Beavah

Yah, hmmm....

Lots of stuff there @@htusa31.  A bit too much to sort through, so I'll just give yeh a few thoughts to ruminate on.  If they fit, great.  If not, well that's great too!

First, when you're buildin' or rebuildin' troop culture, yeh want to avoid transfer scouts, especially older boy transfers.    Those lads are goin' to come in with 3-5 years of being part of another troop's culture, eh?  In their leadership they're goin' to mostly be tryin' to duplicate their old troop.  It's really hard for older boys to change.  It will mess you up 9 times out of 10.   Yah, yah, there's the exception, too... the great lad from out of town in a troop like one you want yours to become.  But avoid da others.

Second, don't you dare take summer off.  Summer is when yeh have the boys without as many pressures and distractions, eh?   In particular, it's your time to work with your youth leaders and up-and-coming youth leaders.    Send a couple to NYLT.   Plan and run your own troop OUTDOOR training for da lads who will be PLs and APLs in the fall.  Take a long weekend at least for that, preferably before summer camp so that yeh can be doin' real patrols and real youth leaders at summer camp.

As an example to build off of @@Eagledad's suggestion, yeh can take 'em on some new adventuresome trip.  Let's say a canoe trip.  So yeh take da PLs and APLs and SPL and TG/ASPL on the trip and you practice stuff and yeh talk about leadership and safety and yeh model giving the "canoe safety talk" and show how to teach da J-stroke.   Yeh have 'em practice those things and give each other feedback.  Yeh demo good patrol camping and brush up their cooking and cook-leadin' and how to remind younger guys to use sunscreen and how to make departure times.   Yeh make it special for 'em and work 'em hard.  Yeh let 'em explore da area and talk to outfitters themselves.  Yeh show 'em that sometimes yeh forget stuff or things go wrong, and how they have to quickly brainstorm and support each other.

Then yeh have them plan the same trip or a similar trip for the rest of the troop about 3 weeks or a month later.    They plan it, they talk to da outfitters, they budget, they give da safety talks, they run it in their patrols.   Yah, yah, at this point you're still in "G" of EDGE, eh?  So yeh might nudge or give hints on da side a few times, but never in front of others.  Yeh debrief with 'em each night. 

Money in da bank, eh?  Then next year, they'll be able to run this trip themselves.  You'll be all the way to "E".

Then yeh plan next summer's youth training experience, and yeh guide da current leaders to help run it for the up-and-coming leaders.   Pretty soon yeh can hand off new youth leader trainin' to the boys as well.  

Point I'm tryin' to make is that movin' a troop to Patrol Method and really boy led takes time, eh?  Yeh need to think in terms of years not weeks.  There'll be ups and downs, and you'll have to do a fair bit of parent education along the way.   As Scoutmaster, yeh have to keep your eyes on the prize for the long term.

Beavah

Yah, @@JillJill, welcome!

Can I ask how you feel it violated da scout oath or law?

Not knowin' the lad and not having witnessed the event, I'd tend to agree with da majority, eh?   I wouldn't nail a boy to the wall for this.  I might tack him to the wall.    Dependin'.  Probably I'd just pull him aside at some point to have him think through age-appropriate foolin' around.

Sometimes skits like this can teach a valuable lesson, eh?  Generally speakin', the boys aren't glorifyin' drug use when they do a sketch like this.   They're makin' fun of it.   It's a bit of "look at me, I'm being an idiot!"   That's the lesson that the younger boys get from it too, eh?  At least at a non-verbal level.  Usin' drugs is a being an idiot.   

Run an exercise in your head for just a sec.  There's this older boy SPL in da troop, who your son comes to think is funny, and cool because he goofs around with da younger guys like pals instead of treatin' 'em like little kids.   Down the road a bit when the troop does its annual meeting night about da dangers of drugs and alcohol and that older boy says

"Using drugs is stooopid.  Never, ever, not once do that, and if yeh see a fellow scout or another friend even thinkin' about it your job is to stop him. "

Do you think your son will listen?

Sometimes Boy Scouting works because boy-behavior and boy-talk is a lot better than adult lectures.

Beavah

BSA indicates three types of patrols.  They seem to fall into those categories naturally.  Obviously the new guys coming in are the Tenderfoot/greenhorns that need a bit of help getting their feet on the ground.  So they are identified as a patrol of new scouts.  But after a while, it's only natural to identify them as more regular patrol.  Then again, after a few years, those boys have kinda been there, done that and the conversation starts focusing on a more experienced challenging kind of venture patrol.

Yah, hmmm...

For a few years now I've watched da show "Deadliest Catch" about Alaskan crab fisherman, eh?  It's interestin' because they're real folks dealin' with small-team dynamics in da outdoors I suppose.

In da crab fishery, it's fairly common for a boat to take on a new "greenhorn" or two at half-share for the season.  Usually it takes a year or two for 'em to work up to a full share fisherman, under the watchful eye and gruff friendship of da more experienced hands.

In the real world, what happens "naturally" is that new greenhorns join teams and work their way up, buildin' workin' relationships and friendships with different folks.   Doesn't have to be Alaskan crab fishin', eh?  It's every business and most neighborhoods.  You'd never consider sendin' a patrol/crew of greenhorns out together on an Alaskan fishin' vessel.   They'd all be dead within a day or two.

There's nuthin' "natural" about puttin' all da greenhorns together, eh?  That's as artificial and adult-driven as yeh can get.  It's da school world, where we put da inexperienced folks away in a special jail so that the rest of us can get on with our adult business.  Hopefully they'll learn somethin' and then maybe we'll let 'em out of jail.   Until then they're not part of our group.

Mixed-age is more natural in Scoutin', because scoutin' is supposed to prepare boys for the real world, not for school.   There are a lot more small troops than big ones, eh?  Median troop size in da US is 14 boys if I recall.   When yeh have a troop of 8 lads or so, that's one mixed-age patrol.  

If yeh grow from there, da natural thing at some point is to split into two mixed-age patrols, each with a natural older-boy leader, eh?  No boys would choose a fellow greenhorn as da person to follow.  The natural thing is to seek out and glom onto an older lad yeh think is cool.

It's only if yeh introduce somethin' artificial that boys segregate by age.  Most likely it's an adult tellin' lads they should be with their school friends, or that they have to be in same-ability groups so that it's easier for the adults to teach 'em.  If yeh put all da greenshorns in da kiddie pool then maybe the adult can have more fun with da older boys in the deep water.   Maybe it's adult fears that givin' the older boys responsibility for da younger ones will lead to bullying or just not be "safe" because safety is an adult responsibility.  Maybe it's just da lads gettin' stuck in school mode because that artificial adult-ordered same-age environment is all they know.

There are some OK reasons for school-like ability segregation, eh?   It's OK if yeh choose to do that in your scouting.  I help troops that do a reasonable job with it, and have happy boys and families.  It has da advantage in that it's familiar, like school or same-ability sports teams/leagues.

Just don't pretend it's "natural".

Beavah

 

My boy doesn't really seem to care which troop he belongs to; he is happy doing anything active with any group of boys. He's pretty easy to please. But he seems to see the difference, and likes the more pleasant troops he has seen. I worry that he could become attracted to the rougher boys, because he always gravitates to wherever there is energy and action, even if it is negative or even dangerous. He's a bit immature in some ways still, and I think good peer role models are important for him.

 

Yah, trust your instincts, @@Grubdad.   You know your boy better than any of us, eh?

In middle school/boy scout age da people who have the most direct influence on kids shifts, eh?  Elementary school it's parents who have da biggest influence, but as kids move to adolescence and teen years peers take over as da biggest part of their lives.   If your instincts are that your lad will be a bit of a follower and soak up da peer influence around him, then choose da program where you think the peer influences are good ones.

If your boy doesn't have a strong preference, I reckon da parental choice is a no-brainer. 

Beavah

There were no certified climbing instructors, no one had to pass a swim test, everyone paid their own way at the time of the event, all chipped in for gas.  We used a 15 passenger van....Everyone had a good time.

Yah, yeh can rack up da same sort of BSA multi-violation tickets if yeh go anywhere in da international Scoutin' community too, eh?  Such things should remind us that real safety comes from knowledge and not from regulation.

Besides, too many rules and both kids and adults choose not to play, eh?   Or just ignore da rules.

Beavah

I've heard similar or worse about Scientology, LDS, etc. from adults. The boys don't engage in this kind of 'labeling'. My example is real, not some contrivance.

What are yeh talkin' about, mate?  The boys all know that da FSM is a satire.  That's part of the fun of the thing, especially for teenagers.

We should all be able to laugh at ourselves a bit, of course, and take satire or parody for what they are.  At the same time, sometimes satire can become mean-spirited and irreverent, eh?   When yeh put da FSM in place of the traditional depiction of God on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, we all know the intent is to poke a bit of fun at da Christian idea of a personal Creator God.   That's not havin' your own beliefs and symbols, that's takin' someone else's beliefs and symbols and satirizing 'em, eh?  Can I hear a RAmen!  (parodying the Judeo/Christian assent "Amen"). 

Where the line should be is an interestin' ethical dilemma worthy of the attention of an Eagle Scout.  Is it OK to make fun of Catholics makin' the sign of the cross by makin' the sign of the Mozzarella? 

I confess I've seen younger lads reduced to tears by older boys using da FSM to be a bit cutting and critical of their family's religion.  Sometimes because the younger lad is wearin' his heart on his sleeve a bit, sometimes because the older boy was crossin' the line.   The choice to parody the beliefs of others isn't really value-neutral.

We're here in Scoutin' to Associate with the boys as adults, eh?   Thoughtfully and respectfully to be sure, but also genuinely.  We're part of helpin' 'em think about things, and the impacts of their choices.  We're part of helpin' them deepen their own faith and come to respect da faiths of others, and also to think about their choices and actions.

I'm sorry if some fellow at an EBOR stepped over the line, @@vumbi.  Not bein' there I'll have to take your word for it, eh?  I've seen that happen too with a few of our more evangelical colleagues; it's one of da challenges of havin' district folks who don't know the unit or the boy on EBORs.   IMO lots of conversations are more appropriate for campfires than EBORs... or actually I prefer EBORs to be conducted around campfires.     Sets da tone better.   

Anecdote ain't the same as data, though, and anecdotes cut both ways.  I've had boys not of my faith write me years later thankin' me for BOR or campfire discussions about their religion, and how it helped 'em deepen their own faith.  Just because one adult may have not done well at a task doesn't mean everyone else should avoid it. 

Beavah

Yah, @@Stosh, I reckon if yeh dish it out to others yeh should be able to take it without gettin' too upset, eh?

Sometimes I just find it hard to interpret what you're writin' is all.   Might be a problem with my bifocals.    For example:

And who said it was 50 miles on open water with gear?

Well if it was on a closed pond, then it was a Cub Scout trip, eh?  Also makes it hard to do 50 miles.   Sorry, I was referrin' to da BSA Aquatics version of open water, not the normal English definition.    Yah, I blame da bifocals.  Easier than blamin' my brain.

Seriously, though, some of the other things do confuse me:

My boys do this kind of activity as a NSP,  This is why they have a TG to guide them through the process of getting it done.  Yes.  I have had the NSP patrol do 50 miles on a canoe trip they planned.  It is definitely not Webelos III.  We are a new troop we don't have older boys.  That doesn't slow my boys down one bit.

If yeh don't have older boys, I'm wonderin' where da Troop Guide came from, eh?    And the other older boy POR Instructor. 

I agree if yeh add two older boys and two experienced adults in kayaks with safety gear and parents in some canoes yeh should be able to manage 8 new boys in canoes on a lazy waterway, at least until the boys in boats by themselves start gettin' tired or the wind picks up. 

I'm just wonderin' in all this if yeh notice that you've created a class, rather than a patrol... and a situation where da adults are integral rather than incidental? 

Beavah

Yah, thanks for da info @@Stosh.   Context does help.

Small troop startups are their own special version of fun, eh? 

Wonderin' why 3 out of your five scouts aren't active though.   Did somethin' happen?

Beavah

Yah, @@vumbi, yeh do understand that Pastafarianism really is a satire, right?   Though it's become a favorite in my local Italian restaurant.  It's also well enough defined, I reckon, for a lad to know what he's about.

In terms of the boy you mention, my question for yeh is why did the lad think a BOR was a test in the first place, eh?    Seems like his troop set him up for failure.  No need to make a board into The Test in the lad's mind.

I'd also wonder why the troop's program didn't afford the lad opportunities to express his faith in ways that would help him build confidence?  We've got these lads for a lot of years between age 10 and when they come up for Eagle rank.  Years of talkin' about and tryin' to live da Oath and Law.... Duty to God and Duty to Country and Reverence and all da rest as a matter of personal character.   We've spent years of havin' lads of different faiths tryin' to live their faiths while livin' together respectfully...  somethin' that's downright unusual in much of the world. 

If we didn't do our job to help a lad Be Prepared to be comfortable with his own belief (and doubts), and comfortable and respectful when encounterin' the beliefs and questions of others, that's on us, eh?  We failed the lad.

Beavah

This is nothing more than socialism in disguise.

 

Person A works 50-60 hours for a salary and benefits.

 

Law changes

 

Now Person A works 25-30 hours receives no benefits which he will need to pay for or get fined by the government.

 

Now Welfare Person B works the other 25-30 hours, receives no benefits which he will need to pay for or get fined.  He finds that his welfare check is more than the part-time job so he quits.

 

Person C works for a temp agency and will come in and cover the 25-30 hours and get skills.  They can stay temporary benefit-free forever if they want to. 

 

Now Person A needs the money so they take on a second part-time job that doesn't pay benefits, but now the cost of daycare is covered.

 

Except for the loss of productivity on the part of the business, this will hurt only the employee(s).  Basically they will lose their benefits and need to go to the government for increased retirement and medical assistance.  That means the employee through payroll deduction will lose even more with an increase in "taxes" skimmed off by the government to pay for the extra cost of providing benefits.  The biggest boon to the increase in minimum wage is the higher take the government gets on the deal.  You make more money, you get bigger payroll deductions and pay higher taxes, either way the government wins.

 

So how much more money is the government anticipating in getting at the increase income of time and a half increase in income per person?  Another increase in payroll deductions and income tax revenues.  The government is ecstatic

Yah, hmmm....

Yeh do realize you're contradictin' yourself, right?   "The government" can't be gettin' more income tax revenues if da employer is down to a part time worker and a temp.

Let me make a different prediction, eh?  We'll see a moderate drop in da use of overtime and a mild increase in employment.  McDonald's will still need to have a manager on duty, eh?  To get reliable manager they'll still need to offer full-time employment.     Businesses will adjust, and the world will go on. 

Now, I reckon yeh can put on a Libertarian hat and pretend that anything that protects workers is a form of "socialism", eh?   Safety regulations, bargaining rights, etc. 

Of course by that definition democracy is a form of socialism, eh?  Can't let all those pesky workers vote for representatives and laws to protect themselves and their families, can we?   It interferes with da right to contract!

I'm tapping out on this one. Life to too short to argue economics with folks that wont grasp the basics n

Yah, right back at yeh. 

Beavah

You have made a value judgement about a Scouts faith. Is that the direction you want to take?

Nah, I'm inquiring into da nature and purposes of a lad's choices, eh?  

I enjoy da smart-alecks.   At least they're thinkin' and tryin' out different ways of acting and behaving on their own.  

What would be unfair to the lad as a caring adult is not to respond, eh?  The lad is askin' for a response and feedback and discussion.   Why would yeh pass up an opportunity to engage with a boy who is one of our best and brightest on a matter that he finds interestin' and wants to engage in?

Of course I also want to see if he can keep a straight face while explainin' how the decline of pirates is causin' global climate change.

Beavah

The substance of everything Bill said about the Patrol Method is still there - somewhere.  If BSA didn't like Boy Scouting as defined by Bill, why don't they eliminate the words?   B.S.A. still says, for example, that a troop is composed of patrols, rather than Scouts; that a patrol is to have a separate life; that learning is to be centered in the patrol and only "sometimes" take place in the troop setting; and that the troop's program, including the annual program, is to be planned by the elected PLs, under the leadership of the elected SPL and then led at the troop-level by the SPL. 

 

Nah, sadly they have been eliminatin' some of the words too, eh?   Bill's Patrol Method assumed da mixed-age, neighborhood gang patrol, and we muddled that all up with da New Scout Patrol and Venture Patrols in the 90s.  As @@Stosh points out, if da troop is really made up of patrols then yeh plan activities at the patrol level and coordinate among patrol leaders.   Instead our materials suggest planning events at the troop level led by an SPL elected by da whole troop.  So that's what almost everybody does, eh?

From my perspective Patrol Method is da hardest thing for adults to grok in the modern world, eh?  As such it's usually the last thing a typical adult gets around to really implementing.   Generally, the troops that get there have older, long-term scouters who have learned and built cultures over time, eh?   Some never do.

When we get a gang of folks together to write materials we no longer have one fellow with experience and vision like Greenbar Bill, eh?   Instead we have a committee of dozens of folks.  Some from troop method troops, some patrol method, some good at mentoring, some more reliant on adult imposed structure.  Our materials reflect that muddle by bein' muddled.

It's OK, eh?   Scoutin' doesn't need a rigid structure to do good work.  It just needs to provide enough structure to help folks of different sorts out without gettin' too much in the way for others.... and then enough additional info to inspire continual improvement.   We do OK on the first, but as yeh point out not so well on da second.

Beavah

Yah, hmmm...

My boys do this kind of activity as a NSP,  This is why they have a TG to guide them through the process of getting it done.  Yes.  I have had the NSP patrol do 50 miles on a canoe trip they planned. 

@@Stosh, can yeh explain this a bit?  How do yeh do that in light of da BSA's Safety Afloat/Aquatic Supervision requirements I'm wonderin'?

Around these parts, at least a third of da new lads aren't swimmers yet, and few are competent paddlers let alone strong enough for a 50-mile open water paddle with gear, eh? 

Are yeh supplementin' with a lot of adult support?  Does your troop only accept lads who are swimmers and more fit than da average?  What you're describin' seems irresponsible to this old paddle sports fanatic.

I think the point @@Hedgehog is tryin' to make is that when yeh have mixed-age patrols yeh have older experienced boys and middlin' capable boys and as a result it's easy to support and teach a few young inexperienced boys, eh?  Even on more "advanced" trips that the young lads couldn't safely or comfortably manage on their own.

By contrast, if yeh put ten inexperienced 11-year-olds on the water together with one instructor/babysitter/troop guide, yeh have a fairly significant safety/supervision problem, eh?  Yeh usually have to switch to a "class" format so the instructor can watch out for 'em all, or yeh have to choose a more limited trip, or (usually) both.   Either that or yeh really are adult-running the thing.

Beavah

P.S. See my request in da other thread.  I can't figure out how to interpret what yeh write when in da same posting yeh say that you're a new troop and don't have older boys, and you say you have 18-year-olds who stay around as ASMs.

Yah, hmmm...

I think from what yeh write that your son's current troop isn't a good fit for you.   It's not clear whether or not it's a good fit for your son, but given how involved yeh want to be that might not matter, eh?    Troops need to be a good fit for parents, too, since we're trustin' our kids to them.  Seems like yeh don't trust da current troop, so I reckon that's sayin' all yeh need to know, eh?

I try not to judge from afar when I can avoid it.  I've seen parents who are really strict with their boys get their knickers in a twist over what can be fairly ordinary behavior by other people's kids;  I've also seen troops that were way too lax about behaviors and set my teeth on edge.   You are throwin' me signals of each, eh?   Maybe both.   So it's just somethin' that I'd ask you to reflect on.

Yep, lax troops with behavior issues set my teeth on edge, and if your current troop is doin' that for you then yeh have to recognize you're not goin' to get anywhere by comin' in as a new dad demanding to discipline other people's kids.   It takes a longer game to change troop cultures like that, and yeh don't seem to want to play the longer game.  So if that's the case, look to move to another troop.  Go on a campout or two with 'em.   Maybe if you and a few other families leave, the current troop will get da message and start to address the behaviors.  I've seen that happen sometimes.  Your leavin' could be the right thing for them as well as you.

Scoutin' is a youth run endeavor though.   There are always goin' to be issues with youth leadership, older boys not usin' church language at times, imperfect communication and all the rest.   That's how Scoutin' is done.   It's messy, and even in da best of troops there are goin' to be behaviors that are let slide until the boy receives da natural consequence of his actions rather than the adult consequence.   If you're really lookin' for a tight ship where everything's always runnin' well and all the boys behave as well as your son behaves when he's in your line of sight, then it may be that Boy Scouting isn't for you.    In that case, yeh should look at other more adult-run and organized groups, eh?   Stuff through home-schooler associations with like-minded parents and such, or more expensive adult-run options like martial arts or sports programs.   You might be happier with such alternatives, so I'd explore them alongside lookin' at a new troop.

Good luck with da quest, and on behalf of Scoutin' I'm sorry your current experience isn't workin' out.

Beavah

And that Scout would ask if you really felt calling his faith satirical was reverent.

Which would be a fun smart-aleck answer that would lead da conversation in another direction.     

 

So, I'm kinda curious.  With troops using the SPL/PLC model, does the vote on all activities have to be unanimous or are some patrols voted down and are required to go with the troop on the activities?  I ran into this when the interests of the older patrols didn't jive with the experience levels of the younger boys.  They stuck with their patrols and didn't do the ad hoc, temporary contingency, thingy for high adventure, they simply went and did it as a patrol.  Everything they did was as a patrol.  The younger boys like the council camp for summer camp, but the older boys are burned out on it and want to look at other camps in the area.  If that be the case what does the SPL/PLC determine for the troop and if everything boils down to a troop decision, what kind of long term impact does that make on the patrol method.

Yah, there are as many ways of doin' things as there are troops I expect.   There's also a very different dynamic with mixed-age patrols and a PLC and same-age patrols and a PLC.

In troops with mixed age patrols and a PLC, generally speakin' there are patrol trips and there are some troop trips that they do together.   Sometimes da PLC sets aside time for patrol trips, sometimes patrols just add 'em on themselves.   Annual planning meetings often have all da patrols contribute ideas and desires and almost always there's consensus, eh?  Lots of boys like da same things in common - adventure!  challenge!    When there's a patrol that wants to specialize a bit in somethin' that other patrols aren't as into (Geocaching!), the patrol runs patrol trips for that... then maybe their PL offers the patrol as Service Patrol to set up orienteering challenges for a troop trip or teach GPS use at a meeting.

This works fine for patrol method, eh?  It's da patrol method of Green Bar Bill and Scoutin' for a long time.

In troops with same-age patrols da PLC may decide on campsites, eh?  Often troops like this may share a site that has access to different options, but for da duration of a campout they split into program levels for activities.   This is common in very large troops, eh?  So da 2-3 new scout patrols are doin' T-2-1 stuff with their Troop Guides, the 3-4 middle school patrols go off and do stuff with that program level... maybe longer hikes or a patrol competition or whatnot.   The 1-2 patrols of high schoolers go do somethin' different, or hang out if that's what they prefer.  Sometimes one of those patrols is doin' prep for a high adventure trip. The troop comes together for flags, and Saturday campfire, and maybe for some common features like tourin' the military base.

This also works fine for patrol method, eh?  Especially if yeh have multiple patrols at each level, yeh can do competitions and other stuff.  Where it's weaker is where all same-age patrols are weaker, eh?  Patrols aren't permanent.  They "reorganize" and consolidate as the boys get older and some leave, and the young patrols really aren't functioning patrols so much as classes for the newbies run by the TG/ASM-NSP.  Sometimes da middle patrols don't get as much love and attention as the newbies and the high adventure kids, and have a bit more attrition.

There are lots and lots of other permutations, eh?  

By the time yeh get up to havin' a bigger troop, even with same-age patrols yeh get mix-and-match when it comes to high adventure, eh?   If yeh have two older boy patrols and one is doin' Seabase and da other Philmont, like as not a few kids can't make da Philmont trip because of basketball camp but they want to go on Seabase, or da Philmont patrol has 3 more spaces it needs to fill so they take boys from da Seabase patrol too.

Beavah

Yah, hmmm...

I reckon I'm just gettin' a bit befuddled by all your posts about your troop(s), @@Stosh.  Do yeh mind providin' a quick summary so we understand da context when you're talkin' about 'em?

Somethin' like

Troop A, 35 boys, 5 patrols, 1998-2002, ran by troop method with everyone cooking together, I was the ASM in charge of new scouts.

Troop B, 2004-2009, I started this troop as Scoutmaster, it grew from 5 crossover boys to 24 boys in five years, 3 patrols, strict StoshScouts patrol method.  This was the troop in da old Scouter.com posts where da committee removed me as SM because they felt I wasn't providin' enough support/guidance for the boys.

Troop C, 2011-current, right now it has 12 boys, 2 patrols, etc.  This is the troop that the DE asked me to start up in a new area. 

It just helps to understand the context of what you're writing.

Beavah

Yah, hmmm...

This seems to be gettin' more frequent as da BSA shrinks and da pros get squeezed.  We've had some bad cases of SEs removing volunteers who were whistleblowers on da SE's fraud and mismanagement.   Da SE is supposed to conduct an investigation before takin' any action.

What's your current position in Scouting?  Are you a council/district volunteer or a unit volunteer?   If you're da former, the SE can simply choose not to renew your membership in the same way a COR can choose not to renew the membership of a unit leader.   That's different than being "removed from Scouting" which involves puttin' yeh in the national ineligible volunteer files.  In da former case yeh could still volunteer for a unit.

So I reckon we need da backstory a bit if we're goin' to give yeh any real guidance.  Did yeh piss off da SE?  Are yeh havin' some sort of dispute with a parent or boy in your unit?  Do yeh think yeh might be da victim of the new "zero tolerance" YP mandatory reportin' nonsense?   Yeh have to help us out.

In general terms, if you're bein' removed from Scouting and made an ineligible volunteer, then yeh can appeal it to da region/national.  The process is long and slow and opaque and rarely successful.  It usually involves playin' really nice and kissin' a lot of behinds, eh?  Effectively it's da same thing as gettin' the SE to change his mind.

Also in general terms, yeh have to ask how willin' yeh are to fight this, eh?  There is da adversarial route as well, which dependin' on circumstances may be the better choice.  If da SE isn't forthcomin' about the reasons, the legal route may require yeh to initiate a John Doe slander suit and depose the SE to figure out who said what about yeh, and then go after them.  Once yeh out and discredit whoever said bad things about yeh, then yeh go back to the SE and the appeals process demonstratin' the accusations were false and malicious.

Or other possible routes, eh?   What's da backstory?

Beavah

Yah, hmmm....

My experience pretty much aligns with @@Hedgehog, eh?  And @@Eagledad and some of da others.  I see a lot of different troops, but the ones that IMHO do the best Scoutin' and have da best outcomes for kids are the mixed-age patrol troops where real patrol method of older boys leadin' younger boys has become part of da culture.

That was da BSA model for patrols for most of its history, eh?   Neighborhood gangs, with older gang leaders and middle gang members and younger gang inductees.  Mixed-age was Green Bar Bill's method.  Boys gain in responsibility and leadership within their patrol, eh?   Every boy, not just the one older boy who is PL while all da rest of the older boys are bored, waitin' for their turn in da leadership rotation for POR credit.  Patrols were permanent, eh?  Not somethin' that got switched or reorganized as friendships changed over time. 

I get where @@Stosh is comin' from, eh?  These days, boys don't play in neighborhood gangs.  All their experience is with same-age, same-ability level groups.   Sports, band, school, whatever.  Same age, same ability is artificial and adult-created, eh?  But it's what they're used to, and often da only thing they know.  So if yeh give 'em a choice initially they'll just do what they're used to. 

That's not natural, though.   That's why troops that have a real Patrol Method culture and have done da mixed-age thing rarely go back unless an adult pushes it because they're pushin' their own philosophy at the lads.

I think yeh see lots more growth in boys in mixed-age environments.  Young fellows don't learn by bein' in a "class" with a TG, eh?  They learn by watchin' older boys and modeling their behavior off of 'em.  NSP was an awful idea and a radical departure from Green Bar Bill's Patrol Method.

Yeh see lots more outdoor adventure for everyone in mixed-age environments as close as I can tell.  The young boys get to go climbing and canoeing and skiing and whatnot because they're bein' led and taught and supported by older boys watchin' out for their own mates.  Yeh see lots more independent patrol activity, too, because older boy PLs generate such things in ways that a typical younger lad can't without adult support.

Yeh can have real patrol competitions, instead of fake patrol competitions where pretty much da older boys can almost always thump the younger ones.

Advancement works better, because lads are steppin' into PORs naturally when they need 'em.  Yeh don't have to do artificial "rotations" and such.

Yeh get much more patrol spirit, because patrols are permanent, eh?   They don't disappear as attrition happens or boys age out or da troop periodically "reorganizes" because friendships have changed.   While no modern boy is likely to ever come up with a patrol flag, permanent mixed-age patrols will develop slogans and yells and cheers and stories on their own.

With more activity and adventure and competition and spirit and carin' for younger lads yeh just see more growth in boys then yeh do in a same-age environment.   Lots less hazing and negative stuff too, eh?   Hazing happens when bored older scouts feel superior to the young fellows.    Yeh can fix it almost instantly by givin' those bored older scouts real responsibility as PLs.  They're no longer bored, and now they want to help the younger fellows because it matters to 'em.

Yah, yah, older lads need some space of their own too.   That's what da PLC/Senior Patrol/Venture whatever is for, eh?  Yeh use that older scout space to do instruction for your leaders and higher adventures, and then they take what they have learned back to their patrols as the "experts".

Scoutin' means givin' back, eh?  Not goin' off and sittin' in your private "cool older kids" clique.  Leadin' and helpin' other lads isn't draggin' yourself down at all.  It's steppin' up as confident, mature, adult-like fellow.  Boys love it, and it teaches lessons of character that last a lifetime.

Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.

I reckon da problem we have, @@TAHAWK, is the one yeh describe, eh?  National's policies and materials really conflict with each other, and departed from Bill Hillcourt a generation ago.  So when we're talkin' about "followin' the Program", I'm never really sure which BSA Program a fellow is talkin' about. 

It doesn't really bother me as much as it does some folks, eh?  I don't believe in magical one-size-fits-all Programs.   I reckon I've never seen a scoutin' unit that really "followed the program" entirely, eh?  But I've seen lots of great scout units doin' fine things for boys (and girls). 

My point was just in terms of usin' PORs as part of Advancement Method to help boys grow, eh?  I don't think it's that hard.   Just make your PORs meaningful for your troop's program, whichever or whatever it is.   Make 'em be real responsibilities, and help 'em learn new skills, and make the lads live up to those responsibilities.   If yeh really are Patrol Method and da APL has real responsibilities, then don't sweat the small stuff, eh?  Give the lad credit.

Beavah

[deleted by author for bein' too long-winded]

They need to be trained, which you assume in your simple application of a growing population. If your population is unskilled, they are a burden to the economy. If they are skilled -- which requires infrastructure and education -- THEN they will be a benefit to the economy.

Nah, you're mixin' things up again, eh?

What you're talkin' about here isn't economic growth, it's economic growth per capita.   Absorbin' an unskilled or impoverished workforce can lead to decline in GDP per capita, eh?  For example when da former West Germany absorbed East Germany.  Those East Germans were quite a burden to the economy.    That's because da productivity of East Germany was lower, eh?

However, the total GDP of da combined Germany was still increased, eh?  Germany grew economically, just not as fast as its population grew.

Of course in da longer run, as East German productivity caught up slowly to their West German compatriots, that population increase was multiplied by da productivity gain and yeh got more economic growth and economic growth per capita.

You cannot "cheat" at something when the law in place is not being violated. These companies are following the law. To call them cheaters is pretty disingenuous.

Yah, it all depends, eh?   It depends on whether yeh think da law determines your ethics, or whether ethics is somethin' different that depends on concepts like loyalty and honor.    I think callin' a fellow who makes $23K a year an "executive" just ain't ethical, regardless of whether or not yeh can get by on a technicality and da fact the fellow is too poor to take yeh to court.

Beavah

On the other hand, I have long been troubled with the question.... so just where did this magic "40" hour work week number come from anyway?  ditto the "5" day work week? 

Yah, that would be from our elected representatives, eh?  Representin' da will of the People, which is what we mean by "government" in these United States.

Really, though, it reflected da fact that 1920s automation led to overproduction, unemployment, and then deflation, eh?  Not inflation.   That's just da product of rapid productivity increases.  As more and more automation hits, we're goin' to see da same effect.   For example, as self-drivin' vehicles take off in the next 10 years, they can easily put 4 million people in da transportation and logistics industry out of work.  Cab drivers and long-haul truckers will be the first to go.  In the long run, that will make roads safer, goods cheaper and the economy more efficient.  In the short run, though, those 4 million people out of work will reduce demand and lead to deflation.

So what do yeh do in such a case?  We decided as a society to try to help all our fellow citizens benefit from da productivity increase of technology, eh?  The argument was made, accepted, and enacted into law that yeh reduce da work week and work day.  People benefit from da productivity increase by gettin' more time for family or hobbies; other people who were out of a job get to step in as additional employees to take up da slack created by reducin' the time for others. 

Odds are we'll have to do so again, eh?  Perhaps goin' to a 4-day work week.  I don't know about others, but I'd rather have an extra day off and have another citizen findin' some work than work 5 days and pay for welfare for the fellow.

Yah, I do agree with @@Krampus a bit though, eh?  In some ways this is overregulation.   If yeh had employers who cared about their workers and treated people fairly, it wouldn't be necessary.  We pass laws only because at some point we failed to teach ethics.

Beavah

 

You can roll your eyes all you want, but population in and of itself does not drive growth. More people only means more people. People to feed and clothe and take care of. It does not equate to economic growth. And no reputable economist would advocate that more people automatically equates to growth of the economy.

 

Yah, read what yeh wrote again, slowly.     "People to feed and clothe and take care of."   In other words, increased demand for food and clothing and housing and consumer products and and and...    Or, if yeh prefer a more supply-side approach, more people means more available workers producin' more goods and services.   In short, every reputable economist from every school of thought on economics would argue that economic growth depends on population and productivity.  They just might disagree on da mechanism.

Da upshot is that this Department of Labor move is just an inflation correction to an existing regulation.   We did just fine in da 1980s and 1990s with this regulation in place at this level.  Fixin' it for inflation just stops people who really have been cheating.  But yeh will see some whining and grousin' as they get forced to stop cheating.   Includin' some BSA councils, eh?  It's hard to argue that we've been treatin' da crop of young DEs fairly across the board.

Beavah

Sounds like they have a case of negligence on the part of the guide and the Outfitters. If it was a "scheduled release" the outfitters should have known about it and canceled the trip.

Yah, hmmm....

Perhaps some explanation is in order for da non-paddlers, eh?   A scheduled release on a dam-fed river is often when it becomes whitewater (and fun).  In this case, da outfitter might have canceled if there was not a release from the dam, because it would have become an easy run to do in canoes rather than somethin' yeh want to take big rubber rafts on.   Sometimes, rivers become too shallow or more dangerous without a dam release.

This river like many others gets really busy when there are scheduled releases, eh?  Lots and lots of boats out.   Havin' one fellow get killed out of that many boaters is really just a freak accident, eh?  Part of da baseline risk of the activity.   Could be when the raft tipped he hit his head, or got stunned/panicked, or had a heart attack, or got whacked by da paddle of the boy sittin' next to him.  Could be he got caught in a hydraulic or hung up in a freakish way on a rock or log underwater.   Could be on a busy river he got trapped under another group's raft. 

Nuthin' here looks like negligence by the outfitter. 

Beavah