mk9750

Bob and All,

I am sorry that my effort at being concise caused me to mislead. The Troop made the decision, did the fundraising, and, with the advice of our Scoutmaster (the MB councelor), chose which rifles to buy. They are in the name, and the possession of, the Scoutmaster. The COR was on the Troop committe and was at the meeting that approved the purchase. they are stored in a secured rifle closet in the SM's home, and each of our boys are subject to a complete NRA safety class before being permitted to handle them.

I am not the Scoutmaster, nor do I have much more than a rudimentary understanding of firearms or the MB. I will, however, claim without reserve that the safety of our Scouts, or anyone within range of these rifles has NEVER been compromised. This is a far cry from others we have witnessed in Scouting using firearms. While we were on the range, the Campmaster I spoke of was doing his safety spiel with 4 boys who were starting the MB. It consisted of staying out of the closet under the pavillion at the range, and making sure boys doen't tip over the clay pigeon launcher, because it's been broken so many times before. We won't permit our boys to participate in summer camp rifle programs for the same reason. If I had the choice to subject my sons to a rifle with a full clip and the safety program they pass, or one round and "don't break my equipment", I'll take a full clip any day. The requirement to use one round at a time is "dumbing down" the program to protect against this lack of proper safety training.

Which gets us back to the original thread. Boys MUST be given to oppurtunity to lead themselves. But it is irresponsible of adults to allow them without proper training. If a group of boys can maintain a safe trip, and include people who can handle emergencies likely to arise, they should be permitted to do so. If we as adults don't feel that these boys can do this, than they shouldn't be permitted. And if we think they can't, it reflects poorly on us as adult leaders, doesn't it?

The campmaster was adamant about this point for both activities. We just had a campout where we worked on both. Our boys decided they wanted Troop rifles, so they raised enough money to purchase 5 Marlin .22 bolt action rifles. When made to revert to loading one round at a time, we encountered more misfires than we ever had loading a clip. And by the way, to be humorous and not argumentative, the MB councilor for these MBs is an attorney, with all of the required certifications.

This aside, I agree that today's Scouting would not look the same as it did years ago if developed more recently. But with the "dumbing down" of the program that I believe has happened all in an effort to CYA, I'm suprised this survived (the above is my opinion. I take responsiblity for it.)

But the key is I've learned something new that I plan to encourage my sons to take full advantage of.

Mark

Another revelation for me!

I NEVER EVER expected to see that a Scout activity could take place without adult supervision. We do a pretty good job of staying out of the way when our boys plan and carry out events. But to think that the rules and regulations would allow us to stay away from the actual event shocks me. National has gone so far as to say (at least what one campmaster told us) that Scouts earning Rifle or Shotgun MB can only load 1 round at a time.

I tried to verify this in the Scoutmaster handbook, but couldn't find my book (maybe this points to a problem in itself, eh?). But once I confirm the information is accurate, you can bet I'm telling both of my sons (PLs in two different patrols) to start planning!!

Mark

Our Troop tends to have difficulty with new Scouts too. Particularly if the Cub den they came from was more "Artsy - Craftsy" than actively working on the Webelos program which starts the transistion into Boy Scouts. When this happens, particularly if the Den (Webelos) leader stays active after crossing, the boys seem to expect immediate gratification. They also seem to miss the concept that their level of fun is self determined. This is aided by the old den leader, who always seems to do for his old den, "because these guys just couldn't do something like this on their own!".

When this has happened, we've stepped in very quickly and asked our Troop Guides to assume a role closer to actual Patrol Leader and Asst. Leader. These guys know that in their patrol meetings they can plan whatever fun (or advancement, or skill) they want to. If they want to do something at a Troop - wide campout, the Guides know how to present it to the PLC to get them to accept it. And that makes the boys themselves responsible for their own entertainment.

I agree with the premise concerning a disparity in boys' ages in a troop. What the Troop Junior leadership (who are usually older) plan often is different than what younger guys will find interesting. But that is why it's called the Patrol Method, not the Troop Method. Each patrol is responsible for their own enjoyment.

Your initial question, and your follow ups to it, all ask if you should try to effect change in your Troop. Is it worth it? Oh my God, YES! the remarkable positive character traits that boys who are given, accept, and succeed with responsiblity are worth the effort you will make. And that's even if your son never learns a Scout skill, or never earns a merit badge.

I'm getting long winded, I know, but I'd just like to add a short note about my oldest son to support my point. He is 17 1/2. Been in Boy Scouts since 11. Almost Eagle. He started reminiscing (sp?) about his time in Scouts. He is proud of himself for everything he has accomplished, but he lists two things as the most important aspects of his career: Taking responsiblity for himself (our Scoutmaster is famous for telling guys "Your momma ain't here!"), and the stories he has to tell. He wouldn't trade either of these for any other activity he could have done in his teens.

Good luck!

We too find no problem recruiting active formal leadership. Where we often struggle is finding people to handle the "odd jobs", like Pocorn Kernel, etc.

Our Scoutmaster and Committe Chair both fall victim to a lot of blank stares when they broadcast an invitation to assist. I have found that these open invitations rarely work. People seem to respond better if asked directly to handle a task, and the task is explained to them. Even if someone says no, it helps to know that a specific person couldn't (or wouldn't in some cases) take on a task. I've learned that lesson over the years, and it is particularly helpful when trying to schedule Boards of Review. "Please come help at next week's BOR" doesn't always get the requisite 3 people to come. If I directly ask people, it NEVER has taken more than four people before I get at least three.

Our adult patrol is called the Geezer Patrol. We have a flag, and particularly we use a Patrol Cheer. When we are asked something that should be asked of a junior leader, all of the adults in the vacinity turn their backs and shout in unison "I don't know! Ask your Patro Leader!"

We don't get too many questions anymore.

One thing that I thought was really neat. We had a Patrol contest that included making and outfitting patrol cook boxes, working as a team at Klondike, and a number of other criteria. We offered the winning patrol a number of really cool prizes, but the most coveted was that the Geezer patrol would cook and do K.P. at one weekend campout for the winning patrol. We have gotten a HUGE amount out of that. Every patrol, every member of every patrol, worked their tail off to have his patrol win. All of our patrols improved 100%, some even 200% or 300%. And the fun that everone got watching us cook and do dishes for a patrol! Every kid in the Troop is asking (no, begging) us to do another contest.

Lastly, the example aspect of how to do things correctly is a big asset. I do like the idea about doing something incorrectly to allow the guys to critique.

"I DON"T KNOW! ASK YOUR SCOUTMASTER!"

The SM whose boy most likely defaced the car agreed that it was probably his Scout. He said this same boy was almost sent home for slashing wall tents (Why ALMOST sent home, I still can't figure out!!).

He said that because his Troop is an LDS Troop, many of the boys really didn't want to be there. He said their policy for dealing with a serious problem like this was to arrange for a meeting between the boy's parents, himself, and their Bishop (I think he said Bishop). He took my phone #, gave me his, and I awaited his call.

6 weeks after camp, I still had no phone call. so I gave him a call. By this time, our SM had his car repainted, and it was amazing how stoic he was about the whole thing. I wanted to find out what happened with the boy, and let him know that our SM was not going to pursue compensation. I left a message to have him call me back. No call back. I called again in about a week. Message. No call back. Same the next week, and the next. I know I had the right guy, his name was on his voice mail message.

After the first month of calling every week, I called on the 1st of the month every month for almost 2 years and left a message that I was trying to find out what happened in the meeting. Never got an answer. I guess my desire to perservere only lasted a couple of years: I finally gave up.

Told you it was a long story!!

At my 1st summer camp, I was asked to fill in for the Scoutmaster. I drove his Suburban with our Troop Trailer attached. Thursday at breakfast, one of the other SMs advised me to check out the Suburban. One of the scouts in camp scratched F$(#* YOU into the door on the passenger side.

I never expected that of any Scout. Was very dissapointed. Was especially disappointed in the reaction of the SM whose boy apparently did the handiwork (long story how we found out).Was beside myself with how to tell the SM. And all in the vehicle were somewhat amused with the looks we got driving down the road with 8 uniformed Scouts and leaders, pulling our Troop trailer, with our lovely artwork.

Koreascouter, what a terrific Scoutmaster minute!!! Not only for Sept. 11th, but anytime you need something to motivate. With your permission, I'd like to use your thoughts at my son's Eagle Court of Honor.

Thanks for taking the time to post it.

Mark

Boy! I guess I stepped in it!

Having only been following this board for a month or less, I didn't realize the original message about Bob was a slam (it was, wasn't it? I guess right now I'm not sure).

I also didn't even know that there was a place to create a profile (pretty observant, ain't I?).

But that aside, I stick with my original comment. Bob's oppinions are valuable and usually right. Now that I've looked at his profile, and know that he is responsible for training, his strict interpretation of regulations is understandable. It makes sense to teach the absolute knowing that people will by nature carry out the instruction "less than perfectly" (or as I phrased it, using some wiggle room).

Thank you to all. You're opinions are very helpful toward providing the 43 boys in our Troop a great program!

Mark

Add me to the list of supporters.

I admit to believing that there is more "wiggle room" in the regualtions than Bob sees, but I can certainly say that I have taken much of what he says back to both our PLC and our adult leaders and have tried to steer us back on track.

As good intentioned as it might be, we have fallen into the habit of saying and advertising we are boy run, but we sure pick up the ball and run with it for the boys when they don't live up to their responsiblity. It's easy to do: "It would be ashame for the guys not to get the full benefit and / or enjoyment from this activity, let's make sure they did everything right". Then, "Oh, it won't hurt anything just to do this one thing for them". After a while, if we continue down the same path, the adults will be doing the cooking and K.P. for them too! (we're really not that bad, but I don't like the direction we're headed).

Bob -

Keep up the helpful advice. And remember all that everyone here, right or wrong (and we all think we're right, don't we?), are in it for our kids. In as much, disagreement is good.

Mark

Just to clarify my position:

It absolutely is the BOR who made this error. If someone must "learn from their mistake", it is the BOR and the advancement chairman (if he / she were still there). Does the boy have a responsiblity to have all requirements done before he requests a Scoutmaster conference and BOR? YES. But let's assume for a second he honestly thought he was finished (the conversation about the changing requirements is interesting: We have three boys who could have been tripped up at Eagle for MBs earned for Star that would not count as required for Eagle had I not been on top of working with them to make sure it didn't). If the BOR does nothing more than a cusory review, and promote him, it is the BOR's fault.

Lastly, I agree that it would be wise if councils did this check at every rank. But it's unrealistic to think they have the resources to do so. Until that happens, the responsiblity will remain with the Advancement Chairman and the BOR.

I feel bad for anyone in this situation, but from a discussion standpoint, this is a compelling issue.

Evmori posed the theory that if the Scout has not met the requirements for Life, he technically is not Life. I disagree. If a Board of Review, in good faith (not trying to circumvent the rules) determines that a scout has met the requirements for a rank, he is that rank. Therefore, he has the right to begin, work on, and complete his Eagle requirements. From that point on, as long as he meets the requirements for Eagle (21 MBs, including all required, Project, Leadership, etc.), he should be entitled to Eagle.

The valuable point to be made here is that corrective action must be taken to prevent future problems, which seems to have happened. We all pontificate about how important it is to make boys responsible for what they do or don't do, and that is correct. But it is frightening how often we are the cause of problems for boys along their trail. We should not be doing for them (and I do agree that this boy had a responsiblity to know the requirements for Life), but we should not be a stumbling block, either.

Good luck to you and your future Eagle.

If I might be permitted to add a comment about one of the sub topics here, namely whether to create a new patrol for new memebers, or to absorb them into existing patrols:

We have done it both ways, and both ways have met with varying levels of success. When a large enough group of new cross overs also have interested, committed parent(s) to assume an Assistant Scoutmaster role with the new patrol, AND if a quality young man, both mature enough to handle the responsiblity but young enough to relate to the new guys, can be identified, a new patrol is a terrific way to go.

If, on the other hand, the group is too small, or leadership from within the parents of the new scouts can't be identified (be carefull to make sure those who show commitment share your Troop's vision of itself. We often have encountered well meaning parents who don't understand the fundamental differences between Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts!!), it may be better to place them with a strong existing patrol.

Doing so however, does require some finesse. Often, the exisitng patrol has a strong bond which is difficult for any new comer to break, especially if the "newbie" is younger than the existing members.

Also, there will probably be a significant difference in the advancement status of the two groups withing the newly ammended patrol. This can make planning patrol meetings, troop activities and troop events difficult, but certainly not impossible. That is when the value of a skillful Advancement Chairman can smooth the process. He or she can work with the PLC to make sure activities planned cover all of the necesary advancement practice for all of the members of the patrol. To aid in this, our Troop utilizes a method similiar to medical schools; Do one, See one, Teach one. Older scouts are responsible for teaching new scouts a skill. The new scout practices at troop activites and interpatrol contests. He is sent home to practice the skill. He comes back and can be tested the next week (by the older scout(s) who did the instruction). As a final test, he must teach the skill to someone else. We use two sets of initials in a scout's handbook; one for the initial testing, and one for the teaching part.

We know this method works, as our boys are constantly held up as the example in our district when other units talk about scout skills.

Good luck to all. Regardless of your side in the debate above, everyone here certainly seems to have the best interest of your boys at heart.