qwazse

A couple of years ago, I met a troop from Michigan hiking the North Country Trail/Minister Creek loop in the Allegheny National Forest. They packed in 3 boys to a fly (maybe 2 older scouts) and seemed to be having a great time. My family, we get tents on sale (never spent more than $200), or at garage sales (Mrs. got me two pup tents for a dollar, I replaced the flimsy poles with cut-down scraps from a dining fly -- best pieces of nylon I ever had.) Keep in mind that I'm a tenting optional kinda guy.

Okay, maybe I'm biased. But, at a certain point you have to prepare a kid to count positives. Sure, he did precious little, but always bring him to what he DID accomplish. Who knows? That one troop tradition might outlast all of that management training we cherish so highly. Here's hoping at least one more "yes" is on the checklist in the next few weeks.

Then he contributed! (Can you guess my favorite scouting game?)

Those "conveniences" are not enough. It is the advent of home entertainment that is the key convenience. You can't lay blame at the foot of a program that boys did not even know existed or notice as different. I was a boy scout throughout the change in one direction and then the other. I did not see any difference in any of it. I still don't see anything signficant until the ODR uniform came about (an atrocity). What happened in the early 1970's was that TV exploded. It went from flickery, B&W lone ranger re-runs and test patterns at night to 19" color screens being in multiple rooms of the house. In the 1980's computers and video games came along and put more nails in the coffin. Today, video games and computers are such a massive world of adventure to explore, the scouts simply have nothing to offer to compete. Call of Duty is more interesting than scouting. It's better. It isn't real, which is a problem (is it?), but it is more fun for most kids. I stipulate your membership argument. I will also concede you could be right about the program. But having been a scout during the changes, and not noticing them, and having the handbooks from 1972 and 1980 on my shelf, I don't remember a thing changing. Which merit badges get you to eagle? Most boys didn't care. Because most boys don't even try to make eagle. I think that was mostly an annoyance for adults seeing boys earn Eagle without having to go outdoors. and videoI think it was TV anis video games. I could be wrong, but that's what I think it is. Every kid I know prefers video games to everything. Really, TJ? You don't know one kid who plays his guitar all day to the exclusion of video games? Video games have replaced watching sports in my household. Music got pushed aside. Maybe they have even crowded out some Bible reading. But they have not precluded scouting or sports.

FWIW, just came back from a week with boys who were having a great time. Even a senior scout who made it his point to "do nothing" the whole week, got sucked into a little service project I "volunteered" us for, got his fellow scouts involved in games, and genuinely had a good time trying to be obnoxious but failing miserably at it. This was not a kid swimming against culture, but he liked his scout buddies, and if it meant bunking in the woods, then so be it. On the other hand, some of the more rugged boys who went on a 5 mile hike after an evening meal came back with flowers in their hair. "prissy" would not apply to any of them. Let's just call it "Man enough to not be bothered."

The problem with the argument that modern conveniences keep boys at home, is that we know from membership numbers that at the same time that TV, air conditioning, suburban life and all its comforts were exploding, so was BSA membership. A/C, shag carpet, arcade halls, and TV didn't keep boys at home in 1965, we can't assume that's what keeps them home today. In fact, as Rush fans know all too well, it may be the case that suburban life actually pushes boys right into our arms (nerd time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4) because it denies their nature. But, perhaps the growth in membership had nothing to do with BSA's intrinsic qualities: historians of the US also know the 50s as a "culture of joining"--civic groups of all types, not just the BSA, saw their membership soar. So, we have a few reasons why there was so much growth: adventure, getting out of the home, getting out of the "mass production zone" suburbs, joining for joining's sake. Your point about patriotism doesn't much play, for me. Patriotism has never played a major role in my scouting experience as either a youth or adult. The fashion at this forum is to timestamp our modern problems 1972, tag them "Improved Scouting Program," and lay them all at the feet of national. And to be sure, drastically changing the program drastically changed what boys were getting, and they clearly didn't want the new menu. However, the program was corrected in 1979, but it hasn't stopped the bleeding. That's where we get to your best argument: Cultural change. There's no culture of joining, anymore, it's all about individualism. Mistrust of institutions is rampant. Mommy thinks Johnny will die if he's out of her sight. In the past, mom and dad wanted junior in the woods, out of the house, and to become a man as soon as possible, preferably before his first armpit hair; now they're scared to death to even consider that he will leave home by 30. There is also the proliferation of extra-curriculars. I didn't live it, so I will try not to overstate, but the after-school landscape was not as crowded in the past as it is today. Now, Johnny has a lot more options. Last, in terms of culture still, the baby boom is over. The decline coincided not just with Improved Scouting, but also with the aging-out of the boomers, and birth rates have continued to decline among BSA's core demographic (whitey). The answer, of course, is continued differentiation. The only traditional program that has seen membership growth between 1999 and 2012 is Venturing. Wow, BSA, what a surprise! The most freewheeling program is the only one that's growing. Yet BSA continues to dial back adventure and independence in Boy Scouting. The second thing is to keep reaching out to Spanish-speaking families; they have more kids than whitey, and they don't have the same access to other civic institutions. S99, hate to burst your bubble, but venturing membership has been trending downward since 2001.

Aw shucks, BD. Nice paraphrase. The line was from my introduction to the boys about the sandwich principle: "Safe scouting: bringing you as close to your creator as possible without making it a permanent stay."

Agreed that this is not in compliance with the policy. It seems that they are trying to skirt it using BD's reference which mentions housing, but they are using tents. Doesn't wash with me because in my mind campsite=house. However, this is where the policy shows its frayed edges. Are those boys or those adult females at any greater risk because they couldn't find a male leader? I don't think so. Would they be at less risk if an adult male were provided? Doubt it. As far as camp management is concerned, if possible, I would provide an adult male "site guide" to share the campfire with them and set up camp next to the boys' tents. As far as PSR is concerned, I would strongly encourage the crew to describe their situation to the head ranger, and leave it to them to resolve that leg of their journey.

DW, if you cuss. You secure my contentment at National's dismissal of your claims. For the other folks that may be in your predicament. I'm just a guy in the trenches. Just thinking about the depiction of events: .... At one point, the BSA attorney asked me about "God". ... I said that I was confused by his question and I needed to know the official BSA definition of "God" that he was applying, .... I saw the plaintiff attorneys wake up just then, though sadly too late. I also saw the BSA defendent attorney back-pedal furiously to get himself out of that quagmire .... Again ... He said, "God is whatever you say it is." So, knowing something about some non-theistic religious traditions, I offered an idea. "No, that's not it. But God is whatever you say it is." So I offered another well-considered idea and he again responded with, "No, that's not it either. But God is whatever you say it is." After a few more iterations of this nonsense, I stated, "Well, obviously my own ideas are 'God' are not the same as yours." at which point he terminated the conversation, obviously satisfied that he had gotten what he had wanted. I gotta, say. It sounds like asking a kangaroo, "Can you do something about this kick-me sign?" There is nothing but pain in that line of inquiry. Here's what I've garnered from what little BSA training I've had. Their definition DOES NOT MATTER. An attempt to lead a plaintiff to leverage a relativistic-argument DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is if when asked, one can say they are living a life answerable to God. The asker may not understand the breadth of that as well as the person being asked does -- or maybe it's the other way around. But, the choice of that word allows for that kind of latitude. At least what I've been taught through BSA's instruction on the matter, is that a person's willingness to say they are doing that is all I need to know. Then again, all that was in the context of taking care of youth -- not in the context of selecting adult leaders. I don't think the folks who would take action to reject an adult leader are on this forum, so a straight answer as to how things are being done now (or iff there is any method to the madness) is not forthcoming. Although Khaleila's testimony indicates that at least at the council or area levels, there are lines drawn in the sand.

You've just gone to great lengths to say that "God" probably does not mean to you what it means to me. Well, take a number. I did not ask if you believe in the definition that Christians have attributed to a very ancient word to great effect. What's wrong with just speaking English at face value? If your assertion is that you revere something more elevated than anything else in the universe of things to revere, it seems you've arrived at the end of an ontological proof for God.

Sounds like a good plan. Especially since your patrols are letters and not numbers. (My rant to my troop: "Dens have numbers, patrols don't.") Was bullying an issue before? Or was it a hypothetical? (Or something in between. Sometimes you can look at a cluster of boys and think "Oh, this is not gonna turn out good." Happened to me on the bus ride home last night.)

Stosh -- even the church I attend (which should know better because of it's Scottish roots, and more recent history with the pain of "untouchable" funds sitting idle) got in the habit of "holding over" funds for a particular annual youth activity. I had no idea until I took charge, income and expense report to the treasurer, and she asked "what about the $400 from last year?" Some elders forgot (or came on never knowing) how to read budget and finance reports. I made it clear, that unless our activity was in the budget, we should have $0. It took me explaining that I knew our youth leaders were afraid of a something nice activity for the ministry because of budget constraints before a light bulb came one and folks thought "Oh, we could have let them run with that 1/2 K!" If they chartered a unit, they would have been perfectly happy never knowing it's finances unless someone like me asked why the unit account was not listed as an asset on the annual report. I'm sure most other churches are the same way. Thus we wind up pulling stunts like this! BD.. you don't have a bone in this fight ... definitely have the CC talk to the parents and try to give them a vision for how much the boy will need for what all he's said he wants to do in his scouting career. He should it clear that your boys are using those funds in stewardship for the troop. (I know a lot of you don't see it this way, but every boy who makes it to camp is doing a service for the troop. Try a week at camp when a bunch of them aren't there. Or look at how down they get when one decides to go home early.) Have him point out that if they use his funds for their fees now, there is a strong expectation that they will put their shoulders to the wheel for the next fundraiser(s), and over the years they will have built the troops' coffers up enough to front an entire Philmont contingent. Will they listen? Probably not. But if y'all don't deliver the message, you don't stand a chance.

I was not asking for a definition. I was asking about your stance. Let me rephrase: Do you have a duty to God?

Yep. It's down again. Hold that thought until this round of server failure passes.

So this is a pack event? I'd be more inclined to accept the family pooling all resources together to go. I would try to get into their heads that you find this unusual and that those ISA funds now won't be available for other things they boy may want (e.g., new uniform, gear after crossover, etc ...), but leave it as their call. (Again, if the CC or Treasure should take this communication on for you. You have bigger fish to fry with camp coming up.) It would be nice if these are the kinds of parents who are there for the entire pack when they are there, but sometimes you don't know that until you have boots on the ground.

BD, in your position, I'd have the CC or treasurer ask the boy if he's okay with paying for his mom/dad out of his account. Make sure the boy knows how much will be left over in the account for his other activities. One time we had a Seabase trip with limited spots and too many parents wanting to fill them. We required all parents who wanted to participate to take IOLS. That thinned the herd.

My read is that the alternative requirement is for boys who have been active in the troop for the required time, but PORs weren't available to him. So ask yourself, has this boy been of some good (about six months worth) to the troop as a star scout? If yes, then any of the above are worth the time suggesting. If the boy just showed up today after being absent since his last board of review, you should offer to help him work to finish out a life scout with a legit POR for the duration.

JP, happens all the time to me as well. But, I'd tell the T2FC scout "excuse me one moment while I give your SPL/PL a refresher course." Then I tell the older scout to abandon that EDGE method, get with the younger scout and his book and the both of them learn together by my tried-and-true referential learning method. Nobody is off the hook because of a lapse of memory.

ASM = ASSIST the SM, not second-guess everything. But obviously this guy is in helicopter mode and telling him that won't help you. Rather, say "Any boy who feels this isn't working out for him can ask for a SM conference and we can see what we can do to make it work better. The next round of reassignments, if any, will be up to the SPL." Fact is, your boys are so young (mostly) that nobody has any idea how they will pan out in the long term. By 8th grade, the "serious" boy may switch to "fun" and vice-versa.

I'd steer clear of animal figures for cubs because someone's gonna make a fuss. Plus shooting a ton of arrows just for one target to bust is a recipe for chaos. Can I suggest balloons stuffed with a few pieces of wrapped candy (tootsie rolls or taffy work best)? Slide them into the balloon, inflate, string or tape to the target. The boys get the gratification of a "pop" and when they retrieve their arrows get their candy.

Agreed. We had a boy fall short of Eagle for skimping precisely on this sort of thing. It was really hard on the MBC, who was close to him and really wanted him to make it. The rest of us (including the youth) agreed that this reflected a pattern of trying to jump hoops as opposed to reflecting on the experience. It just so happened that the badges with the daily tracking requirements are often where all the corner cutting comes to a head.

I remember when we had to sum up an election to the committee: "It looks like the boys elected the most popular, not the most competent, SPL." Hopefully your boys will make a thoughtful decision. I would suggest you touch base with each candidate and have them prepare election speeches -- a few words discussing why they would like to be SPL and how they'd like to help the troop. Make it clear, that if they aren't committed to being at meetings every week and touching base with you before/after/outside meetings (every SM does it differently) they shouldn't run. I think if the older boy gets it, you won't have to make too many adjustments. Your patrol leaders will still have to work very hard. And everybody will have to be accountable for when they can't make it to meetings or can't prepare as well as they should. The PL's will find themselves taking up a little slack. They might resent the work load, but when they blow smoke, you or the ASM can just remind them that they can run for the office six months from now. If the younger boy gets it, he should still be assigned a patrol and answer to his PL for some things (like gaining 1st class skills). In his leadership role, he will be more of a coordinator and less of a mentor. (He may be able to clock more time than the older boy, so he may be able to call each PL during the week and he may show up with a completed duty roster or program plan, but he won't be able to guide some of the older scouts.) Regardless of who becomes "the man." Make sure for all his hard work, you have some kind of officer's privilege (our SPL rides shotgun in the vehicle of his choosing and I usually have a stash of candy-coated almonds -- his favorite -- reserved for him). Thanks for keeping us posted.

So, you do believe in God?

Just had another blip this morning. Yep, I'm a junkie.

Awesome. When you get back, please post some thoughts (yours or the boys) on the trip under "Camping and High Adventure"?