Kudu

Why not replace all those "outdated" baseball skills that Den Leaders find not useful "at work and home," and turn Little League into something that most boys will hate as much as modern Scouting? After all, the ability to swing a wooden club "at work and home" became obsolete with the dawn of the Bronze Age. 83Eagle writes: Little League and the game of baseball itself has changed over the past 100 years. The changes to Little League are mostly to move it along, and to make hitting, running, pitching, and catching more (*gasp*) challenging. The "Girl Scout Leadership" changes to Boy Scouts have been to remove Scoutcraft as much as possible, and to make it LESS challenging: To dumb it down, so as to "Broaden the Appeal of Scouting" by attracting boys who hate Scouting. In fact since our current Chief Scout Executive took office, his media blitz has been to promote the expenditure of "major resources" on translators so as to attract 100,000 Hispanics who hate camping. See: http://inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm For Little League this would also mean removing Physical Distance as a requirement. If you swing at a ball you get a hat pin (with a strict "no retesting" policy), BUT as with the elimination of the First Class Journey, running to a base would be considered by Leadership "experts" as old-fashioned and dangerous. The goal (as in "21st century Scouting") would be to get each individual baseball skill "signed off" in isolation without being forced to actually apply them. Then (as we turned Scouting into school), if you learn the three branches of government you get a "Citizenship" hat pin, likewise for "modern" Personal Management and Corporate Team-Building hat pins. When you collect enough hat pins you get to add "Little League World Series" to your business resume without ever have covered the Physical Distance between "old-fashioned" bases, just as you can add "Eagle Scout" without ever walking into the woods with a pack on your back. 83Eagle writes: Nah, Johnny, you don't need that mouthguard and fancy helmet to play quarterback, just wear this leather cap and you'll be fine. The Congressional Charter allows us to sue out of existence "Baden-Powell Scouting" associations that seek to offer "Traditional Scouting" in the United States. This Traditional Scouting movement differs from the "Vintage Base Ball" movement in that Baden-Powell's program is changed only for advances in a) health & safety practices, b) environmental concerns, and c) light-weight camping technologies. See: http://inquiry.net/traditional/index.htm "Vintage Base Ball," on the other hand plays the game exactly as it was played in the 1880s: No gloves, for instance! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vintage_base_ball So using "safety" as an excuse for turning Boy Scouts into Girl Scouts is a red herring. 83Eagle writes: As far as I can see, Scouting is still fundamentally Scouting. That is simply untrue. Fundamental or "Real" Scouting is based on Physical Distance. According to our Congressional Charter, one of the three "Purposes" of our monopoly corporation is 1916 Scoutcraft. Baden-Powell tests Scoutcraft at each and every award level by Physical Distance. See: http://inquiry.net/advancement/traditional/journey_requirements.htm The most basic test of 1916 Scoutcraft is the First Class Journey, in which a Second Class Scout (alone or with a buddy) backpacks or paddles to a location seven miles away, camps overnight without adults or other Scouts, and then returns the next day for a minimum 14 mile Adventure. In 2010, the reason that any boy who hates camping can get an Eagle Badge without ever walking into the woods with a pack on his back is that we have removed all Physical Distance requirements that require Girl Scout boys to camp away from a parking lot. 83Eagle writes: Boys are still outside, camping and doing adventurous activities, and working in the patrol method. It is simply untrue that the BSA still uses the "Patrol Method." The Patrol Method is based on Physical Distance: Patrol Leaders are trained to take their Patrols hiking (Physical Distance) and on extended hikes called "Patrol Overnights." See: http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm When camping with a Troop, Baden-Powell's Patrols camped 300 feet apart (Physical Distance). BSA "Girl Scout Leadership" experts took the Patrol Leaders' position-specific training away from them and replaced it with EDGE theory. Likewise they took the Patrols and Patrol Leaders out of Scoutmaster position-specific training, and replaced it with EDGE theory. 83Eagle writes: And our troop today does much more when it comes to boy-led, adventure-filled programming than I ever did as a Boy Scout in a top-down troop 20+ years ago. That is simply untrue for the official program. 20+ years ago, the First Class Journey had been reduced to Camping Merit Badge requirement 8b: "On one of these camping trips, hike 1.5 miles or more each way to and from your campsite, Pack your own gear plus your share of patrol gear and food." This last vestige of testing Scoutcraft with Physical Distance no longer exists now. Boys who hate camping can substitute (for camping 1.5 miles away from the parking lot): Riding their bike around for four hours, or floating downstream on an inner tube while eating cupcakes. Imagine if we hated indoor Scouting as much as we hate camping! Boys would be able to substitute riding their bike and floating downstream for the purest form of anti-Scouting: Indoor Citizenship and Personal Management! 83Eagle writes: Of course, the program has evolved. That is simply untrue. Evolution is based on competition. The Nanny State forbids American boys from a free market in Scouting, which is why Leadership "experts" have been able to turn Scouting into a Girl Scout program that most boys hate. If the Nanny State established Little League as the government's only approved baseball corporation, then Wood Badge Leadership "experts" would rush in to turn Little League into Girl Scouts, because boys would be forbidden to join other competing baseball leagues. It is "competition" that makes Americans free: Except for Boy Scouts. 83Eagle writes: But the argument seems to be about emphasis in the delivery of the program, and whether or not certain skills are arcane or still germane to 21st century youth. Only to those who want to turn Boy Scouts into Girl Scouts. When Leadership Development was introduced in 1972, two million Boys left Scouting (30% of membership, according to the BSA). If you walk into an auditorium of "21st century" sixth-grade boys, they will at first make fun of you and your uniform. But if you present Scouting as the same "dangerous adventure" activities that appealed to their great-grandfathers in 1916: As the program preserved for them by an Act of Congress: As the program that Leadership "experts" seek to destroy, then you will a few hours later register 28% of these "21st century youth" in the BSA. Old-school Scouting attracts about three to ten times the percentage of Total Available Youth (TAY) that your local Council extracts through promoting the official dumbed-down Girl Leadership version of Scouting. For a how-to guide to recruiting an additional 28% of sixth grade boys, see: http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm Yours at 300 feet, Kudu Troop Scuba Diving Merit Badge Program: http://www.inquiry.net/scuba_diving_merit_badge/index.htm

acco40 writes: When Baden-Powell "invented" the Boy Scout program, it was to help foster "Boy Scout" skills. This was needed because it was the time that modern countries were gravitating toward an agrarian, rural majority to a city, urban majority. Yes. In practical terms, the Boer War taught Baden-Powell that the pasty white indoor English youth were no match for the rugged outdoor South African farm boys whose skin was "tanned to a chestnut hue" (Boer is the Dutch word for "farmer'). The purpose of Scouting was to get English boys out of their mothers' parlours. "Leadership" enthusiasts have always characterized outdoor skills as "old-fashioned," because the purpose of Leadership skills is to give meaning to the desperate lives of adults who sit in indoor cubicles for 30 years, imagining themselves to be "leaders." acco40 writes: Now, how can someone define what "Scouting" is by telling them one of the purposes is to train them in "scoutcraft?" By definition, isn't any "craft" the BSA trains the boys in (automechanics for example) by definition "scoutcraft?" Does CEO-worship use "outside the box" thinking to bundle toxic assets much? In 1916 Scoutcraft meant the Tenderfoot through First Class requirements which included "instruction in First Aid, Life Saving, Tracking, Signaling, Cycling, Nature Study, Seamanship, Campcraft, Woodcraft, Chivalry, Patriotism, and other subjects" Handbook for Boys, page 3. The drive to bundle "Scoutcraft" as anything the BSA decides to promote is an example of CEOs replacing something real and measurable (Scoutcraft) with alchemy formulas. This EDGE method is now bundled into the new Boy Scout Handbook's "Scoutcraft" section! The Patrol Method presentation of SM-Specific training takes this toxic bundling a step further and completely replaces the Patrol and Patrol Leader with EDGE! acco40 writes: So, no, I don't interpret "methods" as lashings, knots, camping skills, etc. Me neither. Scoutcraft is not a mere "method." An Act of Congress defines it as one of the three "Purposes" of Scouting. acco40 writes: Let me rephrase it another way. Let's say Congress charters a new organization tomorrow - the Acco40 Folks of America. The purpose of the "corporation" is to reduce obesity in our youth...Those were not the real methods, just tools. No violation of the Acco40 Folks of Americal (AFA) charter in my eyes. The correct analogy would be Congress granting you a MONOPOLY on all "words or phrases the corporation adopts," such as obesity, diet, exercise, etc. Fast forward 100 years and your corporation's professional millionaires define "reducing obesity" to mean "teaching Leadership Skills," and "exercise" to mean memorizing the EDGE method. That is why the BSA's Charter specifies "using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." Again: Why not Little League? "Through proper guidance and exemplary leadership, the Little League program assists youth in developing the qualities of citizenship, discipline, teamwork and physical well-being. By espousing the virtues of character, courage and loyalty, the Little League Baseball program is designed to develop superior citizens rather than superior athletes." Doesn't say anything about hitting, running, or pitching. Certainly we could teach boys "citizenship" by getting them indoors to study the three branches of government, as the BSA does with our monopoly on Scouting. And "Teamwork"? That's a no-brainer! It has indoor corporate "team-building" exercises written all over it. The reason that Little League can not turn baseball into Girl Scout "Leadership" is that they do not have a monopoly on "baseball" that they can use to bundle into sports the stuff that boys hate, have always hated, and will hate until the end of time. Yours at 300 feet, Kudu http://kudu.net/

Yeah, that's just what we need: To make Boy Scouts even more like Girl Scouts. Ask any group of Scout-aged boys to describe "Boy Scouts" in one word. That word will be "Gay." The reason? We took Patrol-based Scoutcraft "Adventure" out of Scouting and replaced it with fake leadership. I was not aware that these CEO-worshiping "leadership" skills had done even more damage to the Girl Scouts until I read Richard Louv's Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. In his chapter about Scouting he writes: "But the overwhelming majority of Girl Scout programs are unconcerned with nature. Included (along with selling cookies) are such offerings as Teaching Tolerance, Tobacco Prevention, Golf Clinic, Self-Improvement, Science Festival, EZ Defense, and Financial Literacy. Soon, Camp CEO will bring businesswomen to a natural setting to mentor girls in job interviewing, product development, and marketing" (page 152). Cubby's Cubmaster writes: I realize that scout skills is a tool to get to an end--and we all agree that one of those ends is LEADERSHIP. No, "we all" do not agree. Teaching "Leadership" is a cancer upon Scouting. Note the use of "Character and Leadership" as the fake "ends" of Scouting in our Chief Scout Executive's current war on camping: http://www.inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm Cubby's Cubmaster writes: However, how useful really is it to know 10 knots or so, 5 lashings and to be camping in a tent as frequently...to name a few? ... I ask myself, HOW OFTEN do I use scout skills at work and home? Rarely is my answer. Outside of scouting, when was the last time I tied a knot (4 times in last month--same one didn't need to know a taunt-line hitch), a lashing (never), needed to live in a tent (never--and hopefully never!). We already have a "21st century program" that prepares "future leaders" with the "view that some of the scout skills and methods we use are a bit outdated and not overly useful in the 21st century." Its called "Wood Badge for the 21st Century." It used the needs of Den Leaders as an excuse to achieve the goal of Leadership Development since William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt's retirement in 1965: To kick Baden-Powell's Scoutcraft out of Baden-Powell's Wood Badge and replace it with "Leadership Development." See "1965" at: http://www.whitestag.org/history/history.html Contrary to the insistence of leadership enthusiasts, Scouting was never about teaching modern skills. In fact the Act of Congress that grants our corporation an absolute monopoly on Scouting very specifically requires that we use the Scoutcraft "methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." There is no mention of "leadership" as either an aim or method of our corporation. My question to leadership enthusiasts is always: "Why not Little League?" Why not replace all those "outdated" baseball skills that Den Leaders find not useful "at work and home," and turn Little League into something that most boys will hate as much as modern Scouting? After all, the ability to swing a wooden club "at work and home" became obsolete with the dawn of the Bronze Age. Yours at 300 feet, Kudu http://kudu.net/

moosetracker writes: Group together pitch your tent as a patrol unit (I doubt I will have enough space for the 300ft, so it will be patrols in squishy campsite.. and do something as a Patrol, and give some patrol spirit.. It may not be what is full blown Patrol Method, but it will emulate what is shown to you in the training courses.. Patrols in a squishy campsite is the Troop Method, not the Patrol Method, no matter how many people agree with you that it is "just not practical at this time." When everyone tells you that a weekend of experience won't make any difference in the participants' understanding of the Patrol Method, they are dead wrong. When they tell you that you can cover the Patrol Method by merely mentioning Baden-Powell's 300 foot rule and how adults should interact with the Scouts, they are dead wrong. When they tell you that every adult understands the Patrol Method because its just like a office work group, except with a lame Patrol Flag, and a lame Patrol Cheer, and lame manufactured Patrol Spirit, they are dead wrong. Red-blooded American boys want Adventure, not more of that lame Cub Scout crap. "Real" Patrol Spirit comes from boys organizing their own Patrol Hike, and pulling it off without adults telling them how to do it. That is "Real" Patrol Spirit. That is Adventure. Spacing your Patrols 300 feet apart when camping as a Troop is actually preparation for the "Real" thing (Patrol Hikes and Patrol Overnights). That's right: What the BSA once called a "Real" Patrol. When as the course director you make up excuses for squishing the participants together into the Troop Method, you are modeling the behavior they are likely to imitate for the rest of their tenure as volunteers: Never once meeting Baden-Powell's minimum standard (MINIMUM STANDARD!). The reason? They have never actually experienced it themselves: At best only heard it mentioned once at training. Actions speak louder than words. Yours at 300 feet, Kudu

May I suggest a different name for the CEO-Wannabe course: Work Badge

moosetracker writes: Sounds like a fun "Beyond the Basics" course for an elective supplemental training. Yes, it should be a week long, designed by Baden-Powell and William Hillcourt, and be called something "woodsy" like, um: "Wood Badge"

Basementdweller writes: Do IOLS requirements state very clearly anything about the patrol method??? No, the current official "Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills" (ItOLS) course outline specifies the "Buddy System," NOT the Patrol Method: This program works best when implemented by having participants pair off with a buddy to do each skill. Since skills-training involves, among other things, memorization, the buddy system allows you to teach (with sufficient instructors to ensure learning and participation) and have each participant practice the task with enough repetition to learn the skill well. Adults have a fear of failure, so working with a buddy teaches with positive reinforcement and helps eliminate the possibility of nonparticipation or embarrassment in a large group. The focus on learning by doing makes the buddy system approach the key difference between this course and merely showing how to accomplish a skill (ItOLS course outline, page 7). Likewise the Course Evaluation asks about the Buddy System, NOT the Patrol Method: Did you enjoy the buddy system? (ItOLS, page 94). Presumably the participants learned everything they need to know about the Patrol Method in SM-Specific Training where a Wood Badge expert took 20 minutes to explain that the Patrol Method = Adult Association + EDGE, and does include a Patrol or a Patrol Leader (SM & ASM Specific Training, pages 53-61) So, the real question here is: "How do we add to the requirements?" "Real" Scouting is defined by physical distance. When I serve as ItOLS course director, I put the Patrols in separate "Troop" campsites, so they are 300 feet apart, and I march them around to distant skills instruction areas as much as possible. I do like the idea of teaching ItOLS cooking with at least one Patrol meal prepared out on the trail using backpacking stoves! But how do we slip the Patrol Method into an ItOLS Test-Out? Good luck: The purpose of BSA Training is to replace the "Real" Patrol Method with indoor CEO-Wannabe skills. Why do we have an ItOLS course in the first place? Because Wood Badge kicked out Baden-Powell's Scoutcraft. "Real" Scouting is defined by physical distance. Understand that the purpose of Baden-Powell's Wood Badge is to teach Scoutmasters how to prepare a Second Class Scout for the test of his mastery of Scoutcraft on the "First Class Journey" (a 14 mile Overnight with no adult supervision), and (in both B-P & GBB's WB) how to teach Patrol Leaders to take their Patrols on unsupervised Patrol Hikes at least once or twice a month, and (after each proves himself) extended Patrol Hikes called "Patrol Overnights." So "Real" Scouting takes Real Leadership, which is grounded in Real Scoutcraft, not checking stuff off a list as in ItOLS. "Real" Scouting is defined by physical distance. So to allow an adult to test-out of ItOLS, I would require an him or her to be able to go on a First Class Journey alone or with only a single buddy, according to the Scoutcraft standards of 1916, specified by law in our Congressional Charter: http://inquiry.net/advancement/tf-1st_require_1911.htm Or Baden-Powell's version, which is more to the point: (9) Journey. Go on foot or row a boat, alone or with another Scout, for a total distance of fourteen miles, or ride an animal or bicycle (not motor) a distance of thirty miles; he must write a short report of the journey with special attention to any points to which he may be directed by the Examiner or his Scoutmaster (a route map of the journey is not required). The journey should occupy about twenty-four hours and camping kit for the night must be taken and used. Whenever practicable, the camp site must be of the Scout's own choosing, and not where other Scouts are camping. His S.M. or Examiner may indicate the route and suggest the approximate area but not the actual position where he will make his camp... This test should normally be the final one taken for the First -Class badge. http://inquiry.net/advancement/1st_class_requirements.htm So, the adult's "short report of the Journey" would include a list of all of the Tenderfoot through First Class Scoutcraft skills he or she used on the Journey, with a passing score of say, 65% of the requirements. "Real" Scouting is defined by physical distance. In the spirit of this thread's adding the Patrol Method to the aggressively lame ("Did you enjoy the buddy system?") ItOLS requirements, I would require the adult to take the other adult leaders (or the Troop's Patrol Leaders) on a Patrol Overnight, based on the common Baden-Powell Second Class requirement: Go on an eight-mile daytime Journey (minimum) with at least three other Scouts. Your Patrol Leader will set your route, and a specific objective will be given. Make an oral report from notes to your Patrol Leader immediately upon your return. Your Scoutmaster must know your hiking route, and must approve your plan in advance. If additional Scouts are taking the test, each will report independently. http://inquiry.net/traditional/handbook/index.htm To prove an adult's real-world, practical understanding of the Patrol Method, I would also require a letter from his Troop's Patrol Leaders certifying that the Troop camps its Patrols 300 feet apart on at least one campout per year, and at least one Patrol Leader is competent enough to conduct an independent Patrol Overnight (if only on the opposite end of a Boy Scout camp during a Troop campout). So those are the "Test Out" standards that I would require. Yours at 300 feet, Kudu "Real" Scouting is defined by physical distance. You want your Patrol to be a real one, and only a hiking Patrol is a real Patrol...One of your greatest services as a Patrol Leader is to try to make your Patrol into a Camping Patrol trained in the ways of the experienced campers. This takes time. It takes also patience and perseverance. But it can be done, and you are will under way toward doing it, the day you have made your boys into real hikers... (BSA Handbook for Patrol Leaders by William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt). "Real" Scouting is defined by physical distance. Patrols are ready to go hiking and camping on their own just as soon as the Patrol Leader has been trained, and the Scouts have learned to take care of themselves....It should be your goal to get your Patrol Leaders qualified for hike and camp leadership at an early stage (BSA Handbook for Scoutmasters by William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt).

DeanRx writes: Why do I think Baden Powell and Green Bar Bill are rolling in their collective graves when posts such as these come up? Actually they preferred pretend bombs to pretend rifles. Rather than hanging out at campfires where these lame adults can force them to be politically correct, Scouts should be out playing "Wide Games" as B-P and GBB intended: Pretending to kill each other just as human boys did from the misty beginnings of time up until the feminists were invented: http://inquiry.net/outdoor/games/laser_alternatives.htm Yours at 300 feet, Kudu

And we wonder why they leave.

Eagle732 writes: The current situation is not that boys are visiting and not joining, in fact if we can get a boy to visit he usually joins, the problem is that we can't get them to come at all. No, your problem is that you can't get Webelos to come at all Recruiting in the public schools is the solution to the Cub Scouts problem. Cub Scouts is a Filter! By the time they get to Webelos, all that remain are the boys who can tolerate sitting around an adult-led table, learning boring stuff that adults pretend is "Fun." The mega-troop of 80-90 Scouts 12 miles down the road may seem like a lot to you, but what is the Total Available Youth (TAY) in your school district? When I report that my recruiting presentation can bring in 28% of sixth-grade boys when held in September, that is 28% TAY in addition to the BSA's TAY percentage. In other words those 15 new Scouts are above what the best efforts of the local Scouting professionals and volunteers had ALREADY extracted as Webelos "Crossovers" to other Troops the previous spring. http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm On another note, I would caution you again against recruiting fifth-graders in the spring unless you will not be able to get access to them the following fall in sixth-grade. I think they are too young. Instead I would try to recruit the current sixth-graders this spring, but do your homework first: Try to network permission to recruit through a personal connection with the school principal or school district. The BSA push to recruit fifth-graders is most likely the reason that most Cub Scout parents are more comfortable with adult-run mega Troops. Yours at 300 feet, Kudu

Yes, Rockford, recruiting in September would probably have resulted in about 15 registered Scouts rather than four, but that year the first opportunity was in November. It is now November, so Eagle732 might try the current sixth-graders at the end of this school year.

Eagle732 writes: I'm thinking that recruiting the 5th graders towards the end of their school year (April or May) might get some results. Yes, if you can only get access to the elementary school and not the middle school. The downside of recruiting at the end of the school year is that the families are likely to have already made plans for other summer camps (if they can afford it at all without Troop fundraisers), so you might want to offer an active summer program for those who will not go to summer camp with the Troop. Most Scoutmasters report that the percentage of Webelos crossover recruits who do NOT go to Boy Scout summer camp but DO return the following fall is very small, if not zero. I never school-recruited non-Webelos fifth-graders in the spring, but the retention rate of newly recruited sixth-graders who did not go to summer camp but did remain in my Troop through the following fall was close to 100%. I'm not sure why. I believe that the Cub Scout program acts as a filter so when you recruit in the public schools, 100% of the Scouts you recruit were either filtered out of Cub Scouts or never joined in the first place. The boys that the Cub Scout program filters out seem to make better Boy Scouts in an Old School, backwoods, hardcore Patrol Method program (but the downside is that their parents are less likely to become Assistant Scoutmasters). But part of this higher retention rate might be that by the end of sixth-grade, boys are much more mature than fifth-graders. They take to Hillcourt's version of the Patrol Method right away. Remember that for many years the BSA's minimum age was 12, and that may have accounted for something back in the days when Scouting was very popular with boys. By the way, I recruited in November only once and it was a complete disaster! As usual 70% of the audience signed (in front of their peers) my "Yes! I Want to Go Camping" list, but when I called each parent that afternoon all but four of them said they would not allow their sons to join any new activities. It turns out that grade reports had just gone out and apparently close to 100% of sixth-grade boys are flunking in November. So, if you can get access to the middle school I would recommend that you also recruit those sixth-graders at the end of the school year this year so you do not lose them, and then return the following fall to get next year's sixth-graders. After all, if you offer them dangerous adventure, you should register 28% of the audience each time. http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm Yours at 300 feet, Kudu

I wrote: Can we "mentor" a boy who is afraid of the water into becoming a BSA Lifeguard? I guess, but absent the hard-core adult supervision that we find in the Troop Method, I think the Scouts are better off under the most competent "Natural Swimmers" with position-specific Lifeguard training. Twocubdad replies: If that statement is true, it is the best argument I've heard against hard-core patrol method scouting and for the current program. I absolutely want to give every cupcake, mama's boy in the troop an opportunity to be a leader. Hell, I especially want to give every cupcake in the troop an opportunity to be a leader. If that means I have to dumb down the program from some lofty ideal of adventure, I'm there. Thank you for your excellent post, Twocubdad. That is what I have been saying all along: To "give every cupcake, mama's boy in the troop an opportunity to be a leader," we must "dumb down the program from [the] lofty ideal of adventure." We are in absolute agreement on this "Leadership Standardization Equation." Yours at 300 feet, Kudu http://kudu.net/

Eagle732 writes: Elementary school access (K - 5) is by appointment only and tightly controlled by District. No middle school access that I know of but I'll ask. Before you "cold call," ask around to see if any of your parents know the principal (or a School District person in charge). For years I was told it was against "school policy" to recruit during school hours. The principal never returned our phone calls. Then one of our Scouts (who was often suspended and/or kept after school) volunteered to ask the vice-principal in charge of discipline who, he said, was a Scoutmaster and would probably let us recruit. I told him to be polite and arrange through his secretary for a meeting to see him. He replied, "Nah, that's not necessary. He's in charge of discipline, so I see him every day!" Sure enough, the vice-principal called me the next day, and we were in the school auditorium the next week. See: http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm So, it's not what you know, it's the hooligan you know Yours at 300 feet, Kudu One of our methods in the Scout movement for taming a hooligan is to appoint him head of a Patrol. He has all the necessary initiative, the spirit and the magnetism for leadership, and when responsibility is thus put upon him it gives him the outlet he needs for his exuberance of activity, but gives it in a right direction. --Baden-Powell, from the article "Are Our Boys Degenerating?" circa 1918

Cub Scouts was easy, go to the local elementary schools, put on a show, have a sign up night and get 30 new boys. I did it year after year, but the Boy Scout thing, this is tough! It sounds like you have access to the public schools in your area. If you did it year after year for Cub Scouts, why not do it now for Boy Scouts? I found that 70% of sixth-graders want to join Boy Scouts if you define Scouting as dangerous adventure. Of that, about 28% of the audience ended up as registered Scouts after I called their parents: http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm

OldGreyEagle writes: So there is no mentoring of a boy, But that is not what I said, is it? I said you can mentor a boy who is scared of the water into becoming a BSA Lifeguard. But chances are you will "Standardize" the Adventure (controlled risk) for everyone else down to his competency. The reason that Leadership Development is a Cult is that Leadership "experts" do not admit the consequences of their actions: "Everyone can be a Leader" now, only because we have "Standardized" the "Outing" out of, um, Patrol Outings. OldGreyEagle writes: The strong survive and weak struggle In a "Real" Patrol, the strong lead and the weak have great Patrol Adventures. You didn't answer my question: Do you feel diminished by a "subservient role" to the strongest, most competent BSA Lifeguards when you swim? If not then you understand the meaning of true Boy Leadership. My best SPLs were usually BSA Lifeguards. It is one of the few things that can't be faked now that Leadership Development controls Scouting. Before Leadership Development was invented, an Eagle Scout had to pass Lifesaving Merit Badge. There is nothing wrong with recognizing and building on true strength, rather than the Fake self-esteem success Metaphors of "Position of Responsibility" requirements. Scouting would be more popular if we returned to the Literal meaning of Leadership. Yours at 300 feet, Kudu http://kudu.net

OldGreyEagle writes: You have never heard of the technical expert being made team leader and then the team falls apart because the technical expert has no concept of leading a team? No. That sounds like something that happens in corporate offices. Baden-Powell and Bill Hillcourt are talking about Literal Leadership: To physically Lead a Patrol into the woods. A Natural Leader has more than technical skills. Off the top of my head I look for: 1) Above average IQ 2) Adult-level verbal skills (which often get him in trouble at school). 3) A love of the outdoors to the degree that Scouting is a priority over sports and after-school activities (if that priority changes, then he may no longer be the Patrol's Natural Leader). 4) A dynamic embodiment of Scout Law (which has its own boy-logic, and is not always in line with the adult emphasis on Loyal and Obedient). 5) A physical bearing of some kind that discourages intimidation by other boys when the adults are not around. You can't teach that with National Standardization. "The bottom line is that a "Real" Patrol Leader is chosen for his ability to safely take his Patrol on Patrol Outings" OldGreyEagle writes: So, what we are saying is that unless one is a natural leader, a "Real" Patrol Leader the boy will never be a leader and assumes a subservient role? The goal of a "Real" Patrol is Adventure, not "Leadership Training." All swimmers "assume a subservient role" to the BSA Lifeguard. If the goal of a Patrol Outing is Fun & Adventure then so what if everyone is "subservient" to a Real Patrol Leader, like we all are to a BSA Lifeguard? When I swim, I am not bothered by my "subservient role" to a Lifeguard (or a Dive Master) one-third my age, are you OGE? It is only when we "Standardize to the Least Common Denominator" with dumbed-down Positions of Responsibility for Standardized POR requirements (for mass-produced Eagles) that a non-swimmer would care about "getting his turn" at being the BSA Lifeguard for six months. To accomplish that new goal, we must dumb swimming down to baby pools and splash pads in the same way that we dumbed the Patrol Method down to Troop Method camping. OldGreyEagle writes: there is no mentoring the boy? Can we "mentor" a boy who is afraid of the water into becoming a BSA Lifeguard? I guess, but absent the hard-core adult supervision that we find in the Troop Method, I think the Scouts are better off under the most competent Natural Swimmers with position-specific Lifeguard training. Yours at 300 feet, Kudu Life After Scuba Diving Merit Badge: http://inquiry.net/scuba_diving_merit_badge/index.htm

OldGreyEagle writes: Kudu, we both agree that the Patrol Leader's job is to bring up his patrols competency so that the group may function on their own on a patrol outing That makes two of us, OGE OldGreyEagle writes: Very often those with high skill sets have no way of imparting this knowledge to others, they know how to start a fire and can't imagine anyone who cant. "Very often"? I hear this all the time, but it sounds like a theoretical dilemma. My experience is that Natural Leaders love to show off their secrets: "You make a little cave in the tinder, like this. Then you put the lit match into the little cave, like this." The bottom line is that a "Real" Patrol Leader is chosen for his ability to safely take his Patrol on Patrol Outings, in the same way that a BSA Lifeguard is chose for his ability to keep the waterfront safe (not to teach Scouts how to swim). The destruction of Scouting by "Standardization to the Least Common Denominator" is two-fold: 1) Scoutcraft and 2) Leadership. 1) In Troop24's example of an Eagle Scout, remember that any cupcake from Seattle to Key West can get an Eagle badge "literally" without ever walking into the woods with a pack on his back. So Eagle Scouts no longer need "Scout" in B-P's "Literal" meaning of "to Scout" as a verb. Eagle is now a "Metaphor" for abstract stuff like the "Aims" of Scouting, "ethical and moral choices," and in the CSE's most recent attacks on Scoutcraft: "Character and Leadership." See: http://inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm In other words, "Once an Eagle, Always an Eagle." Baden-Powell's Scouting is based on Literal "Current Proficiency," which is the opposite of the Metaphorical "Once an Eagle, Always an Eagle." To continue to wear any Badge a Scout must be retested every 12 to 18 months. On a practical level "retesting" means that the Scout must help his Patrol Leader teach that skill to get signed off again. So, if the Patrol Leader is the best Journey Leader but not the best teacher, he can delegate to a Scout who needs retesting (or, in the case of a new Badge, to have the PLC approve what we call a "Blue Card"). 2) Before Fake Leadership was introduced in 1972, "Patrol Leader Training" literally taught a Patrol Leader the position-specific Scoutcraft necessary to physically "Lead" his Patrol into the woods without adult supervision. See: http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm "Leadership Development" took the Scoutcraft out of Patrol Leader Training and replaced it with a Metaphor called the "Nine Leadership Skills:" A "Standardization to the Least Common Denominator" (AKA all "Junior Leaders"). See: http://inquiry.net/leadership/9skills.htm "In general, Patrol Leader training should concentrate on leadership skills rather than on Scoutcraft Skills. The Patrol will not rise and fall on the Patrol Leader's ability to cook, follow a map, or do first aid, but it very definitely depends on his leadership skill." http://inquiry.net/leadership/index.htm Yours at 300 feet, Kudu

NJCubScouter writes: When someone asks a question, especially about things like the patrol method, several posters in this forum will often direct the person to an older version of a BSA publication, such as a Scoutmaster's Handbook from...the 40's or 50's The 30s and 40s, actually: http://tinyurl.com/368exou If you want to understand "things like the patrol method" you must be able to distinguish between Literal Meaning and Metaphor. The purpose of BSA Training or "Standardization" (as in dumbing Wood Badge down to the Cub Scout level) is to replace the LITERAL meaning of Scoutcraft terms with Fake Leadership METAPHORS, so as to "broaden the appeal of Scouting" to the least common denominator. In NJCubScouter's example, the "old" meaning of "Patrol Leader" and "Patrol Method" (these terms were capitalized in the 3rd and 4th editions) is LITERAL: A Patrol Leader (the most competent Scout in a Patrol) literally LEADS the Patrol on Patrol Hikes and (if competent enough) on Patrol Overnights without adult supervision. In the "Patrol Method Presentation" of "SM & ASM Specific Training" we literally removed the "patrol leader" and the "patrol" and replaced them with the Fake Leadership METAPHOR called "EDGE." The new handbook even goes a step further by introducing this Fake Leadership as "Scoutcraft." Yours at 300 Feet, Kudu "Scuba is a Game with a Porpoise" http://inquiry.net/scuba_diving_merit_badge/index.htm Literal: Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. Metaphor: A figure of speech that constructs an analogy between two things or ideas; the analogy is conveyed by the use of a metaphorical word in place of some other word. For example: "Her eyes were glistening jewels".

JMHawkins writes: Yep, a Scout is Obedient, but I think there's got to be an unspoken codicil to that. Every Scout knows the Scout Law. But there is an extra point to that Law which is not written but is understood by every Scout. It is this: "A Scout is not a fool." Baden-Powell, Scouting for Boys, Yarn 18. Yours at 300 feet, Kudu

42 Night Games and the philosophy of Night Scouting: http://inquiry.net/outdoor/night/index.htm

qwazse writes: the next time a youth asks me, I'm plagiarizing you ... Scouts should to pretend to kill each other as Baden-Powell and the BSA's Bill Hillcourt intended. Thanks qwazse! I'm glad that I could be of service [begin rant rebuttal] Troop24 writes: I think the point of this thread from the very beginning has been an attempt to justify weaseling out of the rules by saying "Rules, What Rules?" The point of this thread from the very beginning has been to examine the nature of BSA rules. As for your ad hominem assertion that my motivation is to "weasel out" of the rules, you are wrong. When my Scouts want to play laser tag, I show them your politically correct liberal "guideline" against "laser firearms" to illustrate why true conservatives are opposed to our government limiting the rights of its citizens. I explain that in other countries such as England and Germany Scouts have the right to a free market in Scouting that allows them to join a competing Scout corporation. When my citizenship lesson is over, I teach them how to pretend to kill other Scouts using the Wide Game methods that Baden-Powell and the BSA's Congressional Charter intended me to use: http://inquiry.net/outdoor/games/wide/index.htm Troop24 writes: Play by the rules or don't play! Seems simple enough to me. Rules, Troop24? What Rules? Rules to you are metaphors. Metaphors for Scoutmaster Minutes, perhaps. You do not really care what the "literal" rules are because you have a romantic vision of the rules. You like the idea of making your Scouts follow the rules, but you weasel out of the tough questions: Where exactly in the OFFICIAL Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America (which we all agreed in writing to obey) do you find any mention of infrared-emitting devices, lasers, or your own creative contribution to the debate: "laser type objects"? Troop24 writes: Where along the way does that follow the lines of the Scout Law and the Scout Oath that we all supposedly voluntarily aspire to pass the values of onto the Scouts under our charge? How about the laws of their country? 7. A Scout is OBEDIENT. "A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them." http://inquiry.net/ideals/scout_law/chart.htm Troop24 writes: Boy Scouts of America is a national organization and an Eagle Scout from Seattle should be the same as an Eagle Scout from Key West and so should any rank in between. Standardization was the intent of the Congressional Charter, which set the standard to withstand the erosion of time: The Scoutcraft methods in common practice on June 15, 1916. Among other things, the final test of a First Class Scout's mastery of this Scoutcraft should be the First Class Journey: A hike 7 miles into the woods by himself or with a buddy, camp (at least in B-P's version), and then hike 7 miles out. See: http://inquiry.net/advancement/tf-1st_require_1911.htm Now according to the "rules" that you defend with personal attacks, any cupcake can get an Eagle Badge without ever walking into the woods with a pack on his back. You pretend to care about adding/subtracting from standards and weakening the overall affect of the advancement process of Scouting across the board, but it is people like you, Troop24, that support the corporate "rules" that defy the Act of Congress written to protect future generations of American children from people like you. People who blindly support corporations that hope to profit from "adding/subtracting from them [the standards of 1916] and weakening the overall affect of the advancement process of Scouting across the board" so as to "broaden the appeal of Scouting" to increase market-share by attracting the parents of boys who do not like Scouting. When the Congressional Charter was written people would say of their worst enemy: "It would take an Act of Congress to get him to do the right thing," but now people like you, Troop24, stick your finger in the eye of an Act of Congress because you like to teach Boy Scouts to just follow orders. You should obey the laws of your country, Troop24. If you think that the Congressional Charter is unfair, then you should try to have that Act of Congress changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying the very highest Law of the Land. The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916. http://inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm [end of rant rebuttal] Yours at 300 feet, Kudu

acco40 writes: But, that was not the question. The question was, is laser tag allowed? The answer is no, it is not. No, the question in this thread is "Rules? What Rules?" The answer is "Rules? What Rules?" Or more plainly: "How do we know that the rules really are?" As I noted in my initial post, the closest most of us ever come reading the BSA's actual rules are the sentences in the Guide to Safe Scouting (GtSS) which appear in bold-face type, so reminiscent of the red type in our Bibles: "Bold type throughout the Guide to Safe Scouting denotes BSA rules and policies" (GtSS, page iii). So exactly where in the official Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America do the following words "in bold-face type" appear: "Pointing any type of firearm (including paintball, dye or lasers) at any individual is unauthorized"? Perhaps there is a clause somewhere in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America that says "Feminist Den Leaders serving on a national safety committee can make up any rules they want." But at face value the implication that laser tag is specifically banned by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, appears to be a lie in the same way that the implication that infrared-emitting devices are "firearms" is a lie, that infrared-emitting devices are "lasers" is a lie, and that a ban on infrared-emitting devices as a "safety" concern is a lie. On the other hand, if we read the words in the GtSS according to their truthful or "literal" meaning, then there is no rule (offical or fake) that bans laser tag because "laser tag" does not use lasers. The truthful or "literal" meaning of firearms and lasers is consistent with the BSA's promotion of marshmallow crossbows, squirt guns, and super-soakers. All that being said, I am against laser tag because it is an expensive indoor game in a confined space. Scouts should to pretend to kill each other as Baden-Powell and the BSA's Bill Hillcourt intended: http://inquiry.net/outdoor/games/laser_alternatives.htm The above Wide Games offer plenty of politically incorrect games guaranteed to upset feminists, but in wide areas so that even your Troop's most obese little balls of butter get plenty of fresh air and exercise! With the money that you save on even a single Troop trip to a laser tag establishment, you can purchase a couple of cheap GPS units for the above Treasure Hunt Games, and a couple of actual lasers for the Manhunt Games (the lasers are used by responsible older Scouts to indicate their positions at required regular intervals). Yours at 300 feet, Kudu "Life After Scuba Diving Merit Badge:" http://inquiry.net/scuba_diving_merit_badge/index.htm

The destruction of America's Boy Scout program is rooted in the conversion of literal meaning into metaphor. Firearm: A weapon capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant. Gunpowder, in other words. It should be obvious to anyone (who is not involved in a "leadership development" cult) that "laser" tag does not involve gunpowder. Acco40's assertion that examples of firearms include sharks and Barbe dolls "if the intent is to point them at individuals" defines "firearm" as the "intent to point." In other words, "Firearm" is a METAPHOR that makes toys sound "dangerous." Laser: An acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation It can be argued that projectile devices such as "paintball, dye, or lasers" (and squirt guns) do pose a remote risk of eye injury when used incorrectly, but "laser" tag does not involve lasers: Laser tag: An activity where players attempt to score points with hand-held infrared-emitting targeting devices. In other words "Laser" is a METAPHOR that makes the infrared technology in your tv remote sound "dangerous." Safe: Free from danger or the risk of harm; "a safe trip." The Guide to Safe Scoutings prohibition against laser tag is based on what feminists might consider to be politically correct values for boys. It is NOT based on keeping Scouts free from real danger. In other words, "Safe" is a METAPHOR that makes boys' thoughts sound "dangerous." Yours at 300 feet, Kudu http://www.inquiry.net/scuba_diving_merit_badge/index.htm Literal: Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. Metaphor: A figure of speech that constructs an analogy between two things or ideas; the analogy is conveyed by the use of a metaphorical word in place of some other word. For example: "Her eyes were glistening jewels".

I'm working on a very rough draft of a Webpage about a Boy Scout Troop in Florida that goes Scuba Diving once a month rather than camping in the summer heat: http://www.inquiry.net/scuba_diving_merit_badge/index.htm Anyone else do that? Any challenges? How many divers? How often do you dive the rest of the year? Thanks! Yours at 300 feet, Kudu