shortridge

A suggestion: The youth leadership may want to consider making shakedowns mandatory in the future, unless there's a really good reason for an exception (illness, family emergency, etc.). Otherwise, there's no real purpose in having them.

Just as a point of clarification... Not all lodges take candidates straight from the call-out to the pre-Ordeal ceremony. In my experience, the call-out is done at summer camp or a camporee, in public, generally at a campfire. The candidates are taken a distance away from the main group, out of sight and sound, and given information. The Ordeal process takes place several months or weeks later at a separate inductions weekend. I personally think it would be a great experience to integrate the call-out ceremony with the Ordeal and do the inductions process at summer camp, say. But that requires quite a bit of logistical tinkering on the part of both the lodge and the camp.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Troop 760 and Scouter760 may be related. Call me silly, but...

BadenP, Do the folks from National with whom you've spoken have an explanation for why both the Venturing Leader Manual and the Venturer Handbook do not include the word "Venturing" to identify the shorts and pants as official uniform pieces? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but am just really curious. It seems to be a very large discrepancy. mmhardy wrote: "... if your going to try to dress down a 20 year old going into his Junior year in college who has been living on Ramen Noodles and Big Gulps your going to get a response like, "you buy them I'll wear them."" In my experience, when you take a job at summer camp, the uniform policies are explained ahead of time, so the staff knows exactly what they're getting into. Staff members also often get discounts on uniform parts. As a practical matter, I hope that ScoutmasterBradley's uniform group is able to come up with its policy before staff interviews, so that can be communicated to all prospective staffers. A pair of green Switchbacks for any Venturers who don't have them could set them back $40 (Switchbacks, assuming no discount). That was almost half a week's pay my first year as a paid staffer. And though that was back in the Olden Days of 1995, I doubt base pay has changed a whole heck of a lot.

aquaticeagle, With regard to the subject of this thread, I think you've gotten several pretty good answers several times over. I hope you'll keep us posted as to what happens.

There are nearly as many ways to organize an Ordeal as there are lodges. I personally think there's something to splitting up units and chapters. It takes the candidate out of his or her comfort zone, and introduces them to other Arrowmen they might not have known otherwise. Yes, I know one of the Order's goals is to strengthen the troop or team, but you can get some really great ideas from folks on the other side of the council. That especially would apply to parents and sons going through it simultaneously. Let each have their own individual experience, IMHO. With regard to the idea of discouraging non-member parents from attending... I believe the intent of the no-secrets provision was to assuage potential concerns of parents about the inductions process - certainly not to create a visitors' gallery of proud relatives. Especially since her husband is a Vigil member, she should have no concerns about the process. That's just voyeurism. I do think you have to walk a fine line in having that chat. One person's "discouraging" can be another person's "forbidding," and from there you can quickly get a call to the SE raising holy heck about all the secrets.

The Scoutmaster can also use his or her discretion in saying "No, sorry... don't go there, try giving Counselor Troi a call instead." Without the SM's signature, they can't proceed.

I definitely get it - and I hope no one thought I was being critical of the cup-of-coffee approach. Working with friends, or at least acquaintances under truce, is much easier than headbutting enemies day after day. I sometimes wonder if YP has taken on an aura of less importance because it's an online module nowadays, versus a grizzled guy standing in front of a room saying "You. Do. Not. Do. This," striking a flipboard with a ruler at every point.

Composite Materials was introduced in 2006, according to the fact sheet at scouting.org. (http://www.scouting.org/media/factsheets/02-500.aspx) Regarding John-in-KC's point about putting Cooking on the Eagle-required list... it looks like Cooking is the 5th-most popular badge ever ("More than 4 million earned!") But there's been a huge dive from 1993 to now - down from 46,000 to 24,000. And saddest is the fact that Backpacking has seen a similar plunge, from 8,800 in 1993 to 4,900 in 2007.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

I haven't been on here nearly as long as others. But it seems that a lot of the answers come back to "Have a friendly cup of coffee" or "Talk to your unit commissioner." Coming in a close third is "Get Person Y to training." I think Beavah is largely right, and that training at all levels could be enhanced by adding sections or segments on how to work constructively with "problem adults." Perhaps even going through the process of identifying one of these souls might open some eyes to their own attitudes and behaviors. What would such a training segment say? Oh, that's for brighter minds than mine. I'd suggest having a friendly cup of coffee to talk it over.

Al, I'm wondering if I'm clicking on the right dealio thingy on that chart. American Business comes up as next to last, but at the very bottom is Composite Materials, with a bit fat -zero- earned in 2007. Granted, that was only two years after it was introduced. But does that mean that not a single Scout was inspired to earn it after its unveiling at the 2005 Jamboree?

My Venturing Leader Manual is the 2006 printing; my Venturer Handbook is the 2008 printing. National had plenty of chances to correct it if that's what it intended. FYI, both the official pants and shorts appear to be on their way out (for switchbacks?), as they're both marked way down to the $30 range on scoutstuff.org.

BadenP, Actually, emb021 has it right. You state: "If a crew selects the OFFICIAL venturing uniform it includes all the OFFICIAL pieces not a knockoff on the pants or socks, otherwise your logic would also include troops and packs. Call National and talk to them you will see I am correct, I have and I know what I am telling you is true." If National intended for only the official charcoal grey pants and shorts to be part of the uniform, it would have said so. In addition to emb021's quote, from the Venturer Handbook, there's this segment from the Venturing Leader Manual (p. 10): "The recommended uniform is the spruce green Venturing shirt with green epaulette tabs and gray backpacking-style shorts or gray casual pants." If National had intended that the shorts/pants be official, Supply Division-issue, it would have had to add just two words: "grey Venturing backpacking-style shorts or gray Venturing casual pants." That would match the description of the shirt - "the spruce green Venturing shirt." Since that description is repeated in the two major Venturing publications, I don't think it's a typo. I also offer up this statement from Scouting.org: "The BSA offers the traditional spruce-green uniform shirt for Venturers. It is recommended that crews adopt a charcoal-gray casual pants and/or backpacking-style shorts for their uniform. However, each crew may determine what, if any, specific uniform pants or shorts they will wear based on crew activities." (http://www.scouting.org/Venturing/ProgramSupport.aspx) Again, no reference to an official BSA uniform piece. The key term here, more explicitly, is "a" - as in, "a charcoal-gray casual pants..."(This message has been edited by shortridge)

I lack any primary source, but Henning's Scouters' Pages says: "The Master-at-Arms Badge involved mastering 3 of the following combat skills: single stick, boxing, ju jitsu, wrestling, quarterstaff and fencing." http://www.scouters.us/homemb.html

I came across Ashley's when I was 16 or 17, working at summer camp and teaching pioneering. My boss had a dog-eared, battered copy he'd gotten as a loaner. We spent the summer teaching ourselves all the neat stuff that was in there. It really is incredible. Not very backpackable, though.

DeanRx - There is a hunting program in Venturing, FYI. www.usscouts.org/advance/venturing/Electives/Hunting.asp The requirements don't involve actually killing or dressing an animal - the closest you come is assisting at a game check station and going on a hunting trip.

At the camp I staffed, we wouldn't take a blue card unless the personal/unit info was filled out and it was signed by the SM. Scouts had to bring them, but we always had a few extra blank cards in case they were misplaced. The instructors filled in the blanks for the requirement numbers, in part because we had a moderate number of Scouts show up with old MB books with outdated requirements.

I'd object, simply because the green shorts and green shirt are two different shades and don't match one whit. As an alternative, you could suggest (for future years) that the "class B" workaday uniform include regular khaki shorts instead. Available from many sources.

Like Hal, I can't imagine my camp using such a system, because of the technological limitations. I also can't quite see how it's improving things for the staff. Instructors will still have to track the information, but instead of filling out and signing blue cards, someone will have to sit in front of a computer and fill out forms. Neither system has to wait until the last night of camp. An organized instructor can keep tabs throughout the week of how the Scouts are doing, and sign off each requirement as they complete it. Simple and straightforward. As a defense against losing cards... that I can understand and appreciate.

packsaddle, you just made my day with that post.

There's certainly a need for food drives these days. It's hard to argue that. But as described, I'd have some reservations about the scope of that particular project. Most of the burden would seem to be on the church members. That sounds like something a troop could do as part of its own community service work - fairly easy for even a NSP to organize. He could certainly broaden it by putting together a community or interfaith food drive, not restricted to a single church, connecting organizations that don't usually work together. But even in that case, if I were the SM, I'd ask pointed questions such as: How many other food drives have been held in this community in the last year? Who organized them? Is there an existing organization (like a coalition of smaller nonprofits) that already does this? If food is his primary focus, he could consider options including creating a kid-friendly cookbook for latchkey kids - simple and safe recipes they can make on their own while mom and dad are still at work. That could involve organizing Scouts to talk with local cooks and nutritionists, and then testing and writing the recipes. He could start a backpack food program like those that are in place at many schools around the country. He could work with local farmers to organize a "gleanings" effort - if there's not one already - after the fall harvest (if he can wait that long for his project).

I don't get into the politics threads a lot, but I did feel compelled to respond to this one. TheScout wrote: "A lot of people just don't like homosexuality and don't like to be around homosexuals." I'm not sure if you meant this as a justification for the ban or not, but to me, this is where the slope gets really slippery. A lot of people just don't like people of different skin colors, or ethnic origin, either, and don't like to be around them. Does that justify their exclusion?

I believe aquaticeagle said early on that his father is a member of the pack committee, and asked him for his perspective. I see nothing wrong with asking questions and trying to get a broader view from a group of experienced Scouters. However, making statements such as this - "When a child works hard to earn some money and puts it away in his piggy-bank, it is certainly any adult's business if they see the parent break that piggy-bank open and steal their child's money." - can certainly inflame a situation that doesn't need inflaming, particularly with the use of the word "steal." Based on the information presented, there are no allegations of mismanagement of funds. Nor are there details about just how much the pack has raised or has on hand. Perhaps popcorn sales did raise a ton of money, but that was spent on giving some needy Cubs a free ride to summer camp. The bottom line, however, is that it's the pack committee's job to handle this. They're well within their rights to ask for a treasurer's report and make decisions about the budget and finances. But my advice is to tone down the speechifying a wee bit. You and the people you're advising will get better results that way.

"I also see some sea scout leaders wearing the black uniform that was dropped about 10 years back." < curiously > I always thought there was a once-a-uniform, always-a-uniform rule - i.e., I could wear an old Explorer outfit today and be OK. Is there a different rule in Sea Scouts?

For some reason I can't edit my post above, but I did want to ad one thing upon reflection. You may find that the Scouts are vehemently opposed to their parents' participation when they're together as a patrol, but when asked at home - "Hey, Johnny, is it OK if I go along with you guys?" - they agree. Parents may be getting one message from the Scout one-on-one, but a different message from the patrol. Strength in numbers, after all. If that's the case, the Scouts will have to be prepared for some possibly difficult conversations at home - "Johnny, why didn't you tell me you didn't want me along?" The friendly adult leaders can best help by backstopping the youth and having an open, frank discussion with the patrol about what exactly the dynamics are here.