blw2

21 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Patrol method "requires" an attitude of space

i like that!

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

100 yards.

Yes!

isn't that only part of it..."100 yards" when on a troop camp

The idea of patrol activities that is being 'outlawed' (if I'm understanding this new rule correctly) is more about the encouraging the comradere of the group, the gang of friends to paraphrase Baden Powell.  the guys on their own decide to get together for some fun (or whatever) just like a bunch of neighborhood kids might do with their friends in the neighborhood

so 100 yards.... Yes, it seems like that practicing that is perhaps a decent compromise solution to this new 'problem'.

(but as I wrote before, since this is all theoretical for me...since I never really saw the patrol method and patrol outings or meetings in full-force action)

25 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Yes, I do not understand this either.   What I briefly read here is something like -- patrols will not be allowed to camp completely on their own without adults, and patrols cannot go on hikes, etc without adults present.   But I am not clear on the exact details and it will be important to understand exactly what is going on. 

I thin I might have posted this idea before....but in case I didn't

My read on this is the vast majority of units operate this way already...so this is really almost nothing new to a majority if I'm right.  It has just been an adult leadership unwritten rule, and now it's written as an official program rule ...

without getting too deep in the weeds, the OP's numbers are ballpark close to what our troop was....except for the uniform spread over multiple years, which has already been pointed out.

Also, I think we camped just a little less.  It varied but maybe more like 9 or 10 per year at normally $20 a pop, sometimes a little less or more.  

As treasurer, I hated that it seemed like we were forever asking for more money..... we need your dues.... we need your camping fee..... ah, we still have some unpaid dues.... time to collect the deposit for summer camp... and then the fundraisers which really end up in part a way to ask for more money from parents...

2 hours ago, Buggie said:

You can remember when phones were attached to the wall.  And you can remember albums.  Yah, you're ancient. (like me )

funny you mention phones.... just a couple days ago, I found myself explaining what a dial tone is to my almost 13 year old.  I had mentioned it in the discussion, as he and I were hooking up a new voip system for my wife's business fax, discussing how phones get their power....and he didn't know what it was!

17 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

(and lets be very honest here - Bear Grylls is in that role for one purpose - and one purpose only - marketing - to sell the Boy Scouts to boys and their parents in the UK).

yeah, of course....kind of my primary point....but no reason a knowledgeable and personable person couldn't advise too.  And certainly no reason a capable person sorta like that couldn't lead, too.  I'm just suggesting that it could be taken to a different level.  And yeah, I do think I'd a whole lot rather someone like him sit at the head of the table when they are devising changes to the program, requirements, or whatever.... as opposed to a starched shirt business guy that's probably more comfortable in a suit than he is in a tent.

19 hours ago, 69RoadRunner said:

At summer camp, the SPL and PLs are going to their own merit badges.

These are first year scouts.  The group we have this year might be good on their own.  We've had some special needs kids who could not.

At the beginning of the week, I'd want an adult making sure they get there.  They have no older scouts going to Brownsea Island with them.

Very common way of thinking these days.  It is how we are all conditioned now. 

But to look at perspective, and perhaps change your paradigm a bit.....I don't know how old you are, probably not quite as old as I am, but if you're close.... think about what age these 1st year scouts are.  Now consider the kinds of things you did at that age.  

When I was much younger than these scouts, I was on my bike or on foot, roaming the neighborhood...sometimes with friends, sometimes on my way to see friends.  I'd be out of the house for hours at the time, doing all sorts of things.... exploring new home construction sites, catching crawdads in the creek half mile from home..... My parents probably usually had a good idea of where I was approximately, some of the time, but often they didn't....could be anywhere within a mile or two... but I knew to be closer to home in the evening and to be home usually when the street lights came on...but not always.   I remember many times hanging out in the evenings under that street light.  This was Cub Scout age....

fast forward to the age we are talking about.... I'd be out with my friends roaming much further away.  Rode my bike to school sometimes just for fun, instead of the bus...5 or 6 miles away and this was in a small city. & I wouldn't say that I was any sort of exception to the norm...not a rough family, not bad irresponsible parents...actually quite conservative and I was fairly timid as a kid...

My only point is that these guys at that age can certainly handle getting to a merit badge class on the other side of a very controlled access boy scout reservation, crawling with scouts and scouters all willing to help....well most willing to help

20 hours ago, Saltface said:

It's not that he himself is a fake, it's the silly stuff he did on his show. If I were him, I'd lay awake every night worried that someone would believe my "techniques" like running straight down a mountain or swimming under a logjam were good ideas in a real survival situation and get themselves killed in a very unhappy way.

Yeah...I concede that point.

There is a difference though...in his case he's not out there primarily representing or showcasing scouting on his shows.  I do think I remember seen and episode where he ran face down a mountain in a semi-rappel sort of thing on a line.  Is that what you mean?  i'd take that as more likely representing military techniques...but sorta speaks to that 'cool' factor that hashtagscouts mentions.  I mean really if you think about it, if a tv show had to fallow the Guide to Safe Scouting 100%, it would probably make for a pretty boring show... 

Another point about the bear G example... he sort of does his show as a caring nice-guy with character....although I'll say I don't really like some of the sensitive interview stuff.

Yeah, I think hashtagscouts nailed it.... someone that seems cool and connects vs some upper middle aged boardroom guy in a starched shirt.  My point wasn't to build up or support Bear G in anyway really, it's more about the folks that are getting paid high salaries and the kind of job they do and the image they project.... it could be better spent on folks that will keep the program grounded and cool, more so than the way it has been...

1 hour ago, perdidochas said:

Well, then you are a better man than I am. 

thanks, but I seriously doubt that.

I know the temptation you write of, very well.  I had to work hard to resist it....

but

thanks to effort & interest on my part, enough to do a lot of reading books on the subject and participating here and actively reading scout blogs and listening to podcasts...I think I came up to speed very quickly.  Nothing about being a Cub Scouter certainly had anything to do with it.... Yes it was hard to resist and no doubt I wasn't perfect at it and made mistakes...  I'm remembering one of my early camps though that I went on with the troop.... a veteran ASM who was an Eagle as a youth, had attended Philmont, Order of Arrow, and all of that...good guy, very smart guy...but I remember him jumping in and doing it for a scout (building a fire I think it was).... and I tried to politely/covertly call him on it to steer the situation.  that's just an example, and not trying to brag or anything...just point out that blanket statements like "don't let first year scouters..." can be just plain dangerous to take without a grain of salt.

Since that experience, I have strongly felt that both cub scouts and cub scouters would be better served if training and the program in general, probably starting at the bear level, started to steer in the ideas in the patrol method and "boy leading the way" concepts....not going full in at that point, but easing towards that independence

yes, I knew all of that about Bear Gryls.

Yes, a person like that may not know how to run a board room meeting....but in my opinion they'd still make a good functional head in that they could steer things in a good direction for the youth.... keep things grounded so to speak.  they can always have accountant types or whatever supporting and advising them....

And call him a fake adventurer if you want... the guy was British special forces till he broke his back (that was my understanding anyway)...and he's on camera on his show all the time rappelling, climbing, scrambling, jumping off cliffs into lakes, paragliding, demonstrating scout-skills, and all sorts of stuff.  Often with a little scout pin on his lapel....  sure he has a support crew, and it's all staged.  So what?

5 hours ago, perdidochas said:

This needs to be repeated:

 DO NOT LET THE NEW SCOUTER ANYWHERE NEAR THE FIRST YEAR CAMPERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I keep seeing this said.... I get the idea, and it probably has merit most of the time, but I have a problem with the statement generally....

it's basic premise demands that the veteran scouters that are presumably teaching those first years what's-what, a) are teaching them, and b) understand it themselves...

sorta like the idea that if an adult was a scout as a youth, that they understand the 'code' or whatever....

or when questioned about something a veteran of the (job/trade/hobby/or whatever) says something like, "I've been doing this for X years...".  to that the inside my head voice says "doing what, doing it wrong a long time?"...well, usually it's not out loud anyway....

I'll say this, as a "first year scouter" at the troop level, I 'got it' much better than some of the veterans of the adult lead troop did....

41 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

And another one at Philmont with an adult who was pretty much useless 

was he useless, or did he truly understand the patrol method and the idea we call boy lead?

davidco, I think that is a very interesting perspective....good point.

It does seem like it's easy for so many adults to get caught up in 'playing the game'.  I'll admit that in some ways I did, but I think I was always aware of what I was doing and kept it tempered down....usually.  I think that many adults probably aren't so self-aware about it though.  While I wasn't actually doing work on the "requirements", I do enjoy this stuff and sort of feel like what we are often doing is similar to auditing a college course.  I've seen some take it to an extreme...forming the "adult patrol", and all of that....  I see this as one of the big reasons that it is all so common to have too many adults envolved.

I couldn't agree more with you about doing things like playing in the sand.... (or having a tea party with my nieces, etc...) so it's easy to keep that separation with things like that....but with scouting, it's like.... hey I like to camp, I like to hike, i like to canoe, i like i like i like....count me in!  Easy to get lost in it.

Whenever I think about those guys in national... the high paid ones... I don't think so much about over or under paid.  Hey, people are in high paid jobs leading all sorts of companies...but considering the pressure they are under, the hours they probably work (even when it looks to us like they are playing), maybe it aint' oh so bad.... I do get that it can be hard to swallow though from my perspective down in the lower end of the spectrum....

anyway, what I think about when I think of them is image of BSA, recruiting, etc...  I keep going back to Bear Grylls and his TV show.  I've heard the rumors about his cheating and faking survival situations.... but hey, he's out there in a very visible place doing some very adventuresome stuff that in theory at least scouts could do.  I still say that's the kind of folks the BSA needs in that leadership position...showing what scouts could do and routinely having fun.  Wouldn't it be great if you had a show with Bear or someone like him and a few scouts, instead of a celebrity.  (two deep compliant and all of that)...but doing some truly adventuresome stuff, maybe some quality one on one face to face interviews on mountain tops like Bear does in his show....

If those guys did more of that, don't you think membership numbers would be helped?  Would we generally be a bit more open to those high salaries for taht, instead of teh guy in the Board room all day?

one more thought... in an ideal world (in my thinking) the incoming SPL would have served as ASPL.  Sort of like an apprentice, learning the job.  that would count towards that do things the way they were done time before you make changes.

...this would make for a more seamless hand-off.   But I don't see this as real world for most troops

I can't answer directly since I was not involved with that process in my son's troop.  I can say that we were in many ways still "adult run oriented", and with that came regular elections on what I feel is a very short cycle....if I remember correctly it was roughly mid way through the school year.  Not only SPL but all positions changed.  This was done so that more scouts had opportunities for a POR.... seems good in theory,

but in my opinion you scouts should make the call when to vote or not...if the guy isn't doing a good job, THEN the SPL or maybe scouts in general will call for a vote... no term length limits on the low end or high, and no specific schedule for voting.

As far as transitioning....

In business I've never know really anything more that what you've described as a hand-off.  Usually not even that much.... the new leader comes into a vacated office and 'figures it out'.  My tact is this...and this is what I did when transferring my treasurer job too...  basically I think what you have done already.... have a short meeting to outline what you have been doing, your comments about any thoughts you have about what you would do differently, what really worked, etc...  IN my case there was some software to "train and practice for a bit", so we had a month or so transition where I worked with them before they took the job...It's all about just telling them what I did....NOT what they are to do do.

And then get out of the way and don't undermine, don't advise or jump in unless asked to, follow their lead the way THEY decide to do it etc...

and I think, IMO taht any incoming person should work a short period of time...maybe a week, maybe a month, or whatever, depending on the job.... just doing things more or less the way they were done by the previous person.  This is to better understand the why's, the players in regard to the role, and such...what I mean by that is this, for example you already know the scoutmaster BUT you don't know him from the perspective of the new job.

22 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

I spent a 40 year career writing, interpreting and enforcing Federal safety and health regulations.  Rule number one is "say what you mean" and then look for all the different ways it can be misinterpreted or circumvented.  It has to be "idiot-proof".  When you write a rule, standard, guideline, or whatever and tell people they can "use common sense and the Scout Motto" in assessing the risk, that is a trap meant to shift liability away from BSA.  As soon as the opposing lawyer asks "why did you not follow the G2SS when it is clearly written what you should do?" and you respond "well, my common sense and experience told me it wasn't necessary"...you're done.  As we all know, common sense is not very common any more...

in a similar fashion - in aviation, there is an overarching concept of 'pilot error'.  When you really get right down to it there really are very few accident causes that are not in some way "pilot error"

then there is the regulation that says the Pilot in Command is the final authority....

in part:

   The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of thataircraft.

   (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

so

rules are in place that in my thinking puts 100% of any responsibility squarely on the pilot's shoulders.

Pages and pages of fine print rules and regulations apply, but it really all boils down to that

11 minutes ago, Pale Horse said:

Honestly, if I had a daughter, I would just want her to be happy.  (Doesn't everyone say this?)  But really it's up to her whether that's through finding love and heterosexual companionship to raise a child or through other avenues.

We all want the "best" for our children, but everyone's "best" is subject to interpretation.  I'd much rather she find happiness through a non-traditional route than follow the path of least resistance.  Should I also verify that any potential suitors my (imaginary) daughter brings home has the financial means to support X level of lifestyle?  And try to convince her that marrying John is an inferior choice because Bob is going to be a Lawyer and make big bucks?

 

yes, lot of nuances for sure.

ok, so happiness is the ultimate goal.  What's the easiest way to achieve that?     through drug use maybe....artificial happiness.  No, we certainly don't want to encourage that.

but more to the point, what's the most likely way to be in a happy situation with regard to marriage? 

On one hand you have a couple who right or wrong is going to have a lifelong road of odd looks from others, misunderstandings, and all sorts of uncomfortable problems and situations (this could be based on religion differences, racial differences,  or diverging from any other cultural norm).  Another extreme might be two folks from very different cultures coming together...I don't know.. say a headhunter born and raised on some jungle island marrying a rich girl from the hamptons.

on the other hand you have a single parent who will have at least twice the workload, will not have a partner to brainstorm things with, will not have the yang to their yin, a widower dad that won't know how to deal with a multitude of issues that girls face (how to use makeup, braiding hair, biology issues, and the rest), etc....

and on yet the other hand you have, at least in our culture, a man and a woman who are emotionally compatible, fiscally compatible, share the same religious beliefs, come from similar backgrounds, and live in a community with folks just like them, etc...

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I learned that most adults don't really know specific skills to plan and run meetings, they just know how to be methodical.

I think that's a great point Eagledad.  

I started saying many years ago that I think every college grad should have taken courses in some very basic concepts that the vast majority don't understand, such as....

how to run a meeting and how to attend or participate in a meeting you're not running.

how to file stuff, calendar/schedule use, and how to keep organized.

how to deal with people (brainstorming, coaching, maintaining reason, understanding personality types, etc..)

Now that I think about it no reason that shouldn't be every high school grad.

In my experience, many of these things are touched on throughout school but never really tied together.

4 hours ago, Pale Horse said:

I guess I just don't understand.

Please explain to me what in fact is the role of the father...what is the role of the mother?  

To me those roles are exactly the same: love, nurture, educate and discipline as needed.  None of those are unique to either a mother or father, nor are they specific to a certain sex when a one parent of a same-sex couple "assumes" the role of the opposite sex parent.  In a traditional family, a mother and father may approach those tasks in different fashions, just like I would approach it differently than other dads out there.  Doesn't mean one of us isn't fulfilling our role in the family.

 

In large part you made the point I was trying to drive at.

I think you're missing the meaning....  look at it this way, what is the goal that you'd want your kid to shoot for?  Do you wish for your daughter to aim to be a single mom?

5 hours ago, ParkMan said:

It's clear that as a country - this is an unsettled question.

...or is it an agenda?  Personally, I don't think there's a question in all of this.

5 hours ago, ParkMan said:

It strikes me that it doesn't help the BSA or the Scouts to take a position on it.  Of course those that agree will be glad the BSA is teaching that through the advancement process.  Feels like the best role for the BSA is to stick to developing youth in non-controversial areas. 

absolutely agree

but

when we are trying to build  'Character' it's hard not to trip through that definition minefield

so, maybe it would have been better to take a firm stand one way or the other rather than walking the tightrope

19 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

The Guide assumes that the reader already knows - and I don't imagine very many Webelos den leaders know the difference if they have not been a scout before.

I think it's very important to consider that even adults that were scouts may not necessarily know.  I'd argue based on my observations that a really really high percentage of folks, probably a majority,  that were scouts and even eagles don't really know what the patrol method is.

On 5/27/2018 at 12:17 AM, The Latin Scot said:

I think it would be far more instructive if there were three parts to the requirement.

a. Explain the role and importance of the Father in the family.

b. Explain the role and importance of the Mother in the family.

c.Explain how they are different, and how both together contribute to building stronger family ties.

Whether the Scout is a boy or a girl, from a healthy family or a broken home, these questions are important, and will help develop stronger families in the future as the Scouts learn to understand the vital nature of each parental role in their families, whether present or future.

23 hours ago, Pale Horse said:

Sorry, I have to disagree.  Regardless of anyone's feelings either way on the issue, by their very nature and setup, the 3 above requirements infer all-too-bluntly, that single parent or non-traditional families are inferior to those with both a mother and father.   For many (most?) families the role of Mother and Father are interchangeable. We won't even begin down the path of families with 2 mothers or fathers.

Well aren't they inferior?

No of course there are exceptions.... a family with an abusive father is better off without that father

but generally speaking single parent families are a real shame.  Nothing wrong or shameful about them...hey, it happens.... and it is awesome that one parent goes that extra mile to raise the kids....but they are a sad situation and should not be looked at as a good goal to shoot for....IMHO.

I guess I feel the same about "non traditional families".  Sure some work well perhaps, and a kid raised in one of those is much better off than they would be in a abusive or otherwise broken "traditional" family....but again IMHO it's not the goal to strive for.  And besides....you might even argue that in many cases Latin Scott's "rules" still apply in at least some cases, probably most as far as I know, that of the non-traditional parent takes on the father role and one the mother role, regardless of gender. 

...and no, in a healthy family the roles are most definitely not interchangeable.  I don't mean that in the ways that there are women's jobs and men's jobs.....  I do the dishes most of the time in my family which is a traditionally "women's job" & I'm a dad.  No, men and women are inherently different and both of those very different roles are healthy for kids...IMO

I know the OP wasn't looking for a debate, but since the question has been answered, I'll say this...If I were given the task of making a rule for this....

I would rule against rules that make scouts lock them in the car for the weekend or otherwise prohibit them totally.  Instead I would outline some very simple guidelines for limited use using common sense and courtesy....such as don't use them at the meal table unless it's doing something to support the ongoing group face to face conversation such as looking up the answer to a question or to take a photo of a special moment with friends.  The only restriction would be around bath/shower houses...but that rule is already covered in the GTSS so nothing more would need to be written about that.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with scouts using them during down time or as a tool for any of their many possible uses.  No different than a novel (book), handbook or reference, map, camera, compass, alarm clock, watch, and on and on and on......  Just like in so many other ways Scouting should be a place to teach boys to use common courtesy in the real world.

In our old troop the scouts locked their phones in the car when not travelling.  Meanwhile the adults would use their phones throughout the week in manners just as I described.  I see no problem in what the adults did with them, EXCEPT the hypocrisy.

isn't using the name pedro racist?

I hesitate making that joke, but it came to mind.  I see that reference so often to things like this....sports teams and the like... when that really isn't the definition of racism at all, using a name to revere something.  Even using it to make fun or whatever.... it in no way communicates any thought of feeling that one race is superior in any way to another.....so It is simply not racist