qwazse

We have moms who camp with their families. But, taking a troop out in the big woods? That's men's work. Same applies to my crew ... we have the same problems as Flagg even when we have even numbers of male/female youth. If the GSS didn't require it, many parents would be fine with their girls being under the leadership of two adult males. Or ... under the leadership of an adult youth. Case in point: Son #2 was a welcome guest at many family camps (i.e. cabins) who had more daughters than sons. They could count on him getting the kitchen operating and then cleaned by morning. And, more importantly, without him and his buds, the ladies would be downright unruly. That's why I guess we have the "family camping" rhetoric. BSA doesn't believe it has the volume of men willing to take on co-ed units with minimal assistance from female counterparts (as would happen with an instant change in membership standards). So, they figure they need to recruit those moms of younger youth and hope that somewhere down the road more of them would lead patrol-method units. I view it with some pessimism. It's like ripping a bandage off slowly.

This is another example of drift causing BSA to waste words. What is "satisfactory effort"? Well, effort that satisfies someone. Who is that someone? The SM and the troop committee! You might cook me up a very nice steak and serve me a bit-size portion on day one, but if that's all you're doing, don't expect me to give your restaurant a 5 star review at the end of the week. (That's my beef against pretentious restaurants: small portions on big plates, as if I'm supposed to be impressed by the china.) So no, pretty much anything positive never did, does not, nor should ever fulfill the requirement. Same thing for the "active" requirement. Some fool asked for a rule from national, and over the years got a list of things we shouldn't hold against a scout (nominal dues payments, lack of attendance - if not specified in advance, shoddy appearance, etc ...) boiled down to oh-so-much-blathering in the GTA. The correct answer that will stand the test of time, IMHO: It's none of national's business, don't ask them, read the BSHB and ask your troop. If you think that those non-MB requirements were hollow as written previously, they will continue to be in the new writing.

Timmy: "What is it , Lassie?"Lassie: (barks at labtop) Timmy: "Oh no! Mr. Schiff's fallen into the echo chamber!"

I would point out that while Mike was SE of our council his investment in venturing was minimal. That's not a criticism. Nor does it trivialize what he did do in terms of making summer camp a destination for venturers as well as boys and Cubs. That's only to say that he wasn't selected for his preference for dark green uniforms.

This is always a dodgy proposition. The push-back tends to be something like "It can't be boy run into the ground." Or, "I'm just trying to make sure their experience is positive." Not every CC-SM pair can have an honest conversation about it. Either the boys are going to read their handbook and insist that adults "Play by the rules." Or this kind of behavior will repeat itself.

Or, give him $100. He'll wait in line for donuts, buy 12 dozen and sell them at a markup to everyone in the back of the line behind him!

As you all know, I'm of two minds about this, having known scouts and scouters of polar opposite opinions, and having conversed here. But, is it worth our time for any of us commenting and providing feedback at these wannabe town hall meetings? Based on recent practice, after polling it's base, National will identify the majority opinion, define it accurately, and come up with a diametrically opposite policy. FWIW, as I've said it elsewhere, one of the youth (now young adult?) mentioned, Michelle Meritt, is an excellent speaker and well worth inviting as a VIP if your council does that sort of thing for any of its activities.

So, @@Stosh, was your handbook laid out differently than mine? In mine, the MB requirement for a Palm was #4 of 5. It told me that there were specific awards on the trail to Eagle, half of which required progress review by an adult committee. Eagle being one of them, Palms being the next. It never put "rank" and "Eagle" in the same scentence. Maybe some people think more of an Eagle+Bronze than Eagle, maybe not. But, even if the latter is what "everyone runs around saying", when did egalitarianism become any justification for making a BoR optional?

@@Stosh, I don't see much of a problem either, except by the book (at least mine, haven't look at a later one), there is no "rank advancement" only "advancement". And Palms were not a separate category of advancement, but rather the last step on the trail to Eagle. But then, something changed. And in peoples' minds, the ovals became one thing, and the Palms became another thing. I'm just trying to figure out when and how?

Yep. So, who to blame? Did any of the boys respectfully point out to the SM that the guidelines in their hand book were being ignored? If not, why?

C'mon ... I was a kid. All of those so-called activity awards that you mentioned are more along the lines of MBs. None were ever as important as even a bronze palm. (Take a week off, hike 50 mi, I never bothered to ask for a patch. The conservation society for that trail did invite me to speak at their pot-luck. Their patch is still the temporary on my uniform.) Boys Life didn't draw up stories about guys earning Totin' Chip! A metal of honor seemed like a big deal, as big as Eagle or a Palm, so of course I'd think you'd have some official committee interview you if you were up for one! Not remembering any discussion in my youth of ranks vs.awards ... I pulled down my BSHB (9th Ed. -- I now regret not taking it to Jambo and having Bill Hillcourt sign it), so let's see what we've got ... The advancement section has "My Trail to Eagle" at p. 530, where begins the list of requirements for Boy Scout; next page, Tenderfoot, etc ... through Eagle starting on page 536, then, on page 537 the requirements for Eagle Palms. At no point is "rank" mentioned. Oh wait, here it is at the bottom of page 537, "Palms are worn on the ribbon of the Eagle award ..." Wait, what? I didn't make rank? All I did was earn another award? Maybe I missed something Bill wrote earlier about rank advancement! Back to the beginning. Here it is on page 19 beside a drawing of the Eagle medal (captioned "Eagle badge"): "ADVANCEMENT. The dream of every scout is to advance to Eagle. Along the way you will have to earn skill awards, merit badges, progress awards." Oh no! Mamma would be so disappointed. I never ranked up! All I did was earn progress awards. Do you see my problem? Bill never taught me that there were ranks. He only taught me that there were awards. The important ones, Boy Scout through Eagle Palms, were given special attention, with Star through Palms requiring boards of review. (Bill did mention "all ranks requiring scouts to show active participation ..." on p.453, but he did not specify say what was and was not a rank.) So, if I don't get the distinction that other people seem to take for granted, blame the guy who taught me ... Green Bar Bill. Now. Who taught you?

Actually, what I would do regarding souvenirs: Give your son any old patches and neckers that you have. (They don't necessarily have to be scouting related, if they look good and represent something historic about your area.) Ask him to come back with a completely different collection. Heck, I've had scouts at AP Hill trade uniforms and doughnuts with servicemen for their digital cammo.

I'm sorry, @@ALongWalk, but I've lectured my kids that no house in this country is worth more than $150K. Anything more than that, and you're either paying for footage your family doesn't need, woods or farm someone else has ravaged, or the company of strangers who you don't really like.

@@BCscouter welcome to the forums! Guidance from national? There's a thing called the Boy Scout Handbook. SPL and PL are elected by the boys, period. At summer camp, We've told them to come to us with the names of who is doing what ... They found us by our camp drinking coffee and reading the paper. We distributed the rosters, and asked them to kindly add one for adult guests at meal time. Done.

Whatever he's earned this summer. Minus his tithe to the Lord's work. (Or fourtieth if you are Muslim, but then you'd still probably be shelling the difference out to beggars and such.) Minus any taxes he may owe. Minus any foreseeable expenses once he returns home before he can get back to gainful employment. Minus planned deposits to the rainy day fund.

be sure to share your notes. I signed up for mine the following Monday. It's on the commute home.

But, where did you get that thought? I mean, for example, on the other extreme ... I always love the Boy's Life "Scouts in Action" sketches, and would turn to them first to see who was featured and why. But it never crossed my mind that you wouldn't need a BoR for the meritorious conduct awards. I mean, it made sense in my mind that the scout's troop committee would talk to him and review the incident, then send a letter or something to their council and, in turn, to National, to nominate the boy. That review would be as much a BoR in my mind as anything. After 3 decades I finally knew someone worthy of one of those awards, and I learned that no face-to-face was necessary, just a lot of paperwork. But it wasn't like someone told me in advance that it was one way or the other. I just had it in my head that that a BoR was how scouts got any award of importance.

I wanted to probe the notion that Boards of Review should be only for rank advancement. (E.g., Since Eagle Palms are awards they should not require a board of review.) Where did this idea come from? Not from the handbook, as far as I can tell. Scout is now a rank. Even so, it requires no boards of review. Venturing does not have ranks, but they do have awards. The core ones require boards of review. (Okay, Venturer requires a "meeting" with the advisor and crew president.) We have sent some scouts to disciplinary "boards of review" ... ones who've started tuning out the SM and needed to hear that some other adults were expecting better behavior from them. You all can debate how kosher that is, but it's helped us get through some rough patches. So, in my mind, sometimes a scout was up for review, sometimes he wasn't. Those times weren't ever distinguished by a rank vs. an award being in play. Is this something that anyone wrote about? Taught in a course? If you thought this was the way things should be, can you recall who gave you the idea?

Ooh! Maybe like when I was in grade school and we got paddled: one for each year of age on our birthday ... Mom pins the medal. Dad places the necker. SPL breaks out the hickory switch and delivers a swat per palm!

Or, should we read the sidebar: You've Been Pranked! Now Create A Story & Trick Your Friends!

LOL, NJ. You all are high speed! We usually have a good cadre who take 3+years. Typically swimming in that 250 acre lake (even though we're only testing them in a 200 sq ft section of it) looms large for many of them, but it can be anything and usually it boils down to a lack of focus. Needless to say, all of our guys have racked up dozens of nights camping and oodles of service hours ... to the point where I chide adults when they announce a project and add "counts for service hours." These boys don't care! So, I am coming from a different point of view. Time outdoors is not what keeps our boys from ranking up, so in my frame of reference, it is a wasted stipulation to an already wordy requirement. I'd rather the requirement read: Do 10 activities that you planned in advance with your troop or patrol during your regular meetings.

I remember as a youth, when we had our blow-out fundraiser of Christmas candles (pretend the pun was intended ), our SM told how nervous he was walking to the bank safe deposit box with all of that cash. Of course, we'd never hold it against him if some thug figured out that the nervous guy walking down the street was loaded with coin. But, I'm sure we would fill terribly responsible. I think my dad made a bank run twice a day when business was hopping. The register would be emptied and brought home if for any reason the safe deposit box was closed.

Flagg, I could be wrong, but I think this one is as much about scouters in general feeling micromanaged as it is about LDS being bent out of shape that its 11 year olds can only advance to 2nd class. I'm told that some scouts can go for 6 camping nights without ever their knots being proven in a storm. Never seen it happen, because any scouts I know wind up camping with me.

No @@Stosh, you don't get it. I don't need a scout mark time to know if a scout has mastered skills. I need him to set up a tent and sleep in it, to make a full set of hearty meals for his patrol, to navigate well, to recite the pledge, the anthem, his rights/responsibilities, and help another boy or two along the way. It may take 3 nights in the woods with my troop, it may take thirty -- depending on how little.he camps with his youth group, family, or folks outside of scouting and devotes time to practicing those skills. But I don't need BSA telling me that X of ten of his activities with the troop need to be overnight camping.For a given boy and his patrol, they might need to be visits (in uniform) to the county seat, a nature society, barn raisings, first aid meets, and emergency prep drills. The list may be as diverse as the number scouts times ten.

Welcome to the forums, and congratulations to your scouts for their dedication and hard work. Have you tried to look up conservation societies for the river, or for state parks along the river?