Lisabob

You know what Beavah, you're right and I've been thinking a lot about that as I've been working on material for our upcoming new scout/new parent orientation later this week. Truth is, it was a big adjustment for me and for my son. And many of the things that I found problematic about the troop were either well-masked when we visited as webelos, or were things that (looking back) I wished I had known to ask about, but I didn't. In the last two years since my son joined we both have changed our views on many things as we have learned more from, and about, the troop program. On the other hand, the troop has changed a lot since we joined too, and I think it is a stronger troop today as a result. When my son joined, there were NO boys a year older than him (they had all quit in their first year), only ONE boy two years older, and only three boys who were three years older. Most boys in the troop at the time were 15-17 years old. Today, the troop is roughly evenly split between those 14+ and those 11-13. This troop has always been known for its older-boy program and high adventure opportunities; these days it is becoming known for the program it provides younger scouts too, without sacrificing the older-boy program. When he joined, the troop did almost nothing to prepare the new scouts for their first campout just days after cross-over - in early March in Michigan with temps in the single digits and boys with little to no experience and the wrong gear. Several boys quit immediately following that first campout. Others, including my son, swore they'd never camp in the snow again (tough, in Michigan!). Last year the troop pushed back its March campout to the end of the month in order to have time to teach at least some skill to the new scouts first. This year, the March camp out is a "Cross-over" theme as well. By the way my son is due home this afternoon from his first serious winter camp since then - better equipped and trained this time, for sure. Here's hoping he had fun. When we joined, the adults already in the troop - generally speaking, great people, mind you - tended toward the clique-ish. They didn't share information with new parents and asking a question tended to result in the run-around (ask so-and-so, no ask so-and-so). The SM was impossible to pin down, tended to be rather brusque, and didn't share enough information with the CC to make it easy to get answers even from him. Today we have an ASM for new scouts and a committee position for transition-related issues and new parents are encouraged to get to know those folks real well (in addition to the SM and CC of course!). The SM, I believe, is also better at sharing information. When we joined, there had recently been a transition away from a former SM who did not believe in talking to the adults - if the boys didn't know it, it wouldn't happen. Apparently he also didn't believe in sharing info with the younger scouts either so they were at the mercy of the older scouts. However, with almost no young scouts in the troop in the preceding years, the older scouts were not in the practice of looking out for the young guys. Result: new parents and new scouts both were at a loss for information. This year will be the second year that we run a troop-wide orientation night for scouts and parents and it seems to be effective. For the first several months after my son joined, troop meetings frequently included lengthy doses of playing "duck, duck, goose" and/or being physically flung around (in fun until it wasn't) by certain older boys. This has changed. In the first year after he crossed over, only one boy made it to tenderfoot rank because skills simply weren't being taught and/or people "didn't have time" to sit with a scout while he demonstrated his ability and then to sign his book. I don't know that I buy into "1st Cl/1st year" but this was problematic in the other extreme. Today, New Scout Patrols now have a troop guide and a patrol advisor assigned to them, in part to ensure that there's someone available to work with them on advancement when they're ready to do so. From my son's cohort, more than half of the scouts dropped out in the first 14 months or so - most either right away or about 8 months in, in early fall after school/scouts started up again. Not surprising, given some of the above and other experiences that I posted about at the time. I'm very pleased that my son wasn't one of these. As I've said elsewhere, he has found his place in the troop these days and is pretty happy. But there were numerous times in that first year when it was a close thing.

The padding issue is pervasive and it isn't just troops. In our cub pack we were always encouraged to recharter including any boys who had been registered in the previous year from March-December even though a) we did not charge them the re-charter fee until January and b) they might not have attended an event in months and in some cases parents explicitly told us that they were dropping out. For example, some parents signed up their kids just to go to summer day camp, but that's all they wanted from the program. (Weird, I know, but it has to do with the area schools' practices of starting summer break on a Wednesday. Day camp is usually that Wed-Thurs-Fri. Most summer care programs don't start until the next week, leaving the parents with a short-term need. And our district cub day camp is fun, well-run, nearby, and cheap.) Then too, we were pushed to recharter with all of our Webelos II boys still on the roster, even though our W II program ended in February with most boys crossing over to a troop and being added to the troop's roster. Those who didn't cross over were allowed to stay on through the end of the school year and we would also recharter them, no problem, but few boys/parents chose this option. The reasoning we were given? That way boys would be covered as BSA members for the year in case they decided to rejoin boy scouts later in that year. This left the pack to absorb the cost of rechartering these boys, who then could not be dropped until the following year's recharter process. One year we had something like 20 webelos II boys - between 1/3 and 1/2 of the pack. By the time the recharter paperwork was due, we'd already done our Blue & Gold and all had crossed over to a troop or otherwise left cub scouts. Looking at our limited financial resources, we chose not to "count" them in our recharter. The result, on paper, looked awful for us. But it was far more reflective of reality. As someone doing district membership stuff now (with a focus on webelos-scout transitions) I wish more packs would resist these fluff efforts. Just a quick look at the rosters for a few packs in the area that I know very well showed that most current webelos II dens were being inflated by almost 50%. Boys who haven't shown up for a pack or den meeting in almost a year are still listed as active webelos. Eventually they get counted as "dropped" in the transition process, even though in reality they dropped out long before that. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to contact them too and attempt to draw them back into scouting. But given limited resources, I think it makes more sense to focus first on the boys who are actually active members, who might not have found a troop yet. With these inflated rosters though, it is impossible to tell unless you have personal knowledge of the pack.

GWD I think you've got to the heart of it - they just want to see their car go down the track. Being fast is fun too but at the end of the day it isn't the biggest thing. You know what really gets me is when the parents don't want the boys to play with their cars after the race! C'mon, they're boys with toy cars, of course they're going to "drive" them around the floor. Can I tell you this one though? My son and my husband made cars together every year that my son was a cub and they were never fancy, but they were joint endeavors and my son remains proud of his cars, which are still all displayed in his room. Well one dad with boys in the same den as my son always made a big deal about his sons' (?) cars and how high tech and engineered they were. Yeah, this guy also owns every power tool on earth and spent countless hours - as he himself proclaimed - crafting the cars. He was really, really into it. His sons' cars usually did very well and they went to district almost every year. Except in his webelos one year, my own son's entry - a rather blocky thing - beat these adult-made "super cars" and had the fastest time in the pack that year. He won the district race too, much to everyone's surprise. It was the year the third Lord of the Rings movie came out and my son had put Sauron's eye on the car - he insisted that the paint job is what made it so fast! The following year, my son entered his prized car in the pack's open class upon a direct challenge from this dad that nobody could beat HIS car. The guy spent a YEAR working on his car. My son's little home made model, pulled off the shelf from the previous year, beat the pants off him and everyone else in the open race that year. I know it's wrong but I'm still smiling about that.

Yeah Jeffrey, been there too. I'm glad to hear your son had a great time building and racing his car with you. THat's the thing that matters. As for your ex-CM, what a shame. I hope he's embarrassed by his outburst. We had something similar happen a few years back, only it led to fisticuffs. The following year, one thing we did was award a "scout spirit" trophy - bigger than all the others including the fastest racer. It became the coveted prize. We went from a situation where certain of the adults were the worst behaved people in the room to one where even the most obnoxious adults at least sat on their hands and tried to behave, so as not to hurt "junior's" chances. Better, we went from a situation where kids (and their parents) would stick around to watch their heat and then wander off, uninterested, to one where all the boys were watching all the heats and cheering each other on. Much better dynamic, a lot more fun. Sure a lot less stress on us leaders!

Hello to a fellow BOBWHITE! Welcome to the nest. The TAY figure is something other councils and districts use as a comparison point. My understanding is that the national office in Irving also sets objectives that it would like to see everyone meet, ideally, in terms of % of TAY being served (though whether a district uses these as their actual goal is apparently up to them). Our DE recently shared our figures too and I must say I was surprised at the rather small sliver of boys we serve, once you get past cub scouting.

We've been talking in various threads about recruiting and retention issues. From the point of view of boys, it is all about fun and adventure, right? Starting from the perspective that most troops have things they do well and things they could do better, still, I think the troop my son joined does have a pretty exciting program. In the last two years they've gone skiing and snow tubing, dog sledding, luging (on the US Olympic training track this weekend - wahoo!), been to Yellowstone, to Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and are going to summer camp in N.C. this summer, had a forensics campout in conjunction with state and local law enforcement, had shotgun, rifle, archery and model rocket camps, and will visit Wright Patterson AFB and the US Naval Academy this spring/summer. They've also done just regular camping, fishing, hiking, canoeing, etc. of course. The other two troops in our town and the two troops in the next town over are similarly active, although each has a different emphasis . But they're all strong troops with pretty good programs and decent leaders and in my district mode, I've felt good about steering boys toward each of these troops. I cannot think of any club that my son could join that would be this active across such a wide array of interests, and for as little money. What I can't figure out? Even after hearing about the kinds of activities listed above, my son claims his friends at school (who are mainly not scouts) still think scouts sounds "dumb" and uninteresting. Sheesh. What else could we offer to grab the interest of middle school aged boys? So it must be in the "packaging." Given a strong program, how do we go about "selling" fun & adventure because I have to tell you, I'm not seeing it working all that well here. As a district, we have about a 15% drop between the % of total available youth we serve in cub scouting and the % we serve in boy scouting. Never mind that we rarely recruit boys directly into boy scouts, if they weren't cubs to start with. The five troops in my town + the town next to us make up just about 1/3 of our district. If I could just unlock the secret to better recruiting...and I don't think it is as simple as "build it and they will come" because it is already built! Sorry this is a bit rambling. I've been turning this over and over and I admit to being a little bit baffled as to where the entry way to this discussion ought to be, at this point.

Hi Miranda, Welcome to the forum. You'll find a lot of people here who are ready to offer you their perspective. Many of us, too, have worked long and hard to revitalize weak or dying packs, or to maintain strong ones, and I think you'll find that folks here are extremely generous with the knowledge they've gained from their own hands-on experiences. Remember - feedback is a gift. As for me, I'm not sure I understand the dynamic here. It seems you are upset that one boy and his family have been very enthusiastic and active participants in the program, and/or that you don't see eye to eye with the den leader. While I think it is important that all leaders communicate and are working from the same page (or at least, a similar copy!), I'm not sure I understand why you want to withhold this boy's rank advancement. On this one, I'm with ScoutNut that a boy should not be forced to wait until all the other boys in the den catch up. That simply punishes the eager beaver types who might have been so excited about the program that they dove in with both feet early on. Ideally we want to encourage that excitement rather than diminishing it. Maybe seeing their den-mate have his wolf badge presented to him will light a fire under a few other boys who will want to become full-fledged wolves, too. (On the other hand, I also don't believe that most boys' egos are so fragile that seeing their peer receive something he earned will damage them. Generally, the ones who get upset about these sorts of things are the parents, not the boys.) Keeping in mind that in cub scouting the parent is "Akela" and that the DL has apparently agreed with the parent in this case too, I think it is important to back them up. If they say the boy has earned the rank then he has earned it. Neither the CM nor the AC have the authority to withhold it at that point, although as a practical matter, the AC is generally the one who purchases pack awards. As for "clawing up the backs of his peers," well no we wouldn't want to encourage such ruthless, self-centered behavior. Are you sure though, that this is really about the boy? I have a feeling there may be other issues here. Remember that at the end of the day, no matter how much of yourself you put into this pack, it is not yours. Speaking from my own experience rebuilding a pack on the edge of extinction, I know it can be hard to remember that at times.

We also have several adults who were once active and a few boys on the roster who aged out at whatever rank and weren't quite ready to move on. Personally I think it is confusing, esp. to new troop members, to see people listed who haven't been active in years, yet who are on the roster. I know for myself, it made me wonder who the heck these people were and why I had never met them. I think, if you politely explain to them why you are dropping them, most will understand. A few may become active again. Very few are likely to get upset. After all, they can always register again in the future if they're interested in re-activating themselves.

Eagledad writes: "How about adults sitting down and just talking, there is another idea." Ah and that's why I love this forum, it gives me a (virtual) place to do that and people with whom to talk. Strangely enough I find I spend more time talking about and thinking through scout-related issues with you here, than I do with most of the other adults in our troop. Maybe because not everybody in a typical unit is equally involved or interested, whereas an awful lot of us here are addicts. Maybe because we can bring our scouting discussions to this forum without the various obstacles that face-to-face interactions sometimes add to the process. Maybe because, if I really strongly disagree with someone here, I can choose to ignore them - a luxury that doesn't exist at the unit level! Anyway, just sitting down and talking is, as Barry says, so valuable, if not always so simple.

Can you clarify for me which new "activity" shirt we're talking about here? Or is this a unit-level choice?

local1400, I get what you're saying in terms of absolute numbers. However I suspect it is better if you put this in relative terms (% of total available youth being served). I've seen my district's TAY percentages, in comparison to national averages. For cubs we do pretty well - about 25%. For boy scouts we're doing less well but not atypical in comparison to national averages, about 10-12% (I don't remember off hand but in that range). For venturing we're at considerably less than 1%, which is (in my view) abysmal. Seems to me that's where the proof is. If the numbers are persistently low, or worse, if they're declining, then there's a problem and for all that some people pretend it doesn't exist, the facts are right there staring back at them. I'd really like to see TAY %s from previous eras, if they even exist (I guess just for cubs and boy scouts, since Venturing is newer and maybe not a good comparison to the Exploring posts). It would offer a better basis for comparison and evaluation of our current programmatic successes.

I know people play all kinds of games with numbers! Still I was told by our DE recently that boys who are cross-registered in two crews or a crew and a troop can only be counted for council and district membership purposes in one of those. If that's the case it diminishes the temptation to just sign up a kid for multiple units to inflate the totals.

You mean, after I got over the urge to throttle the parent? (Grr.) I might try having a quiet conversation with the parent about how the pinewood is supposed to be a great opportunity for the boys to do something special together with their parent - how it isn't about winning and it sure isn't about the parent. Then ask if the boy would like to submit his car for this year's race as an "unofficial" entry (meaning, it isn't going to be recognized and it isn't going to the district no matter how great it is, but he can still join in the fun of the race). This might not work and I'm not always known as the most diplomatic sort; it probably depends a lot on your delivery style and the parent in question's attitude. Then down the road a little: make extra-double-triple sure that your pack is providing chances for boys whose parents aren't handy or don't have tools or whatever, to work on their cars. A couple of people on this forum have talked about having a den-wide or even pack-wide "pit night" where they bring in tools and offer any help that a parent could want. This reduces the temptation for parents to cheat out of desperation and provides an opportunity for those who maybe really don't have time (or wouldn't independently make time) to do this at home. What a shame that sometimes parents themselves are the worst role models for their children though.

Thanks everybody for your thoughts and ideas; I will share these with our membership and program folks. RangerT, the training approach that your council took sounds ideal. I would love to see that sort of commitment of resources and attention/time here as well. Stosh, you're right that this discussion has taken on a membership tone but in part that's because I'm serving on our district's membership committee and we've been asked to do some brainstorming about how to increase the number of youth involved in our area venturing programs. And while I'd be happy to see small, strong crews of 8-10 youth, in honesty I don't think we even have that right now. Still, as I've said elsewhere, I do believe program drives membership far more than any kind of recruiting gimmicks. So as part of my contribution to the brainstorming efforts, I'll be pushing for real district support of a real venturing program first and foremost, with the reasoning that membership is pointless if there's no program to offer the members.

One thing RangerT said that rings true to me, is that there is so little understanding of the venturing program at the district and council level, that it is difficult to support the program. I see that around me, which is why I came here to ask people with a lot more experience (and hopefully understanding) for your views. With only five or six crews in our whole district and each of those having 5-8 members, and most being off-shoots of troops, there is little expertice to draw upon when creating a "master plan" for recruiting, let alone supporting, new members. It almost seems to me that before we, as a district membership group, start focusing on recruiting larger numbers of youth members, we need to first develop some folks who can be good adult advisors to get crews off the ground. Not much point in doing a big recruiting drive among youth if you don't have program support to start with and all your new units flop as a result. So maybe my question ought to be, where and how to find adult advisors (without canibalizing existing troops or trying to duplicate the troop program)? But then, it's a chicken-egg situation too. No point in training a bunch of adult advisors if there isn't a demand among the youth.

Beavah, let me ask you a question: Are you a practicing lawyer? I am not casting doubt on your response to dan (or anything else, for that matter). I am just curious.

Hi Brian, Yes the two are different, because packs and troops are different creatures, and the tasks performed by committees are therefore different as well. Probably the most obvious difference is that in troops, committee members will be asked to sit on Boards of Review for scouts seeking advancement. But also, the relationship between committee and scoutmaster is probably more complex than the relationship between committee and cubmaster - at least, that's my perspective as a committee member in both programs.

I'm in Michigan. When it was that cold the other day and I was trying to feel good about it (hey, at least the sun was shining) I ran across the blog for last year's Antarctic Scout. Reading some of his descriptions did make -10 feel a bit less chilly. Here's the link if anybody's interested. http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/antarctic/about.html It's Me, sorry - didn't mean to divert the conversation. Back to AoL!

Ah, ok, that all makes sense. Seeing as, earlier this week it was -10 with a wind chill of -30, 50 degrees sounds pretty nice right about now! Heck, yesterday it got up to 20 and we all thought it was warm.

I went to a district membership meeting recently and we did an assessment of where we stand with regard to cub, boy scout, and venturing membership. We have stayed fairly steady over the last several years in each area. While other areas may have problems with padding the #s, I don't see that around here (we have zero LFL units either, by the way). Our coverage of total available youth in the crew age group is just over half of one percent. This doesn't surprise me. The only places I have ever seen crew members at scouting events in the region is serving lunch and cleaning up at district training days. I do know we have a special needs crew and that they have various outings. But I don't know what our other crews do, if anything. None of the crews have more than 10 members. I've never seen them recruit from troops. I know they do not recruit in the public schools. With the exception of the special needs crew, I'm told that all the others in our district are outdoor-high adventure model crews. I think these are all off-shoots from troops. We've been asked to come up with a comprehensive plan to approach each of the segments of the BSA - cubs, boy scouts, crews (we have only one or two varsity units in the area and they are more or less self contained). With the venture crews, there seems to be enormous potential for growth. Hey, there's only one way to go, right? The question is, how to market the program to an un-informed public? How to find these people and hook them, let alone sustain them? In this regard, reading through the threads here has been enormously instructive in what not to do. To whit: 1) Don't push for one-year wonder crews, or else you'll always be digging out of last year's hole when units continually fold and you have to start up twice as many new ones to get ahead. 2) Don't use camp staff as crews because there's no purpose there and they'll fall apart as soon as camp ends. 3) Don't view crews as simply an extension of boy scouting. 4) Don't create paper crews, such as at juvenile detention centers, etc.. 5) Don't create crews that are simply a clique because they'll fade once the youth involved go off to college, etc.. I know that some of these ideas have, and will continue, to pop up. One suggestion at our meeting was to encourage area troops to spin off their venture patrols into nascent crews. Aside from the fact that most troops aren't running a VP, I think we'd face a lot of resistance from troops if we tried that. What I don't know? What works? And we have such a small base of extremely small crews, that we don't have much hands on experience to draw from. No one on the district membership committee, for example, has ever been involved with a crew. In your experiences, what makes a successful district-level plan for supporting the venturing crews in your area? If it isn't working so well in your area, here's your chance - what do you want to see your district do, in terms of positive action, to support the program?

Tami, first off, I sympathize. It sounds like you have a pretty reasonable request and you're not getting a very reasonable response from the troop. Maybe there are other troops in other nearby towns (or somewhere in the district) who might be more cooperative. As for this troop: My understanding too was that DCs are selected by the SM and do not "self select." I cannot imagine a situation in which the SM says "no," a boy serves as if he were a DC anyway (recognition via the pack instead of the troop), and it turns out well for everyone in the end. I think it behooves a boy, his parents, and the cub and troop leaders in question, to be in agreement or else it isn't going to work and will likely cause resentment and other problems later (keeping in mind that the SM gets to sign off on SM conferences and scout spirit, this seems like one might be setting the boy up for a problem if the SM is that adamant about him not being a DC and this is the only troop in town). SO what I propose is that rather than you, Tami, trying to force the situation (which clearly isn't working from your description), get your UC and/or your DE and/or some other person outside your unit with whom you and the SM relate well, involved. Ask them to talk with the SM about the purpose of the Den Chief program. He may be under the impression that boys have to be a certain age/rank. He may just not understand what DCs are supposed to do. If he's simply being obstructionist for no reason, he may be more willing to re-think if approached by that outside person than if pushed by you, even if you're right and he isn't. And by the way I don't think it is a good idea to go around the SM to the SPL or ASPL - that puts them (as youth) in an awkward position between the two of you. Keep them out of the adult politics.

I gotta ask this. Where do you folks have your AOL ceremonies, that you can do these flaming arrow stunts? Around these parts, AOL ceremonies generally take place in January/February when it is really cold out. They're almost always held indoors. Usually in schools or churches. Not the place for flaming anything. Scott I know you're in FL and Gonzo you're in GA so this may not apply, but what about you fellow northerners and midwesterners? Where are you doing this, midwinter?

Sorry Beav but I really disagree with you. I am not "fear mongering" as you suggest. But I personally know of a couple cases where these sorts of issues were involved. In one, a boy tripped, fell into a campfire, and was burned. Thankfully he was not seriously injured in any long-term way but there were medical costs. The first think all parties (with lawyers) were looking at was, did the troop follow G2SS and other rules regarding fire safety. As it happened, the troop in question had and the insurance covered the boy's costs. Had they not, who knows? But there's at least a higher chance that they would have found themselves facing a nasty court battle. We all know that BSA training, by itself, is not enough to run a perfect (or perfectly safe) program, but it is my expectation as both a parent and a leader that the BSA collectively has more experience with most program-related activities than I do (or you do, or any other one person does) personally, and that policies were written with a view to that base of experience. The activities we engage in often come with a certain element of risk and we have to make good decisions about when that risk has become too great. If we err in judgment or accidents occur AND we were doing things that BSA policy clearly says not to do or we weren't doing things that it explicitly says to do, then that's asking for more trouble. It just seems common sense to me - not fear mongering, thank you - that we should use and support BSA policy and guidelines as our rule of thumb more often than not. I don't understand why you so continually disagree, as though your judgment were always, necessarily superior. I just don't get where you're coming from. We all want the same thing - kids having fun on safe outings. I understand a frustration with bureaucracy and the BSA has a fair amount of that, but the relativism you propose in its stead doesn't make sense to me, I'm sorry.

Yes, that's something you should ask about. We all know things change and there's only so much one can ask of a volunteer leader who gives as much of their time as an SM does. But we had sort of a similar experience. The troop my son joined, we chose in part on the strength of the SM and the way he worked with the boys. I don't know if it mattered that much to my son? But it did to me - here was a person who (as a leader) I felt really understood and could implement the program, and (as a parent) I trusted his judgment. Not two months after joining we found out that he was stepping down and being replaced by another person. What we didn't know prior to cross over is that this troop has a tradition (in recent years) of SMs only holding the position for 2 years at a time, and his 2 years were done. Now the SM who followed has his own strengths but he does things very differently from the original SM and the nature of the troop turned out to be rather different from what we were expecting as a result. Would've been nice to know up front. I would have asked about this, had I realized.

If these are in fact the only three options, I'd go with your son's choice of troop 2. First, it sounds more like scouting to me than either of the other options - boys out camping on a regular basis. Second, it sounds like the boys actually get to have an input into the troop's activities, unlike Troop 3, which sounds extremely, extremely adult driven (MB classes and 40 minute lectures at a troop meeting!) and may be the personal fiefdom of the "living fossil" of a SM. Third, because as an adult, you may be able to have the most positive impact on troop 2. Troop 1, forget it - who'd want to be part of that group? Troop 3, probably very resistent to change. Troop 2, maybe open to different perspectives. As for your son's interest level, my read was totally the opposite, although of course i don't know your son. But my thought was, at least he'd be interested in being part of Troop 2 for a while. Troop 3 sounds b-o-r-i-n-g. If he managed to overcome that fact, yes maybe he'd "survive" and "get" Eagle (my words, not yours I know). On the other hand, he might quit very early on. I'm fairly certain my son would have, in that setting. And finally about advancement. 6 eagles in 4 years is fine. Not doing MB work and not stressing advancement at troop meetings is also a common approach. The question I would have about the latter is, is rank advancement unimportant, or is it something that just occurs "naturally," meaning that the skills are taught, practiced, and then recognized in the process of holding events and campouts, rather than "OK today we're learning lashings for 1st Cl rank." If the program is designed so boys get the opportunities to practice the skills then this more laid back approach seems like it might be fine. And frankly I dislike the idea of troops pushing MBs - tends to result in kids feeling like they're at "scout school." Let individual boys pick and choose which individual MBs they want to learn about. If your son is interested in certain MBs, he can work on these regardless of the troop's involvement. If he isn't, that's ok too. As others have said though, the "perfect" troop does not exist except perhaps in our heads.