Bob White

So then the only need you see for having adults is to satisfy the charter requirements. Interesting.

I had debated on that but thought from you or Eamonn it would be witty and from me it would be mistaken as condescending. It's a tough crowd.

I cannot buy into the school of thought that "its okay to use foul language because they are going to hear it from others". Certainly as role models we should have a better personal code than that? The lanuage used that offened FireKat would offend most people, and I know few adult Scout leaders who would use that language in such a public setting. I know it was used on TV but it was used precisely for its shock value in hopes of offending. I commend FireKat for speaking up for her standards. BW

Mia Culpa Right you are GW. Myer flags were used during the civil war for code sending using the wig wag action that was also used in Morse Code flag signals. Thanks BW

Not remove but perhaps it is time to re-evalute which knots are taught and show more current ways to apply them. I do not expect the Handbook to have huge content changes in 2010 when it is released. The only time the BSA made huge changes between editions it did not go over well. New packaging, as well as new graphics is almost certain. Some new requirements perhaps, Maybe a CD of skill demos would not be unexpected when you look at other teaching aids...oops sorry I forgot you don't see scouting as educational.

What would happen to a troop or pack if they were no adults Beavah? Lets take the unit you serve specifically.

As a scoutmaster we traveled light but every scout carried about 50 ft of line and a 6ft stave. When they got to camp they built pack racks, cooking tripods, shelter whatever they needed because they knew how to use lines and lashings. tied new knots in their tent lines every campout. But camping technolgy advanced and soon bungee cords made knot tying almost obsolete. Then several years later I entered Sea Scouting and we have a lot of Boys Scouts who have joined and they are amazed because they actually use the knots they had to learn as young scouts. We use clove hitches, sheet bends, tautlines, bowlines, back splices, eye splices, and others ALL the time. And they understand why you need different knots for different tasks and they can tie them fast. Why, because they are put in situations where they need to know the skill or they will find themselves in a potentially dangerous situation. That lesson works in Boy Scouts to. Signalling is gone because there is little practical applisation for it, so that putting a scout in a situation were he needs to be able to signal is rare and usually unrealistic. The best lesson you can learn from the past is "teaching by doing" the skills that are in today's program are skills that scouts will use in today's world. So put them in a situation where they need the knowledge, let them realize they lack a skill to overcome the hurdle, then they will be open to learning the skill, and they will want to practice it. That is how BP meant skills to be taught, that is the way the BSA teaches it today, and yet many leaders do not follow it. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

Trained adults lead the Program. The patrol Method and Youth Leadership development are Program Methods that adults use to deliver on the aims and mission of Scouting. Boys lead patrol and troop ACTIVITIES

And still....no one has said that learning Morse Code was a bad thing to do. The problem here is that a sham was perpetrated on the forum members. You were convinced that I or others said that there was nothing of value you can learn from the past, and NO ONE ever said that here. What was said was that many things from the past are still in the program, and other things can be done as well. Even one posters breakthrough "back form the past" idea of using staves to make a stretcher is on page 329 of the CURRENT Scout handbook and is a current rank requirement. But I cannot imagine that anyone believes the EVERYTHING that was done in the past is worth doing again. If you do believe that then you have a very limited knowledge of the history of Scouting. There are A LOT of things that were done in the "good old days" of Scouting that you would not want to even consider doing today. You were tricked into believeing that today's scouting is bad and yester-years scouting is good and the fact is what we do today is largely what we have always done in scouting with minor changes to accomodate new knowledge and technology. -... --- -... .-- .... .. - . (This message has been edited by Bob White)

". Syllabus, learning sets, exercises at school and homework. Same age kids in the same "grade" and classes. It's familiar to kids and to parents. It can certainly be "hands on". But it isn't play. They will learn stuff, eh? Though perhaps not as deeply or as practically as when they play." Absolute puffery, and misinformation. Even in the example you asked me to provide it was filled with games and hands on activity and practice, In fact in the first two months I never even mentioned the word test for any of the Tenderfoot to First Class activities. You say "they'll learn stuff eh?" as if that were a bad thing. They will learn specific things or you are not leading a Scouting program. Fun is a tool of teaching not an excuse for not teaching.

I'll take at stab at that. Knowing knots and lashings is a basic skill for fitness activities such as rock climbing and rappelling, it is used in several rescue situations and first aid applications, knots are part of several occuppations from surgeon to truck driver, the ability to lash together camping items such as pack racks and shelters builds self reliance, knots are used in many recreational activities such as sailing, and other water activities, knots are used for grooming activities such as tying a tie or your shoes, or teaching a child fine motor skills. Unlike Morse Code most people today still use knots all the time.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Would the same thing work in a similar situation? What if cities could decide which State they wanted to recieve services from?

My prayers and sympathies to the scout's family and all his freinds. I had two scouts pass away in a 10-day period one year, so I understand first hand how difficult the death of a person so young can have on the entire community. I hope the parents and family find healing after they share this immense heartache. best wishes BW

If the Scouts enjoyed a campout learning Morse Code using Myer Flags (the precursor to semaphore) who is to say that any harm was done? Granted they will find little use of flag messaging in real life but what harm is there in appreciating the history of communications? So you found a better supplier then the BSA for staves, I know of no breeech of BSA program or policies for that. Tug of war a fine sport (its a good idea to provide work gloves for safety though). None of these have anything to do with following the BSA "program" which is the BSA Methods, Policies and Procedures, Is a small troop any less able to follow rules than a large troop? Can a troop of 60 not follow the patrol method as well as a troop of 13. The use of staves and Morse code is hardly grounds for being considered outside of the BSA program, and I have not seen any posts that suggests it is. The faulty premise that began this thread seems to be getting people worked up over nothing. BW

We come from differnt backgrounds I guess. What you call Blue Sky, I learned as Brain Storming. But for that process to take place you need to start with a open premise, one without a directed solution. For instance where would you like to go camping this year, or what are ways we could increase service to units. But if you were to say "what if we went camping at Yellowstone?", or "what if we had councils compete for units?", you have already passed the "Blue Sky" process and now you are looking at the pros and cons of a "directed discussion". In Eisely's case he is putting forth a specific idea for as a possible solution from what would have come from a Blue Sky session on 'improving unit service'. But, how can you discuss it if you only provide possible benefits without looking at other aspects of the proposed idea as well? Just because a hurdle is offered does not mean the hurdle cannot be overcome. Hurdles are opportunities to show how the idea has strength. I agree with every poster so far including OGE and Eisely that this is a discussion. Does asking questions not further the thought in a discussion?

So questions are not allowed as part of the "what if" thought process?

The Flag Code says the flag should be "destroyed in a dignfied manner, preferably by burning" So as long as you follow those guidelines you will be fine. Be aware that many plags are now made of nylon and some States have laws against burning nylon as a disposal method. here is a link that will help you with a ceremony. http://www.vfw.com Their site is not responding at the moment but they have a very nice ceremony script posted there. Have fun with the scouts you serve, BW

This is a Cub Family activity. So the cubs would go as family members more so than as a Den. However you can certainly promote it through the Den and help parents plan for it. Yes, according to the registration Wolf Cub age scouts and their families are eligible to attend. Note the first two items on the Rules to Help You Plan section. These are very important. Each scout in attendance should be responsible to a specific adult, preferable their own parent or legal guardian. This should be an adult other than you as the Den leader (except for your own children).

No matter where you draw the line somebody has to live on it and will be closer to one office than another. That is true in every council. It's true of school districts, voting precincts, State lines, etc.

And there is the problem Oak Tree. I never said that elements of the past could not be used, or were not already in use today. And we agree that not ALL the elements of the past are asppropriate for today's youth. What I do not understand is why that was not mentioned in the opening of the thread or why an unrelated quote was used to misrepresent my opinion. If the purpose of the thread is to say that some things from the past are good and somethings are not, then I doubt any of us would disagree with that. Certainly I have never said anything to the contrary.

I agree with some of BadenP's post. I have not said that are not skills from the past that can be taught today, in fact many skills from the past are still found in today's handbooks. As are nearly every Scouting Method devised by B-P AS far as the 70% hands on 30% Lecture that is mentioned. If that is not done in the troop, then that is the responsibility of the Scoutmaster. Certainly the BSA training follows that for developing Boy Scout leaders. Of the 45 hours of basic training available to Scoutmasters and their assistants, easily 75% of it consists of hands on activities. Any other posters who have followed the syllabi in delivering the training can attest to that. So while I agree with BadenP that it should be heavily hands on, I do not see where it is the BSA program that is preventing a unit from following that model. If a unit's program is not mostly hands-on then they need to re-evaluate their leadership skills and understanding of the Scouting program. Following a syllabus makes for a better trainer, in the same way as having a plan makes for a leader. It would be difficult to prove that good leaders do not have good plans. What good troop does not have a program plan, a troop meeting agenda, a campout schedule, a writen program for courts of honor, a budget? All are plans that teach and support leadership. First Class Emphasis is no different than a teachers lesson plan. Are Scout leaders not teachers with the outdoors as a classroom? Why would we reject the notion of having a lesson plan. AS far as what BP did at Brownsea you could probably not repeat the same program BP did at Brownsea and keep very many kids in scouting today. Aside from Kudu and perhaps a few others of us, has anyone looked at B-Ps agenda for Brownsea Island? I bet not. This is why knowing the past and trying to recreate the past are two different things. His Brownsea Agenda is adaptable to today's youth and many units follow a similar agenda, I know I did as a scout and a scoutmaster. Of course we skipped the daily rub downs and tea time. You might also be surpise to learn that three days of Brownsea were largely lecture/discussion and that even days of hands on learning included instruction by BP using lecture or demonstration. Things today are not what they used to be...but then again they never were. (This message has been edited by Bob White)

The Scouting program is adult lead. Troop and Patrol activities are boy lead. If when patrols come together they form a troop, why would two patrols not elect a senior patrol leader?

Then we agree that the comment had nothing to do with learning from the past. You will notice that it also has nothing to do with not wearing a full uinform, or delivering a rigid unflexible program. But that is not the topic of this thread, create a thread that relates to the comment and I will discuss it there. BW

if a unit from outside my council service are joins our council, we would have no support structure or volunteers inside their community to serve them, how does this allow for better service to units? If I belong to a council that my community is not a part of and I support that councils fundraisiong efforts, how does my community benefit?

You cannot start with a false premise and reach a true conclusion. This thread starts with a very false premise. Beavah bases it on an opinion he attributes to me that I do not hold, nor ever wrote in any post. It is an incorrect impression which he portrays as a fact. Beavah wrote "I think Bob White's quote above misses da mark, because it assumes that all former BSA program materials and all other scouting/youth program materials are so bad that they cause damage." It assumes no such thing. In fact the quote he refers to is not even about former BSA programs it is about the number of trained leaders today. Here is the quote he refers to "As I mentioned before if 99% of adult volunteers follow the program and only 1% did not, that would mean 12,000 adult volunteers are not following the program. Imagine the damage those 12,000 adults do every year." So how does a comment about the number of trained leaders today give Beavah the impression that it has anything to do with programs of the past? At no time in the post he refers to did I make any comment that negated the values of the past program elements and I even stated that many are still in use today. I can think of at least 29% of direct contact scouters who should be aware of that if they paid attention during the training (or if the trainers followed the syllabus). This thread is based on misleading readers to think that I made comments I did not make. BW (This message has been edited by Bob White)