the Camp Medic to teach them, and it was I think a total of 8 or 9 hours in the class. Now, the SM and myself (Im an ASM) are First Aid MBCs, WRFA certified, and both working on becoming WRFA instructors, so we have pretty high First Aid standards. Our SM befriended the Medic on day one and let him know we wanted him to keep the standards high. Plus, the guys who earned the MB will now be our helpers as we make sure the entire Troop gets a high level of First Aid instruction. If theres anything they didnt really get during Camp, theyll learn (or re-learn) it teaching the rest of the Troop. Frankly, repeated practice is more important than anything you learn in earning the MB anyway, regardless of the circumstances under which you did the MB. -the Camp has a million dollar dining hall. We ate all our meals there except for lunch and dinner on Wednesday, when the dining hall provided food to each Troop for cooking in the campsite. We ended up doing Hobo Packs for dinner, and every Scout I asked said his favorite meal of Camp was the one he cooked himself. -The Camp (Pigott, in Chief Seattle Council) also has a great High COPE course, along with a climbing wall, mountain bike course, and a mountain boarding run (think off-road skateboards). Most of our guys were too young for the high COPE and climbing, but the two who did take it loved it (so did the adults!). -The MB haul seems a bit excessive, but I figure it will help keep any helicopter/eagle-centric parents happy with the program. They want advancement and Merit Badges out of the program, and one way or another we need to keep them happy if we want their sons to stay in the program. So MBs it is, but while their sons are raking in the cloth, theyre also learning how to cook and clean up for themselves, function in their patrols without constant adult direction, live outdoors, and theyre experiencing the excitement of outdoor adventures. Frankly I think part of the genius of B-P's program is that it combines a bunch of elements that complement each other, so as long as a Unit doesn't let the Methods get out of balance, it will channel enthusiasm for one method into progress in the others. -Camp is a resource, but just one of many. It was our Troop overnight for July. Just one of 12 for the year. In August, theyre going to be building a pioneering tower, or maybe a bridge, well see. For us, I think camp was a great opportunity for a bunch of brand new Scouts (our Troop is all of 4 months old a pair of Tenderfoot Scouts are our highest ranks) to learn a little more about being responsible for themselves. At the beginning of the week, we were constantly reminding them of what they needed to do and where they needed to go. By the end, we figured they should know what Camp routine was and take care of it themselves. The SM and I headed off to play around with the Blacksmiths forge and wondered if the Scouts would remember they needed to send waiters down to get the tables ready for dinner. They did! I was fully prepared to eat beef jerky and trail mix for dinner if they forgot and the Camp didnt serve us any food. But the guys came though. Small victories bigger ones will come. Overall, I think dkurtenbachs take is a great one: Being old, tired, and cynical, I would say: Stop taking the earning of merit badges at summer camp seriously. The skills that Scouts really need to learn are learned through expert/experienced instruction, actual practice over time, and real experience -- and those things are rarely provided at summer camp. Most merit badges offered at camp, if they aren't fluff, are just "dipping the toe in the water" for a particular subject anyway, and any real knowledge or skill acquired is likely to fade quickly after camp unless the troop offers regular opportunities to practice or the Scout is interested enough to pursue the subject further on his own, and thus acquire knowledge and skill _for real_. In short, very little serious learning is going to happen via merit badge instruction at summer camp anyway; and besides, by offering merit badges in this venue, BSA is telling us clearly the level of importance it gives to them. In short, accept the summer camp merit badge program for what it is, take advantage of the _other_ opportunities that summer camp offers where you can do something _real_ (hiking, patrol cohesion, cooking in non-dining hall camps, free time in program areas like shooting, archery and canoeing to actually practice, sitting around a troop campfire, doing patrol chores, etc.) and watch out for the Scouts who seem to be taking a shine to a particular merit badge subject so you can help them pursue that interest _after_ summer camp. I understand BadenPs objection, I share his frustration with dumbed-down scouting, and I agree we should all be doing what we can to push the program in the right direction. But ultimately you probably have far more influence over your own Unit than over the entire Council*. Use the resources at your disposal (including Summer Camp) to make the best program for your unit. And I think its fine to let the Scouts know when you think someone else is running a substandard program. At summer camp, we were next to a Troop where the adults cooked for the scouts on the Troop cooking day! Holy smokes. Nice people over there, but we quietly under our breath let our Scouts know we didnt approve. They understood why too. I cant really go march over and force those other guys to change their program. Theyre their own troop and have their own history and standards. Yeah, it bugs me to see it, but I cant fix them, I can only make our own program the best it can be. Our Council may be better than most we have our Eagle Mills and Parent-Son-Camping Club units, but I also see a bunch of really solid units proving good outdoor programs for the Scouts. Now, dont get me started on the troop who got their Troop Trailer jackknifed in the parking lot as everyone was trying to leave Saturday * PS: in terms of influencing units vs influencing Council or National, they take different strategies and both take a lot of work. I think each of us needs to decide what we are going to focus on as our primary mission. Influencing a Unit requires volunteering as a unit leader, working with the Parents to keep them sold on the program, and most importantly working with the Scouts to deliver a first-class real Scouting experience. Influencing your Council or National probably requires becoming a big fundraiser, or a big donor. If my business plans go the way I want, maybe I can do that in another ten years or so. But right now, I have a son almost Scout age, and hell be aged out before then, so for the immediate future Im going to focus on the Unit I hope he joins. And regarding big money having a lot of influence, its not automatically bad. We were at Camp Pigott it exists because Mr. Pigott donated a boat load of money. Probably did a fair amount of fund-raising too. It was a great camp and helped our unit with our program one thats still young but will hopefully mature (along with our founding class of Scouts) into something Kudu would approve of. Heck, Im hoping its something B-P himself would smile down on. So Mr. Pigott has a lot of influence, and it looks like a positive influence so far to me. There's certainly much to complain or worry about with Scouting today - but not everything is a disaster!

It is a slippery slope from laser tag to water pistols and marshmallow shooters You use the lasers to roast the marshmallows, and the water pistols to put them out if they catch fire. It's a LNT thing - saves building a campfire! But on the original topic, it sounds like things are headed in the right direction, and the inevitable bumps and complaints are just proof you're changing the status quo.

I'll be at Camp Pigott in northern Washington State next week as a Camp Commissioner. I'll have to consider doing the mile swim program there. Just missed you then, SeattlePioneer. Our Troop was there last week (you'll already be there as I write this I imagine, checking the new round of Troops in). I didn't do the mile swim, but I did the swim test in the lake, and it was a pretty good temperature. Overall, I think doing a mile swim in a natural body of water rather than a pool is a better experience, though I know some areas of the country have a hard time offering that. We're fortunate up here. Hope you have a great week (had, by the time you read this), but I doubt your group will get a personal message from the International Space Station!

I would rephrase that to say : "Less fun = more boys drop out = less chance to build character through the BSA program." That does not mean the said boys won't get these attributes from their parents, sports, band or other academic or non-academic opportunities. Absolutely. "the program" in my original definitely meant "the BSA program." However, I do think the other opportunities for picking up character (and citizenship) lack something individually that a well-run, well-delivered, traditional Scouting program has. Very few other activities give a young man the opportunity to develop citizenship the way Scouting can. The combination of adventure (wait, sorry, ADVENTURE!!!!!

On a vessal, you really want a rigging knife because in addition to a knife for cutting, you have a marlinspike to help undo knots. I should have said that it is not as useful. The problem with using a folding rigging knife is you need two hands to operate it. If one hand is holding onto the rigging to keep you from swinging circles around the mast while the vessel rocks in the swell, that could be a problem.

Will a Scout have less character, citizenship, or physical and mental fitness because we don't build those towers? I think not. I think so. Less fun = more boys drop out = less chance to build character through the program. So, yeah. All the over-bureacratin' will reduce character, citizenship and fitness.

Good luck, thrifyscout. Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. How have the boys responded to the idea?

Good buglers are pretty awesome to have. Not very practical for backpacking, but a very nice touch for the occasional car camping.

I think Webelos in practice is becoming a year-and-a-half program, but with a particular problem I'm noticing: the son of the WDL is almost certainly the first one in his den "done" in every sense of the word. Done with his Arrow of Light, and done with Cub Scouting. He's been at almost every Den meeting, every Pack meeting, every outdoor activity, every overnight, every troop visit... everything for 4 + years. Cause Mom/Dad was there as the DL since Tigers. Mom or Dad is probably "done" too, and when they see their son ready to move up early (or drop out), it's a struggle for them to get the rest of the Den across the finish line. Plus it seems like in general, two years is how long adults make it as Cub leaders before starting to burn out. I can definitely imagine a Cub program structured differently. Drop Tigers, and go with a two year Cub Scout (wolf/bear) program, then with a different DL a 1-2 year Webelos program that graduates them up to Boy Scout expectations of independence and responsibiliy. Someone mentioned before the old "Den Mother" system where the Moms took the Cubs when they were younger and handed off to a Dad (or some man at any rate) for Webelos. Setting aside the gender roles for a moment, that system had a couple of advantages. One was not burning out the adult leaders just when they boys were at a critical transition stage. Another was implying that Webelos wasn't just more of the same, but had a different emphasis, and so you didn't have the same DL moving on and likely running the den exactly as they'd done before. Edit: oh, and maybe do away with the Boy Scout joining requirement of the Arrow of Light. Make it 11 years old or completed 5th grade, then you don't have as much of a problem with staggered AOLs disrupting the rest of the den. Maybe "completed" Fifth grade isn't right - maybe it should be "within 3 months of completing 5th grade" so they can move up in April and get some time with the Troop before summer camp. But at any rate, make AOL an award, not an early release ticket. (This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Maybe we have extended Webelos too long? As a Pack CC, I'm seeing a lot of burnout in both the Cub Scouts and the adults towards the end of the first year Webelos program. And it's not just limited to our Pack, I see it in other Packs too. I don't know if it's specifically Webelos, or if it's the whole thing from Tigers on up, but there's definitely a burnout factor going on. And then theres: If it is done correctly, the First Class First Year emphasis can help retention... Now, that "if it's done correctly" caveat can apply to almost anything. e.g. Boy Scouting, if done correctly... But the challenge I see with the FCFY is that it's encouraging the Webeloization of the boy's first year in Boy Scouts. I mentioned a Trail to First Class program that had the boys sittin' around being lectured about first aid (and getting their books signed off by the "instructor" for demonstrating skills that they did not in fact demonstrate or even practice - BTW, this has already caused one problem in our Troop as a boy was confused about why we were going over the material with him again and imagined he was being treated unfairly since "it was already signed off."). Not a bandage or splint in sight for that class either. Sad, taking something that should be a huge excitement factor for the boys and turning it into Saturday Dentention Class. Is that the way it's supposed to be? Is that how the FCFY folks want it to be? Dunno - but that's how it's getting implemented. Ultimately, humans are very adept at optimizing their behavior to achieves specified goals. If the dictate comes down that boys should reach FC in 12 months, troops will tend to do what it takes - including pencil whipping the requirements - to meet that objective. It's human nature, and anyone in an organizational leadership position should understant that. You have to be exceptionally careful with the objectives you set for your org, and with the metrics you gather, because your folks will try to achieve them and are likely to sacrifice other objectives to do so. I'd be curious - any comparison on retention stats for Rank Advancement vs Nights Camping?

I don't think there's anything that quite qualifies as "refresher" training (but then again, I consider most of the skills training to be "refresh" material anyway - if someone's never been camping, I don't think IOLS is going to be enough...). But, quite a bit of useful stuff has been put online. If you go to http://myscouting.scouting.org you can take Youth Protection Training (required every two years) on-line. You could also take the basic Safety courses (Safe Swim Defense, Climb On Safely, Safety Afloat, Trek Safely, and Weather Hazards) which it's useful to retake even if you've taken them before (concepts and protocols change every once in a while). You can do all that from the comfort of whatever passes for your home computer station!

Interesting problem. On the one hand, nothing is really going to work well if the leaders don't plan ahead of time. On the other hand, having one person responsible for planning the whole weekend might be the wrong organizational structure, especially if it's a new guy in charge. Maybe you could talk to the SPL about delegating individual parts of the planning to other leaders, and he himself coordinates the planning. Spread the load out - not only will it make it less likely any one leader gets overwhelmed and freezed up, it also means if someone drops the ball on one part of the plan, there's a good chance the rest of the plan will still stick together and your weekend will still be a great activity. You didn't mention the size of your troop, but I'm assuming more than one patrol, since you not only have an SPL, but also three ASPLs. If you've got, say, three Patrols, then you've got 3 PLs plus 3 ASPLs, plus however many of you JASMs. You might suggest to the SPL that next time, he and the PLC come up with list of stations for the new scouts (knots, lashings, first aid, cooking, etc), and then delegate the detailed planning of each station to one of the PLs, ASPLs, or even JASMs. That way, the overall burden doesn't seem so huge ("one bite at a time" as Barry said). What I've noticed so far in our Troop is that the SPL/ASPL don't naturally understand how to delegate power - they try to run the whole troop directly, and it's just too many Scouts for that to work! The SPL runs the PLC, not the Troop. Picking up on what qwasze said, you also might suggest that the new scouts didn't get what they needed out of the trip, and it might be a good idea to convert an upcoming trip into a make-up session so the new guys don't get completely left behind. That might help drill into your SPL/ASPLs heads that letting an outing go splat has consequences. "We have to spend time doing skills instruction on our rafting trip because we chowdered the new scout skills trip?" At any rate, I think you have a four-part message to deliver (cheerfully of course) to the SPL and his stand-in ASPL: 1) you guys let the Troop down by not doing your jobs 2) it happens, we're all learning and nobody should be defensive about it (nor overly harsh in their criticism). 3) we need to make up for the busted outing. 4) you guys are capable of doing it, and I can coach you. 1 & 2 aren't always easy to get across, but I think they're the key. If they don't realize they let people down, they probably won't realize they need to change their approach. But they also need to realize failure when you're learning is okay if you do your best to really learn from the failure and put things rigth as best you can. Good luck!

I really feel like if I take on SM there is no way for him to join till up around WEBELOS, which suits me fine, thats how the other three have done it. Unless anyone sees a way around this situation? If the Pack has good Den Leaders, there's no reason he couldn't do Wolves/Bears without a huge time investment from you. But, if it turns out that you do have to choose between investing your time in the Troop or the Pack, put the effort into the Troop. Cub Scouts is great and boys have a lot of fun in the program, but ultimately it is not irreplacable. The things a well run Boy Scout Troop offers to boys though are really critical to their development and hard to find elsewhere.

But I'll take a Patrol building a monkey bridge over any sit down and take notes leadership course out there. We were at a Merit Badge Weekend last weekend (where the rainfall Saturday evening set a record for the most rain ever on that date - note, we are in the Seattle Area, but I digress). I was reading the list of merit badges the Scouts could work on and the question they kept asking was "Is that a sitting-around one?" If it was a "sitting-around one" they weren't intersted. Pioneering, Wood Carving, Archery and Fishing got lots of attention though. I will say though that academic subjects don't have to be boring, sitting-around things. I watched the guy doing the Architecture merit badge, and he didn't have the kids sitting around. They were on their feet, moving around, looking at scale models... he knew how to tap into their imaginations and had their attention. All that said, I'm not a big fan of Merit Badge "classes", but I sure was proud of the Scouts in our troop for gravitating towards the adventursome ones. BTW, I happen to make video games for a living, and people in the industry like to talk about the "soul" of a game. Great games have it, flops lost it somewhere in the agony of the development process. I've always thought they were really talking about whether the game fired up your imagination or not.

Today there is the current trend to "modernize" scouting and to make it more "relevant" to todays youth by moving more and more away from the traditional outdoor program and adding new High Tech things like the Robotics MB, etc. Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that scouting was never "relevant" to the day-to-day world. The Lewis and Clark expedition was a century in the dust when scouting started. Horseless-carriages roamed the land and airplanes roamed the sky. People bought stuff from the Sears catalog, they didn't lash sticks together. B-P's program was no more relevant to the "modern" world of 1910 than it is to the modern world of 2010. What it was relevant to though was the needs of boys, to the adventures and experiences that they craved and that helped them grow into decent young men. In fact, B-P started scouting specifically to make up for what had been lost as the world modernized. Boys were stuck in urban settings, cut off from the outdoors, missing out on opportunities to do simple but useful things with their hands and to test and prove themselves, and they were isolated from male influences for large stretches of the day, only seeing their fathers when they were worn out after a long day at the factory, not having the chance to learn things from them and to demonstrate their growth and maturity to their elders. B-P realized all of that missing stuff was important and needed to be reintroduced to the "modern" youth. People who think scouting has to change to "keep up with the times" are completely misunderstanding what it's about in the first place. (though honestly I think a Robotics MB is a great addition and very much in tune with "traditional" scouting. Design and build a robot? Oh yeah. That fills the bill, giving the boy an opportunity to build something cool with his own hands and show it off. It doesn't replace the need to get outdoors and go camping, but it's a great addition to it).(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Actually that was the conclusion of the BSA and is their reason why they change the program 1990. Interesting. The expansion of the Webelos program to include two years and more camping had already happened by 1990, so I'm not sure if BSA was really implementing solutions to the problem they identified (which might explain the lack of improvment in numbers you mentioned). If the problem really is that we're overwhelming the boys, are we maybe starting them too young? Maybe pushing advancement too fast? One thing I've noticed is that the Trail To First Class seems to foster a sit-down classroom lecture style of teaching scoutcraft. This is absolutely a mistake and doesn't solve any problems while creating several of it's own. I watched a couple dozen scouts sit around listening to a guy lecture on first aid this weekend, at the end of which he signed them off in their books on the T21 First Aid requirements he'd "taught." So where it says in the book to "Demostrate how to care for someone who is choking" (Tenderfoot 12a) he signed that they had completed this requirement (I saw this in our scouts books) even though none of those scouts stood up and demonstrated anything. They watched two recently-aged out scouts demonstrate something that was almost an approximation of something that vaguely resemlbed a Heimlich Maneuver (wrong grip, wrong stance), but they didn't do it themselves. About a third of the scouts in the class weren't really paying attention anyway. Clearly "advancement" like that is not going to help the boys develop the confidence and abilities to be comfortable with the independence and self-responsibility inherent in an active outdoor-oriented (e.g. "real") scouting program. I agree with your 6 month assessment - that seems like a better indicator than a year. A year is forever in a boy's world. By 6 months, he knows if he likes the activities, if he's made friends, and if there's more for him to do. I'm not sure he really cares what patch is sewed to his shirt so much. Yeah, it's nice, but I bet he cares more about feeling confident doing the job.

I also learned that more scouts leave the BSA during their first year of scouting than any other age and it has always been that way. The reason is because the sudden independence of boy scouting is more than a lot of boys can handle at that age and maturity. Barry, Is that a conclusion you found in your research, or one you came to? In either case, I'd really like to read the supporting evidence because it's a thoroughly plausible theory, but so is the exact opposite (that we're losing kids because the program is too boring/treats them too much like little kids). We all have our opinions on "how it outta be" but trying to find and make sense of real numbers would be great for me to understand what's really going on.