qwazse

Hope your boys feel proud, Blanc! BD anc KC, the fact that *any* service hours are required for rank advancement is an insult to the notion of volunteering with no expectation of reward. I'm glad it's only 13. I wish it were zero -- stricken from the requirements along with the "invite a friend" requirement.

IMHO if you are using that second year to camp with/visit a troop (ideally different ones) every month, your doing right by the boys. If your AOL boy(s) find a troop that's awesome and welcoming, cross-over. I do suggest you do it about 5 months before the troop's summer camp. That way the older boys will have a good idea of how much trail-to-first-class they'll need to teach.

I wholeheartedly agree with jblake. The age of accountability for religion is generally 13-ish, and kids should take some responsibility for educating those younger (or maybe less fortunate, depending on where they worship) than they are. In scouting "leadership starts now" should be the attitude and no position of responsibility should be considered "a lesser position." I've seen some QM's work harder and lead more than some SPL's. No, a 12-year-old tenderfoot should not worry about PL being dumped on his shoulders, but he should see his buddy one year older being held up as a potential leader. Just a thought, you may want to look closely at the football schedule and see if there's a campsite close to a game location (at least for one night in the fall). This might give the football and band guys a chance to at least camp the night after the game. Even if the athletes have to leave early the next day to review film, they might appreciate having breakfast with the troop. P.S. - Anyone who only has 12-year-old tenderfoot scouts, go ahead and have them elect one set of shoulders to dump PL on. It'll work out.

The effective duration of our NSP's (when we have them) is 5 months (end of Feb to beginning of June). After that, they get assigned to patrols. We find that the 11 y.o.'s have about had enough of each other (except on stormy nights, when they all pile into the same tent). We've gotten into the routine of asking the PL's "what skills do your boys need to advance?" We do this every three months or so. Then we ask, "What program do you want that will help you teach those skills?" If we have an older SC scout who needs a particular skill, we may make that a priority. (Heck, if he's 14, we may ask him to teach it the following week.) Point is, we find no point in singling out new scouts after they've showed up for more than a dozen meetings. I guess you could call our NSP "adult nudged" as opposed to "adult lead".

I'm a little confused, are you down to 11 or down to 9? Either way, I agree with the above. For your troop, the era of big government is over! Be one patrol until you all think things are getting too crowded again. I would limit PL eligibility to FC+. Make sure the band kids are offered a position they can perform off hours. (E.g. Bugler, Historian, etc ... They don't have to take it, just let them know that you still feel they can be an essential part of the troop.) Let them know that even in those positions, if they make an effort to do their jobs well, you will still send them to NYLT. Also consider that you now have time to offer a position of responsibility to each boy and track how well they perform it. As a recruitment reminder, you may want to hang a blank flag somewhere with the label "our next patrol". Point out to your two SC scouts that if they make rank they could be eligible to lead it. Finally, remind your parents that they have an opportunity to uniquely serve the best 11 boys around. Their boss might not be grateful for any extra hours they put in over the next few years, but these boys will cherish them for-almost-ever.

I have only one argument in favor of just awarding the patch: It will remind the boy that it goes on a uniform. The only point of having a uniform is to be in a unit. No unit, no uniform, no one to see the patch. So, the best way to get the most recognition for your AOL: join a troop. That said, I love cub leaders' enthusiasm for regaling their boys and parents with all kinds of stuff. It's really cute, and exactly why I'm not cut out for cubs! Keep up the good work!

Ditto on the "interesting." That's why, ahead of time, you should have your SPL call the ranger's station (sometimes there's one for a variety of parks) and ask about any facilities more suitable for a scout troop. E.g. something that might require hiking/kayaking in a ways. Some forests have them, others don't. Either way a call to the Ranger's office is good practice.

Boomer, although a full blown sports oriented scout camp may be out of reach, I think you may be on to something. A camp with limited resources may need to offer a theme every year. It may tap into "sports focused" kids. For example, one year they may offer morning excersizes in speed conditioning. The next year: weight training. The next: diet and aerobics. The next: core stablization. (Think "log Nautilus" in the pioneering area, or calorie counters using knots on a belt in the cooking area, and you might get the picture I havee in my head.) It's impossible to do all of those well in one week when the focus should be on scout skills. But it may be possible to do one of those. If a sports oriented kid knows that every year he'll get to focus on a different unique fitness skill (even if it's not specifically the sport he plays), he might be inclined to come back to camp to pick up those pointers. The challenge: trained supervision. What will draw such kids is not that you have those themes, but that someone with qualifications in those areas is guiding the program. Also, you need to ramp up the skills of your medical staff so they are prepared for potential injuries. Then you need a little glitz. For example, if a popular local athlete was willing to drop by on the last day of camp and have a meal at the patrol site whose members participated in the program and showed the most improvement, the program would have a big draw. Can't wait to hear what you come up with in the next couple of years.

How 'bout this ... Don't offer to be SM, but offer to help coordinate a couple of non-camping troops in an "outdoor experience." Something along the lines of "I know of this really great spot where boys like yourselves would love to camp.

At training this weekend, I brought up a recent discussion in these forums. One leader said "so, it was you who posted that?" He went on describe some of our senior members with terms of endearment -- sort of the way our boys recall their favorite (or otherwise) camp staff. Just a reminder that real folks will be "listening" to our frank and courteous conversation!

I'm happy with "silly". My ideas have been called worse! Keep in mind that I did not write the Venturing Leader's manual. I'm just trying to do what it says. True, with these older youth, we talk about what they "should do" more than what they "must do". But there are consequences for omitting certain "should do's". One very simple consequence is when I am talking to an advisor and/or president of a new crew, I'll tell them, "... And you have these other advisors/crews near you who are awesome. You should give them a call." Guess which crews are going to get the reference? The one's who's symbol's show up on the "be a scout map", or the ones that have made themselves "real" to the rest of us. And I am amazed at how a handful of diverse youth representatives gathering in one place light up a room (or a coffee shop, or a pool, or a shooting range) with tales of what their respective crews got into. To say that a crew can skate by without being part of that is, IMHO, pure delusion.

Well, when my crew first started, they steered clear of the VOA. (Both council and area offered opportunities.) Those particular youth were a pretty tight clique. It took the next generation of officers to "open channels of communication with the aliens."

I don't think it's a problem with MB's. It is a hassle sorting out positions of responsibility. For example, one unit may grant a kid a POR and not remove him if he's not doing the job. The other unit might not want to accept it, but they're kinda stuck.

Short Change the ages, change the uniform colors, and you've got the basic description of a patrol and a troop: Local youngsters banding together around a common interest. Yet you say troops don't also have to network? Not really. Sure it's nice for SPL's to get to know other SPL's in their district, but there's nothing in the manual that says that's their responsibility. It's a pleasant surprise when a troop hosts some activity for other troops, but we're not expecting it to be the routine. Now, patrols DO have to operate within a troop -- ideally with a little bit of independence from one another. But I wouldn't exactly call that networking because they're meeting every week or so, and camping within 101 yards of one another every month. On the other hand, part of the stated responsibility of crew leadership is making those connections with other crews (and troops and packs, if the activity fits) who they probably don't see on a weekly basis. So, if our SPL thinks he's got an activity that the troop could share with our (or any one else's) crew, but he doesn't convey an invitation to our officers in a timely fashion ... No problem, not his job, the troop goes solo. But, if our crew has an activity that could be shared with the troop, it's on the officers (not the adults) to think seriously about opening it up and make the calls and extend an invite. If they don't, it's something we bring up at evaluation time. Like BP said, there might be plenty of reasons why this might not work as per the manual. But, that's the target I'm shooting for with my posse. Emb -- aggreed: "agents of council" is not the right term, just the first one off my fingers. Anyway "bottom up" is the bottom line.

[He tells me to read the Leader's Manual. Then he tells me it ain't necessarily so. I feel like I'm in theology class. ] We can have Lone Scouts, too. But that's not how Boy Scouts were designed to operate. If you had 8 Lone Scouts living within a half-mile of one another, you'd say "Dudes, form a troop already!" When councils come up short with support for VOA's or what-have-you, the natural inclination of crews should be to pull together and do their own networking. Why? Because the officers read the Leadership Manual, go to their advisor, and say "Dude, how can we pull off this Teen Leader Council thing?" The advisor might say, TLC/VOA is non-existent in council, but a kid who's serious about what he/she just read will say, "Well, can't we make our own?" That's what you did, that's what a neighboring crew did for our crew a few years ago when they had open slots for Philmont and communication through VOA was spotty, that's what our crew did this December for a neighboring crew that had newbies who wanted to try some winter backpacking (in turn they provided a female advisor for our YP requirement). I've seen many a troop get by with zero district participation (on the boys' part, not the adults'). They pick up the handbook and work their patrols and advancement program as written, and they're fine. That's why when our PLC decides they don't want to do any camporees, we're fine with it. But, even if crews work "independently" they need at least "a few district events thrown in for a change of pace" -- your words, not mine. That, my friend, is what we call networking. A group of 14-20 year olds who gets a BSA charter and makes no effort to pick the phone and find out what their neighbors are up to is a club. They might be the sharpest club around -- with grey pants and kelly-green shirts full of bling, but a club nonetheless. (Frankly, I have yet to see a youth with a shirt full of bling who wasn't also heavily involved in a VOA at some tier, but I don't get out that much.)

Sounds like your sold on the m&m's. But, as a practical matter, I've found that a snack-size ziplock in my pack has the added advantage that I can see when I need to restock without opening the container. These kids aren't backpackers (yet), so it's a moot point. But, once they've made theirs, you may ask them to think about other containers that might work just as well.

In the other thread, we were debating over my opinion that a propensity to network (through VOA or less formal association with other youth movements) is what distinguishes a "crew" -- in the Venturing sense of the word -- from a "club" or "paper crew." Anyway, I wanted to know in what ways you or your crew are "innies" (tend to just do your thing and steer clear of council or other crew activities) or "outies" (tend to connect to other crews, Council VOA, or other "upper tier" Venturing associations). How do you operate? What barriers do you experience?

Short Your entire argument that crews aren't Real Crews until they connect with other crews stems from the word "a"? If it were just one word, would that make it a flawed argument? Keep in mind that it's nearly every "demonstrate" requirement in each bronze award requirement that has this inclusive thrust -where your own crew is just one of many possible outlets - contrasted to the more exclusive requirements for Boy Scout rank advancement. BP's correct, that inclusive language in itself does not preclude every youth in a crew seeking recognition by only doing everything within a crew. So, let's take a look at the Leader's Manual. I'll thumb to page 12 ... under Crew President's responsibilities ... "Represents the crew at Teen Leader's Council meeting and council TLC planning conference ..." This duty is listed before some of the other within-crew responsibilities that we might associate with a common club president. Furthermmore, page 15 says the Administrative VP "Participates in council TLC program planning conference ..." Generally, TLC's have been re-cast as VOA's. But the leadership guide is very clear that by definition, crew officers, if they properly fulfill their duties, will be agents of their Council as well as their crew. There is no indication that participation is "supplemental" or "not required". Of course we try not to use the word "required" around these kids too often. And, if it's the crew quartermaster who attends VOA in the president or VP's stead, we'll take him/her!

Short Please tell me on what page of any Venturing handbook or materials I can find this interpretation of the program. Either you or I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Venturing is. Maybe I've got the Venturing handbook upside down, but here goes ... Nearly every third bronze award requirement reads something like this ... "Demonstrate by means of a presentation at a crew meeting, or a Cub Scout or Boy Scout meeting ..." Note that the wording is "a crew meeting" not "your crew meeting". This is much different than the Boy Scout Handbook (where we read "your" troop/patrol etc ...). The entire thrust of awards and recognition is to "nudge" venturers outside their own circles of association to achieve goals of personal development. The word "venturing" carries no implication of insularity. (I was going to say there was no "in" in "venturer", but I could see one of my crew replying, "But it's in venturINg!") National is not going to prevent a "club" from signing up as a crew on paper and doing it's own little thing, only recognising when a kid does something directly related to the club, never encouraging a youth to check out what crew X is doing or how they can support the mission of troop/pack Y or any other youth movement in their community. But as far as I'm concerned, that's a paper crew. It undermines the intent of what the program materials are trying to get these youth to do. And, pardon my "fundamental misunderstanding." It's basically what I got out of my Venturing Leader Specific Training. That, and the line "Congratulations, I'm sure you'll do a fine job."(This message has been edited by qwazse)

Sounds like the lodge advisor needs a little creativity. E.g. stop by with the chapter reps on a campout or combined activity. I definitely can relate to the boys not wanting/remembering to attend special meeting just for elections. We tried that this year and it was a flop. You may need a little leverage, e.g. ice-cream/pizza night, to throw in the mix. Regardless, if the lodge figures out how to solve the issue with this one troop, it sounds like they may succede with other troops as well.

Since Eng brought it up, it's always a good policy to review riptides with your kids before they hit the beach. http://www.ripcurrents.noaa.gov/ My kids got caught in one in NJ a couple of years ago. They knew exactly what to do, and got to shore no worse for the long walk back. My wife watch it happen and told me they were in control the whole time.

Short - It's certainly true that crew-to-crew links are encouraged through VOAs and the Corps of Discovery, etc., but in no way are they a benchmark of a quality crew program. Agreed. Not a benchmark. But not healthy either. There are no other crews like them in the council. Under your way of thinking, none of those crews are real because they don't connect with other crews ... crews which have a completely different program focus and have utterly no reason to interact with them. I would posit that those "clubs" don't become crews until they promote themselves council-wide. They look good on paper, but if they don't have even one representative show up at at least one council/area event at least once a year, they do themselves and their council a disservice. Why? Because I bet there is at least one youth out there who would be interested in that church's religious outreach, or that hobby shop's RC plane event, or what-have-you. It's the very fact that crews have radically different program foci that they should network. And this goes back to Breany's OP. If you're just going to be a chapter unto yourself, don't bother with the paperwork. If you're going to be a crew that strongly encourages multiple membership with other units in council, bringing in youth who might otherwise not join scouting, service, etc ... it may be worth it. Calico ... As far as record-keeping within council, all of our youth who are members of multiple units have one memberid. My crew roster has a count of paid and unpaid youth and adults. (I.e., their registration fee was collected by our unit or some other unit. If they paid through our unit, their card comes to us to give to them. If they paid through another unit, their card goes there. Multiple units: one card.)

Durn cell phone worked at camp this year. Fortunately it was utterly useless on our week at Seabase Bahamas. I consider home to be where the cell phone has no bars. I try to get back there as often as possible.

In the crew I'm in the opposite situation. My older youth are so "FB burnt out" that they are starting to avoid it. Too many friends, too many notifications to wade through, they just tune it all out. My younger youth, I think, have been encouraged (sometimes from the pulpit) to friend the adults whom they know and trust. They are taught that if they aren't bold enough to use FB with "the whole communtity" there to hold them accountable, they don't deserve to use it at all. Anyway, so far there's been nothing that boys haven't said on FB that doesn't wind up being said at camp when we can call them on it the minute it issues from their mouths. Obviously, if it happens at camp, it can be part of the BOR. The impertinent FB statuses just help teach the boy that clean and reverent require work outside the meeting room!

The sad thing is that goals have gotten heavier over the years so that folks wouldn't have to worry about the hassle of anchoring them. They are movable so that the same field can be used for football as well. Think about it. Would anyone ever insist on a mobile backstop so a baseball field could be dual use? And yes, the BSA should require boys to learn the basics of safety for whatever sport they play. If they now need to know to anchor goals before they run out on the field, so be it. It's no different than when we explain safe swim areas to cubs. They may not have the skills to set it up, but if they are all taught, then hopefully one of them will pipe up when they see something amiss.