TAHAWK

I find nothing about where or how a third wheel would be attached to change the vehicle from a 1/2/4 to a 3.

There is no BSA standard operative procedure for the boys selecting their leaders other than "elect." "Elect" can mean different things to different people. If one boys says, "Jim, why don;t you take it," and every one else goes along, including Jim, that seems like an election to me. There is no term of office mandated by B.S.A. for leaders (Scouts) or troop Scouters. B.S.A used to suggest six months or a year but seems to have settled on suggesting six months, but B.S.A. has never opined on leaders (Scouts) succeeding themselves in office. There is lots of wiggle room. If B.S.A. literally meant what it writes about the supposed three "Types of Patrols,": there would be no place In B.S.A. Scouting for a 12-year-old who has not completed First Class requirements. (Read it. He's no longer 11; he's not First Class; he's not 13.) Based on others things B.S.A. says about "bringing Scouting to youth," the Types of Patrols language is simply another mistake by B.S.A.. staff It so clearly a mistake that few likely comprehend what the words literally say. We see what we expect to see - what rationality requires. If the method to achieve leadership ability (part of citizenship) includes experience as a leader, experience as a follower, and experience with different leaders, there is something to be said for turnover in office for PLs and SPLs.. If the objective is the well-oiled machine, a leader should stay in place as long as possible once he proves to be good at it. I still like one-year terms of office. I think the leader should be given an opportunity to lead after he has had a chance to figure out what he doing. I think a Scout becomes a leader becasue it's good for his leadership development and personal growth and good (enough) for those he would lead -- not because he "needs" a POR to advance. The latter would only be true if advancement is a goal. And I think B.S.A. agrees with my opinion - at least in some of its pronouncements ("Leadership Development")

As has been noted here several times by several posters, the need for a troop to run like a "well-oiled machine" is often the rationalization for adults running troops and patrols - a rationalization presented in Scouting in January, 2015 (Scouts were not "ready" for leadership in this years-old troop.) If we accept that it is the journey and not the end product, there is no great rush. If one did not like discussions, this would be a strange place to frequent.

I have experienced three answers: NSP in strict accordance with BSA guidelines. It worked as well as the Troop Guide understood his proper roll. If he thought he was the boss, did not work so well. The troop has not given the TGs any special guidance or training, so it's "pot luck." NSP "given" a Scout who had already been a PL with the expectation that he would be elected PL for the year (They used one year terms of office.). They took great care is selecting the "ringer" and gave him special training. Over half the time, the "ringer" is elected SPL the following year. In terms of participation and retention, has worked well ever since the NSP arrived. Another factor may be at work: this troop is very strong on furnishing good Den Chiefs to their feeder pack and periodically inviting Webelos to troop outings. New Scouts distributed among existing patrols by decision of SM, ASMs, and SPL. Consistent 50% loss the first year. Then they tried pairing new Scouts ("Who do you want to stay with?") in existing patrols. Finally, last Spring they asked the new crossovers, 5/6 of whom came from the same den, what they wanted. They wanted to be a patrol. The troop agreed but, in this first year of changed system, assigned an ASM to be, in effect, Troop Guide. He and I have talked a lot. He has finished basic training and will take Wood badge this Spring. I think he is doing a good job of staying as far in the background as one could hope - leading by questions ("How much time do you think that will take?" etc.) (He seems like the best candidate to become SM when the current guy moves on as he has said he will in 2017.) The strong group loyalty of these six boys is also clearly a factor. The one from another pack fit right in.

He can accurately say he got those ideas from the B.S.A., whose rules and regulations require it - even if some at B.S.A. seem to miss that point from time to time. "“(d) The membership of a troop shall be organized on the patrol system.†Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America (2016)

12 to 14 is two entire grades ! Middle School to High School ! An eternity !!!!

Try not. There is no try. Do or do not.

Can I ask why is it relevant at all whether turning an adult-run troop-method troop into a Boy Scout troop can be done overnight? Is it as as relevant as whether the boys will suddenly become miniature experienced adults and run the "well-oiled machine."? Of course it's hard. Even simple things are often hard - especially with things to "unlearn." But waiting to start in the right direction does not seem to work at all. We have troops here that have been waiting for the right set of conditions for twenty years. And while we are waiting, boys are missing out on the experiences that Scouting says helps make them better people and better citizens - things like experiencing democracy and being given responsibility. One could forget that the boys are expected to perform to "a boy's standard," not the standard of experienced adults. I became SM of a troop that was about dead. I had been out of Scouting or in Cubbing for eighteen years. I had no idea (at that point) about what had gone on in the 1970s or that the Patrol Method was no longer required or even strongly promoted. I could not miss "Skill Awards," but thought that was a detail. In my ignorance, I gave a brief talk to twenty-one Scouts about what would be happening in terms of planning and leadership, we had elections, and off we went. The ride was bumpy at times, but the troop was a Boy Scout troop. As the years went on, troop membership rose to forty-seven, and I attended Scout Roundtable sessions, I came to find that the majority of troops did not even allow elections for PLs, much less SPL. I heard about "lazy" Scouts, and "electing the wrong one." I was told it was "unfair too expect too much" and there was "no time for patrol meetings,." (The leading spokesman for abandoning Boy Scouting obtained his Silver Buffalo a couple years ago.) I noticed what had happened to BSA literature. When our CO decided its new Youth Ministry conflicted with Scouting, the troop went out-of-charter for the eleventh time in its history, and we combined with the neighboring troop. The SM of that troop was much-celebrated and very senior, so I volunteered up front that he should remain SM. That was lovely with him. I quickly discovered that the very senior SM talked Patrol Method but in reality made all the decisions (even for the other adults). Two frustrating months in, he made a tactical error by sending the SPL and two PLs to JLT (the NYLT of the day). They returned, unhappy, and organized all the leaders to walk away. I and the other SA talked the leaders out of quitting, but the SM caught wind of the unrest and left in a huff. I and the other SA flipped, he became SM, the troop has been Patrol Method ever since. Due to age, winter driving conditions, and distance after a move, I joined a third troop only ten minutes away, although forewarned about the one-man-band SM. I foolishly thought I could make a difference. I should have left when the PLs the first night could not tell me what patrol they belonged to. Again, the T of O of the troop was a single vertical line with one box. The SM even attends, and runs, the Troop Committee meetings. (official "Scoutmaster of the Year" for 2011) I left that troop and am with a troop whose new SM tries to run a Patrol Method troop. He really does. He finds it hard to stay back ("George! Hands out of pockets!") . He is too attracted to advancement as a program driver - but is strong on actually earning. They have enhanced program to keep older Scouts interested and so have a range of ages all the way to High School Seniors. All-in-all, It is so much better than the last gig that I am sure I'll stay. The troop seems to rotate SMs every few years, so there is a pronounced upside in a not-too-bad situation.

Stosh, and everybody, how about: "led by the leader they select as they carry out Scouting program that they collectively plan for their patrol" ? I keep worrying about how to explain this all more clearly.. But I cannot say I have hit any great resistance in teaching the Patrol Method at three Baden-Powell Institutes and two Universities of Scouting. I want to convince, not merely appeal to authority. Concrete examples help. There is a questionnaire floating around. It asks questions such as: >You are the Scoutmaster. You see that the Fox Patrol has several members with their hands in their pockets at Opening Ceremony. What, if anything, do you say, to whom, and under what circumstances? Discuss. >You are the Scoutmaster. A Scout comes up to you and asks when the campfire will start. What, if anything, do you say, to whom, and under what circumstances? Discuss. The analogy to Little League Baseball works. Everyone "sees" the insanity of: "I had to pitch. None of the boys could find the plate." When? Not when perfection. When Patrol Method? Anyone expecting instant perfection is probably in the wrong job - or species. Become an ant. It's not the quality of the decision, it's that the Scouts make the decisions. We have troops that for years have had the "goal" of being "youth-led" (as if that was all there is to the Patrol Method/Boy Scouting). They keep waiting for something - the Voice of God - the "perfect time" - the right "culture" (Scouting, January 2015) - the "right" boys. The problem is the adults. Assuming that you know even approximately what it is, do it. Find out all you can and refine your technique. An imperfect effort is superior to the troop-method, adult-led, non-Boy Scouting whatever is being allowed to be the pattern.

As you know, they can do that sort of thing without wheels. 0___0

Did the Scouts plan this? Were they guided in considering what resources might be needed? Let us say that the exercise is a failure. So what? Boy Scouting does not exist to execute efficient mulch spreading. I used to umpire youth baseball - Little League through high school. It was amazing how many adults acted as if the failure of a boy was their failure - think "aneurysm" At least in youth baseball, you didn't have adults taking the mound or striding to the plate, bat in hand. But that is exactly what I constantly see in troops.

Thank you. What do we do if no patrol wants "Billie"? Can we not influence some patrol to give him a try? I would now replace "help plan" with "collectively plan." Since the purpose is, in part, teaching democracy - with its perils, what democratic system other than election fits? Certainly, electing the "wrong PL" is a wonderful educational opportunity. I believe adults are a resource for Scouts to use in planning or carrying out their plans. If no Scout knows how to, for example, sharpen a knife (The BSHB is thin on all woods tools topics and the Internet is full of good AND bad information.), I do not see an adult teaching the PL how to sharpen as destructive of Boy Scouting. And neither did Bill, to invoke ancient authority. In teaching, the adult can set a good example. That is not to say that expecting Scouts to figure things out for themselves is unreasonable, even when they fail. A troop is more than a leadership corps of Scouts and adds more to a group of patrols. Scouts, for example, cannot sign-up for summer camp should the PLC decided to go to summer camp, rent canoes for an expedition, open a bank account, charter a unit, or (usually) arrange for product X to be purchased for resale. I use 'administrative" since most "patrols" today exist for the administrative convenience of the adult-run troop. Having said that, you do not need a literal troop at all. Call a patrol a "troop." Adults can "help" within the bounds of the Patrol Method with no actual troop. (Cross unit lines for competition and cross-pollination as was commonly done in the early days.) BSA had separately registered "Neighborhood Patrols" for decades. Many 'troops" today are adult-run patrols. The duty to insure safety is non-deligable. Youth act as a "force multiplier," but adults have the responsibility. It has never been the practice or the rule that adults "encourage," for example, Scouts to stop knife-fighting or bullying. As for waiting a year, I am totally against waiting past the introduction to leadership course that you and the SPL put on (if there is an SPL). The first requirement for using the Patrol method is to use it. If we lay aside the "well-oiled machine" there is no reason to wait until we are ready for Boy Scouting. Kids in small groups go out every day and do stuff. Typically, there is a leader. Start slow. It will be simple at first. It will be messy - just as if kids were in charge. You will probably have to do more standing in a corner chatting with the PL about "How are things going?" You might have to offer more of a menu from which they chose, but as long as they are truly choosing and clearly have the right to add to the menu, that is still OK I think. (My first SM called this avoiding "giving a menu of death, a broken arm, or ice-cream.")

Why not? Bags open. Wagons hold movable amounts. Shovels move shovels-full. The patrols probably included at least some members over 97 lb.

Comments. Please! 1. The patrol is the context within which the Scout primarily experiences Boy Scouting. 2. A “patrol†is a small, largely self-selected team of friends led by the leader they elect in carrying out Scouting program that they help plan 3. The Troop is the youth-led “league†in which patrol teams play the “game†of Boy Scouting beyond the single patrol. The troop exists for the administrative convenience of patrols. 4. Adults insure that Scouts have a safe place in which to play the game of Scouting and act as leadership trainers, Scoutcraft trainers as required, resources, coaches, counselors, and mentors. To the extent that adults lead, are leaders, they lead by example and through youth leaders.

Well, the AK47 is unlikely to be the answer since it has been a federal felony for generations to possess an automatic weapon without a federal permit. Use of alcohol is against BSA policy, as is hunting. Maybe loudspeakers and "popular" music.

And your solution for marauding wild pigs?

And your solution for marauding wild pigs? Bear Spray is supposed to be better than firearms for bears, but it is illegal to carry bear spray in many jurisdictions. Haven't heard about drug-crazed terrorists lately, but they led to adoption of the 1911 .45 pistol.

And, indeed, one can comprehensively teach the Patrol Method based solely on B.S.A.'s published words, primarily current B.S.A. statements. Bringing B.S.A.'s pronouncements on the Patrol Method together in a single presentation seems totally consistent with B.S.A. "other" training (Baden-Powell Institute; University of Scouting). But do we "fill in" Scoutmaster Specific courses, where it is not even a learning objective that the participants know what the Patrol Method actually is? Is bringing a coherent and complete explanation of the Patrol Method to Scoutmaster Specific training impermissibly expanding the "lines"? And what do we do when the training materials have errors per other, more authoritative B.S.A. materials and public materials? For example, IOLS syllabus material on dish-washing was for many years contrary to the G2SS and other B.S.A. publications on health and safety, not to mention state health laws. Some few IOLS course directors contended that the BSHB, errors and all, ruled over all else, including the G2SS. They held we were honor-bound "not to confuse the boys" (as if today's youth has problems with change). Integrity? I believe that B.S.A. should teach its program more efficiently and accurately, eliminating the frequent internal inconsistencies. That would require change. B.S.A. tells us change is inevitable (and I will be teaching that lesson again this Spring). B.S.A. also says that advocacy for change is to be orderly. Yet, B.S.A., after a brief "spring" of welcoming volunteer communication regarding training, is back to form brush-offs. ("Thank you for your interest in Scouting. . . . ."[!!]) There is no apparent official method for "mere" volunteers to advocate changes in training materials - per Council, Area, Region, or National. This situation can be endured, but it is unlikely to be appreciated.

JoeBob, perhaps you could give an example (or several) of what is nebulous about the Patrol Method. I am trying to distinguish between difficult and nebulous.

Where does "It's all optional" fit?

Here is an imperfect summary: SOURCE Orientation for New Boy Scout Parents http://www.scouting.org/Training/Adult/Supplemental/OrientationforNewBoyScoutParents.aspx "Imperfect"? Whoever wrote this says, "Patrols are one component of what we call youth-run, or youth-led, troop." That's backwards. The youth-led troop is one component of the Patrol method."

Teaching the Patrol Method is not an objective of IOLS. Worse, it's not an objective of Scoutmaster Specific Training to completely explain "Scouting's most important method" if one believes the syllabus -- just some aspects of it. We might try making it a training objective that each trainee learn what the Patrol Method is, and then write syllabus material to match. [Just one thing B.S.A. could do if the Patrol Method (AKA "Boy Scouting") were important to B.S.A..]

If that is all that was said, I would agree, but B.S.A. says all the right things - just not in any coherent way.

Schools are actually relatively safe according to statistics. Going and coming to school is also relatively safe. The shootings tend to start after dark. Why is it determinative that someone carrying a firearm on a Scouting activity is an LEO? Because of the B.S.A. rule? Because it would be safer? If the concern is safety, LEOs are not notably accurate in an absolute sense. The RAND study found N.Y. City LEOs hit their targets well under 50% of the time in gunfights -- 18% between 1998 and 2006. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf Most N.Y. City LEOs never fired at anything other than targets, which is possibly why they perform as they do when on the streets. N.Y. seems typical http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearm-accessories/gun-cleaning/articles/1764925-Where-did-all-the-bullets-go/ What RAND did not attempt to measure is how often the display of a firearm prevented or ended violence. I suspect the thought process - both ways - is based to a considerable degree on feeling rather than measurable facts. Add to that the clear lack of mutual trust, and you get some of the posts we have here.

I wonder how the Patrol Method can lose its luster as a result of its being actually understood and then strongly encouraged ? The Patrol Method was once the core of the Scouting "product." Even West abandoned his fear of the boy leader with his separate, small group by 1930 when Bill's The Patrol Method was published. Twenty-four years later, when I joined, it was the undisputed "way things are done." We pitied the boys in the two, notorious adult-run, troop method units in our council. They were both fed by giant Cub packs but steadily leaked members to Boy Scouts troops. Given that Scoutmaster Specific Training has failed to systematically explain the Patrol Method for fifteen years, with only a slight improvement in September, 2014 , we have a generation of adult leaders who have not been trained in Scouting's Most Important Method. If only B.S.A. could grasp that the quality of its "product" is directly related to numbers of youth registered and, hence, money Indeed, and worse, the January, 2014, article in Scouting on the Patrol Method expressly excused adult leadership when driven by the stated need for the well-oiled operation. ("not ready yet.") Much less, did the article mention any other aspect of the method, such as boys primarily experiencing Scouting in the patrol context, not the troop context. As for the sacred 300 feet; that's a detail. BP actually used different distances in different statements. Baden-Poweill, Scouting for Boys, "Campfire Yarn 9 - Camping" ("fifty or a hundred yards apart or more")