mk9750

If it were me, I'd let him run again. Probelm is, it's not me, and not you. It's the boys' program. Let them decide at a PLC. We did have that situation, almost exactly. A great SPL who dropped the position because of scholastic requirments. When those waned, he wanted the position again. PLC voted, allowed him to run, two of the three who were running dropped out because he was so good at it. He won the election, all three others were voted to positions in which they flourished, and so far two of the three have been elected SPL and been successful (actually, one of them was just elected in Sept. He's struggling, but it's the same struggle that all our SPLs go through at first. But he's working at it, and shows real promise). There are no advantages to either allowing or not allowing him to run again, but there is a real disadvantage to not letting the boys make the decision. Good luck! Mark

Bob, Now your starting to rile me! It's not my time spent making the effort to contact cub packs, so I don't want to sound like I'm defending myself. It is our Scoutmaster's. But to depict the right way to make this happen taking the time to do it, and contrasting that to what we do is just not fair! I have never kept track of the time we spend making this effort (and as you can see, I certainly keep track of a lot of stuff!), but I'll bet our Scoutmaster's time spent recruiting, when totaled, adds up to days, not hours, each year. And, in reality, I think our performance shows that. My point throughout this thread has been that rather than being a help in the process of transistion to boy scouts, packs put up a brick wall (mostly unintentional, I 'm sure, but real, none the less, at least for the 6 packs in our area). And 7 years of trying to change attitides within the pack have met with almost no sucess. This is problably for a very reasonable reason: Pack leadership turns over at a much greater rate than does most troops', and ours particularly (SM there 11 years, one ASM celebrating 20 years, another 10 years. I'm one of the young bucks among adults with 7 years). I think another reason packs make it tough, without even knowing it, is that we (training, we in the troop, unit commisioners) haven't made clear enough that transistion to boy scouts is one of the job descriptions of pack leaders. Without them knowing this, a cubmaster and a den leader believe that AoL and a graduation ceremony shows that their job is complete. It's not the time or the effort that makes this tranisition difficult. If it were easy for troops to recruit well, everyone would do it. If the packs in your area are receptive to the efforts your troops make to recuit, congratulations. And if it's just the ones in our area that aren't, well, we'll deal with it. But please don't portray how we deal with things as not putting in the effort. I am offended! And, by the way, this is strictly my oppinion, but I was always skeptical of people representing other scouting units being at the pack meetings I did as cubmaster without arranging it in advance. If the unit commisioner, or DE, or a scoutmaster, or another cubmaster wanted to come to a pack meeting, WELCOME! But to show up without notice made me very uncomfortable. I think it is rude to show up unannounced. I won't do it, and I'll bet our scoutmaster wouldn't, either. Mark

I admit to having almost no real information about lone scouts, but I do have an oppinion. As much as I think it is great that there is some mechanism to allow a truly isolated boy, or one who travels, to participate in scouting, I think it should be the last resort. There are so many good things about scouts, cub or boy. Outdoor skills, first aid skills, exposure to potential careers, etc. But the two bigest values I have seen in 10 years through both programs are the necesary development in skills to work cooperatively, and leadership development. These two benefits cannot be realized without a pack or troop. In our troop, we teach our boys that we want more from them than just be leaders. We want each boy to learn to be a leader of leaders. How does a boy learn to do this without a troop? And for home schooled boys, it becomes even more important to work within the framework of a troop. Whether or not one agrees with the concept of home schooling, I think no one could argue that a boy can get neither benefit above in a home school environment. And without that opportunity, Scouting in its complete form becomes even more valuable. I know that the lack of a troop that satisfies a boy's, and his parents, expectations might make someone desire to attempt scouting alone. But I really believe this is contrary to desired ends of the program. What does it say to a boy when we demonstrate that if they don't like a situation, we should avoid it? Using the same arguement, whenever the government passes a law that we don't agree with, we should leave the country. No, I think that's not what scouting, or citizenship, is all about. If the problem is important enough, let's roll up our sleeves and fix it. If it's not that big a deal, then live with it. I try not to be confrontational in these forums, because the vast majority of positions are both reasonable, and even when I think wrong, are held with the best interest of boys in mind. But the idea of turning to Lone Scouts when a pack or troop is available is not in the best interest of any boy. I urge you to reconsider. Good luck to you! Mark

Boy, brings back some fond memories! I think there are three great ideas for keeping young boys under control: 1) As suggested above, have the boys set the den rules. They might not behave like they know they should now, but they do know what constitutes good behavior. I'll bet that the rules they set down, and even more so the consequences they prescribe, will be tougher than you want them to be. 2) Use the first trick I learned in den leader training - A good behavior candle. Light it at the beginning of the meeting in a rather solemn ceremony, and have the person whose behavior does not conform to the rules the boys set blow it out. If that boy misbehaves again, get the parents to take him home. And I let everyone know that snacks were only going to happen if the candle was still burning at snack time. Gaurantee is a strong word, but I'd almost be willing to guarantee things will settle down. 3) For every meeting possible, allow them one small oppurtunity to be a little wild. Plan a game, especially one outside if possible. Even when that wasn't possible, like when I had to have a meeting at my home in the winter, I warned my family that about 15 minutes before the end of the meeting, I was going to allow the boys to scream as loud as they wanted for 5 minutes. That way, I controlled the when and the what, and believe it our not, they quieted down themselves way before the five minutes was up. But a better idea is to plan an active constructive game. I think that if you tried some or all of these, plus ideas that other very smart folks on these forums offer, you'll be glad you did! Good luck! Mark

Bob, Just to clarify- There are three TROOPS in the area that draw from 6 PACKS. Two of the troops get @ 20% of the crossovers between them. That leaves 80% of eleigible boys, from whom we get between 50% to 94% to stay will us through rechartering (these stats are from 1996 through present, and I am counting all boys in our troop today as being with us next January for rechartering). Not a big deal, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought we are doing the impossible. Again, in theory, what you say is correct. It is not likely that cub leaders will know, understand, and promote boy scouts (although it can happen - I went out of my way as a webelos leader to work with troop leadership during the summer between 1st and 2nd year, and all though 2nd year to learn what I needed to know, and get the troop involved to fill in what I couldn't). But in practice, it still takes being invited to allow the troop to do so. E amils and phone calls arent't the best method for making everything happen, for certain. But somehow the first contact has to be made. I'm rather certain you wouldn't advocate attending a pack committee meeting or a den meeting univited. I also failed to mention the effort that has gone into contacting pack people at round table. But these don't start until late September. The way we envision providing help requires that this be arranged and organized well before Sept. or Oct. I recall as a den leader and as a cubmaster feeling that if everyone just left our pack alone, we could run a quality program. I think most here would agree that that view was very myopic. What we as a troop are trying to do is overcome the same attiude I had. Fortunately, my lack of skills (and interest, at the time) in outdoor activities MADE me contact the experts (the troop). Had I thought I knew enough, or that I could do a satisfactory job for the boys in my den on my own, My den could have been one of the ones that faded to black in scouting. Instead, and I say this with unabashed pride, 10 of 11 boys crossed, 8 made it to First Class, 4 are still in Scouting, 2 are Eagles, and one more, my son, mailed his application two days ago. I won't believe this would have happened if someone at the cub level hadn't looked for, and accepted the help available from the troop. On paper, you are 100% right. In practice, at least in my corner of the scouting world, it doesn't work like that. The troop has to be asked to participate. If I try to imagine what it would be like for the troop to insert themselves into a pack that doesn't want them and doesn't understand they need them, it looks like the selective service draft to me. To everyone who has responded, it is wonderful to see how this has developed. Often on this forum, a problem to be discussed exists only at the pack or at the troop level. And only one perspective (cub scout or boy scout) is available. It's cool to see oppinions from both levels shared. Without each of us understanding the difficulties the other faces, it's hard to pinpoint the solution. Good luck to all in their Scouting efforts!! Mark

scoutmom, It wouldn't be a shock to me that if we had people running cub packs in our area that have your attitude, we'd cross and keep more boys. I'd love to have someone at the pack level be as up to speed about the transition as you are. I believe if you had a troop in your area like ours, who truly bend over backward to accomodate webelos for den chiefs, requirements for meeting visits and activities, and making them feel welcome, you'd get more boys crossing. (boy wouldn't I be embarassed if we were in the same town, huh?) After reading your post, I went pack to confirm this, so I am 100% accurate. Our Scoutmaster CCs me on every e mail and written correspondense he makes that pertains to the troop. He wrote an original e mail back in August to each of the six cubmasters in our area, and to each of the 11 2nd year webelos den leaders in those packs. Asked for an invitation to the pack's first fall committe meeting, offered den chiefs, offered static displays at pack meetings, offered invitations to troop meetings and campouts, and ANY type off assistance we can be. Not one response. He resent the e mail again in early September. No response again. Made phone calls to the cubmasters asking if leadership had changed to see if he needed to direct correspondence to someone different. When he had everything up to date (only one change), sent another e mail and letter. One response from a cubmaster who complained that we were working too hard to recruit, and to stop bother them until winter. Sent the e mail again, including an apology if it looked like were were being pushy, but that this was an important issue if the den, pack and troop were serious about crossing boys to boy scouts. One response, from a 2nd years webelos leader who said no to our offers, except to tell us that his younger son's tiger cub group might really be able to us a den chief, because none of the other adults seem to want to be involved. I admire your effort, desire and dedication to helping boys take the next step. I am also envious of the troops in your area. If we had one person in each of the packs we deal with that had your attitide, our troop would be splitting walls in our meeting area. In our case, we believe we are doing well more than we should, and close to everything we can, to extend a welcoming hand to cubs and their parents. If someone would just grab it... Mark

Great topic, and one that we have focused on in our troop for years now. Bob, I agree in principle that the troop has the bigger responsiblity for enticing boys to cross. However, I believe our troop may be a worthwhile study of that concept. We are on of 3 area troops that tend to get boys for 6 packs. Of that combination, only our Charter Organization has both a pack and a troop. We put on THE EXACT SAME recruiting effort EVERY YEAR. We then monitor the number of boys that cross to each of the three troops. The other two get almost the same percentage as each other, and from year to year, @ 10% of the 2nd year Webelos each. Their numbers vary little from year to year. Out Troop has crossed and retained (measured by recharters after the first 8 months - crossing in spring, recharter in January) from as few as 50% of the rest, to 94%. If the other troops recruitment stays constant, and our troop's efforts stay the same year to year, why is there such a difference in results? We are certain we've identified three issues, with one additional that we as adults in our troop disagree about: 1) lack of preperation by both parents and den leaders about the difference between boy scouts and cub scouts, particularly the personal responsiblity increase that happens with crossing. The evidence we have suggests that those dens that have a boy who has an older brother in boy scouts cross more boys than those that do not. This percentage increases when the leader has a boy in a troop. 2) The attitude that we see often that says " OK, we crossed. See you in September, just like in Cubs". It seems that many families just don't understand the year round nature of the boy scout program. Again, this is effected by having a brother or a son in a troop. For some reason, and we can't determine why, it soesn't seem to matter whether or not the den had a den chief. Which brings me to: 3) Lack of a den chief. And this, at least in our area, we lay directly at the feet of the pack leadership. Our resources only allow us to provide den chiefs for 2nd year webelos dens, but every 2nd year weblo leader is contacted to offer a dc, and explain their purpose and value. Boys seem to cross at a much higher rate from dens with den chiefs than without (22% to our troop from dens w/o to 65% to our troop from dens with a den chief). And lastly, we see a variation in crossing and retention every other year. I believe it is our chosen summer camp program. In odd years, we go out of state, but within 160 miles of home for summer camp. In even years, we go to Canada, and 350 miles, for summer camp. Our cross over rate drops in even years. I believe it is caused by our decision (which, by the way, I agree with) to go to Canada for summer camp. We have a significant number of parents (sorry to stereotype, but it's almost ALWAYS moms) who don't want Joey out of the country so far away from home when he's only 11. There are other leaders in our troop who don't believe this correlation exists. Sorry this is so long. But I think it may help with the research. As far as Bob and Ed go, like I said, on paper, it seems Bob should be right. But on this one, our evidence suggests that Ed is closer to the answer. Good luck on your paper! Mark

There techically is no such thing as an Advancement Chairman (officially). It is not a recognized adult position in Scouting. The adult who oversees and enhances the part of the program that is advancement is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the Committee Chair (officially). I do believe, however, that in most Troops, the practice is that this person is treated as if there is an actual office of Advancement Chair. I believe this is actually a good thing, for, as was mentioned, anything a Scoutmaster can delegate (probably a better way to phrase it) is good. This would be true of the CC also. That said, when a Scout approaches whomever maintains the list of Merit Badge Councelors, they should be given all reasonable options for whom the Scout may contact. Certainly, it makes no sense to tell a Scout that there is a councelor 50 miles away if there are others in town, but a scout should be told of all reasonable options, and be allowed to make the final choice himself. I would be very in favor of the Scoutmaster offering his oppinion as to which instructor may be the best fit for that Scout, but the final decision should be the boys. Mark

My three favorites: "All that is necesary for the triumpth of evil is that good men to do nothing." (my father, quoting Winston Churchill, I believe) "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man has stumbled. Or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with dust, and sweat, and blood. And who, if he fails, at least failed while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." Theodore Roosevelt And the last is a story printed in Readers Digest @ 10 years ago called Mike's Flag. It is a story about a man who was punished severly for fashioning an American Flag from crude materials while in a POW camp in Viet Nam, and immediately set upon making another. I believe this has been attributed to one of the men in John McCain's POW camp. It is difficult to keep a Scoutmaster minute from being corny. but the ones that avoid that fate are unbelievably imressive to young men.

I don't intend to directly quote anyone here, so please cut me some slack if I don't have the words exactly right. But Rooster talked about how the major part of a MB councilor's responsiblity is testing. I strongly object (to take a line from one of my favorite movies). And I'll offer one example from the list of Mbs I do. There are a large number of requirements, on very boring but important topics, in Personal Managment. The MB booklet covers all of the "test questions" enough so that a boy who studies modertely seriously can "pass the test". However, let's look at one topic: Checking Accounts. A scout must know what a checking account is, and the difference between a checking acount, a savings account, a credit card and a debit card. In order to pass, if a scout can recite to an instuctor's satisfaction they know this info, the requirement should be signed off. But it is irresponsible (I know that may offend some who don't practice this, but I mean what I say) to not discuss the ramifications of overdrawing your checking account. Or of misusing an ATM card. So the scenerio becomes: A Scout learns (but only what is in the booklet), he is tested, and he is recognized. Unfortunately, far too many of these guys will go off to college, bounce some checks, and never be able to buy pizza at the local pizza shop (ok, maybe that was just me that happened to). All because the MB instructor didn't look beyond the requirements to explain the facts of life that accompany the practice of what was learned. Can we expect them to know this before we pass them? Absolutely not. But should we not take the oppurtunity to expose them to stuff they will need when they are adults? Certainly. And this is why MB instructors are expected to have more than a basic interest in a subject. I have no experience kayaking, yet I'll bet I could learn the requirements well enough to test a boy for whitewater MB. But that would be cheating him out of the expertise and experience of someone who participates in the sport. Someone who could teach way more than the badge requires. This example could be adapted to almost every MB. If we as MB instructors don't teach as well as test, the oppurtunity we have to provide skills beyond the requirements is lost. And that would be sad. Mark

I agree with sst3rd. When a boy wants to earn a Merit Badge, he should see his Scoutmaster and obtain a blue card. Depending on how the Troop is set up, the Scoutmaster of the Advancement Chairman provides the boy with a list of Merit Badge Councelors qualified by the council for the merit badge on which he wants to work. The boy should contact the Merit Badge councelor, make an appointment, remember the buddy system, and meet with the councelor. Ocassionally, it may make sense to do a class during a Troop meeting. This happens for us a couple times a year when we start our cycle on rock climbing and repelling, and again when we go to the fire station for a 1st aid class. But even then, we just expose the boys to the subject. It is up to each of them to approach the instructor with a blue card in order to officially start the MB. Once in a great while, if one of our adults is the MB councelor, we will agree to meet a boy during our troop meeting. This is very discouraged, however, as most of the boys have something important to be doing during the meeting. Those of us that council a large number og badges tend to show up VERY early for meetings (5:30 - 6:00 for a 7:00 meeting), and stay pretty late (9:00 - 9:30 for an 8:30 end time) in order to accomodate boys who make appointments (and we bought the "one hour a week" line!!!) Group MB instructing is certainly easier, there's no doubt about that. But it is not nearly as effective, and I feel we cheat boys who ask us to work with them. Good luck! Mark

I realize this thread is old and maybe forgotten, but I wanted to respond. Our troop elects both the SPL and ASPL. however, it has become expected in our troop that the ASPL WILL be the next SPL, regardless of ability or effort displayed. We view this as a problem, but one that we have not been able to resolve while maintaining "boy run". I'd love to hear some suggestions for us as adults influencing the boys to make a better decision when it is time to elect troop leaders. We think that all it would take is one cylce for us to say "NO, we don't care who you voted for, he isn't qualified" to break this habit. We think the boys would then understand that it is not a requirement that they vote for the ASPL to ascend to the next logical position. But of course, we can't do that. We've made the pitch before every election, but literally, the last one was problably 40 - 1 to promote the ASPL. The guy's a great kid, but other commitments have kept him from being effective as an ASPL. Who knows how he'll do as the top dog, but from our perspective, there were at least two other candidates better qualified.

I agree with those who have said that Scouting isn't the only way to creat a responsible person, but it is a great way. As such, and with the belief that it seems you have that Scouting COULD be something special for your son, could you consider starting a new troop? It might contradict your desire to distance yourself from your son while he participates in scouting (which in many insances is a good thing, I think). But the oppurtunity you could give your son, and other boys who would benefit from your better understanding of the methods of scouting, would be worth it. If I lived in your area, and had the troops to choose from that you describe, I'd have my son signed up with a troop you started in a heartbeat. You've got the basics of the intentions of scouting nailed. You've either been trained, or are of a mindset that would allow training to be very effective for you. If you took those attitudes, and some training to a troop you could mold into what you know it should be, everyone in your area would be clamoring to belong. In any case, keep up your work helping your son grow into a man. With or without scouts, I think you're doing fine. Mark

Laura, Let's see if I can beat Bob making this point: The requirements you speak about for 1st Class is to participate in 10 Troop or Patrol ACTIVITIES, other than meetings. This is in contrast to 10 campouts, and especially in contrast to 10 Nights of camping. A troop or patrol activity could include a day hike, a service project, a learning experience (once a year our guys plan a trip to the local fire department where an officer does a first aid class and a CPR class (over two weeks). If the PLC plans this for an evening IN ADDITION to a regular weekly meeting, we count this as an activity). Most of our boys have their 10 activity requirement for 1st Class done within 3 - 4 months of crossing. We only do one campout a month, so it's the extra stuff that gets them there. In addition, even a two night campout is counted as only one activity. Increasing to two nights would decrease the time it takes to meet Camping MB requirements, as well as OA membership requirements. And there is plenty of value in the experience and fun boys would have by having the extra night. But it makes no difference to a boy's rank advancement to 1st Class. Mark

We always go for 2 nights, and when we can take advantage of a long weekend, we go three nights. Attendees are expected to be packed ahead of time (our youngest boys get their packs inspected at the meeting before the campout for the first 2 or 3 times). That makes getting to our departure point a matter of changing into uniform (Scouts and adults), picking up your pack, and going. Lot's of McDonalds being wolfed down in the parking lot before everyone gets there. and we do a light snack requiring little or no prep once camp is set up (hard pretzels, to dutch oven cobbler). We leave between 6:00 and 6:30 usually, unless we are traveling more than an hour or so. Then we ask people to be ready to go by 5:30, but that's rare. We run in cycles: When new quartermasters are appointed, it's the scouts causing us to leave late if we do. Once the quartermaster is comfortable with his job, if we are late, it's one of the adults who holds us up. To do 2 night camping, it takes some effort by all involved. but I'm with the group that think it's worth the effort to get camp set up Friday so Saturday can be devoted to activities.

When I initially saw the title of the thread, and the first post,I assumed this was a light question intended to have some fun. In that spirit, I asked my son, who is two half MBs away from Eagle (Personal Management and Personal Fitness) how much HE thought it had cost, in that he pays much of his own way (we paid 100% until he was 13, 75% until he got a job at 16, now we pay @ 25%). He assumed that all of the costs of Scouting through the years counted, as he doesn't believe he could make Eagle without all of the campouts, summer camps, Appalacian Trail Hikes, Tinnerman canoe treks, equipment, dues, uniforms (he's on his fourth now - and I'd like to know how any boy gets through 7 years of BS only spending $120.00 on uniforms. Between me and my two boys, we're EASILY over $800.00). His guess? - Between $2,500.00 and $4,000.00. But as noted, he feels every penny was worth it. I asked specifically if knowing what he knows now, he would go though it again, he was emphatic saying yes. And I'm proud that he would. He recognizes what he's gotten from BS - Leadership experience, self esteem, responsiblity, memories, skills, lifelong friends, adults who he is proud to know and call friends. When I reminded him that earning Eagle would be valuable to him, his reaction was kind of: Oh yeah, I forgot about that". Tells me that maybe some of the posts about advancement not being the goal of Scouting might have some merit. It makes me proud to be associated with such a fine program, and to be the dad of such a great kid (my other son ain't too bad, either!) Mark

Scoutnut, Thanks for the analysis. It is certainly helpful. What I get out of your explaination is that regardless of the age of any girls they have, there are many correlations but few exact similiarities to the two programs. That being true, I think it does become fair for us to tell the moms that we are different from GS, and to step back and allow the boys to dictate the essence of their own program, and to offer assistance for them to become trained if they feel a need to understand it better. Your very last point makes me realize I need to clarify one more point. The PL who did the yelling is also 12, and in his 2nd year. He has gone through our troop's leader training, but his age and rank won't allow him to participate in council wide leader training until next summer. It is common in our troop for PLs of patrols in their 2nd year to be very raw, and we view it as on the job training. We expect mistakes, and watch for opportunities to use these mistakes as examples to contrast our "best practices" on - going training we do with these guys. His error is one almost all new youth leaders make in our troop. Most make it a couple of times before they realize there is a better way. And most of the guys who are the unfortunate victims of O-J-T learn not to use the same technique when they get their shot at leadership. It works for us 99.8% of the time. Again, thanks for the help! And thank you EVERYONE for what you do in your own troops and communities. YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE! Mark

Laura, I agree 100% with your idea. I have long thought that we do a diservice to our boys by not exposing them to the "home economics" skills. Most of these guys will go on to college without mom to wash or clean or mend for them. Some may remain bachelors for a long time. And others may become "Mr Moms", or take an equal role in running a household. To allow them to get to those points in their life without teaching them to wield a needle of add the right amount of soap to a washing machine is a crime. I have written National trying to convince them to add a mb for these skills, or at least add requirements to Family Life mb. No luck yet. Bet we provide four weeks of optional training away from troop meetings at people's homes where guys can get this trianing. It's amazing - the guys who aren't old enough to drive end up coming. Their moms drop them off. And the ones who do drive, well, they get there too. Must actually recognize that mom won't be in their dorms in a year or two.

Thanks to all! A couple more points to be made: 1) Bob - I get the impression you read into the situation that someone hit someone else. This is not the case. The PL yelled at the boys who did not clean the tents. All of your prerequisites were met except that it was not done in private. This one of the parts of the incident that the ASM felt the method could have been improved. One of the moms allegedly was heard to say that she was going to tell her son it would be OK to hit anyone who yelled at him again. No actual contact happened. 2)The very first thing our new scouts are taught is how to set up, take down, and clean tents. We do this because the only things we expect the new guys to take care of for themselves on their first campout is packing for themselves (which we also teach right away), and senting up and taking down tents. On the first campout, the new scouts are each given a tent to clean. They are expected to clean the older guys' tent the first time so that they all get practice. We also do this because we expect our older scouts to participate actively in our "New Scout Campout" without anything designed to make it fun for them. They are the service patrol, and each is responsible for a training or patrol team building activity. The need to give new guys experience cleaning tents and the desire to "reward" the older guys by not having to care for gear for one campout a year works well for us. After that, tents are assigned for cleaning based first on who didn't do a good enough job last time, then on a rotating basis. We are fortunate that no one in our troop has to overcome the obstacle that cleaning a tent in an apartment would cause. 3)Our troop's philosophy has always been that as great as scouting is for the kids that take to it quickly, it is vastly more valuable for the ones who struggle with it. Knowing how to care for a tent may never be usefull if a guy never camps after scouting. But knowing that he has to take care of assets, especially ones he down not own, is a vital life skill. As easy at it might be to push problems away, we tend to fight to keep these kind of boys, and their families, rather than push them away. But I believe that these moms' position is very unreasonable, and want to provide all involved - PL, SM, CC, me - with knowledge about the valid differences between the two programs, as this really seemed to be a major thrust her problem with our methods. Again, thanks to all who have taken the time to comment. You guys and ladies are terrific! Mark

OGE, Points all well taken, and you are absolutely right. As I said, the ASM was going to speak to the PL about his method, but was happy that at least the leader was leading, even if the method was prefered. And I assure you that even though I also agree it was not the optimal way for the PL to make his point, it was not out of line at all. After discussing the conversation between the CC and the mom, a few of us are convinced that our best course of action is to pressure (and I use that word intentionally) these moms into some type of training. Short of that, we want to find a way to exclude them from the meeting - A subject from previous thread. However, "Billy and Bobby" will continue to whine to their moms about anything not quite perfect for their little darlings, I'm sure. And we will continue to spend our time dealing with incessant ninnies. Mark

You know, Youngblood, I've read with great delight all of the replies you have made on a number of topics. You have a tremendous knack for boiling down issues and making wise comments. I like your style!! Anytime you're looking for a job, I'd love to have you! good luck! Keep up the great stuff! Mark

The difficulty we are having revolves around two mothers whose sons often do not meet the expectations of their junior leaders. A good example happened last night. Over the weekend, our troop went on a campout. Upon return, as always, troop gear was distributed among the boys, with the expectation that it would be thoughoughly cleaned and dried (tents that had to be packed wet). Our quartermaster is responsible for assigning gear to patrol leaders, who then assign it to patrol members. Last night, one boy (middle of 2nd year in BS) turned back a tent that was obviously never touched. The other boy didn't turn his tent in at all. The quartermaster advised the PL that tents were missing or not satisfactory, the PL contacted the boys in question, and, as this was the 3rd or 4th time these boys had not met their responsiblity in this regard, their PL used "loud persuasion" to make his point. Both the ASM for the patrol, and I witnessed the encounter. The ASM even said to me that he'll have to talk with the PL about the carrot -vs- the stick method of leadership, but that it was good to see the boy asserting himself like that. I swear it was not out of line at all! One of the boys' mother also witnessed it. She pulled our Committee chair aside (for the 38th time, it seems) and admonished her for easily 15 minutes about how inappropriate it was for us to allow another boy to talk to her son like that. "No boy should be able to tell another boy they didn't do something well enough". "You'd never see this kind of behaviour in Girl Scouts!" And "If he yells at my son again, I'm going to call his mother!" I have also heard, second hand, that she has given her son permission to hit anyone who talks to him that way again. A number of core adult leaders have spoken to these moms about the necesity for boys to lead, that boys will make mistakes as they learn how, that their sons are responible for taking care of gear in the manner they were taught, and that we as adults try desperately to stay out of things unless physical danger is involved. When we witness a junior leader who has "gone astray" in the way he deals with his charges, we speak with him after the fact. This apparently is contrary to what these moms see in the Girl Scout program. We have had no affect convincing these moms to let the boys deal with things themselves. Mark

I'll start shedding some light on the situation. Again, not too much to start, because I would like to get objective answers. I'll do it by asking a follow up question: How much does Girl Scouts rely on youth leadership as compared to Boy Scouts?

We have a couple of mothers of boys in our troop who have been very unhappy with the way things happen in our troop. I'd rather not affect the answers I hope to get here, so I won't describe the whole situation right now. But these moms keep repeating one common theme: "that isn't the way Girl Scouts do things". My basic question is "What are the main differences between the Boy Scouts and Girl Scout programs? Without any real knowledge of their program (I have two boys), I have great respect for the Girl Scouts. But these moms keep referencing Girl scouts when they are not happy with something in our troop. Does anyone have solid knowledge about both programs that can offer a "compare and contrast"? Mark

Yaworski, It is interesting you see Heritage as a fine example of a safe firing range, as it is Heritage that I was speaking of when I said we keep kids away from the range at summer camp. We attend Heritage every other year (odd years), so I was not there this year. But the rangemaster in all of the years I have been there is a rather thin, marines - looking guy. I've spoken with him a number of times, and listened while he spoke with others. He is a VERY nice guy, and I don't want anything I say to be misunderstood. He is a great person. But the safety instruction Scouts get there is woefully less than what the boys in our troop get before they may handle a firearm. I admit to being mostly unfamiliar with firearms, and the MB requirements. Therefore it would be wrong of me to state that this range is unsafe, or that this man jeopordizes the safety of boys. Maybe what he presents is adaquate. But compared to what I have been exposed to in our troop's program, the quantity and quality of these programs can't compare. And it isn't just me or other adults in our troop that feel this way. To a boy (including scouts who are now adults), not one boy in our troop wants to participate in field sports at summer camp because they feel the program is not adequate. Some of this is the quality of the rifles (having our own that the boys are responsible for caring for makes our opinion of summer camp rifles elitist, I presume), but far more than one boy has mentioned that information they have gotten in talking to other boys at camp does not measure up to what they get. One last thing that should be mentioned: Heritage is in the heart of PA, where I assume far more boys are exposed to firearms and have been taught safety by their family. We are a VERY suburban troop. I think 2 boys currently in our troop have fathers who own guns. We might feel (rightfully so, I think) that we need a higher level of training than the average camper at Heritage. I am certain that their program is set up for their most common camper: Boys from PA. For us to ask for more would not be fair. However, for us and our boys to require more before they participate is fair. Viewed in this light, I might have been too harsh criticizing their program. I stand by my criticism of the local campmaster.