Mike F

SPL_T15, Don't worry about starting big and don't worry about getting everybody to go. 2 adults and 2-3 guys are all you need. Get out there, have some fun, get some publicity, share the excitement, and start making plans for the next outing. Spread the word in the troop. Share pictures and stories. More guys will want to go next time. Tell some buddies about it at school. You'll be surprised how many guys want to get in on the action. Good luck and have fun! -mike

God bless you, Eamonn, brother. Please know in your heart that your Scout Group isn't dead. It lives on through the hundreds of its former members, like you, who now touch - and change - thousands of lives. Like ripples in a pond moving outward from their beginning. -mike

I kept my head down when this initially came up, but I'll fess up now. Many years ago, my DE knew I was looking for a meaningful Eagle project and asked me if I would be willing to start a new troop in a part of town that didn't have one. I naively agreed. Wow what a lot of work! I wont go into the details, but even today I dont know how I managed to do it. One of my best memories of the day my Eagle was presented was a 2-troop formation with all the guys and adults there to celebrate with me. One could say that this benefited Scouting, but in my mind the whole purpose of the project was to benefit a bunch of guys in a community that didnt have the opportunities offered by Scouting. Im not sure I would wish a project this extensive on any Scout, but can envision some situations where a case could be made to support a project wherein an Eagle candidate from a strong, mature troop leads a team of experienced Scouts in providing training and mentorship to a fledgling troop. Would be easiest to justify if this brought Scouting into a community that didnt already have other troops. Just a thought. -mike

OGE, If you find something that works, would you report back to let us know? This is a GREAT idea!! Thanks! -mike

We're like most -- we have troop tents, but guys can bring their own and about half do. We have less damage to personal tents - at least one of the boys in there has a strong sense of ownership. I'm curious about an under-current about limiting tents to no more than 2 scouts - even if they're made for more (up to 4). Is this to limit after-hours horseplay by limiting critical mass? My home troop in the '70s used big old Army surplus tents that held an entire patrol - usually even on cots. (No floor.) They had a long center pole (8-10'?) and 12 ropes that pulled the tent out into a cone-shape, with 3 sides that hung straight down and could be rolled up. These tents were awesome - could immediately find us at any camporee! I haven't seen any like them in many years. (We had other Army surplus gear for backpacking. Not light by todays standards, but rugged. Had to make sure you were set up on a local high spot nothing had floors.) We learned to control the discipline after lights out and I think we benefited by having the entire patrol together.

JimmieD, Your backpack hip straps must ride different than mine - I can't fasten anything to my belt without paying a painful price. As for the hydration systems (aka "water bags"), a very experienced packpacking SM told me a while back it was his observation that boys were more likely to stay properly hydrated if they were using the dang things because they were "cool." There's probably something to that, but I prefer to just do a packs-on stop for a couple of minutes to let guys have a breather, take a drink, and quiz everybody about condition of feet. The guys are also used to me telling them if they observe symptoms looking like orange jello, it's time to drink a lot more. (You know what I mean...) For a group of very experienced hikers with a need for speed, the hydration systems might make sense. I put more of a priority on stopping to enjoy the view.

Thanks, Dave! I'm actually on USAF Reserve duty right now. Nothing to get too excited about - just my annual 2-week active duty tour at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. I don't really have time for (another) part-time job, but am proud to still serve in my small way. I wonder how many of our "Forum Fighters" are also vets? Speak up, gang! -mike

Eamonn, Good timing! The quote is accurate, but the question (from a former Achbishop) was really one about using hard power (military), versus soft power (trust and values). A report of the entire exchange can be found here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/powell.asp (Take a look - it's worth reading.) -mike

Gidget, I just made it to Senior Forum Member at 125 posts. Whoo-hoo! -mike

Nevermind -- I like OGE's answer that popped in while I was writing better. -mike(This message has been edited by Mike F)

Greetings, Hotdesk! I usually group District/Council activities into one of two categories: Must-dos and optional. Major events, like Camporees, are Must-do. Merit Badge days might fit into the optional category. Another consideration might be letting the 6 scouts go to the MB day while the rest of the troop goes on the bike trip. I dont like to split the troop, but might be a good compromise since some of the scouts had already signed up. Have to consider whether missing the 6 MB guys would put the rest of the troop in a bind are any of them critical leaders? I know I know theyre all critical in one way or another Were looking for a possible compromise here. YIS -mike

I received the following in a personal note from Bob White because he thought it might be too long for the forum. His insights, experience and recommendations for how to approach it are very good. Note that the general approach applies to a host of other patrol activities as they build teamwork and confidence. With his permission, I'm posting -- no apology for length. -mike ---- Note from Bob White ------ The Troops I have worked with have always used Patrol activities. Here are the things I have required (no this was not a PLC decision. The adult leaders are responsible for safety and for delivering the scouting program). Items with a * are required by the BSA, the others are how we determined if the activity was valid. Ground rules for patrol Activities * Have the permission of the Scoutmaster. * Have the permission of the parents showing their knowledge that there will be no adults present. *The scoutmaster has the option of requiring two adults to camp nearby. A plan must be presented in writing to the Senior Patrol Leader for the SM's approval and it must include... > All members of the patrol must be First Class rank or higher (even if they are not going) > Who is going? > Where are you going? > When are you leaving and returning? (be specific) > Why are you going? > How are you getting there and back? > What service will be performed? > What troop equipment will be used? > Remember that you are representing your troop, our Charter Organization, your family, and most importantly your own character. I never had a scout injured in 20 years on a patrol activity. They usually have camped on private property such as farmland, but they also have camped in scouts backyard after spending the day helping an elderly neighbor clean a garage and do landscaping and gardening. They have gone swimming at the public pool, bowling, biking, roller-skating, sledding, skiing, visited an air show, cleaned-up a neighborhood park. Patrols that do these things as a patrol rarely lose members, don't fight over chores, set up camp and take them down faster than I can parallel park. Here is the most important thing for this to work... Don't let them go just to prove the quality of your leadership. Don't send them if they are not ready. Have two adults camp nearby if needed. The more support you think they need the closer you have the two adults camp. Do not let them interact with the scouts unless they are asked or they perceive a danger. Hope this helps, Bob White

Probably too late for Hops, but I have needed a pair of pliers (like on multi-tool) for backpack repairs - bending some of those pesky clips back into shape. The smaller version works fine. And only need one per crew.

Please - PLEASE - If you want to argue, please stay away this thread. Let's keep this one for folks to get ideas on places for patrols to camp and the things they considered when granting the approval. We want to hear about real places that real SMs have approved - not theoretical discussions. We also don't need to hear about places they can't go - that list is too long and all of us can think up plenty of those. Questions: 1. Where have you allowed patrols to camp without adult supervision? (Please describe.) 2. What were your biggest considerations in approving this location? Again - the question is posed to those who have actually done some solo patrol camping without adults. Thanks in advance for your consideration and support.

Bob White, Thanks - after 3 pages of arguing, we finally have our first direct answer to the original question. All, Please feel free to continue the discussion on this thread. For those that don't think it's a good idea or want to dwell on BSA camp policies, please stay here. Some might consider giving their local camp or Council a call to get more fuel for the fire. Who knows - some council may let a patrol camp on its own - I know of one in Texas that allowed patrol to hike alone to an outpost location and spend the night, then complimented them on their performance the next morning. (Adults stayed back in main campsite.) Gee - did we break a rule we didn't know about at National? Sounds like it, but the guys had a great time and are still talking about how cold it got that night -- I'm not going to lose any more sleep over it. If you want to argue, please stay away from the new thread, "Solo patrol camping locations". It's for folks to get ideas on places for patrols to camp and the things they considered when granting the approval. We want to hear about real places that real SMs have approved - not theoretical discussions. We also don't need to hear about places they can't go - that list is too long and all of us can think up plenty of those. Thanks for your cooperation. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate...

Bob - most excellent! That ought to put this bad rumor to rest - thanks! I bought all the copies on our local Scout Shop shelves, but only had enough to cover the new PLs. More copies (including one for me) on order. On a side note, if National was to decide to make a change that was contrary to current handbooks, but they wanted it implemented immediately - how would that word get out to us? -mike

Thanks, Bob. That's what I figured, but some others had made references to the others and I wanted to clarify. For those that use private land, would you please describe your specific situation? I'm especially interested in proximity to help and the ways your guys might summon assistance. For example, you might tell me about a patrol campsite on a farm in wooded area near creek with a farm house about 1.5 miles away and the guys have a cell phone to use for check-ins/emergencies. Real examples from you will help us paint a clearer picture for adults who say it can't be done. Thanks! -mike

The purpose of this thread is to get some ideas from troops that have Patrols who go camping without adults. If you want to debate whether this is smart, conditions to approve such an event, etc., please check out the other threads on this topic. Specific question: Where do your patrols go on their solo campouts? (BSA property only, state parks, national forest, BLM land, private farm/ranch land??) Thanks in advance! -mike

A discussion about scout-only patrol camping came up in our last SM Staff tagup. (I never seen it done, but I'd love to get our guys to that point!) One of the SMAs insists that the rules have changed and we're not allowed to let patrols camp without adults under any circumstances. He backed this up with these quotes from the Guide to Safe Scouting (GSS). (http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gss01.html#c) "Two-deep leadership: Two registered adult leaders, or one registered adult and a parent of a participating Scout, one of whom must be at least 21 years of age or older, are required for all trips or outings. There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, when no adult leadership is required." --> Note this says "activities", but not completely clear it applies to any chosen and approved patrol activity. Could mean activities like patrol meetings or Putt-Putt. "Safety rule of four: No fewer than four individuals (always with the minimum of two adults) go on any backcountry expedition or campout." --> He says this applies to any campout, but I believe it only applies to backcountry campouts (wilderness type stuff, as opposed to something more benign with help presumably within fairly easy reach). When I pointed out the very clear references in the other handbooks, he said the GSS is more current because it's online and can be revised quickly while it takes longer for the next version of the handbooks to get on the street. I've never heard of anything like this before, but he says he picked it up in discussions at Wood Badge last weekend. Any merit to his line of thought? Does GSS Safety Rule of Four (with 2 mandatory adults) really apply to all campouts, therefore overriding all of the other handbooks? If scout-only patrol camping is still allowed/encouraged, is there anything recent from National that could squelch our guy's misinterpretation of GSS? Thanks!

I tend to agree - that's why I didn't include donation links that were on email from well-intentioned friend. My prayers are with the Scouts and Scouters in Connecticut, but my dollars go direct to BSA. -mike

I got an email from outfit called Conservative Alert that included the following: "Now the Boy Scouts are under attack in Connecticut, and I'm asking for your immediate help to fight back. Boy Scouts of America has asked our legal arm, the "Individual Rights Foundation", to come to their defense and stop the state of Connecticut's attempt to discriminate against them." They are asking for donations to support a court battle. I don't recall having heard about this before and the solicitation smells a little fishy. Does anybody know anything about this?

OGE, I think you've hit on something here. For the record, Scout and SM did discuss and agree on a recovery plan - he wasn't just sent away with instructions to do better next time. They discussed some options and agreed to think about it for a few days, then to get back together to finalize a plan with details. If the parents had stayed calm and the CC had backed the SM, this would have already taken place and Scout would be on his way to rank without a lot of negative attention. Instead, everybody is lathered up and spewing counter-productive words. No adult (or Scout) in the troop believes Scout did the job - that requirement has not been met any way you look at it. The only person in troop who's willing to sign it is TC who wants his phone to stop ringing. There's plenty of recriminations (whys&blame), but there was no progress to be measured so there's no way to support a sign-off. The SM staff moved quickly to implement changes to prevent future occurrences. CC has been informed (and endorsed) these changes. Entire TC will be informed at next committee meeting. (So BOR for issue resolution won't add much here - solution is already in place and entire TC will get to discuss it, instead of just 3-4 BOR members.) So now we send this poor scout - who already privately told SM he hadn't done the job - off to a BOR with committee members he doesn't know very well so they can drag him through it all again. Two possible outcomes: 1) The BOR gives him the rank he doesn't think he has earned (bad), or 2) The BOR recommends some additional work on his part with more support from troop (a plan the Scout and SM had already agreed to before others stepped in, but now loaded with more emotional baggage). If there was no agreement with Scout on need and scope of recovery plan, I would agree wholeheartedly with need for BOR to sort out mess. In our case, I don't think it should have been necessary and certainly not the best thing for Scout. But it doesn't look like we're going to able to avoid it.

Barry, You make an interesting distinction that we'll probably make use of before all is said and done. In SM Handbook, pg 120, under Step 3 - A Scout is Reviewed, it starts off by saying "After a Scout has completed all of the requirements for any rank from Tenderfoot to Life, his progress is reviewed in two stages: - Scoutmaster conference - Board of review" In this case, the SM determined that the Scout had not completed all of the requirements for Star, therefore the SM Conf they had was one of progress review, not the final one for rank, and he didn't sign the SM Conf block either. Without this, there shouldn't be a BOR. Bob White, Again, we don't look at it as "penalizing" the Scout - he needs a little more time to develop and grow, that's all, and we're committed to giving him the opportunity and assistance to do so. What's a couple of months in a 7-yr scouting career? A bit more time helping him to really be ready to proudly wear the rank might be the most valuable time he's spent in Scouting, so far. Alternatively, he will move forward with a cloud of doubt - the SM has already told him he's not ready and Scout knows his parents are pushing the system to advance him anyway. The other boys also know he didn't complete the POR requirement. I also don't like the idea of the SM handing a scout off to the BOR knowing he didn't complete the requirements. The way I understand the checks and balances, the SM basically presents a scout that he believes is ready. The BOR/Troop Committee members then do a verification to ensure he has completed the requirements. While they are only reviewing one scout, they are also reviewing the entire program side of the troop. If a SM presented a scout for advancement and BOR determined he came up short, I would think a review of the troop's program would be in order. I suppose our SM could go ahead and get the heat off his back by signing, then recommending to the BOR that they not pass the Scout, but that doesn't sound like it's really in the Scout's best interest. (BTW - the generic problem of ensuring all scouts in POR get much more attention, guidance, and coaching has already been discussed extensively within the SM Staff. Fixes are in place for new rotation just starting.) Now for an idea about how to get this to resolution, incorporating some of Barry's ideas. Schedule another SM Conf for Scout. (Although not standard, I would consider having another adult, like CC, observe. CC doesn't really have an ax to grind - he just doesn't like parents yelling at him and wants the problem to go away immediately.) Explain to Scout that there has been a lot of discussion about his situation and performance in POR among adults. (He already knows this - parents have been vocal.) Discuss it all a bit to let him know that the troop let him down by not being more help. But also let him know that scouts of advanced rank and responsibility are expected to know when to seek help. Tell Scout that SM doesn't think he's really ready for BOR, but give Scout the option. Does Scout honestly believe that he has successfully completed the requirement for advancement. If he says yes, sign it and notify BOR. If Scout says no, that's all SM needs to tell other adults to back off and give the boy a chance to get ready - we're willing to help. (Sorry for another long post - this one's really bugging me.)

Ed, I think I've already answered these, but Yes - the Scout was trained at Troop JLT which included some one-on-one time to discuss requirements of his particular job. No - he did not ever seek feedback or assistance. No - the SM did not review how he was doing. (No excuses, but new SM was in process of taking over very large troop with a huge number of other very hot concerns to work - this one slipped through the crack.) Bob White, Come on. SM is not saying it was the Scout's responsibility to do the job solo. He's saying the job wasn't done. Scout did NOT say "he had no support or development to do the job." When discussing his performance with SM - while looking at a copy of the job description, list of responsibilities, etc. that he got when trained, the Scout admitted he hadn't done very much. He agreed with SM that he needed to develop his leadership capabilities more. (This is in direct agreement with your note about us being here to develop young people. Easy way out would be to cheat the Scout and sign him off.) Unfortunate combination of events, but recovery plan was on track until parents went on the offensive. As for who should sign - nobody in troop is saying the Scout did the job. If a Scout participates in some knot instruction, but comes away unable to demonstrate how to tie a knot, do we sign him off because the instructor didn't teach him effectively? No - we have him take a breath to calm down and we work on it some more, maybe trying different techniques. He might not get signed off today, but he's making progress and will get there. (We also need to take a look at the instruction side, of course, to see if there's a bigger problem than this one scout.) We're a very big troop and have a lot of leadership positions. In spite of the SM changeover, I believe all of the rest were successful in their jobs. One Scout needs more guidance/coaching and another month or so. Not a big deal and really pretty good, overall.

Thanks for your input, so far. Good discussion and insights. A few points of clarification: 1. The POR block had not already been signed off. It's fairly common in our troop for the SM to include a discussion of scout's experiences in POR as part of SM Conf. (Same for Scout spirit.) Scout is always given a form as part of JLT with blocks to fill out showing some examples of things he does to meet the various requirements of his POR. This Scout didn't bring form to SM Conf. SM took a reasonable approach and decided to talk him though it instead. 2. The requirement does say "...serve actively..." as OGE points out and that's where we're hung up. Just because he wore the patch and came to troop activities does not mean he "served actively" in his position of responsibility. In order to do that, the Scout has to accomplish at least some of the objectives for the job. In this case, SM determined that Scout wasn't anywhere close. 3. Like I already said, there's plenty of blame to go around and lessons to be learned. Adults didn't recognize and address concern adequately. Boy leadership didn't either. Scout - who had information on requirements in hand - didn't seek help. Parents - one of whom is active in troop and know their son's capabilities and limitations - didn't bring concern to anyone anywhere until after time was up and they wanted signoff. 4. We try not to frame it in terms of "punishing the boy." I see the successful completion of his first position of responsibility as one of the significant growth steps leading up to Star. This builds skills and confidence the Scout needs for future success in troop and life in general. Instead of punishing him, I think we're cheating him if we pass him on something he hasn't accomplished. (Not to mention impact on other boys in troop who are aware the standards weren't met.) Thanks again for your insights.