TAHAWK

For generations, I have noted with interest that there is always a minority who think we are in the End Days of Scouting, locally or nationally.

I was told in 1959 that allowing Explorers to bring dates to Post "socials" was the BEGINNING OF THE END. (.... like rabbits.")

I was told in 1964 that the decisions to go to a "plastic" uniform, abandon the First Class Badge as Scouting's emblem, downplay the Campaign Hat, and allow (although discouraged) chemical stoves were all symptoms of the last stages of rot. ("I mean stoves! STOVES!!!! What are we coming to?")

In 1989, I was told that the many errors of the soon-to-be-involuntarily-retired SE doomed Scouting in my Council. ("It's only a matter of a couple of years and there won't be any more Troops here.")

And so it goes.

Do you really sell Scouters so short as to believe that, despite the changes propelled by the Age of the Lawsuit and despite wrong-footing at local or corporate HQ, no significant number of Scouters are capable of teaching and coaching Scouts to plan and lead an exciting outdoor-oriented program? Where do you think the bulk of the talent is in Scouting? At corporate HQ?

If we survived the "Improved Scouting Program" (40 years ago!!) banning signal towers is not even a bump in the road. A couple of adults within screaming distance is not the problem. What is in their heads -- contrary to less-than optimal (but clear enough) official Scouting teaching -- is the problem, and that was the problem in 1954. Some adults seems incapable of "getting it" when it comes to youth leading - now, in 1908, and in every other year of Scouting in the U.S.

Scouters with whom I disagree on many things balance that by being resources for exciting Scouting. Then there are those whose only "contribution" is to complain - and announce that The End is Coming.

The crusty old Ranger at Camp Rokili in the 1950's had a sign on his desk. "If you can't find anything good to say about the Camp, the door is behind you. Please don't let it hit you in the butt as you leave." While he did use "please," that message was not as gentrified as BP's words urging those who cannot support the program to leave. The point was and is the same.

If you are a registered Scouter, you voluntarily agreed to support the program. Those who are not Scouters are, of course, not honor-bound by the Oath or Law.

Do "Troop Program Features" seem to you to be pushing an indoor focus? 'Cause most of them were written decades ago and they provide for a a campout as the high-point for the vast majority of months.

That is not what we tell them in the two councils I train for.

It is rather sad that only "building a fire" rather than starting one is enough to advance.

I did get an answer to my latest request that elements the "Patrol Method" be expressly set out. The answer was that my observations would be referred to the appropriate people. In more words, that was the initial, form response. No, that does not satisfy, but it may even be accurate.

(I also asked them to do away with "patrol leader" [it's "Patrol Leader"] and the infamous "BP" quote about the patrol system, but those are minor errors compared to the slippery business of what the Patrol Method is to the corporation these days.)

If you are asking can BSA be stimulated to be more customer-friendly, they have in our council -- rather sharply and suddenly.

Since December 31st, the paid guy who was driving units (and staff) away from our council's camp with his authoritarianism and arrogance is out of that job - demoted two grades. His replacement eliminated the long list of "Thou Shall Not's" at camp with simply the Oath and Law. He has been "taking back" most of his predecessor's off-putting administrative positions (such as : "No, you can't have access to your site an hour early, and I don't care what your reason is. A rule is a rule."), asking the customers what they want and giving it to them. And the changes are now - this Summer - not in the undefined future.

Having been given BSA email addresses to communicate concerns, which is an improvement, all I have to show for communication thus far are form responses that my emails will the referred to "appropriate" persons. I have heard "Don't call us; we'll call you" before when I used contacts suggested by the staff at Scouting, so I have yet to see if the long-standing practices of ignoring volunteers is changing at that level.

The problem of top-down management losing touch with what is needed at the "field" level is pretty wide-spread in large organizations. I used to work for AT&T when it was the largest company in the world, and there was a reality gradient that meant the further you got from the customer going up the command chain, the less was known about what the customer wanted thought. ("Black telephones is all they need.")

There was Scouting before BSA - 99 troops in Cleveland before BSA. Attempts to start competing organizations since has not done well.

Units elect to have more or less to do with B.S.A. Some of our strongest troops have very little to do with Scouting outside their unit. They are the exception.

"Instead of moaning about this, just go out and get what you need, then put it in their hands and have them do it."

The choice is not one or the other. Proper BSA literature would ease the task.

"Reality is that no matter how well a manual is written, or how deep the material may be, it still must be LEARNED BY DOING. Meanwhile, share stuff as you can, and develop your own ways to pass the skills along, ways that work for you."

Absolutely.

The older Fieldbooks had much more Scoutcraft in them, as has been noted. It is hard to think of a book as a "Fieldwork" when it does not mention fires, rope work, pioneering, axes, knives, or cooking.

Over the years, much Scoutcraft has also disappeared from the Handbook.

So we know have a situation where all information on use of the axe, which BSA continues to sponsor, is confined, I think, to a single page of the Handbook. The information there presented does not tell a Scout what he needs to know to earn the Tot'n Chip -- required before he is supposed to use an axe.

"What has been happening is the new boys come over as new Scout patrols. They generally want to stay with their buddies that they've been with in Cub Scouts for years. They get assigned a youth Patrol Guide who is usually at least Star. over time, these patrols dwindle down and wind up merged with other patrols. On outings, there are usually ad-hoc patrols because of the limits on how much cooking equipment you can transport (and the Troop own without increadible expendeture)."

I was a Scout in a Troop of 120 Scouts years ago. It had no problem running the Patrol Method.

As a patrol is ideally a group of friends, having Scouts want to 'stay with their buddies" is hardly a problem. Boys want to have fun with their friends.

Why do the Scouts leave ("dwindle")? If "customers" start staying away, it would be good to know why.

Typically, Scouts drop out because they are not getting fun and adventure. That suggests a program that is too much talk, talk and not enough walk, walk. How much is "enough"? Are they staying?

There may be reasons to "dwindle" particular to a given boy that can be addressed. (Dad and Mom are drunk every day by 6PM and cannot drive Johnny to the meeting. Provide transportation. Real world example.)

Troop meetings present a real likelihood of boredom. Learning knots in the abstract is one thing. Learning knots for a wilderness survival campout or to beat the socks off the other patrols is quite another. Fun and adventure. You can ask them what's "fun." They will tell you, and you may be surprised. If you can't have a meeting that translates into fun and adventure, no meeting would be better.

The cost of outfitting a patrol for cooking over an open fire is far less that the cost of uniforming a single boy for soccer, much less football or baseball. You need an 8-10 qt. pot (and lid), a couple of smaller pots (and lids), a fry pan and some $1.00 utensils. Old steel oven (not refrigerator) shelves make grates. You need a three small plastic tubs for KP. Second-hand from the Goodwill, Volunteers of America, Salvation Army, garage sales, or the like works just fine. (A Scout is ...) Find some veteran Scouters and ask for ideas. It all fits in a Rubbermaid "Roughneck" plastic tub, or in packs if broken up for backpacking. It takes up less space than tentage for a patrol, and used reasonably will outlast generations of tents. (We have cook kits from the 1960's. They are obviously used but fully functional.)

Adding chemical stoves ups the cost by about $50 per patrol (Coleman Sportster II [Apparently single fuel Sportster is no longer manufactured.])

To stimulate thought:

http://www.outdoorcook.com/article1037.php

http://macscouter.com/cooking/

http://www.scoutingthenet.com/Camping/Outdoor_Equipment/Dealers/

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-15329.html

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-recycle-coffee-can-7730544.html

http://vidgrids.com/camp-cooking-equipment [There is a whole world of ideas out there. However, BSA has decided, totally irrationally in my opinion, that "home made" alcohol stoves are dangerous.]

I guess it comes down to what "present" means.

Absent a less abstract standard, we have decided within "Screaming distance" or "whistle call" is "present."

So nice to have reasoned discourse, Rick.

Rick says: "Maybe we can use EDGE to figure out what's missing from the Patrol Method presentation of Scoutmaster Training."

As of mid-January, neither "EDGE" was incorporated in the SM/SA training syllabus, which has many other problems. Beyond that, your comment is equivalent to "Maybe we can use FOS to figure out what's missing." Very "edgy" but hardly logical.

And what's wrong with teaching that talk needs to give way to application (Teaching EDGE) or that adults need to step back and let the Boys run things (Leading EDGE)?

Still waiting for a statement of your point, Rick.

WB needs to be improved? Doubt that given your unalterable hatred of all leadership training for generations.

Scrap current version and return to pre-1972 course? For all basic-trained Scouters or for elite as before? Cubbing Scouters?

What's your point, Rick?

I never took Commissioner's training. Not in 1910 or any other time. The other errors are of the same sort - positions I never held and events I never attended. Also, again, the positions I held, training i took, and events I attended are not listed. SO it's far more than a problem with the software buggering up dates.

The software that B.S.A. wants all councils to use to keep records of the Scouting history of current and former members merely served to destroy my council's records. I got a printout for me and it omits every single actual fact (position, training, event participation) and lists many facts that are all incorrect. For example, it has me taking Commissioner's training in 1910. I'm old, but not that old. (As I told BP, . . . . .) That's two years before B.S.A. arrived in Cleveland and four years before it arrived where I was born.

Rick, I often think we need to define terms because you use them in a unique way. An example is "adult association," which I think of as boys associating with adults who are good role models, but you seem to use as code for adults preventing youth leadership - apparently by simply by being within earshot.

"Associations With AdultsBoys learn a great deal by watching how adults conduct themselves. Scout leaders can be positive role models for the members of the troop. In many cases, a Scoutmaster, a merit badge counselor, or one of the troop parents who is willing to listen to boys, encourage them, and take a sincere interest in them can make a profound difference in their lives. Adult association is also part of what we call a youth-led troop. Adults understand that their role is to create a safe place where boys can learn and grow and explore and play and take on responsibilitiesand fail, and get up and try again. If you were involved with Cub Scouting, this is a very different role that can take some time getting used to."

Scouting.org

"Scouting is a game for boys under the leadership of

boys under the direction of a man."

"Scoutmasters need the capacity to enjoy the

out-of-doors."

"Success in training the boy depends largely on the Scoutmaster's own personal example."

"The Scoutmaster teaches boys to play the game by doing so himself."

"I had stipulated that the position of Scoutmaster was to be neither that of a schoolmaster nor of a commander Officer, but rather that of an elder brother among his boys, not detached or above them individually, able to inspire their efforts and to suggest new diversions when his finger on their pulse told him the attraction of any present craze was wearing off."

BP

So you ask, "Why is it that nobody ever brags about how useful Wood Badge training is for training a Patrol Leader how to guide his Patrol from point A to point B through the backwoods without 'adult association'?" [sic]

You are probably not literally asking why you know of no Wood Badger proclaiming on the internet that Wood Badge usefully teaches how to do without "adult association" as B.S.A. defines it. As B.S.A. controls the syllabus, it is unlikely to script teaching rejection of a Scouting methods handed down from BP.

So I guess you are probably asking why no Wood Badger in the Boy Scout program brags in the Internet about Wood Badge as good instruction on how to have a successful patrol hike without adults present, an activity that was clearly allowed for the vast bulk of the years post TEOTSWAYII (The End of The Scouting World As You Imagine It) in 1972 - and even for most of the years of Wood Badge for the Twenty-First Century. Such "hikes" were part of my Scouting experience, but rare due to the need to be driven to interesting and "wild" places away from the urban sprawl.

If that is your question, I haven't a clue. Wood Badge, in each of its major versions, teaches the Patrol Method. An independent patrol "hike" (actually backpacker) to a separate patrol campsite without the "adults" (staff) being present has been part of each version of Wood Badge. I am not sure why people don't get on the internet and "brag" about such hikes by boys. What conclusion do you draw? That all the people who take and teach the course are inaccurate about what is taught? That is it taught so badly that no one draws the correct conclusions despite BP's comment that example is the best form of teaching? That the "participants" reject the message?

I do not believe that it is expressed in the syllabus that patrols should camp apart. From the courses I saw in 1959, 1984, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 2008, or 2009 it was not made express. It just was how things were arranged. Apparently, example is not enough. I have agreed that not enough emphasis on the meaning of "Patrol Method" is in the training. Much is assumed, with all the attendant risks. We are using "other" training in our council ("Baden Powell Institute") to attempt to correct that problem.

I do note that it is now to be taken as a fact, without any evidence whatsoever, that not one Scouter in 1000 "takes back" separate patrol sites and patrol hikes to his "home unit."

We are aware that "home units" include teams, crews, and packs, right? No patrols.

And some already know and use that aspect of the Patrol Method.

Basement, you do seem to have had a poor experience. It happens. An experimental course in the 1980's looked at returning to the original syllabus. It was a disaster primarily due to the staff who were, I was repeatedly told, excessively "military." Even Bill's presence could not overcome the extremely authoritarian style of the SPL. (There was also mention of too much Poison Ivy, and I do not think that was code for anything else.)

Wood Badge (and NYLT) currently teach that the proper role of the adult is to, as quickly as possible, be in the background with all actual leadership being by the youth ("Enable") - to be a resource and mentor, not the leader.

The problem of adults not understanding their proper role has been present in Scouting from it's beginnings in the U.S. to the present date. Policy at first encouraged active adult program leadership, with youth acting an "noncoms" to the adult's "officer" role. However, B.S.A. publications from at least 1930 to the recent past devote considerable space to repeatedly discussing this problem and urging adults to behave. (My Council in 1949 [and others] set as its "Annual Goal" training Scouters to the end that all Troops be run on the basis of the "Patrol Method.")

There is no simple solution to this problem as society in general does not assign the leadership role to youth when adults are around. Also, many adults wrongly believe that skill proficiency is the objective and jump in to "help" each time a pancake is getting burned, not letting the youth find solutions. Finally, a good many adults are drawn to the program out of a misdirected desire to lead ("The King of the Commandos" syndrome).

I am aware of no Wood Badge course where the patrols camp together on the second weekend. I am aware of no NYLT course where the patrols camp together at any time. I would not be shocked to hear that they exist. I just have never head of them. If they exist, the Course Director needs retraining or replacing.

Boys hiking (or backpacking) totally bereft of adults would surely compel youth leadership but, as I have pointed out from personal experience in the 1950's, adults in the area need not be a problem IF they have been properly trained and held accountable for behaving.

In any case, the lawyers (on both sides) have insured that youth will not be sent off alone into the wilderness (natural or urban) on B.S.A. time, regardless of yearnings for past practices, real or imagined.

"Not sure how I feel about the beads, probably they are a symbol of exclusion and elitism that is contrary to scouting's aims."

The beads were the sign of membership in a pretty exclusive club at one time. That was when it was by invitation only and the least senior learner might haven ten years as a SM.

It got considerably less exclusive in its second version starting in 1972.

Now that the goal is to have all active adults in Scouting's traditional programs take it as a matter of course as ASAP, it is far from exclusive. It is an expectation for active Scouters.

If you go into it with a bad taste in your mouth, you probably won't like much on the "menu," however well prepared and presented.

People who act elitist on the basis of being entitled to wear a training award would probably act that way in any case. "Special" people are that way. Just ask them. They're special.(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

"Trev: Remember when Walika would only let us have 1 flap every 3 years or so, and one necker patch per lifetime?"

San Gorgonio (298) was the name on the neckerchief patch. You got one when you passed the ordeal and that was it. If you wanted another neckerchief patch you had to get it from another member who, for some reason, didn't want it. Today, no one knows what they are. Flaps were readily available.

BP, Bill, and every icon of scouting you could mention, all argued for citizenship and obedience. There is not a splinter of evidence in any other direction and mountains of evidence for scouting being intended as a citizenship training program.

It is . . . . different . . . . to argue otherwise. Also clearly wrong, I think.

Congress has so little to do with the current state of scouting or the BSA that it is a waste of bandwidth to post about it.

1916 scouting was, of course, mostly adult planned and adult led. Not so good for our "scoutcrafting" analogy. There was a lot of that going around in the 1930's or Bill would not have spent so much space arguing and teaching against it. It was there in 1950's, and it's still a curse today. The "teacher/classroom" or "parent/child" models are all too common in this 103rd year of U.S. scouting.

As for what intrigues kids today, there are facts that suggest less interest in the outdoors than in 1916 - or 1954 for that matter. Go to a "sportsman's show" and talk to vendors about sales of fishing tackle and hunting gear in absolute terms, much less relative terms. The kids are not being coerced into spending time on the Internet. These facts are not at all pleasant to contemplate, but reality often has some relevance, at least to some people.

The "charter" does not "require."

Other than for trademark purposes, "Scouting" should not be confused with B.S.A. "Scouting" was here in 1908. There were ninety-nine "scout troops" in Cleveland before B.S.A. appeared.

"Scouting" is almost entirely done by volunteers. They don't do it for money. They may do it to achieve the stated aims or some version thereof. They may dream of creating "scouting" as they imagine it was. They may do it because they think Eagle looks good on their son's resume. They may need to be The King of the Commandos.

One would think that in the 103 years since scouting started in the U.S., some successful competition would have shown up. But scouting, and the B.S.A., languish like the Elks, bowling leagues, and the local garden club.

Just don't think the Charter is very important. It neither proves nor controls anything important. You do.

(Are "da traditions" related to some exotic eastern religion? Dao? Tao? Beaver worship?)

B.S.A. is one of about 100 fraternal, charitable, or patriotic organizations that is chartered by Congress. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sup_01_36_06_II_08_B.html (One is the N.E.A., and that would be an interesting discussion - for the political forum.)

This discussion might be aided by knowing that a Congressional Charter not only does not make the private entity a federal entity, it does not give the federal government power to supervise the operation of the private entity. http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/CRS-RL30340.pdf The charter is almost entirely honorific. [but see Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91913 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America ]

As for "monopoly," the "monopoly" is in the use of the words, phrases, and symbols of the B.S.A. Pretty normal stuff also protected by federal trademark law. (http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/Licensing/Protecting%20the%20Brand/Boy%20Scouts%20of%20America%20Trademark%20Listing.aspx. ) United Features Syndicate gets the same protection for Snoopy" and the rest of the Peanuts gang. I used to send the threatening letters to Fire Departments (Snoopy fire hydrants), model airplane flying clubs (Snoopy as the "Red Baron") and, yes, Boy Scout Troops (The "Snoopy" Patrol"). One must defend the mark or lose rights in it.

The Congressional Charter now states that: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts." It seems likely that if B.S.A. adopted a mark already used by another organization, B.S.A. would lose.

Don't give it any thought. Call your organization "The Young Pioneers" or the like and soldier on. It should be easy to replace B.S.A. since we, including myself, find so much that does not suit. Or is the desire to piggyback on the value of the words, phrases, and symbols built by 103 years of volunteer effort?

If so, the BSA website doesn't know it.

"Unauthorized and Restricted Activities

The following activities have been declared unauthorized and restricted by the Boy Scouts of America:

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are banned from program use. ATVs are defined as motorized recreational cycles with three or four large, soft tires, designed for off-road use on a variety of terrains.

Boxing, karate, and related martial artsexcept judo, aikido, and Tai Chiare not authorized activities.

Chainsaws and mechanical log splitters may be authorized for use only by trained individuals over the age of 18, using proper protective gear in accordance with local laws.

Exploration of abandoned mines is an unauthorized activity.

Varsity football teams and interscholastic or club football competition and activities are unauthorized activities.

Fireworks secured, used, or displayed in conjunction with program and activities is unauthorized except where the fireworks display is conducted under the auspices of a certified or licensed fireworks control expert.

The selling of fireworks as a fund-raising or moneyearning activity by any group acting for or on behalf of members, units, or districts may not be authorized by councils.

Flying in hang gliders, ultralights, experimental class aircraft, or hot-air balloons (whether or not they are tethered); parachuting; and flying in aircraft as part of a search and rescue mission are unauthorized activities.

Motorized go-carts and motorbike activities are unauthorized for Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs. All motorized speed events, including motorcycles, boats, drag racing, demolition derbies, and related events, are not authorized activities for any program level.

Participation in amateur or professional rodeo events and council or district sponsorship of rodeos are not authorized.

Pointing any type of firearm or simulated firearm at any individual is unauthorized. Scout units may plan or participate in paintball, laser tag or similar events where participants shoot at targets that are neither living nor human representations. Units with council approval may participate in formally organized historical reenactment events, where firearms are used and intentionally aimed over the heads of the reenactment participants. The use of paintball guns, laser guns or similar devices may be utilized in target shooting events with council approval and following the Sweet 16 of BSA Safety. Council approval means the approval of the Scout Executive or his designee on a tour permit specifically outlining details of the event. (However, law enforcement departments and agencies using firearms in standard officer/agent training may use their training agenda when accompanied with appropriate safety equipment in the Law Enforcement Exploring program.)

Hunting is not an authorized Cub Scout or Boy Scout activity, although hunting safety is part of the program curriculum.

(The purpose of this policy is to restrict chartered packs, troops, and teams from conducting hunting trips. However, this policy does not restrict Venturing crews from conducting hunting trips or special adult hunting expeditions provided that adequate safety procedures are followed and that all participants have obtained necessary permits and/or licenses from either state or federal agencies. While hunter safety education might not be required prior to obtaining a hunting license, successful completion of the respective state voluntary program is required before participating in the activity.)

Motorized personal watercraft, such as Jet-Skis, are not authorized for use in Scouting aquatics, and their use should not be permitted in or near BSA program areas.

Except for (1) law enforcement officers required to carry firearms within their jurisdiction, and (2) circumstances within the scope of the BSA hunting policy statement, firearms should not be in the possession of any person engaged in camping, hiking, backpacking, or any other Scouting activity other than those specifically planned for target shooting under the supervision of a certified firearms instructor. (Among the purposes of this policy is to prohibit adult leaders from bringing firearms on BSA camping and hiking activities or to unit meetings.)

Parasailing, or any activity in which a person is carried aloft by a parachute, parasail, kite, or other device towed by a motorboat, including a tube, or by any other means, is unauthorized.

All activities related to bungee cord jumping (sometimes called shock cord jumping) are unauthorized.

Technical tree-climbing with ropes or harnesses is not authorized as an activity.

Water chugging and related activities are not authorized for any program level."

So still looking for a statement that two-deep leadership is a precondition of coverage. Until then, still a "myth."

I can find no statement in BSA publications on insurance through B.S.A. that state any precondition whatsoever on coverage if you are a covered person, such as a registered Scouter or chartered organization.

Lacking such a statement, it seems perfectly fair to call any claim that compliance with Two-deep Leadership is a precondition for coverage a "myth."

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss10.aspx

However, recognize that failure to comply with GTSS makes a plaintiff's lawyer's job easier in proving "negligence." In most jurisdictions failure to comply with "safety standards" is admissible as proof of negligence.

BSA insurance provides no coverage for intentional or criminal wrongdoing, and most state's law prohibits insurance for such acts.