Prairie_Scouter

Well, this does come up fairly often, and I'll add my 2 cents. First, as others have said, get to training as soon as you are able. It really does help, especially if you're new to the program. Next, as painful as it might be, you need to split the den. 16 is WAY too many. How you split it can be a challenge. 2 dens of 8 doesn't give you any room for growth, but protects your den size if you expect guys to drop out. 2 dens of 6 and a den of 4 will probably only work if you know you'll be getting more Scouts for those dens. If not, I'd probably go with 8 and 8. If you have good parental support, it'll work and you can probably add 1 or 2 to each den, although that will make them kind of large. Also, how you split the group can be a challenge in ways other than size. If these boys know each other at all, you should try to keep the friends together if at all possible. If you split too randomly, you can start to lose Scouts who joined because their friends joined. So, give that some thought and get some input from the parents. Also, if I remember my Cub Scout Leader handbook, the CC is responsible for den assignments, so provide what input you can, but it's the CC's responsibility to do the splitting. As some others have said, geographic splits can work as well, but doing some thinking about who knows how can be helpful and cause less problems later. I think you said something about having 5 boys added to your den? Your CC should never have done that. Those 5 could have been the start of another den. Know that finding leaders is not your job. Your committee chair and your CM should do that. Good luck. Don't let anyone railroad you into thinking that you've got to do all this yourself. As a DL, it is not your job to set up dens and find leaders. And as quickly as possible, get back to the fun stuff.

I don't think that BSA is a "religious corporation", but one could make a case that elements within BSA have made an effort to align the organization with the conservative religious movement. Whether you see that as good or bad depends on what side of the ideological fence you happen to be sitting on. I've seen windmills fall into disuse because no one was keeping an eye on the mechanisms that keep the mill working. Without regular maintenance and replacing parts where needed, the mill becomes less useful and less likely to be used. Complaining can be seen as someone standing outside simply yelling that the windmill isn't working right, but it can also be seen as the first effort towards making someone aware that the windmill may need some repairs.

I don't know the solution, but I can offer an observation that I'm sure we all have seen. I see the same people involved at Scout activities, school activities, etc. I don't know if it's an 80/20 rule or what, but the same involved parents show up everywhere. So, I don't think it's necessarily something related directly to Scouting. It's in the same boat as many other activities. Scouts don't have enough good leaders, soccer doesn't have enough good coaches, the PTA doesn't have enough good parents participating, etc. Why? It's probably not just one thing. Parents are spread to support a lot of activities now. Kids have more things available to them than they did 50 or 100 years ago. Parents are working more now. More dual income families, more parents putting more time on their jobs. A couple of thoughts on Scouting in the U.S. in particular. At the time Scouting was started in the U.S., we were still primarily a rural country, although this was already changing. People were used to doing things outside, and building a program around outdoors activities fit in with this pretty well. Now, we are primarily an urban society. Things like camping are still popular, but more of a niche activity, I think. Scouting takes a lot of time, relative to things like local sports, especially at the Boy Scout level. The time committment may push some people away. The political stance of BSA may push some people away. A perceived view, by some, that BSA is a conservative religious organization may push some people away. I question my own role as a leader because of the amount of time it takes away from the rest of my family. The burden becomes even more because of the difficulty in getting other people to help. I wish it was as easy as "get more people to help", but it doesn't seem to be that way. And I can say that I do have a wonderful group of parents who do help, but there are many who don't. So, I don't know if the problem is a general decline in volunteerism, or if we're just being spread really thin with the wide variety of activities we try to support.

Terry, Thanks for the clarification on the Juris issue. No need to go into the details, just good to have some general information on what Juris' offense was. Thanks again.

SR540, I agree with you, and said as much in an earlier post to one of Juris' posts, to which I said, it sounded like he had a successful program, but it didn't sound like it was a "Scout Program" since it seemed he had strayed pretty far. I'm all for some flexibility, but I think you have to draw a line someplace. Our own troop has been pretty small until recently, and patrol methods well suited for larger troops turn out to not work quite as well for small units, so in some cases we improvised a bit. But, I think that an open discussion forum like this should be open for views that are blatantly wrong. You can be sure that one of two things will happen. One, the view being presented will be quickly responded to, and sometimes not very politely if the topic is especially sensitive to some, to point out the needed corrections. Two, the post will be so far out there that it will be ignored. Because of that, I think the Juris must of done something beyond just putting up a wacky post or two. But, that's Scouter-Terry's decision. Heck, for all we know, Scouter-Terry could be putting up ALL of the posts here, just to fill his spare time

Bob, After rereading the comment you were responding to, I agree to some extent with your response; I do think, however, that as a leader, it may not be your responsibility to do anything once a perceived problem has been reported, and I agree that you don't want to spend a lot of time wailing, complaining, etc. However, I do think that if you have the best interests of the organization in mind, you might want to do some follow up of some sort, if simply because your unit's members are probably going to have questions, and you want to have as much accurate information as you can. Beyond that, if you're REALLY interested in the best interests of the organization and the time, resources, etc, you might volunteer to help to resolve the situation, especially if, as the poster noted to you, very little progress appears to be being made. These are all hypotheticals, of course. But I do agree with you that if you're going to be active in an issue, it shouldn't be just for the purpose of complaining about it. >>P_S, if jkhny had accused someone of a criminal act and pronounced him guilty before trial, wouldn't you caution him that one is innocent until proven guilty? Why should the burden be any less when he accuses an organization of wrongdoing and pronounces them guilty? fgoodwin, Well, district attorneys around the country regularly do exactly that , but unless jkhny is running for re-election, I agree that my counsel would be to withhold judgement until all the facts are in. However, as in almost all cases I can think of here, it seemed to me that jkhny was just stating his opinion based on the information he presented. And, that's about all we can ever do here, state our opinions, because it's difficult to know if we ever have all of the information we need, or whether what we're reading is accurate, etc.

Seems like quite a bit of "hair splitting" going on. Someone asks whether the BSA is acting like a dictatorship or a democracy, and we end up hearing from "Poster A" on whether "Poster B" knows what kind of government the U.S. has. (sigh) Posters comment on stories from the press and are castigated because all the facts aren't in. Isn't that one of the things a discussion forum is about? To discuss "what if" scenarios on possible outcomes should we ever be fortunate enough to get "all" of the facts? The intent of the post, I think, has to do with how BSA is run and who has a say in how things are done. And whether people who don't agree with something BSA has done have the right to say anything about it without fear of being removed. And I think that this is an interesting topic, with 2 very different points of view being expressed. The first point of view might be called the "once you sign up, you automatically agree with everything BSA does" point of view. An example of this is the comment that if someone, as a unit leader, saw what they thought was wrongdoing by a "higher up", they wouldn't say anything because it's not their responsibility. Also, that our job as volunteer leaders is to present the program as delivered, and if we don't like something, we are free to leave. Then, there is a second point of view, one that says that people of good conscience within an organization can differ on points of policy and content, and attempt to make change. In the second point of view, there is a concern that the national organization could be structured in such a way as to make opposing views unacceptable and stifle their presentation. I personally have met a lot of wonderful folks thru Scouting. I most times agree with them but occasionally not. I do tend to see one thing when I talk with folks at the District or Council level. When you can get them to "take off their Scout hat", you will hear a certain amount of frustration, sometimes, in regards to dealings with the National Office. This usually takes the form of concerns about the autocratic nature of the National office and their unwillingness to hear other views. These are, of course, subjective views; your mileage may vary. But they do cover a broad range of topics, from those on policy ("that's just the way it is"), to things more operational in nature (for example, I've heard a good number of comments from people who think the ScoutNet system is just fine if you're designing systems, for say, 1970 ). And it does seem to describe a very closed, insular environment, very resistent to outside views. Is that reality? I don't know, I'm just describing what I see and hear, a limited sampling, to be sure. But, one reason that we have forums like this is to provide a place to gather more information. Are these isolated views? Do others see this as well? And so, this topic.

I don't think it would be all that awful for the moderators to give some clue as to why Juris was suspended. As a privately run forum, the owners can certainly do what they want, but especially in the Issues forum, you'd think more flexibility would be allowed. I for one would be interesed in knowing, at least in general terms, what Juris did to deserve that level of punishment. There are others here who regularly get "carried away" and remain, although one poster that I had blocked for awhile seems to be much more "laid back" in his approach now. So, perhaps there are some "behind the scenes" activities going on that the rest of us are unaware of. Nonetheless, when someone who has been a more or less regular contributor gets suspended, a little feedback might be appropriate. Even if just to confirm the suspicions that some might have. SR540, I see your point on what you signed up to do, but people of good conscience can see what they consider to be weaknesses in the program or the philosophy of BSA and want to make changes that they think will better the organization. Discussing these kinds of topics are among the things that this forum is about.

Well, I dunno. Seems to me that Cub Scouts does keep things pretty "cub scouty", until you get to Webelos, and then you do start to see more Boy Scout type acitivities. We tend to use that as a selling point, ie, the younger Cubs have something to look forward to in Webelos, and the Webelos get a taste of how things are in Boy Scouts. It does help some that are "on the fence" decide if Boy Scouts is really for them, because it really is a different program with different kinds of activities. Regards "BSA, Inc." I've seen this used quite a lot more recently. I think it's an attempt to distinguish the national office from the rest of the national organization. Usually, you see this used in discussions over whether the national office is in or out of touch with the rest of the organization.

CNYScouter, Sorry for not having responded sooner. Your original thread popped in the midst of a family medical emergency, and I thought that EagleinKY had some very good thoughts. In our troop, we are growing in our use of the Patrol Method? Why? Because until recently, our troop was small enough that we didn't have multiple patrols. (well, actually we did have 2 patrols, but on many outings, attendance was such that doing things as individual patrols wouldn't have worked as well or been as enjoyable). Now, we did all the activities that a patrol would do in regards to planning outings, menus, cooking, duty roster, etc. We just tended to do them a bit outside of our patrol structure. Now, over the past year or so, our troop has begun to grow and attendance at our outings has been growing as well, so I am now in the midst of making more use of the more typical patrol method. We now have 3 patrols, and will probably form a 4th patrol if we have another successful recruiting season this coming school year. This will give us better structure, give our PLs some real authority which was lacking before, and overall, I think, make us a better troop. So, in some cases, yeah, we're a work in progress. I believe in a certain amount of flexibility where it's warranted. And, in regards to another comment, I am one of those folks who thinks that certain personality types are needed to be really good Scout leaders. That's just based on experience with other leaders; not to say that others are bad leaders by any means, just that some leaders, with certain personalities, seem to take to the role more naturally.

Well, I have to admit that I wasn't a Scout as a boy. Didn't have it in my neighborhood in the 50's/60's, and so I learned most of my outdoor skills by almost killing myself on several outings that are now, mostly, humorous memories. But, I have been through much of the BSA leader training, and I think that they do a creditable job of preparing an adult to become a Scout leader. Now, I'm still not convinced that taking the training automatically makes you a Scout leader. There's more to it than just knowing what's in the books, although that is a very good start. I rely on more experienced Scouter to provide advice on some situations; not "in the book" situation, but "dealing with boys" situations. The training does help with this, but the training doesn't cover every possible situation and personality combination that might arise. Beyond that, there's a personality element that helps to determine whether an adult can be an effective leader of young men. Not everybody has the innate patience to do that, and I don't know that any book can teach it to you beyond basic concepts. I agree that smaller committees are better. I don't select them; it's more a matter in our troop of "if you don't have the ability/time/etc to be an ASM, then please help another way, perhaps on our committee". We have more ASMs than committee members, and that does work well for us. We do counsel the parents, that while always welcome, it's better to let the boys get out on their own a bit. Even tho I'm the SM now, I still check with my boys to see which outings they'd like me to stay home from. They deserve some time away too.

Hi Kahuna, Normally, I agree with what you have to say in these discussions, but I have to take issue with a couple of your points here. One, I don't think that having an extremely bright judge on the Supreme Court is mutually exclusive with that person being objective in their views. The problem, I think, is that Presidents routinely try to load the Court with judges that back their views; they're not looking for objective Justices. We need Justices that can look beyond their own personal views and do a creditable job of interpreting law. Bork got "Borked" because he was so outspoken in his views that I don't think anyone believed that he could objectively view the cases brought before him. Two, I'd have to take issue with a blanket statement that the Democrats are blocking everything the President wants, not matter what it is. They voted to give him his war, didn't they? The vast majority of his judicial candidates have been approved. In this latest go around involving the "nuclear option", the candidates had already been "not approved" in a previous go around and a good case could be made that the President renominated them purely to cause a political battle. I find it hard to believe that there aren't other worthwhile candidates out there than both parties could agree on. In regards to the candidate for the U.N., the guy has a lot of baggage, and the President has refused to provide any information requested by the Democrats to resolve their concerns. Is there political infighting going on? You betcha. Is it just on the side of the Democrats? Don't think so. The Republicans are playing games every bit as much as the Democrats. In the Senate, for example, we probably would have had a compromise on the "nuclear option" a lot sooner if Frist had spent a little more time being a Senator and a little less time running for President. Hey, as an aside, would you happen to know if the Coco Palms Hotel on Kauai ever re-opened after the hurricane several years ago? It's the place where the chapel from Elvis' "Blue Hawaii" is at, and I've been lucky enough to stay there twice. Just curious.

It's difficult to know without detailed information, of course, but if it is true that there is a significant difference in the number of boys injured or killed in the LDS units relative to the other Scouting units, that would seem to be something to look into. It's easy to fall back on the "usual suspects" of "generic" poor leaders and poor training, but if the problem is isolated to the LDS units, then you have to look at what might be different in the LDS units and determine if that might be a factor. It could be that there is some nuance in the running of the LDS units that is causing them to be more prone to the poor leader and poor training problem. I'm not saying that there is, just pointing out the possibility. In order to know for sure, a detailed analysis of every death/injury in an LDS unit would have to be done, and then compared to the general Scout population. For example, I've read here that LDS units are broken down by age to match other functions in the LDS church. If that is true, then in the units supporting younger Scouts, it's possible that you could have a lack of experience, both from older Scouts, and from experienced leaders, that could result in those Scouts being led into riskier situations. It's just as possible that those younger units aren't allowed on riskier trips, of course. Regards some other comments on possible outcomes, it's highly unlikely that BSA would welcome the idea of LDS units breaking off to form their own organization. I have read that the reason the LDS units were allowed to vary the structure of the program to meet their church needs was because the BSA didn't want to lose 400,000 Scouts and the funding that went along with it. If that's true, I just don't see BSA saying, "you know, this just isn't working out, so we think it'd be best if you went your own way".

Well, BP probably picked the things he did as the centerpiece of his program because those were things that he was familiar and comfortable with. The results speak for themselves. Whether the BSA approach is the "best" way or the "only effective" way to teach character, etc, is pretty speculative, and most probably not correct given the multitude of other programs that youth participate in that, arguably, do just as effective a job of instilling character. When you compare youth programs, determining whether one is better than another is filled with subjective views. AND, it depends not only the program, but the location, the adults involved, the youth involved, and any number of other variables. That's not to denigrate Scouting at all, but if you've got a bunch of kids who want nothing to do with camping and things like that, then something other than Scouting may be a better program for them, especially once you get to Boy Scouts.

I would stand against this amendment. The 1st Amendment is just fine as it is. JMHO Also, I agree with those who think this is just a bit of political grandstanding. I would put it in the same category as the representative who tried to rename "french fries", "freedom fries" when the French dared to go against our desires in the Iraq invasion. There's really no reason for it. As Kahuna said, it's not like we're tripping over flag burners on our way to work each day. But, I do think that added discussion on hate crimes is interesting. I never really saw them as making some people "more equal" than others, as some of stated. I saw them more as an attempt to bring the "less equal" more on par with everyone else. I guess I always felt like those laws would someday become unnecessary, at such time as the U.S. and its people recognize that we really are "all created equal".

I can't speak for every local program, but when I took winter camping training, and at EVERY Klondike I've been to, the event leaders have always said, "this is NOT a survival outing. If you get cold, there are warming shelters nearby; do not hesitate to use them". I think any event leader or training person who says otherwise is a fool. The training can keep you alive if you get into a bad situation, but in the mostly contrived situations you encounter in Scouting in many areas, the smart thing, and what we are trained to do, is to get out.

Rick, It's always better to send up the red flag when you see something that doesn't seem right. In most cases, it'll end up being nothing, but in those other cases, a valuable service has been provided by bringing a problem to light. Now, like others, I'm pretty ignorant about the nuances of LDS Scouting. However, in a thread about a month ago where we were discussing whether some religious groups get preferential treatment, it was mentioned, I believe, that LDS does run its program differently, but that that was an agreement reached with BSA in order to keep LDS in the program. Maybe we're seeing an unfortunate and, I'm sure, unintended consequence of getting away from the way Scouts is "done".

Gern, I had read that as well, but don't know how much credence to give it. What I had read was that the LDS church leadership had demanded that BSA clarify their policy on gays in order to exclude them, under the threat that LDS would take their 400,000 Scouts, and their money, and go elsewhere. I can find the reference if anyone's interested, but I believe it came from a pro-gay Scouting site, hence my wondering about its credibility in these forums.

Hops, The answer to your question about why not let them do something if they want to do it, has a couple of answers, at least for me. One, I think kids need time to be kids. That is, they need some unstructured time where they can use their innate creativity and give it a chance to grow on its own. Two, I think that parents have to realize how many activities our kids can participate in and still give a quality effort to each one. Sure, we want our kids to try different things, but at some point, all these activities can start to affect their school work, for example, or their time with their families. Three, parents can only support so many activities. Kids need to transported to these activities, and if you get enough of them, pretty soon the parents start to lose their family time as well. A few high schools in our area found that their students were getting so overbooked with elective classes that they were skipping lunch altogether. These schools have started policies limiting the amount of activities that a student can participate in, whether it be the amount of elective classes or after school activities. They are concerned about the overall well-being of these students. Yes, colleges do look for candidates that do more than just "show up". It used to be that college admission programs just wanted to see long lists of outside activities, but I've read that even they are starting to wake up to the fact that just having a long list of activities doesn't necessarily mean much. So, outside activities? Sure, great idea. Endless list of activities? Nope.

Luckily, as NJ said, politics has been more or less absent from local Scouting units, as far as I can tell. There's the occasional discussion out of earshot of the Scouts, to be sure, but that's different than having a unit take a visible political position. Really, that's not what Scouting is supposed to be about. At the National level, tho, there's a different story. Regards the gay issue, they have taken a political stance that reflects a particular political view based on conservative religious beliefs. I think the gay issue is a particular problem for them because it's based on an interpretation of Scout writings. That's different than the atheist issue. Whether you happen to agree with the BSA policy or not, it's clearly stated that a belief in a god is required. On the other hand, there's nothing that I know of in the Scout Oath, Law, etc, that categorically forbids gays in Scouting. So, then you get into this area where different folks with different agendas try to convince everyone else what the Scout Oath, Law, etc, "really means". Eamonn, I agree with your thoughts that it'd be great if Scouting could avoid being a political organization. I think that that's largely true at the local level (well, ok, at our Council, we have a public relations chair who refers to those who don't agree with Scouting's view of things as the "enemy", but he's sort of the exception ). At the National level, tho, BSA has chosen to "take sides" on an issue that is currently splitting the country, and that makes them part of the political landscape whether they want to be or not. (This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

Well, wait, tho. Don't Fords have a long and hallowed tradition of exploding? It's, like, their tradmark or something, like the drummer in "Spinal Tap". My wife can attest to the traditions in Caravans, which seem to be failing brakes, throttles that stick open, and steering rack pins that sheer off. My Much Better Half will have nothing to do with American cars now. And here I sit with my 15 year old Acura, 185,000 miles and still running like a top. Some guy at my dealership got a free new engine when he hit 500,000 miles. Somebody mentioned Toyota trucks? I've read about guys racking up huge miles on them as well.

Oh, see, when I saw "jerk", I automatically assumed that juris was addressing me, which got me confused, because I don't have a truck Juris, as pack said, welcome to the forums. Enjoy!

Hi EagleDad, Hey, I have friends down there in OKCity, Tulsa, and Enid. Any of those in your neck of the woods? Just curious. Anyway... Couple of thoughts. The downturn in memberships in a wide variety of youth organizations has been discussed in these forums before, and one thought that has been put forward is that it's difficult to determine whether their changes in membership were brought about by their changes in policy, or are just part of a general downslide in membership occuring across the board. Girl Scouts, for example has always had a policy of inclusion; that wasn't something new as far as I'm aware. So, it's difficult to make that association, I think. BSA has had a downslide in membership without making any changes to their policies, making that connection even more tenuous. Scouting Canada did have a fairly dramatic downturn after their policy changes, but from what I've read, they were already sliding in that direction and whatever they did may have just aggravated the situation. BSA has always marketed itself as THE youth program for American youth. The idea of it being a "private club" is something more recent and is somewhat at odds with the implicit marketing of the BSA program. As "America's youth program" (my phrase, not their's), I would like to think that BSA would be trying to match the social/moral beliefs of the country in general. Now, before you start thinking that that's some sort of radical statement, understand that in my view, America is not on some downslide towards moral oblivion. That's a conservative religious belief that I don't think is shared by the majority of Americans, who are by and large a good group of folks regardless of their religious affiliation. The conservative Right doesn't have a monopoly on morality in my view. If BSA really wants to be the youth program for the religious conservatives, than they should state that up front, and get rid of those references to its non-sectarian nature. I don't think that that's about to happen. So, those of us who don't agree with the apparent tendencies of BSA to lean toward the conservative right, are here not because we're trying to invade someone else's turf, but because we think that BSA should be open to us as well as the conservative right. We do like the program, that's why we're here. I would say that most of us who don't agree with some of the more political aspects of the BSA program still agree with 99% of what BSA does. There are many who would make the case that it's the conservative right that's trying co-opt BSA for their purposes, and not vice versa, and that we're here to try and protect the BSA heritage. Baden-Powell, to my knowledge, never said that the Scouting movement was created to be the bastion of religious conservatives. I don't agree that worldwide Scouting is headed down a destructive path, but I respect your beliefs in that area nonetheless.

Well, sounds to me like Juris has built himself a very successful program for the youths in his area; it's just not a Boy Scout program. Which brings up the interesting question that started this thread. How far can you stretch the rules before it's no longer really a Scouting program? Do you have to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'? If I follow the program to the letter, but don't where the official BSA uniform socks, have I failed to delivery a quality program? ( Ok, a stretch, but you get the idea).

Certainly, I don't know of any program like Scouting that is as organized and thorough as Scouting can be. My daughter is in Girl Scouts, and while they do a good job, they don't have the "outdoor presence" that BSA does, at least in our area (outside of Chicago). My own limited experience with Girl Scouts leads me to think that they are not managed very well at the higher local levels. My brother has his kids in Indian Guides (I think that's what it's called, anyway), and that seems to be mostly a way for the parents to get their kids out into a kind of watered down version of camping once in awhile. But, it's better than not getting out at all, and it's a good way to get some dad/kid time. As far as where the value is, that depends on why someone comes to Scouting, I think. There are people who see Scouting almost as some sort of religion unto itself; personally, I find those people kind of scary . There are people who bring their kids here to instill good values in them at some level. We have several single moms in our troop, and part of the reason they have their sons in Scouting is to provide them some "father figures". Some people come for the camping opportunities. Some people come for the overall activity program, because there are things in Scouting that you have the opportunity to do that the average kid can't get anywhere else. We went to Seabase last year. Where else is your kid going to be able to spend a week on a 100 foot sailboat in the Florida Keys? Heck, where am *I* normally going to get a chance to do something like that? So, I think that there are a variety of reasons that people get into Scouting, and all of those reasons provide a different level of value to those that participate. While I don't necessarily agree with everything in Scouting, Fuzzy, I'd have to agree that the value of the overall program far outweighs the costs in time or money.