Lisabob

I must say I'm a bit surprised. Let's change this around a little and say that the boys are sleeping in a tent with mom on a camp out. I'm pretty sure most people would question why, except for medical concerns or equipment problems, a teen or pre-teen boy needs to sleep in the same tent with mom? And I'm equally sure that it would be harder for any boy who did that to be taken seriously as a leader by his peers. Again, medical exceptions aside or maybe equipment shortages, I just don't see the need to do this. While it might not be "wrong" in the sense that it doesn't violate the rules, it doesn't sound like something most troops would be open to, because it crosses the boundary between adult-as-helper and over-involved parent not giving their child a chance to grow and "be a boy." And I do think it would be detrimental to the patrol method to have kids going off and sleeping with mom or dad rather than over where their patrol mates are. So much for building a sense of patrol identity separate from the troop/family. So much for the bonding (and sometimes, squabbling, I know) that takes place when scouts tent together. So much for sharing the workload of cleaning the tents and taking them down (why should Johnny scout, who slept with Dad, be involved in that?). I see this as being on par with Dad cooking the boys' food for them or doing their dishes for them too. As for cubs on a troop campout - webelos scouts could conceivably attend as a recruiting/intro the troop event. Younger scouts could conceivably be invited to visit for the day to get a sense of the "cool" stuff boy scouts do. But if this is more a matter of younger sibs tagging along because the parents don't know what to do with them? Then what you have here sounds more like families camping together and a lot less like boy scouts. Again, there might be room in the rules for this but how many teenage boys think of camping with their 8 year old sister or brother when they think of boy scouts? Not many that I know, that's for sure! I think we discount the true nature of the program and shortchange our older boys when we do this because there will necessarily be a difference in the types of activities that can be done and the atmosphere at a campout with a bunch of small children included. Heck, it's hard enough to get a program in place that accommodates the differences between 10/11 year old new scouts and 16/17 year old scouts. Here's what I see as the funny part. As a mom and one of rather few women involved with my son's troop, I've been very careful about being perceived as, well, "mothering" my son too much at scout events. I give him LOTS of room to grow, to fall, to get back up and try again. Although I enjoy camping and would love to try some of the things the boys are doing, I seldom camp with the troop because he asked me not to and I respect that this is his experience, his time to be independent from me. But when I, and other moms, have occasionally raised concerns, we still sometimes hear "oh that's just your mothering instinct" or "you're being too protective." That's true in real life as well as on this board sometimes. I can only imagine what the response would be if I announced that I would be camping with the troop and my son would be sleeping in my tent (yeah, I can imagine HIS response - absolute horror!). And to be honest I don't think I'd be happy about him joining a troop where other people did that on a regular basis, either.

"I being me immediately wrote back informing him that he had it wrong and it was the role of the District to support the units. He e-mailed me back telling me that this was a mandatory event. With some help from me the Quarterdeck decided that we would go sailing that day. " LOL, that's exactly what my response would've been too Eamonn! Mandatory, my foot.

Toughest for me? Sometimes it is being kind. Much as I may try, I tend to say what is on my mind and sometimes it comes out a little too blunt. To my way of thinking, being patient with others is part of being kind. And that's something I admit I struggle with at times. Hardest to explain to a new scout? Hmm. Well, reverent, for the reason scoutldr listed. But really it isn't so much explaining any one point - rather, it is explaining that these points apply every moment of every day and not just when we're wearing a uniform or when we're trying to look good in order to get that scout spirit sign off. And maybe the idea that they still apply when we are tired, frustrated, angry, or dealing with someone with whom we don't particularly see eye to eye. Most important? Depends on the situation. But the one I often find myself trying to help my son learn and really take to heart is the "cheerful" one. No matter what the circumstances, they can be made better or worse by one's attitude/outlook and it is so easy - but not very rewarding - to fall into negativity.

What's wrong with this? Probably all sorts of things. Why does dad seem to feel it is necessary for his boys to sleep in his tent? Do these boys ever go to camp outs without dad? If so, what do they do then? How long has this been going on? (I seem to recall you are fairly new to the troop.) And has anyone in a position to do so (like the SM or the CC) talked with dad about how his insistence is causing a problem? He may not quite understand that although parents should be welcome at troop events, boy scouts is not a "dad and lad" or family camping club. What is your position in this? Are you a new parent just observing? An ASM? A committee member? And how well do you already know the SM and/or CC? Because if anything is going to be done, I think they - probably not you - are the ones in the position to do it. Not to say you can't offer your friendly perspective of course, if you think they'll be open to hearing it.

While you're at it you might want to check out recent issues of Baloo's Bugle (online Cub Roundtable). They include a segment on ideas for one or more webelos activity badges every month. Here's a link to the 2006-2007 archive. http://usscouts.org/usscouts/bbugle2006-2007.asp

Oh. Well in that case, go to the virtual cub leader's handbook, click on virtual requirements guide, scroll down to webelos, and click on "activity badges." Which will take you here: http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/activity-badges.html These are the "new" 2004 requirements. You can get them off USScouts too and probably a bunch of other locations.

I haven't heard anything about that nor did I find anything with a quick google search. Will ask around though when I go into our council office tomorrow.

OK Beavah so taking your example, I'd want the PL to sit down with the homesick scout and eat something OTHER THAN candy and cherry coke. Just because the lad is craving comfort food doesn't mean we have to break our "no candy on campouts" policy. That extra piece of dump cake that no one claimed or leftover cinnamon biscuit from breakfast might work just fine. There you go - have your cake and eat it too (literally). PL helps his charge while staying within the bounds of agreed-upon policy. Besides, where'd PL get that bag of m&ms from, knowing that he wasn't supposed to bring candy to the camp out? Surely, your honest PL wouldn't have thought to break the rules by stashing the goodies in his pillow case before leaving for camp, right? Or are you suggesting that it is ok for the PL to break the rule, bring the candy "just in case" precisely because he's the PL? And doesn't that mean the PL might as well bring candy every time? Hey, you never know when you'll need a game boy or a TV either - maybe he (but not the other boys) can bring those next time too. And heck, if no homesick boy needs them then the PL might as well use them, right? Yeah, that's called abuse of power in my book. Sort of like, "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

Thanks for the insights kb. I quite agree that it is bullying in this case and that it needs to be dealt with. Maybe part of my frustration with this issue is that for 2 years I've watched while our SM handles this pretty ineffectively - and I'm on the committee, not the SM or an ASM. The only times the SM has done anything about it are when parents have very publicly threatened to pull their boys out of the troop. But on an on-going basis he just doesn't see it. Similarly he doesn't see a number of other youth leadership/development issues unless someone gets exasperated enough to PUSH - hard - for action on his part. And that tends to be both short-lived and unpleasant/divisive for the adults. In some respects, the SM's weakness here is a strength at other times. He is absolutely unflappable, very slow to anger or to reach that frustration point with the boys. And he sees the best in every situation. But when it comes to using his position as SM in a more overt manner (like SM conferences for behavioral issues or actively mentoring youth leaders), it just doesn't fit his style I guess, and he ends up letting things go. My son loves the troop and would be mortified if I made a public scene out of this, which is what it would require in order to get the SM to act. And we are changing SMs after summer camp, to someone who is a little more no-nonsense when it comes to this kind of behavioral problem. In the meantime though, I admit I find it frustrating.

Yup, been there. We had one family in my son's den who perpetually did this (or worse, they wrote us checks that bounced!). Keep in mind that troops are different from webelos dens and the boy - not you and not his dad - should be in charge of submitting his own registration paperwork and fees to the SM or treasurer (or whoever) for upcoming campouts and activities. If he isn't there, he doesn't submit the payment, he doesn't go. Not your problem. In your shoes I would be civil and polite if they happen to show up for a meeting, but I would absolutely avoid going out of my way to contact these folks. If you call or email the dad and say "hey, do you want me to sign Jr. up for...." then he'll probably say yes! Don't offer. And do let the CC of the troop know about your past money issues too so that the troop can avoid getting short changed. Whether you decide to continue trying to recoup your existing losses is a whole separate issue. Unless it was a lot of money, I'd be inclined to say forget it. But that's just me. And to be honest, it doesn't sound like this boy is likely to stick with scouts much longer anyway.

My husband and several friends are competitive long distance swimmers and cyclists. Now I know they're nuts but they do a swim around Key West marathon that is about 12.5 miles. That's a long, long way to swim. And they do road races and tours of 60-100 miles on a fairly regular basis too. But as these guys will tell you (endlessly, if you'll just listen) swimming even relatively shorter distances is very hard work - harder than cycling - because the muscles used are so totally different than with walking or cycling and there's a much more aerobic component to swimming. Not to knock either hiking or cycling - the badges do require a lot of effort. But the swimming one, done properly, is no piece of cake either and those of us who tend to think of swimming as a day of lounging pool-side with the occasional splash and dip to cool off probably are missing something in our estimations. Me though? If I were a boy scout I'd probably gravitate toward the hiking MB just because I enjoy the "adventure" of it. You never know what you'll see that day when you start a hike and often you get to explore out of the way trails that most people in their cars or on their bikes never see.

I'm curious about how you understand the buddy system rule for merit badges. My understanding (from training) was that scouts should not have one-on-one contact with their MBCs for obvious reasons, but that the "buddy" could be mom or dad or anybody at all - not necessarily required to be another scout. Recently I've been challenged on this by a couple of MBCs in our area (who refuse to meet with a scout unless there is at least one other scout present) and a parent of a boy in my son's troop, and I saw the same thing mentioned in the thread on limits on MBCs. If the "buddy" could be just about anyone, doesn't that obviate the "problem" of rounding up another scout who is a) interested in taking the same badge and b) available on the same schedule? Mom or dad or whoever provides the ride to meet w/ the MBC could simply serve as the buddy too. And while we're on this topic, what if the meeting is held in a public location (library, McDonalds, etc.)? Is the fact that the scout and MBC are in plain view of lots of other people sufficient, or does the buddy need to be right there at the same table with the scout and MBC? What if the scout arrives by himself to this public location? Do you send him home, or meet with him in full view of the general public (the general public being a sort of buddy I guess)? I appreciate that some of this might be a matter of interpretation rather than hard and fast policy so I'm hopeful that we'll avoid any policy-quoting duels here.

Red Flag! Gonzo, did I understand correctly that you are the UC for a unit where you are also an ASM (and a pretty actively involved ASM at that)? If that's the case, I strongly suggest you seek a change of UC assignments. No matter how well-meaning you are as a UC, other people in the troop are just not going to be able to differentiate between what you say in one role vs. in the other. And for that matter, you might not be quite as objective as you would like to think, when switching hats (and shoulder loops). The result is bound to be that at least some will resent and maybe ignore you in BOTH roles. I've seen this happen. A UC ought to be someone who is a little removed from the day-to-day activity of the unit so that they can provide that impartial perspective when, as inevitably occurs, people in the unit get mired in their own issues and come into conflict with each other.

OK Beavah, if I understand properly you are not claiming that the policy is unclear or something like that, but rather that we shouldn't feel bound by the (clearly defined) rules. Your argument is different from Gwd's situation because you are saying yes,as district or council policy, formally register in both programs at once, while she was saying (quite rightly, IMO) that her troop would lend a hand to an individual boy as a guest to the troop, but she did not allow him to register with the troop until he met the joining requirements, and upon registering as a boy scout he ceased to be a cub scout. I'm betting she didn't let him use the things he'd done for his webelos readyman pin toward his Tenderfoot/2nd Cl/1stCl 1st aid requirements, either. We'll just have to agree to disagree on your approach to policy Beavah. But even assuming we allowed for this sort of thing to happen, I don't see how the district or council pushing dual enrollment solves the more important underlying problem. If you have a weak webelos program or exhausted webelos II leaders counting the days until they're "done" or a bad district-level transition program, at the district or council level you solve it by improving the parts that aren't working. The district/council should be considering things like providing more (better?) training to Webelos leaders, promoting program helps and other local resources so WDLs aren't getting so burned out, developing a solid UC corp to help packs with leadership recruitment & development, developing a better district-wide W-S transition plan, etc.. Imagine if the tables were turned and a district or council had a weak boy scout program with ineffective support in place (training, service, etc.) and the answer was, well just let boys stay dual-enrolled in Cub Scouts for a while! Maybe into 6th or 7th grade? Sure they can earn merit badges in their extended dens at the same time they work on those webelos activity pins. Yeah. If that won't fly then neither will this proposed "solution." To me this sounds like a half-cocked plan thought up by someone who has forgotten that the Cub and Boy Scout program, while related, are also quite different. To me it sounds like something that could only be considered seriously by a person who places rather little value on the Cub program in its own right. I've met plenty of Scouters - almost always people who have been with troops for umpteen years and a day- who take this kind of arrogant and condescending view of the Cub program and I find it a little annoying to be honest. How about we focus on a solution to the actual problem in the context of the program instead? The boys in the Cub program deserve no less from us.

OK here's my understanding of the situation. 1) Beavah, it sounds like the "why not" in this case is that someone is suggesting using the boy scout program to paper over a weak webelos program and/or weak webelos-scout transition program. That's just bad policy, short-sighted, and probably isn't going to work in the end anyway because it ignores the underlying problem. Sort of in the same way that starting venture patrols is not a cure-all for a troop with a weak older boy program, although the analogy isn't perfect because at least THAT is within the rules. Dual membership in Cubs and Boy Scouts is not. The better solution here might be to look at why the webelos program and/or transition program isn't working or being properly delivered, and FIX it. 2) Eamonn, I think your understanding of when and how a boy transitions from cubs to boy scouts might be a little outdated (sorry). Current joining requirements for boy scouts state that a boy MAY join a troop if he is: a) at least 10 and has his AOL, OR b) at least 10 and finished with 5th grade, OR c) at least 11, regardless of AOL or grade in school But that's MAY. If you also look at the cub scout joining requirements for webelos listed on the front of the cub scout application, it says: "Webelos ScoutMust have completed third grade, but has not completed fifth grade, or be age 10, but not yet 111⁄2." I take that to mean that a boy who is in 5th grade - regardless of age - can remain a webelos scout, or a boy who is not yet 11 1/2 regardless of grade could remain a webelos scout. In my area, most boys are 11 and some are 12 by the time the middle of 5th grade rolls around. The can still be cub scouts until the end of the school year. Conversely, my son was not yet 11 when 5th grade ended for him - he could, theoretically, have stayed with cub scouts for almost a whole extra year - though he'd have had to join the webelos I den to do so since "his" den all crossed over in mid-5th grade and so no longer existed. I don't think this would've been a good idea for him, but it would have been within the rules. Finally, we have one boy who recently joined our troop who is still in 4th grade. He meets the age requirements and earned his AOL as a webelos II, but he was held back in school in 2nd or 3rd grade. He and his family elected to stay with his den/age peers rather than repeat a year of the cub program too. So he is also within the rules. Maybe an interesting spin-off discussion would be whether we SHOULD go back to the purely age-based transition system? But I don't think that was the gist of what WDL Mom was asking about.

Agreed that the dad needs to be "on board" with whatever plans are made and that if he can connect w/ a local troop it might work best for the long term. That said, most scout camps have provisional scout programs for scouts who are attending without their troop (some have scheduling issues with their home troop's summer camp plans, some just want to get an extra week of camp). All the provo scouts are put together to make a "camp troop" for the week. The Provo Scoutmasters are often camp staffers or local adult Scouter volunteers. My son did this in his first summer of boy scouts (when he had a scheduling conflict w/ his troop's summer camp plans) and he enjoyed it. I'm sure the quality of the program differs from one camp to another so I'd ask some questions about how the camp in question runs their program before signing up, but at least it is an option.

I don't see how they can do this either. From whom did you hear this (ie, what position does that person hold) and are they reliable? I would seek clarification/verification before getting too worked up about it because at least on the face of it, it seems so ludicrous that someone must have (hopefully!) misunderstood or mis-stated the actual idea under consideration. Or possibly, this is something somebody said in a bull session - just "free thinking" - and not something that will actually be done or seriously considered, but you are now "hearing" about it anyway. If, upon further investigation, you find that there IS a serious move in this direction then I think it would be worth talking to your district & council professional staff to ask them: "What *are* you thinking?!?" This sort of thing would look really, really bad for them if they got caught up in a membership # inflation scandal, which this could easily become. Beyond that, it is just stupidity. If the problem is that webelos IIs are bored, focus on improving the delivery of the webelos program rather than improperly using another program (troop) to "fix" it. Such short term solutions rarely work anyway.

These are great ideas. I'm on our district membership team and we're looking at an increasingly difficult recruiting environment so a little creativity is really the key. Please keep the thoughts flowing my way! Some we can use at the district level, others I can pass on to pack leaders for their local consideration. I like the T ball/LL idea especially - never thought of that since my son didn't play, but yes, that's exactly the right group. Scott, I was "Range Master" at our cub day camp for three years, though I ran the archery ranges and not the bb ranges so I can't speak to your specific point about cocking & loading. Yes, it can be a challenge to work with Tigers on the range. But actually I found that they were sometimes easier than some of the older boys who felt "too cool" for their own good and desired to show off/not follow basic safety rules & instructions. I don't recall ever having to excuse a Tiger from my range, though I did do that with a couple of webelos-aged boys. Plus you had those Tiger parents right there - extra eyes and hands - which was a good thing most of the time.

Thanks for the word of caution Scott, but in our area we are strongly encouraged to recruit new Tigers in the spring with the explicit purpose of going to Day Camp. I've worked with our DE and our Day Camp staff on this in the past and it is certainly do-able, though as you say, it can be something of a challenge for these young guys. Done well though, it is a really great intro to cub scouting for the boys and their parents. NC - good idea, not something I had thought of. I'll see if we can do that.

Tell me about how you do spring cub recruiting, in particular for new Tigers (who can go to day camp with the pack they join in June). Traditionally in our district we've handed out fliers to boys finishing kindergarten, through the schools. This year we have one school district that won't allow us (or anyone else) access to the school. Another is allowing us to leave fliers in a magazine rack near the main office, but not to distribute them. This isn't a good strategy for getting little kids' attention! We've talked about distributing fliers in local churches and other community groups but it gets expensive since we would need to print many more fliers and might not even reach the same # of eligible boys (a church of 200 families might only have a handful of cub-aged boys). So I'm interested in brainstorming some effective, fairly targeted, and inexpensive ways to reach our audience without going through the schools, because I see this as a problem that is likely to grow. Things on my list so far: *public service announcements on local radio/TV *Short "Join Cub Scouts & Go to Day Camp" blurbs in the PTO newsletters (more than half of our packs are sponsored by PTOs) *ads in local newspapers (but this gets expensive) The problem with the above is that they all target parents - not boys. This is all in addition, of course, to peer-to-peer recruiting, which works great. But our district is experiencing a very rapid population growth as people move here from our nearby, dysfunctional cities and older suburbs. And these new folks tend to have no network to tap into, so peer-to-peer recruiting misses an increasing # of people. Any thoughts?

This has happened recently in two schools in my area. One school banned all fliers including BSA/Cub recruiting material, purportedly to keep racist groups and extremist religious groups out (both have a presence in the area, unfortunately). The other school tried, for the first time this year, to ban only Cub Roundup material. When pushed on the legal issue, they backed down, but there is a real concern that they'll go for a total ban in the future. In the first case, this is a major blow to us because the way that community's public schools are set up, all kindergarten students attend the same building - so doing spring Tiger recruiting just got A LOT more difficult. Actually we've been trying to come up with alternative, cost-effective, ways to reach the K population. It is a big community, and hard to come up with a good alternative that we can afford.

This varies widely by pack. The two packs I was part of tended to pay for Blue & Gold dinner but never would have considered chartering a bus to go to ball games, etc. It also depended on how fundraising (read: popcorn sales) went that year. In good years, we paid for the boys to receive their new book, scarf, or both for the next rank. Some years we paid for or subsidized the cost of other events like lock ins and field trips. And we tried to provide each den with a materials allowance for the year. (The first pack we belonged to did not do that - dens could collect den dues if they wanted money for supplies). In not-so-good years we were more thrifty. We always paid for awards, entertainment of various sorts at B&G (I never could convince the pack committee to do the OA dancers or just pack entertainment)

Ok so if you're that busy, drop some or all of the MBs. With 288 MBCs you can't seriously tell me that no one else in your district could competently counsel citizenship in the world. But I will say I've been a MBC for close to 3 years now, for 5 different MBs. In that time I've counseled many boys from my son's troop and only a few from outside the troop (and I am registered for three Eagle-required MBs). I'm not buying that this is a serious time commitment problem, but if you disagree, the remedy seems obvious to me. In fact, given the time crunch you're facing, I'm sort of surprised you aren't in favor of the 7-badge limit. Certainly the remedy to the problem you describe ISN'T to counsel still more MBs. The problem I have seen in my district - and I suspect elsewhere too - is that every troop seems to want to counsel all 20 eagle-required MBs within the troop. And then many MBCs refuse to counsel outside the troop. The consequence is that we have a zillion people signed up to counsel the same 20 badges when what we all ought to be doing is diversifying, recruiting MBCs for some of the less common MBCs, and trusting MBCs from other troops to do a good job. If the problem your district is having is with that last point then this is a training and registration issue (DAC doesn't have to accept every applicant). This is not, however, an issue with the proposed limits. That's a separate problem.

Some parents are overprotective, some are reasonably protective. I've heard from more than a few new parents that they just don't know us/trust us well enough to send their child off for a week in our care. Now whether that is the first or second case is really a matter of perception. But my question is, what have you done so far to help this parent feel comfortable sending their child with you? Knowing what you've posted about your troop Stosh, you probably have already gone out of your way to work with this parent. But then again, maybe not, in which case I can understand why they might feel a bit concerned. Things that a new parent might worry about: 1) What will my kid be doing during the day at camp? (is there a structured program or are they on their own) 2) Who will be supervising my child during the day at camp? (will it be a trusted adult or other scouts or camp staff?) 3) Where will the "trusted adults" from the troop be during the day while my child is off doing whatever, at camp? (will my child be able to find someone he knows and trusts to turn to if he has a problem?) 4) Who will my child be sharing a tent with? (is it someone my child can get along with?) 5) Who will keep an eye out for any issues/quirks/problems that my child might have while at camp? (or is it survival of the fittest?) 6) Who is planning this trip and do they seem to have their act together? (And are they taking my concerns seriously or are they giving me the brush-off?) Although the answer in some of the above cases is probably "other scouts," if the parents don't know those other scouts very well then they aren't likely to believe that other boys are ready to be entrusted with such responsibility. More so if the parent is new to the whole BSA program and doesn't have a good grasp of how things work in your troop. But no, you can't force a kid or his parents to attend camp - all you can do is try to address the likely reasons why he might not go.

dluders, it seems that there is a short-term and a long-term issue here. The short term problem is that this new limit of 7 MBs per counselor makes it difficult for boys to earn MBs that might not be so widely available. That's a problem worth taking up with your DAC and DE and I would expect them to have some flexibility here. The longer term problem seems to be that your district doesn't have a very deep list of MB counselors. If you are really the only person in your district who can counsel, say, cycling or citizenship in the nation or whatever other badge, then the question might be, why isn't your district doing a better job of recruiting additional, well-qualified counselors? That is also a problem worth taking up with your DAC and DE - particularly in the vein of "A scout is helpful." Maybe, since you work at an AFB, you can help recruit some folks from the base to sign up as MBCs for some of the related badges. Maybe, since your son is in middle school or high school, you (or he) can approach some of his teachers about becoming MBCs. Maybe, since you are a rocketry enthusiast, you can encourage some of your fellow rocketry buffs to sign up as MBCs for that badge. I realize that there are some MBs for which it is really difficult to locate counselors. Metalworking might be one of these - I know my district only has one person registered for that. But for a variety of the others you mentioned, I find it difficult to believe that YOU are the only person in your area who is registered. Unless you are trying to counsel all MBs in-house within your troop (which is, I believe, both a waste of district resources and a dis-service to your scouts who might really benefit from meeting other well-qualified adults outside your troop), then there should be no reason for you to feel you personally need to counsel some of these badges. And while it might be the most convenient solution for parents (just show up at the troop meeting night or meet with someone from the troop), parental convenience is not the bedrock of the program. If it were, we wouldn't bother with having district MBC lists at all and would just have each parent counsel their own child all the time. In our district and council, some of the people who complain the loudest about our MBC system's lack of depth are also the same folks who elect only to counsel boys from their own troop. So finally, let me ask this: are you, or the other Scouters in your troop, doing this? If so, I hope you see how this makes it more problematic for every scout in your district because chances are, there are other MBCs doing the exact same thing for their troop too. Such a waste of resources. I'm not saying you should drop the whole issue of limits on MBCs. You clearly feel strongly about it and it is important to you. But I am saying that maybe it would be helpful to take a bigger-picture look at both the underlying problem and some potential solutions to that problem.