Lisabob

Thanks kb and emb. As for an "interest list" our council is apparently behind the curve on this. I've been told by one of the fellows who is one of our contingent ASMs that our council won't even begin talking about jambo sign ups until June. And then things tend to be done word-of-mouth so I'm really trying to make sure I know what to ask!

guys, when I clicked on the link in GNXguy's first post a user name and password screen came up. Does this mean that the jambo site just isn't online right now, or that in order to access it I will need to get some mystical password (and how do I do that)? Since our troop hasn't participated in past jambos in recent memory,and since there's some interest in sending some boys to 2010 jambo, I want to make sure our guys aren't the last ones to find out about it this time around. Thanks.

There are an awful lot of misconceptions about what venturing is all about, that's for sure. One thing we've kicked around a bit is to start with established scout leaders (troops in particular) and help them understand what the program is. Because they're often the largest source of entrenched opposition and/or misinformation about venturing. So perhaps a light education segment at a Round Table is a starting point for these folks. As for non-scout folks (youth and adults alike), most probably have no conception at all, right or wrong, about what venturing is about. It has not been given a high profile in terms of BSA advertising, at least not as far as I can tell! So the question here isn't how to change misconceptions, but rather, how to attract a curious audience to begin with. Once you have that audience you can be sure to provide them with examples of the wide range of activities venturing crews might be involved in, so that they leave with the knowledge that outdoor high adventure is not the only thing available. And as a couple of additional non-outdoor-adventure examples: we have 2 crews-in-the-making in our area, one of which may be oriented to shooting sports and the other of which is interested in fire fighting (really more of an explorer post format, but they want to be a crew and not a post). There is also a regular poster on this board who is involved with a crew that does Civil War re-enactment.

Most people in our area go with grade level because that way boys are together with their friends from class. I can see doing it based on age too and I'd say go with whatever works for your area - but that's the norm around here. As for the 6 year old in question ...if he will be in 1st grade in the fall he can be a Tiger starting the end of this school year. (However I do know a couple of packs who won't take Tiger apps until fall because they don't want to take very young boys to day camp with them. I respect that, even though at a district and council level we tend to push day camp as a great intro into cub scouting for brand new Tigers and their parents.)

We had our guys vote both times and it worked out pretty well, believe it or not. Sometimes all it takes is for a boy to suggest a cool name to go with one of the animals, and the rest jump on that bandwagon. But I like some of the more fun ideas suggested above - particularly the idea of picking characteristics they care about first (tastes good??! that one has me laughing). After all, symbols should have some meaning behind them.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Now, here's why I even care. In looking at membership retention numbers for the district it has come to our attention that there are three places where lots of boys dropped out of scouting last year. One is in the Tiger year, or right at the beginning of the Wolf year. The second is in the transition from Bear to Webelos I. And the third is in the transition from webelos to boy scouts. At a recent district meeting, somebody asked whether leader training is in any way correlated to retention trends. Being a numbers person! I offered (bad idea) to have a look. What I found, based on admittedly suspect data culled from council records, was that there are some clear trends in a few places. For example, of the 10 units with the highest # of dropped tigers, 9 either had no TDL at all or had an untrained TDL. The average # of dropped tigers in units with at least 1 trained TDL was about 2 boys lower, than in units without any trained TDL. This does suggest that having a trained Tiger TDL is important. Not one pack in the whole district has all of their Webelos DLs trained. In fact, fully 1/2 of the packs don't even have a registered Webelos DL, despite having webelos scouts on their rosters! Perhaps because of this the webelos #s (which are our biggest drop point) don't show a clear correlation with any leader training stats. I also found out that about 1/3 of the packs don't have any registered Tiger DLs despite having Tiger Scouts. I would have thought that the UCs might have caught this sort of thing - having dens of boys with no registered den leaders - when the recharter paperwork was being processed?!? In terms of overall training percentages, I found that we're evidently close to the national norm, but on the bright side, looking at all units, primary program officers (CM, SM, Adviser, Coach) are about 62% trained. What to do with all of this?! Probably nothing, realistically speaking. There might be some talk about changing how we approach training. Will it happen? Who knows!? I suppose I can at least say I looked at how training impacts membership though. (This message has been edited by lisabob)(This message has been edited by lisabob)

I had a good laugh reading your post Eamonn! About a year ago I tried to get the records for just our troop updated. Now we have probably 35 adults registered so that's no small matter, but I was astounded to discover that, despite a firm expectation that ASMs and SM will be completely trained within 18 months, many of our long-time ASMs were listed as "not trained." So I started asking question. And the answers I got were all over the page! One problem is that some folks had taken the training so long ago that it has changed names several times since then. And they couldn't remember exactly what it was called back then. Another problem is that some didn't seem to remember what they had done to start with. I had one gentleman who was not sure whether he had taken WB. He thought he probably had, but he couldn't remember. (I'm thinking that means he probably didn't) More recently, the people who handle our troopmaster and internet recharter process told me that they couldn't find the right codes in those systems to correspond to some of the older trainings that our longtime leaders had taken, so they ended up listing these leaders as "untrained." Red Beads indeed! I can't fix these problems.

Thanks for the information so far. Infoscouter, I was actually on the Cuyuna website checking it out this morning! Looks like a nice camp and I appreciate their emphasis on the patrol method. I kind of wonder how that works out for new first-year scouts. A couple of other folks mentioned Many Points, which looks like it is maybe 200-250 miles from Ely. We actually have enough adults so that the boys could split and have some go to camp while others do high adventure, if that's what the boys end up choosing.

Lizzy, What a shame for that boy, that his mom apparently does not want him to have a full scouting experience. And I'm sorry you have to deal with that type of nastiness too. It seems to me there are many adults who do not understand that everyone working with their child in scouting is a volunteer, doing this out of the goodness of their heart. But as you know, there's no law against parents being jerks. Or against using their children as pawns in some personal game. And who knows, maybe, just maybe, the family had to leave for their out of town activity right after the school event??? Chances of this boy continuing in scouts are not high. More's the pity for him but I completely understand your last comment too!

"but that a large number of Scouters have not helped the District stay current on the paperwork." That one made me laugh. Why should it be on the shoulders of the scouters, who took time to GO to training, to maintain district records? I know everyone is supposed to keep every "trained" card they ever got, but there is a point at which the above is a bit silly. We have a problem with this in our district as well, but the problem lies with poor record keeping on the district end, not on the scouters' end. Sorry, that's a personal pet peeve of mine and it has been touched upon a lot as I was digging through district records. People who I trained personally, within the last year, (so I know they're trained!) sometimes are listed as not trained. Bob- do you have any idea where I can cite that %? I've heard "National recently said" several times recently but no one can tell me where they said/wrote it. I figure if anyone knows that, it might be you. Thank you.

Can someone give me some additional info on Sommers Canoe Base/Northern Tier/Boundary Waters (are these all the same?) in MN? I've looked at the NT website and it seems as though this is purely a high adventure base. However I've also been told that there is a traditional BSA camp for younger scouts at Sommers. Is that right? I couldn't find any web links for it. If not, is there a traditional BSA camp nearby so that younger guys could have a BSA camp experience while the older guys went on a high adventure trip? All I could find on the web about Sommers was related to wilderness canoe treks. And on that note...what's the difference (besides cost!) among the three canoe base options (1 in MN, 2 in Canada)? Thanks for the info.

What do you think is "typical" in terms of the % of adult leaders considered "trained," among units with which you are familiar? Would you expect it to be about 25? Above 50%? I've done a little digging around in my district's records in order to get a better handle on what the local trends are. I'd appreciate a broader comparison though. Somewhere I know I've heard that nationally, about 30% of adult leaders have completed basic training for their positions, but I don't have any idea where that number comes from.

Pack, I get your point but, having moved to this state after they decided to introduce stringent term limits (6 years/lifetime - at the time, the most stringent in the entire country), I get the best of all worlds I suppose. I can complain about the idiocy and long-term negative impact of term limit laws, without taking responsibility for them! (Note, however, that I do regularly let my shifting legislative representation know how I feel on the issue. Part of the problem is that none of them are there long enough to get their feet on the ground, let alone accomplish something big like repealing term limits. When the law was enacted in the early 90s, it was estimated that by 2010, as much as 70% of the members of the legislature would be brand new to the state house. Another part of the problem is that term limits, like tax cuts, are quite popular when given a surface glance, and many voters do not look beyond that surface glance at 2d and 3d order consequences.) Anyway, somehow I've gone off on a tangent so to get back on track... Yeah! Lawyers! Ugh! ( ) Typos, sorry(This message has been edited by lisabob)(This message has been edited by lisabob)

There is a specific training for pack committee members too (at least, in our council there is).

I can't agree more with msnowman's comments about meetings vs. shows! We actually changed packs after our 1st year in cub scouts because, while the den meetings were awesome, the pack meetings bored even me to tears! My son hated them and didn't want to go. Our whole den moved to a pack that had "activities" instead of meetings. They went places, brought in interesting people, involved each den in the meeting, etc.. Some of the things that stick in my mind (it has been 4 years since my son was a cub) as having been big successes: **zoo trip with docents who did animal show&tells (followed by a pack overnighter at the zoo that night) **"extreme egg drop" contest (who could protect their airborne raw egg best - you can get as fancy or simple with this as you want, but be sure to lay out some ground rules first - lots of info on web about this. We launched our "egg rockets" using some of those rubbery stretchy bands that come with nerf target practice toys) **any outdoor activities at local/state parks, including short hikes/scavenger hunts and picnic food/games **fishing derby **anything that includes a camp fire **hands-on science fair (prepare for a mess but can be loads of fun) Hope this helps a bit!

Beavah writes: "The people who make bad decisions like this should be fired" and "Who wants people with such phenomenally poor judgment in a police uniform or makin' other (equally poor) decisions about the welfare of children? But I bet nobody in Michigan is talkin' about that, eh?" Agreed. Let me just add that the CPS in Michigan is notorious for poor performance. It has consistently been rated among the worst in the nation and been implicated in numerous scandals in the last few years. As ridiculous as this particular case is (and you better believe it is getting talked about here in MI!), at least no child was abused or killed due in part to CPS idiocy and negligence in this instance. Sadly that is more than can be said in some other recent cases in this state. If we'd like to find some folks to blame, I suggest we start by looking at our state legislature. Two problems: 1) they've cut funding for all kinds of social programs and services beyond the bone in the last several years, resulting in under-staffed service agencies, lack of money for adequate training, and limited or no oversight; and 2) term limit laws in MI mean our (mainly lawyer) legislature is ALWAYS full of inexperienced people who aren't in gov't long enough to see or deal with the consequences of their own legislative actions. I'd say the two are linked, in fact. It is ever-popular and easy to be the one who supports yet another round of tax cuts, especially when you know SOMEONE ELSE will be left holding the bag in terms of reduced services, 'cause you'll be term-limited out of office by then! Grr...

All pretty reasonable answers! Thanks for giving me something to think about, Oak Tree.

Not to get too far off track Oak Tree, but if it looks like a venture patrol and it acts like a venture patrol, why not just call it a venture patrol? The only units I'm familiar with who have Varsity Teams are LDS units - and there, I've noticed that the smaller LDS troops treat the Team as a special group within the troop too, but mainly because if they didn't, they would hardly have any boys (LDS is not very big where I live). In their case I believe they only bother with using Teams at all because they've been told to do so by their CO.

And when you do what GW suggests, brace yourself for a FLOOD of requests for help, because that's probably what you'll get. Especially if you are a cub leader, the folks involved in various district pursuits might not know you personally (they tend to be longer-time leaders and most cub leaders are fairly new to the program) and so they haven't gotten around to asking you yet. But once you are "known" to them, believe me, you're likely to feel the love. If you showed up at our district events and said "hey I want to help" I can think of about 6 different hats we'd all be trying to give you to wear. (seriously, if you don't know how to get the ball rolling on this, contact your District Exec.)

Our guys lashed together an "elevator" at summer camp a couple years ago and had a blast with it. The "GI Joe" game I mentioned in the "games with a purpose" thread is great for working on compass skills.

Our nascent VP has a planning meeting for next year coming up and I've been giving it some thought. A couple of questions for those of you who have experience: 1) How do you keep the size of your venture patrol manageable? Right now there are 6 boys in the group, all 1st Cl+ and mostly 13 years old starting their 4th year in boy scouts (plus one 17 year old who will be graduating high school in a couple weeks). Incidentally they include all of the PLs from the troop except for the troop's NSPs. One of the things I'm seeing that I like is that this is a small group. They have begun to bond with each other after their first backpacking experience, which is great. That's something I think they miss out on in our much larger troop. But because the VP is not a separate patrol (all of the boys have membership in "regular" patrols as well), there is a question of who can join? Fully half of the 58 boys in the troop are 13+ and 1st CL+. If all of them join, it would be like having a separate troop rather than a patrol. If the age or rank requirements are set higher, most of the boys who started this VP would be ineligible to remain. 2) How do you ensure that the boys in the VP are committed to doing the work that goes with big adventures, and not just to coming along on the "fun stuff" without putting in the leg work to make it happen? For example, since it isn't tied to rank advancement, can there be an attendance requirement as a condition of VP membership? Can participation in smaller hikes, VP fundraisers, etc., be tied to eligibility for big trips like Philmont or Boundary Waters? I have a bag full of other questions but I'll save them for later. Thanks!

bigguy, I'm not 100% sure on this but I had thought Pinkney-Waterloo was part of the Potawatami trail?? Our guys are looking at maybe doing this in the fall. They did Chief Pontiac recently and had a blast despite poor weather and lack of experience, and they plan to do the canoe trek later this summer. They have a planning meeting next week to discuss other options for next year. Some want to do boundary waters, some want to try to do Philmont. Either way they need some practice and local hiking is good for that. I'm just excited to see them thriving as a venture patrol. Feel free to send me a PM and tell me what council/district you're in. There are a couple of new venture crews starting in my area and maybe they're close enough that some of your older guys might be interested.

Venture Patrols can have pretty much any focus the boys in the patrol want to have. Our troop has had a VP on and off over the last few years. Right now our VP is focused on backpacking treks (If you're in SE MI, think Chief Pontiac and Potawatami Trails, for starters) but in other incarnations the focus has been on other activities. One year I think the VP did little else but play frisbee. They were less interested in doing big things, than in having some time away from the "little kids" as far as I could tell. In watching the ebbs and flows of our VPs I have noticed the following general trends: 1) The boys are willing to do lots of things, but where they fall down is on planning. In years where the VP advisor has taken a very hands-off approach, our VP has never really gotten off the ground. 2) The boys may not have any idea what kinds of activities are available to them, at least not at first. I've watched more than a couple meetings where the question "what do you want to do?" was met by blank looks and shrugs. This is followed closely by the fact that, until they have some experience with some activity, the boys may not know they want to do more of it! Backpacking seems like a good example - it sounds like an awful lot of work at first. 3) I've noticed that this year, the boys who are interested in taking things by the horns and really being active, are NOT the oldest boys in the troop. Those older boys are either too busy already or are comfortable in their routine, or are no longer that fired up about scouting (or a combination of the three). In past years some of our adult leaders have tried to limit the VP to boys who are in high school (10th grade+) but they've had little success. It is the 12-13-14 year olds who are willing to go out and try new things. So it might be worth spending a little time thinking about how you will help guide your nascent venture patrol, in order for it to be a worthwhile and sustainable experience. And if your goal is really to get the oldest boys in the troop to stick around, think carefully about whether having a VP, by itself, is going to accomplish that goal. (And PS - much as it pains me to say this - at this point in time in the United States, there is no place for girls in a venture patrol because the VP is part of the troop!)

Bob, you've hit upon the questions/issues precisely. The current troop tents don't work very well as backpacking tents, even split up. They are too big and cumbersome (even split up) and right now all but one of the boys in the VP are small-ish 13 year olds. There is also the fact that right now our troop is at the outer limit of our equipment capability, due to the influx of a much larger than normal group of new scouts. So if the VP uses troop tents and the troop uses troop tents, that means more wear/tear and less time between uses to fix any minor repair issues. The troop doesn't have any backpack stoves and neither do the boys in question. Should they buy their own? Should the troop provide them? As I am on the troop committee and I know that this issue will come up at next week's troop committee meeting, I am looking for people's input into how they have made similar decisions (the ups and downs, things to consider, etc.).

From time to time our troop has had a viable venture patrol, though in the past they haven't been terribly successful at maintaining such a patrol. We're in the latest iteration with a bunch of younger guys (all 1st Cl, ages 13-17) who are a little more active (think backpacking and maybe a big high adventure trip in the next couple of years). After their first backpacking weekend they came to realize that they lack appropriate gear. Our larger troop is primarily a car camping troop. So the troop has large patrol boxes, 2-burner coleman stoves, heavy tents, etc.. None of the boys owns backpacking tents or pack stoves. There's some talk about who should be responsible for buying backpacking gear. One line of thought is that the individuals who plan to use it should buy it, perhaps using funds raised through our regular fundraisers (from which the profits already go straight to the boys' accounts). Another line of thought is that if the troop wants to support a venture patrol, the troop should help fund the purchase of this equipment, just as the troop funds the purchase of car-camping gear. Then there's the question of whether the boys in the VP, who are also in "regular" patrols, should or could do a separate fund raiser of their own just for VP needs and if so, who really owns any equipment purchased with that money - troop or boys? I'd like your input into how you see this and/or how you handle this sort of thing. Backpacking gear is expensive! So this will take some planning no matter how we do it.