JMHawkins

The last sentence of the first paragraph, the future scouter asks if he will have to either "end our relationship" or "have one of us leave Scouting for the next year-and-a-half"

Would this young man seriously end the relationship over this?

I'm not a brain scientist, but that seems to be a whole nother ball of worms that may need to be ironed out.

I think folks are missing the rhetorical questions here. I don't think SMB asked "Do I ask these two adults to stop being friends?" because he was seriously considering doing that. He asked (SMB, please confirm!) that basically absurd question to demonstrate how absurd the rule is.

Same (I hope) with the Groom-to-be asking if he needs to end his relationship with his fiancee in order to remain in Scouting. Of course the choice - if he has to make one - will be to drop out of Scouting instead of ending the relationship, but he's posing the question to illustrate that the rule is broken.

The actual, full implied form of the original question is something like this:

"Gee, BSA, it seems like we have three choices: 1) We can break off our engagement and end our relationship, 2) One or both of us can resign from Scouting, or 3) we can ignore/violate/get a waiver from your 'no fraternization' rule. Well, BSA, you can't possibly think we'd consider #1, so the options are #2 or #3. Ball's in your court, BSA. Which do you want? Should we resign, or do you want to change the rules?"

There is no 4th choice. There are a few flavors of #3, running from "ignore the stupid rule" to "get special permission ahead of time" all the way to "change the rule so nobody else has to deal with this" but they all amount to not following the current rule as written.

I think most of us are arguing about which version of #3 is best, which is as it should be.

Yeah, you can set up your hammock as a bivy if there are no trees. Not as comfortable though.

Only restrictions we've ever encountered were Rangers saying "just as long as you don't damage the trees." Which is why we use straps and don't let anyone rig their hammocks with just lines.

...During the course, I watched a bunch of pretty experienced Scouters doing some goofy things. In it's own way, it helped me to understand that being goofy with kids is really OK...

Y'know, there's mixed opinion on that. I'm a big beliver in "all things in moderation" and I think a bit of goofyness now and then, especially with boys and especially with Cub Scout aged boys, is good. But there's also the idea of modelling adult behavior for the scouts. That doesn't mean being dour and grim, no no no. It doesn't mean never having any fun and never being less than serious. But if you can't make an announcement without the class clown interrupting, especially if you are the class clown, then you're not really being an adult and not setting a good example for the youth.

There's a big difference between a Cubmaster putting on a great "dark sucker" skit, complete with funny hats, funny accents, etc., and singing the Announcement song all the time. In fact, one of the important lessons the youth need to learn is how to switch on and off the goofyness. How to go from play time to work time and back again. The point of being goofy in front of a bunch of kids isn't to teach them that it's okay to be goofy, it's to teach them to control their goofiness, to enjoy it but not let it torpedo their lives. And to keep the attention with some fun and hilarity.

Which is where the Announcement song really falls on its face. It tries to make life into a living, breathing, Monty Python skit. Monty Python is great, but how many people would really like to live, 24/7, in that kind of world? African or European you ask? Um, well, doesn't matter, answer the question! And it gets boring after a while. The Announcement song isn't terribly imaginative or creative, most people start to lose the joy in singing it after a fewcouple of times.

I think Scouts should definitely be encouraged to cook - remember, there's a purpose behind all this. Basement's right that the grocery store is the place to get backpacking food, not the outfitters. It's also pretty cheap to dehydrate your own food - there are $40 dehydrators on the market, and you can even make your own with an old box fan and some furnace filters (really, Alton Brown can show you how!).

I like the idea of doing a dump camp in a backpack style as part of the shakedown.

Like a dog wizzing on a bush just so other dogs know he's been there.

Clearly Fido needs a refresher LNT course.

Well sure, a caveman wouldn't carry anything except a sharp rock that he'd use to make whatever he needed when he got there!

Well, in looking over the application, for Requirement 5, it asks for "Number of registered Scouts" and "Total outdoor MB earned" so I'm pretty certain they meant it as an average. But, it raises another question. Do you only count MBs earned during the year? I'd assume so, but if you have a bunch of older scouts who've already earned a bunch of outdoor MBs (and maybe aren't interested in Fly-fishing, Forestry and Cycling)...

Whatever the interpretation, getting the Scouts thinking about those MB sounds like a good idea.

I like qwazes advice, though of course the adults may chat with the PLC about their interpretation and make sure it's appropriate and all that.

Personally, I'd read the requirement as the troop averaging one MB per scout. If it was supposed to be each scout earning one MB, then I'd expect the requirement to be worded as "Requirement #5. Each scout in the troop earned at least one outdoors-related merit badge." rather than "at least one outdoors-related merit badge per Scout."

It would be awfully difficult to expect every single Scout to meet a bar like that. I mean, how do you account for the guy who just joined last month? He hasn't earned any MBs yet, he's still working on Tenderfoot.

That sounds like a wonderful project. Not only something meaninful, but something Scouts could do mainly on their own with minimal adult assistance. I really like this.

Backpacking is a thinking-man's game supplemented by experience. More than once, I have sat in the middle of my camp thinking to myself: "Why in the world did I drag that along?" When I get back to base camp, I make a mental note: "Never bring that stupid thing along ever again." It works.

This is excellent advice, and the best outcome of course is for the Scouts to do this thinking, not have the adults do it for them! They'll need to gain some of that experience to do it, and that's a tremendous bit of maturity for them. I think this is one of the main advanages of backpacking for Scouting - the Scouts have to edit their gear, think about what they're bringing, learn how to make a limited amount of gear function, etc.

In light of that, your first trip doesn't need to - shouldn't really - have the perfect set of gear. Start with stuff that functions and is relatively cheap, and let the Scouts dial it in from there as they get experience. It was hauling heavy tents that convinced the first set of guys to switch to hammocks. The water filters were big hits.

...we have the classic 2-burner green Colemans. Are y'all saying to carry a few of those along?

I would leave the green Colemans home and take backpacking stoves instead. Your first backpacking trips will probalby be in the summer, or at least not in the winter, so the isopro pocket rockets would work as a cheap starter step. They're good to have around anyway.

First things first, GOOD JOB! Getting a car camping troop out backpacking is an awesome step.

As to equipment. Seattle's right that you want them to make decisions, but you should also give them some guidance. Part of the fun of a backpacking trip is all the gear! Here are my suggestions you could share with your PLC about backpacking gear. Perhaps they would like to invite some adults (or even better, older Scouts from a nearby backpacking troop!) to do some Gear Talks during upcoming Troop meetings.

1 stove per 4 Scouts sounds about right. I think Kudu calls this a "Cook Group." The $40 pocket rockets work well. The isopro fuel costs, while higher than others, are not really that high in total, assuming the Scouts learn not to leave them on...

Cooking gear, no need for titanium, though if you find it on sale it's great. A pair of pots, one in the 2L range and one in the 1L range, per stove should work. Should be $50 - $60 if you shop around. This $50 set http://www.amazon.com/MSR-Alpine-2-Pot-Set/dp/B0020TVDDM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351005601&sr=8-1&keywords=msr+backpacking+utensils looks good to me. Dont forget cooking utensils (MSR also makes some nice folding ones).

Filtration - one device per patrol is probably good, though more would make water stops go faster. I have a Steripen, and it came with a prefilter that gets sediment etc. (screws onto the top of a nalgene bottle). I love it, but the pumps are good too, and have the added advantage that the Scouts should learn how to clean and service them (taking care of gear being an important part of the outdoor classroom). You could go half-and-half on these and let the Scouts take turns using different system. Either way you're looking at roughly the same price range.

Our troop has Kelty Noah's tarps, 12' size, 1 per patrol. But if you already have dining fly's (and they aren't standalone popups) maybe they will work for now?

Tents? Hmmm, y'know, hammocks are even better! Our troop supplies tents, and we got some 3-man ALPS - the outfitter versions with oversized zippers and what not to make them bombproof. They're 10 lbs each, but that's only about 3 lbs per scout. A bit heavy, but doable. ALPS has a very nice discount program for Scouts, so cost is managable. But our guys are gradually switching over to their own hammocks, which are lighter. It started with a couple of the adults using hammocks, and then it spread like wildfire. Sounds like you have a few months to help them figure out what they want to do.

Backpacks and Sleeping bags: yes, they need to have ones that will work. I got my son outfitted with both for about $110 through those ALPS discounts. It's a synthetic bag and it would be nice if it compressed a little more, but it works.

Obviously starting slow is a good idea, you mention the length is up in the air. I would encourage them to consider a short trip - even just 1 or 2 miles from the trailhead will be a much different experience for them. The only real problem is that the pack and bag are necessary for any trips, and those are a hefty per-Scout expense. But if the Scouts get to "discover" new gear each of the first few trips, it will help spark the excitement. You can't really drag big green Coleman stoves around, so getting the stoves is essential, and while Seattle is right that ordinary cooking gear can work, it has to be stuff that fits on the stoves. A 12" skillet isn't going to work.

Callooh,

For step 6, could a Scout substitute "leave Blue card in scout pants while on camping trip with torrential downpour. Discover mass of blue pulp and return to step 2"?

Do I think any of these are ideal solutions given the background on the couple in question? NO. But you follow the policy or you don't. It is not a guideline that can be adjusted at one's whim to fit one's circumstances

But we claim to be training folks for leadership.

When the rules don't produce a good result, shrugging your shoulders and saying "rules is rules, whatchagonnado?" isn't exactly leadership.

I'd say it's up to the counselor. If I was his counselor, I'd be happy to let him use his recently completed football season, so long as he was able to do a good job explaining the rules, etiquette, equipment and field, and already had a good grasp of the first three MB requirements. Others may only want to count things done after he get's his blue card. Either way can be justified, and both have their plusses and minuses.

Of course, he has to have the blue card to "work on" the MB with his counselor, but there's nothing to say the counselor cannot (nor that he must) accept previous work.

But, I'm not registered as a Sport MB counselor. OTOH, if he wants to do Camping MB with me, I'll count the nights he already has camped.

We didn't exactly split a troop when we started ours, but there was some tension none the less. I live in a rural valley that's also a bedroom community for the Eastside (Redmond, Bellevue, Kirland) tech industry. There was one troop, and it was in the next town down the valley. Years ago, that town used to be the big town in the valley, but for the last couple of decades almost all the growth has been in the town I live in, which is now about twice the population of the town with the other troop. A bunch of parents, me included, started talking about forming a troop in our town. There was a bunch of pushback from the adults in the existing troop. They didn't like the idea at all. The main reason behind the effort was the distance - it wasn't a terrible commute to the other town, but it was just one more obstacle. But there ended up being some bad blood between adults over the whole thing. Really unfortunate I thought. The other troop was really worried that we were going to suck all the air out of them, since our town had about two thirds of the youth population in the valley.

One of the families in the other troop even suggested to their committe maybe moving the meeting location to our town to better serve the community (before we formed the new trooop). I understand they were given quite a tongue-lashing over it. There's some lingering resentment in "the other town" over having the new High School built in our town (the old one was in theirs), and they apparently thought we were going to "steal" their Scout Troop as well.

Well, end result, we started a new troop. We had one member of the other troop visit and consider joining, but he really only did it to humor his mother who hoped to have a shorter drive. In the end, his friends were in the other troop, so he wanted to stay there, which was the right thing. I give both him and his mom credit. He gave her idea a try, she let him make his own decision. Ultimately, we had no youths join from the other troop, all of our guys were brand new Boy Scouts. Less than half were Webelos crossovers. We're still running about 60% non-Cub Scouts in our membership, as we've been heavily recruiting in the community. Both troops are around 40 scouts now. One of the things I did before signing on to start the new troop was to look at the local youth demographics. There are easily enough scout-aged boys in the valley to support two troops of healthy size, so I had no qualms about going forward.

As a pack leader, I never got much interest from the other troop before we formed ours. They were pretty lackadaisical in their recruiting. We had some Den Chiefs, but not much in the way of visits or invitations beyond that. And they did almost no recruiting outside of cubs, they just waited for the crossovers. They've stepped up their game a bit since the new troop formed. Part of that might be due to them getting a new SM, but I'm sure part of it is also feeling a little competition. All in all, there are probably at least 30 additional Boy Scouts in our valley than there would have been if we hadn't started our troop. I'll count that a win.

We're 18 months old at this point, and we definitely understand the need for continuity. We're trying to build depth into our adult leadership and set things up to keep going once we're gone. We've gotten a great deal of support from the district. The grapevine says a couple of district folks had a chat or two with the more vocal antagonists from the other troop and helped calm the waters. Some hard feeling still linger and there's the occasional snippy remark, but we just go on about our business. The drama will fade over time, and as far as I know, it doesn't impact the youth at all, who almost all go to the same Middle and High schools.

I came across a column written by the outgoing Chief Executive of the Scouting Association of the UK. Interesting reading. One point in particular stood out to me:

"For adult volunteers, instead of insisting on a one-size-fits-all training programme which took weekends to complete, we fitted training around the skills, competencies and experience they already had. Any gaps could be filled in the evening, in modules and even online."

The article is here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/voluntary-sector-network/2012/oct/01/scout-association-volunteering-community

I don't think we're discussing whether they're tenting together. I think we're worried about whether they can even belong to the same unit.

Then have invite the two loudmouths on the committee out for a cup of coffee. In a nice way, ask them to grow up. Causing a stink with someone who, A) is married to the president of your chartered organization, B) is an active and apparently influential member of the council, and, C) has given a lot to the unit over the years, is just childish.

Indeed. Based on just the limited info available in this thread, I'd be more inclined to drop the two MCs from the charter than the old CC. Doesn't sound like he's going around causing trouble for the Troop, at any rate...

Unless there's something more here, way more, the two MCs are the ones who probably need to adjust things. It wouldn't hurt to ask the old CC if he still wants to be on the charter with the troop. Sounds like he needs to pay his own dues per your new rules - did he pay them last year?

Well, the first thing to find out is what the CO's view on this is.

Second, assuming the CO has no problems, bring it up with the SE. Why not go to the top? If the SE is okay with it, then continue on as Q mentioned.

But, if someone, somewhere, has a problem with the adult leader and his "youth" fiancee, there is another solution.

They could become ASMs with a Troop, both adults, and no funky grey areas.

A 5:1 ratio sounds like a reasonable goal for Cub Scouts. If you're talking about Boy Scouts, that is too low. The real ratio depends on the maturity of scouts and the capability of the adults, but there's no reason 2 adults can't handle 20+ reasonably responsible Boy Scouts.

I know of no written requirement for Boy Scouts beyond the 2-deep requirement.

It seems we could streamline the whole thing quite a bit if da councils filled in most of it, and da UC added most of da rest, and then it became a 15-minute agenda item for a TC meeting unrelated to recharter.

I think this is an excellent idea since it would put the burden on the District to - if it wants JTEs filled out - find a UC for the unit. I think that's probably one of the best things a district can do to help Scouting. Our Troop is lucky - we actually have a couple of really good UCs fighting over who gets us! But that's just because we're a new troop and really fun people to work with! (modest too...)

But I know that's not the case everywhere.

Over on the Scoutmastercg blog, there was another worksheet for scoring how well your Troop runs the patrol method. I thought it was pretty good. Subjective instead of objective, but I think that's unavoidable in doing serious evaluations. I scored our Troop and we came out in the "good, but could be better" range. The areas where we got the lowest scores are areas that we generally feel like we need to improve, so I think the worksheet would be useful in highlighting areas for a Troop to work on. I wonder if anyone has done something like that for Packs?

A 16 hour class can only cover so much. There are other classes available with greater time commitments that go into greater depth.

Best beading ceremonies I've seen were when WB course-mates got together late at night after the lads had gone to bed, shared a bit of camaraderie around a campfire, and enjoyed each other's company for a bit.

This was what the SM in our troop did. There were a total of four youth in attendence - his three sons and the Troop's SPL. The SPL was there because when he found out about the ceremony, he asked if he could cook dutch oven desserts for everyone (he loves to cook).

I just started working on my ticket. I figure I'll do one of two things for a ceremony. Either I'll do what our SM did so that my family can attend (as well as my troop mates and especially our Troop Guide who went to bat for me on a ticket item I really wanted to do but was way, way out of the box), or else I'll ask the SM to hand them to me in the middle of a week-long wilderness trip.

No way will it happen at Roundtable or any sort of District event. Those are for other things, I won't impose on them.

Tis better to tarnish the grown man and loose a leader than to perhaps second guess a child because what might be happenning is soooo terrible, one must defame the adult to protect the child.

Right, except of course it's not just the adult scouter who's harmed. It's his family too. His children, who now have a father the community thinks is another Jerry Sandusky. His wife who has to live with sideways glances and whispers at the supermarket. I'm sure none of that harm his kids at all, right? And then there's the societal trust problem Dean mentions. Society doesn't work very well when we teach all of our kids to fear and mistrust adults. One of the terrible consequences of child abuse is that it destroys the victim's ability to build trusting relationships. So, we deal with that by destroying every child's trust? Way to go. Hurrah for us. Harrison Bergeron applied to emotional health.