shortridge

If you're just starting out and have a bunch of shy, "non-singing" Scouts and parents, repeat-after-me songs are great. They just require volume and a few people who can vaguely follow the tune. Bill Grogan's Goat - Froggy - Boom-Chica-Boom - I Met A Bear - etc. Then again, repeat-after-me songs are about the only kind I can sing, so I may be a bit biased in their favor.

Not funny, in any way.

Why can't I just sit with my feet in the stream a bit longer and watch the birds nearby? Why can't I eat nettles or cattails? Why can't I use a hand ax to build my fire? Why do the adults have to drag themselves along in herds? Where do you find these written as rules?

The only real solution to improving retention is Program. If the kid is excited and wants to do Program, the parents will find a way, brushing aside time, cost and all that other stuff. So what's Program? It's the sum total experience of everything a Cub, Boy Scout or Venturer does in Scouting. It's patrol hikes. It's weekend camping trips with the troop. It's resident summer camp with hundreds of other Scouts. It's a PL being trusted to check the troop in at a camporee. It's taco day at summer camp. It's kayaking on a pristine lake on a 50-miler. It's also pack meetings that bore the crap out of adults, let alone kids. It's the B&G banquet where half the stage time is taken up by adult recognition and an FOS presentation. It's an excited young man getting elected Patrol Leader and then not getting any training, guidance or feedback from the SM. It's going to summer camp and not being able to shoot at the archery range more than once a day because there aren't enough arrows in good repair. If we don't have good Program, we don't deliver the promise. Where I come from, that's called lying. And boys of all ages can pick up on when an adult is lying pretty quickly.

TNScoutTroop, How do you know what the quality of the IOLS training is if you don't go? Eagle92, I think the test-out option may spread as councils and districts realize they're going to have a really hard time coping with the mandatory training system. (Assuming National has the guts to stick with it, even.) I'm one of those who could test out of it in a heartbeat - not to brag or anything ... Five years of teaching Scoutcraft on summer camp staff will burn that stuff into your brain! But I still plan to go when IOLS is offered again in the spring, just like I plan to go to GSUSA's camping training instead of getting a waiver, because refreshers are always good.

Hope and change. It was the slogan of a new energetic movement - now widely parodied and ridiculed.

When I joined Cubs, I was in Den 2, all the way until Webelos, when we became the Frontiersmen. The numbers stuck with us as a den. It was a simple system and gave us an identity, which we greatly enjoyed. Our den flag included the ribbons we'd won in contests as well as a real raccoon tail - we were the envy of all the other dens for certain! I respectfully disagree with others who say that identity and loyalty doesn't count as much at the Cub level as with Boy Scout patrols. The whole purpose of dens in Cubs is to lay the groundwork for the patrol method once they get older. If you just create ad-hoc groups, or have to keep merging them, or treat them more as Wolves and Bears than as specific dens, they don't get a chance to develop that group identity in the first place ... and thus the patrol method begins to weaken from the get-go. Den number patches go all the way up to 24. If you have a pack of more than 200 Tigers, Wolves and Bears, then there might be a need to classify them by program level first. But not until then. Give your kids their own distinct identity and let them develop it.

On another topic, I just checked out my local BSA council's training schedule. For five months, from November to March, there are zero opportunities to take IOLS. I can understand not running a course around the holidays ... but to do nothing for nearly half the year strikes me as very, very odd.

There's mandatory training in GSUSA right now - within six months of registering, you have to take four training modules, one of which is online. The others last from 1-2 hours. They know their target audience: A few sessions were offered in the middle of the day, apparently tailored to work-at-home moms. (My experience was a bit more difficult, as I had to do a four-hour round trip to attend two of them because my work schedule didn't match up with the in-county sessions and I didn't want to have to wait until January.) This does not include camp training, which my local council offers just twice a year (spring and summer). You have to complete that to take your troop camping - it's not mandatory to be considered a fully trained leader. I'd be very interested to see if GSUSA has any statistics - or if any leaders here have any insight - into whether untrained leaders just drop out at that six-month mark, if there are a flurry of emergency training sessions held at the last minute to get those leaders trained, or just how that works in reality.

As mandatory training rolls out, it's a safe assumption that training is going to have to become offered more often, thus requiring more trainers. Who are your district and council trainers? What pools of people are they drawn from? For those of you leading training teams or committees, where are the hidden spots that you have found good trainers? Do you recruit from unit-serving Scouters? Other district volunteers? The OA? Camp staff? Venturing crews? For classes like IOLS, do you look for guest trainers from outside groups or agencies, or try to keep it within Scouting?

What are dog clips?

Moosetracker hits it on the head. I often wish I had gone into a technical program instead of attending a liberal arts college. My career field is contracting rapidly - OK, it's imploding - yet there are tons of jobs out there for surveyors, phlebotomists, physical therapy assistants, office managers, corrections officers, dental hygienists, IT magicians, EMTs, medical office workers ... jobs easily attainable with a two-year associate's degree or certificate program.

Gary, I'm sorry that you've chosen to not respond any further. I've found this thread very enlightening, and do still have to questions outstanding that I hope you might respond to. I do hope that I didn't come across as argumentative. I come from an Eastern state where there aren't many LDS Church members, period, and this is really all new to me. - Have you ever seen a unit's members reject a SPL or PL selected by the IH/bishop? - What is the reason for the LDS Church's selection vs. election process? Is there a theological basis to it that you might be able to explain?

I love reviving an old thread! FWIW ... my troop did spaghetti dinners for years, offering both dine-in and take-out options. Take-outs were extremely popular for workplaces, firefighters, etc. We had heavy-duty styrofoam clamshell boxes. Some adult leaders did deliveries to folks who couldn't make it out to pick them up. If hotdesk is still around - have you continued doing spaghetti dinners? How'd they go in years since?

Eagle92, Sorry if my statement was confusing. I don't think we actually disagree. ScoutBox's original post was clearly about the field uniform - asking about options for non-BSA pants to be worn with the khaki shirt, for example - and that's what I was responding to. My point was that you can't pair Cabela's pants with the uniform shirt and say you're in "full uniform." That's intellectual dishonesty. The activity uniform is a separate beast entirely. As is the "dress uniform" - which is what ScoutBox saw the CSE wearing.

I'm with Stosh on the benefits of canvas tents at summer camp. Yeah, they're unbearably hot if you keep the flaps down. But if you roll the doors and walls up, you've basically got a tarp - much cooler! Plus they are sturdier and roomier. Doesn't matter for a short-term camp or when you're moving around, but when you're in one place for six days, it's nice to have a bit more space.

You're confusing the issue, I believe. First: Jackets are not part of the uniform. They're outerwear, and optional. Second: A Wood Badge or summer camp polo or t-shirt is not part of the uniform. No knowledgeable Scouter or Scout wearing one of those would claim that he or she were "in uniform." The basic uniform consists of pans/shorts, socks, belt, shirt and hat (optional). Simple and straightforward. You can wear whatever else you want - coats, jackets, undershirts, underwear, shoes - but the basics cannot be altered. My point is not that you're a "bad Scout" if you don't wear the uniform. My point is that you can't create a second class of "non BSA Brand uniform items" and claim that they're part of the uniform.

There's no such thing as a "non BSA Brand uniform item." You either wear the uniform, or you don't. A non-BSA item is not part of the uniform. Simple.

This is most definitely not the trend at either of my council camps. No canvas would definitely trim down the camp budget. That means less capital outlay for tents, platforms, outriggers, 4x4s and cots ... no need to store all that stuff somewhere during the rest of the year ... about 2 days of staff time during training week instantly freed up for program training ... no need to move tents around on check-in day to accomodate patrol numbers ... no need for commissioners to spend time inspecting tents at check-in and check-out ... I can definitely see the attraction from the camp staff point of view! Wow, that would have been really nice. But if there isn't some huge simultaneous improvement in program or reduction in fees, it really rings hollow. It would be like staying at a full-price hotel but being told I have to provide the mattress, sheets and pillows. A discount to troops bringing their own tents doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, unless it's a plan to lay the groundwork for dropping canvas tents in the future. The camp would still have to have enough tents to cover everyone in case no one brought their own tents - then the staff would be constantly setting them up and taking them down. Seems kind of dumb.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Gary, I'm wondering if you had any sort of reply to this comment I posted on page 7. - I'm simply trying to understand how the youth leadership selection process you describe can in any way be called an "election," when it strikes me more as a rubber-stamping of an adult decision. How many young men are going to stand up and publicly disagree with their bishop? - Have you ever seen that happen? Ever, in your years of Scouting, seen a candidate selected by the bishop/IH rejected by his peers? I'm also wondering why this system is used - why selection vs. election. Is there a theological underpinning to this method that you are able to explain to non-church members? Or if it's just a system that works well for the church - why does it work well, and what benefits does it confer?

Sounds like a good monologue. Also sounds like it might put the kids to sleep. There's nothing wrong with sticking to the book and focusing on doing their best every day of the week. That's a simple-enough takeaway message for kids of that age. My advice: Indians from the OA. Fire/torches/candles, if practical. Arrows. Lots of applause. Keep the adult "message" to a minimum. The only people in the room who will be following you are the other adults. P.S. If you do flame and Indians, be sure to run through a rehearsal with the OA team. I'll never forget my AOL ceremony, when the chief bowed his head over the lit candles at a solemn moment, lifted it up to speak to the audience again and realized his headdress was aflame.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Reason No. 127 why self-chartered units are a Bad Idea. Under your arrangement, the parents - all of them - are the ultimate arbiter and authority in the pack. As the COR, you represent the parents. If the DL is going against the wishes of the other parents, you can demand she stop. But how far do you want to take that? Do you really want every parent to be able to put every decision of every DL up to a vote before the committee of parents?

I can certainly see this from your perspective. But I can also imagine this DL telling the same type of tales about pack leadership who want to micromanage her meeting times, keep pushing stupid popcorn sales, dictate a maximum level of belt loops that can be earned, etc. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying there are two sides to every story. I don't want to give them Bobcat one month and then Bear the next. Cubmaster refuses to give them both bobcat and bear in the same month. Why not? (To both items.) What's wrong with that? She moved her meetings to a different night of the week so she wouldn't have any interruptions by the pack leadership. We all meet at the school on the same nigth of the week. We've told her that she has to move back to the same night as the rest of us because the school is unhappy with the status of the rooms on the night she uses. Custodians are complaining. She could always have her meetings off-site. Nothing wrong with that. Den meetings should really fit the schedule of the boys in the den, not be at the convenience of the pack leadership. about how one of them steps up as asst leader they can push for meetings to have more active fun stuff and less homework. They could "push" for this now simply by asking themselves. Sounds like they don't want to confront the DL. But why would you want to rush thru this stuff at such a pace? That's really the key question, isn't it? Why haven't you asked her?

The CM ( myself) or our ACM will shoput "Signs up!" [ Cringe ... ]

"Since Scouttrack is password protected, all the data is secure, and not released to the general public, only our families." Actually, no, it's not. Or, rather, it's only as secure as the families make it. Someone could still turn around and release that info to the general public. Don't get lulled into a sense of false security. As far as the broader issue, think of it this way. A decade ago, before everyone started going cell-phone-only, you could look all this info up in the phone book. People with restricted landlines were few and far between - most people in fact wanted their phone numbers out there so they could be reached! I'm not quite sure why people get all antsy about having their cell phone numbers "out in the world." You can still get most addresses through online searches with the click of a button ... and if 411.com or anywho.com doesn't have it, your county land records or property tax office probably does. Very little of that "directory information" about us is really private.