qwazse

Fox, this sounds like a crew of convenience -- the adults' convenience. Most start out that way, but after a while venturers become their own entity that operates independent of the troop. That doesn't mean they never share activities, but when they do it is by mutual agreement of the youth. Our girls do not share sleeping facilities with the boys. Period. (Okay, there may be some bizzare exception if we are stranded in a snow storm on the side of a cliff and have to all dig into the one shelter before nightfall. But at every event, we PLAN for separate facilities and implent that plan even if it is inconvenient.) Even an all-boy crew should camp at some distance from the troop -- sort of the adult 300ft rule. The crew recognises the SPL must fulfill his duties (patrol assignments, bed checks, etc ...) before joining the crew for cracker-barrel, etc... When it comes to courts of honor, our girls are welcome to attend. (They usually show up for Eagle COR's.) But unless the *boys* write them into the script, they sit as a group in a separate row from the troop and pack. The only official time our crew president share a mic with the SPL is on Scout Sunday when they give a report to the chartered organization. They each get about 3 minutes. The crew officers are responsible for discipline, and in the situation you described I would have advised them to act by reprimanding the older boy and assigning him to KP or latrine duty for the weekend. We jump through all those hoops to avoid the pitfalls you mention. There are advantages to shared activities, I have seen some positive one-on-one interactions between a young lady and a younger scout that have made all my hassles worthwhile. But I won't bore you with those because you explicitly said you want to only hear negatives. Well yes, there's a fine line and when adult leaders refuse to walk it, when they don't listen to one another, more negatives than positives begin to appear. I think you are wise to step aside as CC, because your vision conflicts with the new SM's and Advisor's. You don't need the headache. But, I would encourage you to interact with the venturers (especially the female officers). Maybe you have something (e.g., a "skill set") to offer them as individuals that you couldn't when your time was taken up as CC. Let's face it, it sounds like your sons are stuck with them until you find another troop. Might as well help shape them into women your sons can respect.

I, too, have experienced similar negatives. It's amplified in venturing where -- even if a boy has tons of camping/hiking experience -- how to behave in the company of young women comes into play. But, co-ed or not, your contingent has to be a performing team long before it's time to ship out. Optimally, if the trip involves much backpacking, the venture patrol should turn into the hike-a-month club. By the time you take the trip, each boy should have attended 5 weekend conditioning hikes. Which practically means you should have at least 8 weekends scheduled. (This can overlap with weekends with the rest of the troop, where the venture patrol hikes into the site from a longer trail while the adults not chaperoning the high adventure maintain a base camp. It makes a big impression on the younger kids to see a group of guys arriving from who-knows-where and disappearing at the crack of dawn to cover another few miles before heading home.) If the new boy is willing to sign on to troop life, and the training schedule, I would wager he won't be a problem. If not, I'll bet his buddies will come to you on day 3 of the high adventure and ask you why you let them bring him along.

Didn't hear anything in WB about POR contracts. Certainly our WB PL's haven't had to sign contracts. So, I'm not sure how WB factors in. Did these leaders tell you that that's what their WB troop did? Maybe that paperwork will come out when we come back for the second WB weekend.

My crew formed because my son and his buddies were bragging about his troop going to Seabase. The girl-scouts at their lunch table wanted in on the gig. I was told by their mom that "we can form this crew for just this one outing!" Four years after the trip, and I'm still clocking my "one hour a month" advising some of the best youth this community has to offer. Yours sounds like the "sometimes they decide to stay together" type. Most crews I know "act somewhat like a crew, without the organization."

I like my socks & sandles almost as much as I love long sleave underarmor beneath my uni! I wouldn't waste time matching epalets. There would be no way to get a perfect match, and since the vintage uni's aren't gowing away any time soon, you'd have a mix of reds and greens. Matching colors within unit would be kind of neat. Uniforming is not a method in venturing, but I think if a crew wanted to adopt the national uniform as their own -- having matching underarmour would help give them the distinctive flair that we're looking for from units.

I have a boy who cannot swim. He's completed all other 1st & 2nd class requirements done the alternative that our council advancement chair agreed upon (a mile hike, which slow and challenging, but survivable for him, be able to explain rescue techniques to other scouts). The hardest part: paperwork. Got the boy's and dad's signature on the planned alternative requirements. His dad got the affidavit from his doc that he can't swim, but it didn't say he *could* hike! So his dad needs to get that before our advancement chair says o.k. So really, it may be just as quick to find an experienced swim insturctor to volunteer a few evenings with your boy until he learns the modified strokes to meet the reqs. Bottom line: talk to the boy about what path he wants to take. Support his effort,

I constantly remind my youth: "Boyscouts ... ... Love ... ... Paperwork!" They all now know that by the time they are SPL (or crew officer) I will think far less of them if their leadership style involves any form that needs to be signed.

Area VOA was getting into the habit of calling Venturing area gatherings "Summits". That noun fit nicely. But it is now being used for a specific lattitude/longitude where boy scouts will gather every four years starting in 2013.

Oh, and on the back-country trips, warn your parents that we may hike more than the planned milage so long as we're still in the designated wilderness area. We won't interrupt the youths' thought processes until they are more than a 1/2 mile down the wrong trail. (The helicopter parents learn to hang back with the Old Fart's patrol pretty darn quick.)

I confess being of two minds about the issue, and thus understand the GSS's ambiguity. Some the folks to whom I trust my kids in a heartbeat smoke regularly. I love sitting around the campfire after the boys are in bead, letting them light up, and hearing them relax and reflect on the day. Nearly all of those folks after age 40 can't handle more than two miles with a full pack on rugged terrain. I want what the tobacco has taken from our boys and girls! I want parents to see how wonderfully their son or daughter perfoms with their crew after 8 miles of rocks and bogs. I want to share with them the sight of a ten point buck that walks into our camp while the kids are playing cards on the forest floor after supper. If an all-out ban would get more parents back-country without losing those precious moments at summer camp, I'd be all for it. But I figure if the previous paragraph won't getcha to ditch the 'baccy or lose the pounds, legislation from on high is going to alienate you. I'll settle for your company in the fore-country and the quality time you can offer my kids when we're there.

Don't forget the handbook! The "lecture" time gets cut in half if the boys in each patrol pass the handbook around and reads the instructions, each boy reading one scentence to their patrol. (I guess I'm in the don't-even-bother-with-groups-of-20-plus-boys camp.) Then, as a group talk about what was read (use props). Don't lecture longer than it took to read it. Never cover more material than can be read by a 12 year old in 10 minutes. This is not so usefull for knots, more useful for map, saftey, and first aid. Regardless, by making the boys look it up in the index and read from the book, there's an outside chance they'll pick up their books when they want to learn something they haven't been taught yet. I'd still group boys into patrols right after the demonstration. The new scout patrol has several years to learn this stuff, so I wouldn't worry too much about them. I would have a troop guide for each new scout patrol, just to help with the reading, repeat the demonstration, and guide the ones who are actually trying to perform the skill. Each instructer then observes 3 or 4 patrols as they work the skills. He picks the patrol that is having the toughest time, re-demonstrates or guides, then rotates to the next patrol if time allows. Wrap all this up in 30 minutes. Remind them of the page in the handbook. Let them know that patrols who are interested in more practice can arrange to meet with an instructor during an open activity time. (This means you gotta allow time for an open activity, or allow 1 in four troop meetings to be an open meeting where each patrol can pick their activity.) I guess what I'm saying is with 100 boys, narrow your personal attention to the ones who really want to be taught. Encourage your instructors to be looking for the "teachers" and "learners" in each group and to not be discouraged by the boys who aren't there yet. Like the shampoo instructions "lather rinse repeat". If the boys know this is the routine for every troop meeting -- or each morning, afternoon, and evening period on a campout -- you'll have fewer glazed over eyes.(This message has been edited by qwazse)

I'm sorry, V. I had no intention of saying you held low regard the scribes who worked most of their lives to promulgate a few lines of text for a few select readers while we so easily type as much for millions to read in a matter of seconds. To be fair your mention "progressive" faiths favor conferring full church rights to homosexuals shows bias. Why not "permissive" rather than "progressive"? But I digress. I just don't see everyone adopting a liberal theology (nice link, by the way) as "what it will take" in OGE's start of this topic. First a lot of people aren't buying it. For example, "non permissive" Presbyterians currently censure those who ordain homosexuals. That's because liberal theology at its worst presumes that who we are outshines who the ancients were. At its best it assumes the ancients would have liked who we've become. Regardless, it tells moderns "don't just pick up a Bible and read it! You need *our* help." As you know, the level of mistrust is more than palpable. But if they did buy in, what about shifting sands? Let's say a religion globally changes its stance on what is normal sexuality, everybody falls in line. Who's to say they wont lead "the flock" in a different direction 50 years from now? That's what happened to the Roman empire for centuries.

"For instance, for those of us in the latter camp, it has been well-established that Ephesians probably wasn't written by Paul at all but was written much later by an author who was trying to prove to the Romans that Christianity wasn't a threat (as the Romans had taken Christianity out of the protected Jewish fold and deemed it an "unlicensed" religion). Just one example." So, then, for those of you in "that camp", was the Roman's 1:27 opinion on homosexuality Paul's, or was it from some unnamed second century religious hack whose opinion we have license to disrespect because it was only held dear for 1800 years instead of 1900? Sounds like wanting religion to follow instead of following religion. Eagledad - Religion won't have to be outlawed -- just watered down.

Establish the "old farts" patrol. Get them obsessed with cooking meals in their own patrol, and everything will be just fine. Make them think they have to be the model and their site has to outshine the boys' in cleanliness, camp gadgetry, and aroma of food. The "distance rule" helps.

While we're spewing random facts ... "1) Natural - the FDA can't define this term so why should we attempt to? Does homosexuality occur in nature? Yes, in humans, mamals and even some creatures are hermaphrodites! Celibacy in not natural in humans, yet some religions hold that up on a pedestal!" I know far more celibate folks than I do homosexuals. I think there are stats to support this (although I haven't read the latest). So by the numbers celibacy is more natural than homosexuality. You may happen to be situated in an area where it is the other way around, so your world view may think abstinance is unnatural. But from where I sit the "need to have a sexual expression" is a unique and presumptuous form of cultural oppression. Higher numbers does not make one behavior more natural than another. Science can report on what may happen in nature. Natural selection can explain why it persists in nature. (BTW, evolution also allows for things like suicide to have genetic origins.) But neither statistics, observation, nor very sound theory are sufficient to identify a human behavior as natural (i.e. acceptable and welcome in a free society). The reason: humans have shown themselves to be extremely flexible in their behaviors.

Chazz, My knee jerk is that since the kids are shrugging off awards, the advisors may be too. I think from a UC's perspective you may want to sit down with the advisor and crew president go over bronze award requirements and see how close kids are to being recognized. The advisor might be too critical of the requirements, or maybe it's too hard to get all the kids on the roster in ther room at the same time to nail this down. You might also want to factor in that crew membership is quite volitile, so rather than counting rostered kids, count "likely to recharter". Also (and this may be the lightning rod issue) if a youth is cross registered with another unit and advances there, do you count it twice? For example a boy in my crew made life in the troop that he's in. I'm not expecting him to get a bronze award. I want our crew to support, not hinder, him getting his bird.

All of this is fine and good if you like runny stuff, but ... I got a stove top espresso maker from the local Italian foods store. (Bought two, actually, one 3 cup for backpacking and on 12 cup for when the van is less than a mile from site.) Pick your favorite beans, have them espresso ground. What I like is no filters: the coffee grounds sit in a basket above the water chamber, and the flavor is expressed through the steam as it passes up and is condenced in the recieving chamber. When I really feel like roughing it, I bring along a set of little porcelain cups.

I'd not to direct the boys to websites. But, if they come up with a mascot they really like, I'd look up what's there and print the options. This summer, our older boys came up with the patrol name "Hey Chris" (after their SPL). The whole point was for the PL to be able to, at roll call, step up and say "Hey Chris, all present and accounted for!" I'm hoping they don't parlay this into a flag and patch!

Chaz, I like your liberality. Unfortunately, it only applies to crews with a narrow focus. In my general interest crew, I got kids gaining diverse skills left and right. It would be really hard for me to guage advancement. (I probably should have four crews, but advisors for each are kind of hard to find.) I'd rather do without the ULAM than have something that may mean one thing for me and something completely different for another advisor. Keep it simple. Count medals. If you doled them out to 6/10 of your crew members this year, give yourself a star. I really don't think seeing a star on 1% of Advisor uni's is a problem. If somebody really cares, they can put a petition together for a lower target, but keep in mind that if it goes through, one day folks will put up posts harkening back to "the good 'ole '10, when a star really meant your crew had some serious bling!"

Camping in Wilderness = Cool Organ at Full Stops = Cool Scouts Logging Video of Jambo = Cool Jazz in Worship = Cool Carping about how other people do stuff = Uncool

Went to and presented at an APA meeting once. Mostly serious stuff goes on about dealing with primary mental health issues and the best way to deliver the best care. But there are thousands of presentations. The book of abstracts alone is overwhelming. So, yeah. If you're looking for something to prove your point, it'll be in there. In fact much of my talk was replying to comments about what could and could not be gotten from the data presented. Fortunately, my topic was not headline material, because in those 30 minutes there was plenty of room for misquoting. Love the Kinsey reports, but I'm sticking to one wife -- even if by nature I'm a polygamist. My religion, pocketbook, and Mrs. #1 all indicate that it'll be nothing but trouble otherwise.

4 years, no advancement. I'm fine with some other advisor getting a ULAM because he/she has a crew of 8 that focus on one area so he/she can track requirements without going insane. I'll focus on identifying six key outings so each of my 24 kids get outdoors at least once this year, getting them to recruit the next generation of venturers, getting some of them to council VOA, and seeing each of them have fun and grow a little. If, after all that, you can't tell that I'm an advisor to the most dynamic crew in my council because I got no gold star, maybe you can tell by the smile on my face!

Ditto to all the ideas regarding crew members dating. Main point: discipline is up to the officers of the crew. We advisors strongly encourage them to write bylaws to cover that in advance, but it usually takes someone's emotional drama ruining an outing make it happen. Definitely touch base with your crew to know its rules and history. Wingnut's comment only comes officially into play for adults. Like sbemis and emb brought up, if either of you are near 21, the "No fraternization rule" will come into play. It's a BSA National policy, and it's there because we don't want Advisors, or Committee Members, or Scoutmasters dating youth. Take the average age adult and the average age youth and that behavior sounds predatory, but it's not unusual in couple of venturers who've been with the program for years for one of them to want to lead a crew, troop, or pack as soon as they turn 21. So, the couple in this situation would have to decide if they want the older one to postpone becoming a BSA adult leader until the younger one is of age, or if they want the younger one to leave the BSA until he/she can be an adult leader. (Here's hoping they don't both leave the organization!)

Nike - I had a female committee member give our 14 y/o crew girls the backpacking instruction. She focused on personal hygene in a way that got them over the "gotta have the hot shower" mentality. I wish I had written down what she said, because her talk was excellent and completely different than how we would do it for boys. (You know, for boys: "You WILL bring soap. You WILL bring toothpaste. And you WILL bathe once and brush twice on this trip.") SSScout - Thanks for the link. The search box on that page brought up a description of one backpacking course for leaders. I'll see if this GS council has something of the sort.

Just talked to a mom who came from GS camp. She already put three boys through the BSA program, so when it came time to divide funds from cookie sales for camp fees, she did it based on individual sales (which is not GS policy, I'm told). All the girls in her troop showed up for camp and had a great time. Another troop that went by protocol and divided their sale funds equally among the girls who signed up for camp, had half the girls cancel with NO notice given to the leaders. I could make a reference to an -ism here, but I know that'll spin another unnecessary thread. So, I think the pay-your-own way approach may or may not impacts the kids. But, it does impact parents who may act a little more responsibly because, themselves or their son having worked hard for those funds, they will make sure the kid goes if money was put down, or find a refund or sell their ticket if they can't.