shortridge

One thing I've seen locally is an emphasis on recruiting Cubs - not as much for recruiting Boy Scouts. Local troops don't have much of a marketing strategy - I can think of one or two in my district that actually bother to send in writeups to the local papers about their activities, treks, awards, etc. (It's free publicity, people!) They leave it in the hands of the DE, for whom it's much easier to start a pack than a troop. In talking about parental volunteers, I think the complicated structure of the Scouting leadership really confuses people and hurts involvement. You go to a Scout Night with your kid, and there's the District Executive up there talking. You naturally assume he's in charge. But he then shunts you off to local Packs, which have people called Masters and Leaders, and they talk about Districts and Councils and Commissioners and Roundtables and Committees - it can be very bewildering to a newbie. They might sign their sons up, but consider the structure too cliqueish and complicated to get involved in themselves. Compare it to sports. You have a coach who's in charge. Parents have clearly defined roles that everyone knows - "team mom," candy-bar-sales-coordinator, scorekeeper, water cooler schlepper, etc. Simple and easy to understand. (And adults don't have to buy expensive uniforms to help out!) All the comments about shying away from the outdoors and nature are spot-on. I live near a popular state park that has an ocean beach and hundreds of acres of dunes and wooded trails. The beaches are packed every summer; the trails are not.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

I really am beginning to think that when we return to the ideal that the First Class Scout badge is the true mark of better boyhood, we will be on the trail. I'm printing this out and framing it. First Class has become nothing more than a stepping-stone to the "more important" ranks, when it should be the capstone of critically important skills and abilities.

If at Scout Camp, the kids are all sleeping around the picnic table, and yet they earned the MB by Osmosis, it's the Scoutmaster's bloody fault. Why wasn't he walking the areas and asking tough questions of the Area Directors and the Program Director about the quality of program presented? Oh: And if he didn't get good answers, why wasn't he talking to the Reservation Director and his COR about same? Amen.

OGE - I think "Venture Crew" is different from "Class A," because pretty much everyone knows what you mean by "Class A." No one knows exactly what's meant when we start talking about "Venture Crews" or "Venturing Patrols."

A few ideas - (1) Make sure the books are out in the open and accessible, not closed off in a closet or office. A Scout working on Carpentry can practice his skills by building a couple of shelves. If you do have to store the books in a box in a closet between meetings, you can still build portable hinged/folding shelves for setting them out during meetings. (2) Don't throw away the old books! Sure, separate the old MB pamphlets from the new ones, but keep them all. The older program materials, handbooks, fieldbooks, etc., often have a lot of great ideas. (3) Expand the library beyond Scouting materials and books - especially beyond MB pamphlets. It can be done with a small budget and some patience and planning. Hit used bookstores and thrift shops and pick up books on backpacking and camping for gear ideas, conventional cookbooks for recipe ideas and older travel guides for trekking inspiration. I've assembled most of my personal outdoor library in this way. Got two older copies of Colin Fletcher's Complete Walker books for less than a buck total. (4) Include all the leaders' guides and training binders, too. There's no reason why the PLC shouldn't have access to that IOLS syllabus that the SM hasn't touched in years, or that 1990s copy of Woods Wisdom. Just because it's not current doesn't mean it doesn't have ideas.

To the question raised by the OP: - If you're talking about a Venture Patrol, this decision shouldn't really be up to the Scoutmaster. If the PLC sees a need, it should form one. Venture Patrols are part and parcel of the troop and just provide another outlet for older Scouts within the current program. - If you're talking about a Venturing Crew, this decision also shouldn't really be up to the Scoutmaster. A crew is independent of a troop, both in terms of membership and leadership. It's up to the CO and the interested youth to start one. There's a whole step-by-step outline on starting a crew in one of the manuals (the name escapes me), including a recommended interest survey of the potential youth members. While in some cases, as moosetracker describes, a Venturing Crew may function in concert with an affiliated troop, that's really not the purpose of the Venturing program. Teaching and instruction is key to the program, of course. ================= If the confusion in this thread doesn't clarify for National that Venture patrols should be re-named, I don't know what might.

I haven't seen someone wear those in ages - like the late 80s. I was actually wondering the other day if they were still around.

I usually sleep with a light sheet (cotton's been OK) and a heavy-duty emergency blanket (not the cheap "space blanket" jobs). If it's hot, I sleep on top of the blanket; if the temps dip down, I wrap myself up in it and stay warm.

OGE, I would read that line differently, but it's very awkwardly written, so who knows. The change itself that he mentions - "A Boy Scout patrol or Varsity Scout squad may participate in Patrol Activities with the permission of their Scoutmaster or Coach and parents/guardians." - if that's all there is to it, it's completely harmless. The problem is with the explanation, which buggers everything up in the Confuse-O-Meter.

"... while eliminating hiking or camping outings without proper adult leadership and planning tools such as Tour Permits" That sounds like a ban on independent patrol outdoor events to me! I'm not sure what else would be left as an approved patrol activity. A day trip to the local bowling alley, driven by their parents, of course, since they can't hike there. Or maybe an independent movie or video game night at the CO. After all, those are valuable opportunities to hone and show leadership skills, just as valid as taking a group of boys on a 10-mile hike and overnight into the wilderness without any adults nearby.

If it's really the same course, why is there the separation? Does it come down to the cost of hiring ARC aquatics instructors to teach the program?

"But I suspect some of it has to do with the fact that kids just don't know what to do with themselves if they don't have some definite goal in mind." I dunno about that. I found out last week that when my daughter (age: "I'm almost 6") is bored, she'll decide to fill up her Halloween candy bucket with water, take it into her bedroom, place it on her bed and attempt to give her dolls a bath. With the results you might expect. Kids are naturally hard-wired to explore, adventure, try new things and have fun. I put a large part of the blame on adults. When we overschedule our kids and don't give them any free time, and when teachers have to spend most of the year teaching to the test and can't get into any of the fun sideline stuff, we send a very clear message that just playing around isn't important.

"If Scouting is as fun as we claim, they will put down the electronics." Well said! Hear, hear! Personally, I don't like electronics and technology outdoors. While some items can be useful, especially in emergencies, by and large it disconnects us from the natural world. The human race got along just fine exploring and adventuring for thousands upon thousands of years without cell phones or GPS devices or iPods. There's also the small issue of class distinctions. Not every kid can afford the latest electronic doohickey. But almost everyone can afford the few items it takes to go camping - or can make them, or borrow them. A compass is still a lot cheaper than a GPS. Signaling flags are still a lot cheaper than a cell phone. A pocketknife is still a lot cheaper than a portable game device.

Very interesting perspectives. As the person who penned the original lines that Venividi quoted, let me explain a few things. First, I write primarily from the perspective of a summer camp MB counselor, working in an environment in which time and resources are compressed into far too small a period of space and time. I could rant about the problems with the summer camp MB system for ages, but I won't waste your time here. Second, I agree that it's the MBC's job to counsel the Scout on skills. Where I disagree with some of you is in the expectation that the MBC is solely responsible for the Scout's learning those skills. In my opinion, the Scout should show both a basic level of competence and simple initiative in learning about the subject before showing up to meet with the MBC for the first time. And the SM should make sure that is the case. Before someone takes my words out of context - I'm not saying that a Scout needs to meet with a Cooking MB instructor only after having previously crafted gourmet meals at his troops campouts. What I am saying is that a Scout needs to be able to be comfortable with simple kitchen utensils and the concept of boiling before taking Cooking. He needs to be at ease in the water before taking Swimming. He shouldn't be afraid of the dark and be taking Wilderness Survival. He should know the basic knots and not require several hours' worth of refresher instruction before he signs up for Pioneering. Far too often, I have encountered Scouts who show up at a class without even having read the merit badge pamphlet or relevant sections in the BSH, let alone done anything above that to show the slightest interest in the topic - let alone again demonstrate any aptitude for the underlying skills. Especially in a summer camp MB session, when the MBC has just five or six hours at most to put a class of Scouts through their paces, it *is* a waste of the counselor's time - and disrespectful to boot - to have a brand-new Scout with no experience sign up for advanced merit badges. Perhaps most importantly, it's discouraging to the Scout! If he can't keep pace with his comrades, he loses faith in himself and becomes disinterested in Scouting. If your troop is too large for you to talk with each Scout every time they start work on a merit badge, I say - really? You cant take five minutes and chat with your PLs - who presumably know your Scouts the best - to see whether Jimmy might be better off taking Swimming before Canoeing? You cant have a two-minute conversation with the Scout about why he wants to take Farm Mechanics, what kind of a background he has in the topic, and what he hopes to learn from it? I have a hard time understanding that. A large part of the problem with the situation as I see it are the expectations that attach to a summer camp merit badge program. A Scoutmaster reasonably expects that the Scouts sent off to a class five days a week will finish up the badge by the end. Except that's only in a best-case scenario, and far too often I've had to deal with the worst-case scenarios. When the instructor has to spend two days reviewing basic knots for a third of the Pioneering MB class, it's utterly unreasonable to expect that group to be able to master ropemaking, whipping and fusing, lashings and a project in the three remaining days. It can't be done. And that hurts both the group and the individuals. Those of you who say it's the MBC's responsibility to make sure the Scouts have proper skills competence: What would you say to a summer camp counselor who sent a Scout back to you on the first day of summer camp because there's no chance, without extensive one-on-one work, that the Scout will be able to earn Pioneering by the end of the week? What would your response be? I have long been an advocate of a non-MB-centered summer camp program, where Scouts can show up at different areas to learn specific skills, not on a planned program to check off every requirement for a certain badge. That would be a heck of a lot more fun for everyone involved.

I'd agree, but in this case there was a 91 percent chance of severe thunderstorms. Many parents would justifiably have a conniption if you told Johnny to go hold a metal pole by the edge of the pond with lightning coming down. Hope all is going OK!

The examples I can think of: - There's the new Video Games belt loop in Cubs. - There's the tech pocket on the new shirts. - There was Mazzuca's 2008 statement to USA Today that some consider heresy: "The delivery mechanisms need to be tweaked. We still use a compass to show kids how to get around, but we also teach them how to use GPS. We leave them for a week on a wilderness elk reserve and tell them to leave the place better than they found it. You can teach a kid about character and leadership using aerospace and computers. The secret is to get them side by side with adults of character."

Depending on the space you have, a raingutter regatta can also be done indoors. The boats are easier to make than PWD cars, too. Also (depending on the space): - Knots, whipping the ends of a rope, rope tricks - Whittlin' Chip - Basic first aid (Cubs don't have to wait for Readyman!) - Make a weather vane, build a weather station - Flag-folding - Map & compass basics can be done at a table (check for metal parts)

Waaaait a second ... y'all have mattresses and springs in your cots?? You staying in a luxury hotel or something?

Caveat: I'm not an attorney. Libelous statements, according to the Media Law Research Center, must "have been published to at least one other person" and "must also have been made with fault." As the BSA didn't seek to have these files published, I sincerely doubt a libel case would stick. It had to turn them over in a legal proceeding, and other parties are now seeking to have them made public. It would be a very difficult argument to make that the BSA intentionally disseminated this information.

Eagle92, The over-five-feet-high-gets-overseen-by-a-COPE-director policy was in place at least by 1998, when I went to NCS for Scoutcraft. Generally speaking, a low monkey bridge is perfectly safe if done correctly, and doesn't need harnesses and safety ropes and all that. What it does need is a capable adult or senior Scout who takes responsibility for the construction and operation, from start to finish, so that one person is intimately familiar with the specific dynamics of the rope and bridge components and how they perform under stress and the proper ways to tighten and inspect the ropes. If I were in AnaMaria's shoes, with the lone Scout supposedly running the show leaving, I'd be concerned as well.

Personally, I'd be inclined to look at organizing the packs based on geography / neighborhoods / communities instead of splitting them by grade level. Part of the benefit of having a pack with the full Tiger-Webelos program is that the younger guys can look up to the older guys and get excited about what they can do in the future. But the biggest problem with packs split by age, it seems to me, would be the lack of stability in the leadership - of both the pack and the CO. As kids move up, in school and in the pack, you'd be losing your CMs and MCs and DLs every few years, not to mention your CORs and IHs. Every two or three years, you'd be reinventing the wheel with a new pack, which sounds to me like a recipe for disaster. Ask the Council folks who don't want to "lose" a pack to consolidation if they'd like to lose several packs permanently when the adult leadership falters at a transition year.

The Philly Inquirer editorializes in favor of a settlement: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100618_Editorial__City_takes_wrong_path.html#axzz0rCtLOKH3

Extra toilet paper.

CalicoPenn - I didn't say that Scouts should know how to build a shelter before taking WS. I did say that Scouts should have a basic level of familiarity with the outdoors before taking WS, in part so that they're not scared of the big bad dark. And while Camping doesn't require that you build a fire, by the time you've gone camping those 20 days and 20 nights and cooked those meals, you'll have learned how. As one of those counselors who had Scouts "failing" (your word, not mine), I take slight umbrage at your characterization. Mixed-ability groups are difficult for any teacher to work with, especially when you're talking about hands-on skills. A brand-new Scout unable to keep pace with his older, experienced friends easily gets discouraged. If the instructor has to keep coaching this Scout on very, very basic topics, that takes away from the rest of the group. So allowing Scouts into a badge that's above their experience and ability level is a double-edged sword. Perhaps this is more a condemnation of the summer camp MB system of "classes," which basically gives you five hours to run through an entire topic, than anything else. But I'd wager that's where the vast majority of Scouts complete MBs, so it's where attention ought to be focused.

Seems like we've had a lot of aquatics topics recently what with the summer getting started. I'd like to pose a historical question to the group. In looking back through my Fourth Edition SMH, under the rules now known as Safe Swim Defense, one of the items requires a certified lifeguard 18+ in charge of any unit swimming activity. Now, of course, certified lifeguards aren't required, but the qualified supervisor has to be 21+. Does anyone know when that item changed, and have any theories or information on why?