Twocubdad

That would be one solution, another would be to quit pretending that every breath you take at summer camp must result in earning a MB. Instead of turning everything into a "Class", maybe the boys will go do a variety of fun things during the week of camp. If they have the initiative, they can then take the knowledge and experiences they gained at camp to the local counselor at home to earn the MB.

Had a Cub dad like that, 83E. Always signed on to come to the last day of resident camp, spend the day and night with the pack and help get us home Sunday morning. Funny though, it never really worked out that way. He would wander in sometime after lunch Saturday, follow us around camp an hour or two and have dinner. Shortly before the closing campfire, you would see his son heading for the parking lot with his gear. There was always some late-breaking reason they needed to be home Saturday night and/or early Sunday (no it wasn't church, more likely an early tee time). He pulled this six years straight with three sons like clockwork. Don't know why he felt the need to play the game -- just tell us you don't want to help with the cleaning and loading so you're picking your son up early.

I've not heard anyone express why chartering the camp staff as a crew is an advantage. Okay, meeting 24/7 for six or eight weeks is probably more than most crews. But as a camp staff aren't they meeting anyway? It gives the non-BSA types a unit to register with. They can also register as council employees. Or heaven forbid, the youth staff members could go out and find an existing unit they really want to join and register there. Is the requirement for staff to be members of BSA just a paperwork/insurance thing or do we want our camp staff members to have some sort of demonstrated commitment to the program? They get to have Christmas parties. And only chartered crews can do this. Clearly, the only reason this comes up is to pump someone's numbers. Seems like every couple years someone comes back from the national meeting or some national training with a new idea for how "create" crews. At one point there was a push to charter the JROTC from every high school as a crew. Then OA chapter scam ran it's course. The SE finally put a stop to it when the DEs all but started a fist fight to see who got to claim the lodge crew for their district. "Paper crews" in this context, Shortridge, have to do with motivation, I think. Forming a Venturing crew should be motivated by the desire of a chartered organization to organize a program for their older youth based on the methods and aims of Venturing. And it goes to the intent of the kids joining. Do they intend to be Venturers, to be crew officers and work toward Venturing advancement? Or do they intend to be camp staffers, OA members or JROTC students? And what do you do with the kid who joins one of these crew with the intent of really persuing the program only to be told, "sorry kid, we're really just camp staff." If there is no intent to run a Venturing program, it's a paper crew.

Unfortunately parental rights trump SM's every time. Ummmm..... yeah, maybe, but I'm not sure parents have a right to create turmoil within the troop, cause the leaders lots of extra work and aggravation and potentially ruin summer camp for other boys. We always tell parents of first and sometimes second year Scouts to please not come to camp and plan to leave before the end of the week. If you can only stay one day, come Friday and drive us home Saturday. Got two days? Come up Thursday. If you come up Tuesday and think you're going home Wednesday, you'll have an extra 68-pound piece of luggage in the back seat. While that's always been a friendly suggestion, after this year it will be raised to a stern warning with crossed arms. This year, unknown to me prior to camp, we had the dad of a new Scout who came up with us with plans to go home Wednesday. What a disaster -- mostly for the son, but it created a terrible problem with a handful of other homesick newbies who were constantly reminded how they missed their parents. The problem wasnt' so much when the dad came and went, as it was the way he fawned and doted over his kid. I had staff members come up and ask me if the kid had some terrible illness. It would take me an hour to go through the whole story, but suffice it to say that I won't go through that again. I may not be able to keep a parent away from his son, but I don't have to sit back and allow him to poison the whole troop. I spent hours and hours dealing with homesickness this year. It's not fair to the other Scouts or the adult leaders. I can deal with homesick boys. That's what we do. I can't deal with with parents who are so selfish as to inflict themselves on all the rest of us to ease their own separation anxiety. Sorry for the rant. Still somewhat of a sore subject.

Where appropriate, let the DLs promote them, particularly the awards where some of the requirements fit into the den program, like the Outdoor Activity Award. One thing I always found helpful was to provide the parents with a handout, score sheet, requirement list or Internet address for the info. For something like religious emblems, where it's largely a matter of individual initiative, or something that you really want to jumpstart within the pack, my trick was to find a couple likely candidates, sell them on the program and help them earn it, then make a BIG DEAL of the presentation at a pack meeting. Nothing like a little patch envy to motivate boys.

Hope the screen door didn't hit them in the butt.... Any idea of the remaining Scouts who have open merit badges with these folks? I would make sure you have counselors for the MBs they covered and very simply let the boys know the names of the "new" counselors and that they should work with the new folks from now on. I would ask the new counselors to cut the boys some slack for "completed" requirements which may not be documented. Don't get into the drama, just shuffle the boys off to the new counselors. I bet most folks will assume it a normal course of business to get new counselors when the old ones leave the troop.

Wasn't there a thread a year or two ago related to an initiative in the NE Region for which the developed a set of "super" camp standards (my phrase). The idea was to look at camps and councils from a longer-term standpoint that the one day snapshot current camp inspections do. As I recall it considered things like long-term attendance trends, staff retention, maintenance budgets, capital improvements, year-round use, etc. The intent was to determine which camps were making the grade long-term, not just year to year. Anyone have an update on that? I mentioned in another thread there is currently a group working to rewrite the camp standards. I would suspect there will be some element of that thinking in the new standards.

For those of you who think councils should be run on a more business-like basis, this is it -- corporate restructuring. When an organization doesn't produce the desired results it is "restructured." The real purpose is to scramble the existing organization in such a way as to make the current goals and objectives obsolete. New goals are then adopted with a clean slate. After a period of time it becomes clear that the new goals are not being met and the cycle repeats itself. It's like bumping the chessboard when you realize you're about to be check-mated. See also "Hawthorne Effect" and "Rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic"

I love analogies. dkurt --- the only problem with this one is that we "nutritional advocates" tend to be the wholesale buyers of the Big Macs. Although I don't disagree with your premise. I've said a number of times, including in this thread, that we're swimming against the current of the market forces in Scouting. Most troops and their "coffee swilling leaders", as BP calls them, want the wall-to-wall MB programs. (Although in defense of coffee swillers I think I run a pretty good camp program with a coffee mug surgically attached to my left hand.)

We always had a handful of guys doing the mile swim, but after a couple years where the guys did 3 or 4 days of preliminaries then swam 9/10ths of a mile only to be yanked at the first rumble of thunder, the whole program developed a bad rap. The guys who had been burned a couple years would discourage the new guys, telling them it was a waste of time. Consequently it's been a couple years since anyone tried. Here in the southeast, we get thunder EVERY afternoon. At some point you would think the staff would schedule it earlier in the day.

Spent three hours every morning this year working with first year campers teaching Tenderfoot skills, and at least part of every afternoon helping kids with wood carving. I didn't really feel hostile to advancement. Everything in proportion. Grinding our merit badge classes from 8:00am to 4:00pm is not proportional.

POOL???? You woosie. This year was my eighth as summer camp with the troop and I've developed a few ideas over the time (and no, eight years isn't a particularly long tenure): 1. Giving away unearned MBs is wrong and I don't mind tell ing the poor schmuck from the Advancement Committee who has the misfortune to be in camp my week. 2. I don't really worry too much about elective MBs. Most of my guys make Eagle with a 8 or 10 MBs to spare, so if they want to take Scholarship or Reading (neither or which are actually offered) at summer camp, it's their wasted hour. 3. I draw the line on required MBs. I only sign summer camp blue cards for Swimming, Camping, Lifesaving, EnviroSci and Emergency Prep -- and EPrep is on my hit list to bring in-house. Otherwise required MBs take individual effort, one-on-one with a troop counselor. 4. I don't want my guys taking 7 or 8 MBs at camp. I'd rather them come back to the campsite and sleep than take MB classes through the afternoon. We offer enough fun stuff through the troop to ensure that hanging out with your mates back in the campsite is more fun than earning eight MBs. 5. Where I really have an issue with the camp program is the trend to extend MBs through to dinner, taking facilities, staff and time away from free-time activities and allocating them toward more MB classes. I understand, however, that I'm swimming upstream on this one and most troops and SMs are looking for camps which maximize the MB opportunities. Our response is to offer the fun stuff ourselves in our campsite. I can't wait until we get to the point we have kids from other troops in our campsite doing stuff and their SMs have to come to us to find their Scouts.

BP must have edited the juicy stuff from his post, as I generally agree with him. (This is getting scary, BP, we're agreeing on way too much stuff lately.) My reference, T-hawk, was to national's responding to requests for clarification on the "active participation" requirements by effectively redefining the good old English word "active" right out of existance. As John-in=-KC often reminds us, we need to be careful what we ask for. Pushing too hard on camp MBCs may get a rewrite of the rules we don't want. But yes, hope springs eternal and perhaps the new, being-released-any-day-now-for-the-past-year Advancement Guide will bring some light to the subject. Speaking of rewrites -- is anyone aware of the taskforce now rewriting camp standards? While most camp standards deal with health and safety, they also cover program requirements. Perhaps this is a chance to have some input on camp programming. beleon44, you don't have an email address for those guys, do you?

And there is a fairly good chance that if enough SMs push the point, national will simply change the rule to exempt summer camp from MBC requirements. As is, out camp plays the game that the over-18 area director is the MBC of record, despite the Scout eaning a MB may never have any contact at all with the AD. So here's an idea: if your camp play fast and loose with the rules, you should too. Namely the rule that says a signed blue card is a done deal and a SM cannot question it. If the card is signed by a 15-y.o. counselor, you've got a pretty good argument that the card isn't valid anyway.

I recall reading that the West Virgina National Guard will be heavily involved in operations. The military had a lot of folks at past jamborees working recruiting and PR stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if the military now becomes the equivalent of a corporate sponsor, trading sponsorships for operational, logistical and security support. Just because the army isn't our landlord doesn't mean they won't be around. Just my assumption.

Ummmm.... it is probably a safe assumption that anytime someone cites "99%" of anything, it is intended as a colloquialism, which was the case in my posts. Any by the way, BP, if your 12 lost souls happened to be in Great Smokey Mountains National Park, they represented 0.000127% of the 9.4 million visitors last year. But who cares. Back to Scouting, I don't especially care if Scouts complete Camping MB at summer camp. Most of the requirements are boiler plate anyway. Requirement 9, which our Scouts complete with the troop, is the guts of the badge. By the time they have 20 nights camping, I'm confident they know and/or have completed the important stuff. At that point, to whom they describe the types of tent and care of hiking boots it not something I'm going to get excited over.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Using that logic, T-hawk, we're going to have to change the requirements to Nuclear Science MB least some kid be put in charge of a nuclear power plant and cause a melt down. 99% of us will never be in a survival situation. Of the remaining 1%, their best course of action will be to hug a tree and blow their rescue whistle. I believe my boys learned that lesson very well from an episode of Barney before they started cubs. If practical WS training is the goal, let's just show the Barney episode. But MBs aren't only about practical training. They should be fun, too. With the popularity of Gryllis, Survivorman, and the hippie dude who's always barefoot, (personally, I like the show with the hot British chick), WSMB need to be an opportunity to play out Man vs. Wild for a few days. Sure, it needs to include a heavy dose of practical skills and the talk about Death Angel mushrooms, but somewhere between Barney and Bear drinking his own pee, we need to be offering the boys the adventure we promised. If during a week at summer camp we can't top what the guys can get sitting on the sofa watching Discovery Channel, it's time to wiz on the fire, call in the dogs and head on back to Bowlegs. And by the way, anyone receiving this sort of program at summer camp should be all over the camp director AND your council's advancement chairman. Advancement committees are required to review and sign off on the MB programs at summer camp ensuring both qualified counselors and that the requirements are being met.

One of our more popular events is a wilderness survival campout for which the Scouts all build their own shelters (usually in pairs) and sleep in them. We've also done edible plants (yeah, someone needs to explain to me why leating local plants is unwise), and utensil-less cooking. One year we had a retired Marine dad teach corps-style SERE training. (That was cool. If you don't give the right call sign before you come out of cover, your own guys shoot you.) As such, I don't pay much attention to wilderness survival MB at camp. The guys who take it at camp ARE there just to fill out the sit-and-listen requirements we don't cover in the troop.

I think I'm a member of every group listed (except the moms) but I'm not insulted in the least. I have always said Eagle Scouts make some of the worst adult leaders we have (the are also some of the best, but let's set that aside for now). There is a big difference between being a Scout and a Scout leader. Not every adult Eagle Scout sees that. Too many simply remember all the fun they had as a Scout and want to continue it. These are the 35-year-olds leading the snipe hunt, or elbowing their way up to the fire to show the boys when to flip pancakes. Life is different in the box vs. outside the box. They don't recall their Scoutmaster standing back with his arms folded just watching, or the training he attended, or the discipline problems he handled privately. The proof is in the pudding. I'm not insulted because I don't believe the labels don't apply to me. Neither do I care if someone refers to our troop as an Eagle Mill because I know the sort of program we run. Sticks and stones....

I don't think they should go for free, but they shouldn't have to pay fundraiser prices to attend with their sons. No, it's not about mom and dad. If the Scouts can arrange transportation, fine. But if someone is driving their son an hour or more across the council, they shouldn't have to sit in the parking lot and eat drive through. As the host of such an event, I would think it inconsiderate to treat the parents as either cab drivers or FOS whales. Our council gets it right -- parents are allowed to attend and pay what is probably the cost of the dinner. My boys play in a community orchestra which is about 60/40 adult/youth musicians. They frequently play at some very nice functions. The band requires parents to attend with youth under age 14 and with those under 18 for out-of-town gigs. Expecially given transportation issues, the parents are usually around regardless. We are almost always treated as guests at the events. At one event were the parents were told to remain outside by the service entrance, we fairly quickly told the band organizers our children wouldn't be available for that performance in the future. We don't necessarily stay for meals (neither do the band members) but are always treated very cordially. There is no reason the Boy Scouts can't do the same.

After the Presidential Death March in 2005, hydration was a big issue at Jamboree last year. I sent an email to all our scouts suggesting they drink one sports drink for every four waters and encouraging them to pack the small individual packets of sport-drink mixes they could add to a bottle of water. We also discussed eating smart and generally taking care of themselves. I received a LENGTHY response -- did I mention it was long -- from a dad of one of the Scouts discussing hyponatremia. This guy is an ultra-endurance athelete. He runs several marathons A WEEK in training for races which are typically up to 100 miles (who has time for that?). His feeling was that off-the-shelf sports drinks don't contain enough sodium. He had his son carry a small vial of sea salt (don't know if it were kosher or not) and added about a half-teaspoon to everything he drank. He claimed to have the research to back up his opinions and sent me several really interesting web sites, which I cannot find. But Google hyponaturemia and you'll find a lot of information. The one thing I did learn is that your body can only process about one cup of water every 15 minutes, so drinking more than that can lower your electrolyte concentrations and more than likely give you the runs. So don't chug a whole quart Nalgene when you stop for a break, drink a little along the way. My feeling is that we're not likely running 100 miles and that as long as you are clear, copious and sweating profusely, and eat a balance diet, you'll be fine.

Sorry, SP. I didn't read your post thoroughly to the end, but I guess we're saying about the same thing.

Maybe the negative side of that, momof2, are the boys who don't care much for Scouting, drop out by the 8th or 9th grade, but do so having earned Eagle. No particular point to be made, just a thought.... Who asked for a definition of and Eagle Mill? Here's one: An Eagle mill is a troop with a program structure making the completion of requirements for ranks and merit badges as easy and convenient as possible for both youth and adults. The emphasis is on process over experience. Symptoms include: -- Group sign-off of requirements -- A one-and-done approach to completing Scout skills -- Merit badges classes instead of troop meetings -- An emphasis on a strict First-Class-First-Year progam (especially if all Scouts earn ranks as a group) -- Selecting summer camps based on the potential for earning the maximum number of MBs -- Attendance at Merit Badge Universities -- Encouraging the use of MeritBadge.com work sheets instead of real one-on-one mentoring -- Cookie-cutter Eagle projects -- An "everyone-gets-a-turn" approach to leadership positions -- Marginally-qualified merit badge counselors instead of true experts in a field or at least a real passion for a subject. Oak -- I won't disagree with you about "Eagle Mills" being a rather pejorative term. But it's rather like a good ol' anglo-saxon swear word. While it offends some, it effectively and efficently communicates a great deal of meaning and everyone with a third grade education understands it. What would your preference be?

Tacky. Ask how they plan to get the Eagles to the banquet. Here, our Eagle banquet is based on sponsorships. A sponsorship is about $80 and covers dinner for the Scout and the sponsor and some small tchotchke for the Scout. I have no doubt the usual 20% council vig is built into the budget. I think parents are $25 a plate, but it's a nice dinner at one of the snobbier country clubs you otherwise couldn't get into for $25. Hey Abel, ask you DE if the troop can come sell light bulbs at the next council board meeting.

1 -- competition among Scouts is a good thing. As far as pushing advancement goes, that's easy to control and redirect into more productive area. 3 -- it couldn't happen without leaders, but I think it's a lack of training and understanding the nuiances of the program rather that a real desire to pump out lots of Eagles. They just think that's how the program is supposed to work. 4 -- CO, no. District, no. Council, no. National, in some respects. I agree with Lisa they FYFC extends the Cub Scout mentality that every thing we do gets rewarded with a badge and we get one badge every month. There seems to be a lot of downward pressure on the overall ages in program. I don't know if that's an intended outcome or a consequence of Tiger Cubs and Venturing pushing Boy Scouting into a 10 to 14 y.o. program. I will say that National's advancement policies push advancement toward lowest common denominator, check-list approach. For example, see the 100s of threads regarding the rediculous national policy defining "active participation" (but please don't get it started again here.) So that leaves us #2, parents. Yes. 80%+ I've had parents tell me they want to "get Eagle out of the way" so Dear Sweet Thing can focus on lacrosse. Or the cello. Or tiddly-winks. I've had parents complain about getting "their money's worth" of merit badges at summer camp. I had a dad tell me his son "had his heart set" on earning all three citizenship MBs at summer camp. (I called B.S. on that one.) It's part of the trend we are all guilty of to one degree or another of managing our children's future from conception through and Ivy League school to the Presidency or what ever. I really think too many parents read the requirements for Eagle and think, "this is easy, I could do this in a few months" and project that check list attidute onto their sons. Well yes, at age 45 with an MBA and 20 years work experience, Eagle would be easy. But that's not the point. The real Trail to Eagle isn't a checklist, its a set of experiences Scouts should enjoy. I've expressed my thoughts on that in the current thread on First Year programs so I won't repeat it here.