DuctTape

Agreed. Though often I do not want their "help" as they do not understand the program hence their complaints.

Agree with staking to the ground. Making tent pegs is a great way to use the saw, axe, knife skills on a regular basis. Often we complain about one&done, or advancement reqs as separate from program. This is how to incorporate it. If the books&magazines don't show it, the adult patrol can certainly model it. Scout: wow mister, how did you set up your guys tarp without any tent stakes or line-locs. ASM Smith: look here, we made a couple pegs with our hatchet & knife. Tied the tarp to them with a taut-line hitch. Each of us made one peg, so it only took a few minutes. Mister Peabody never made one, so I showed him how. Scout: Neat Mister Smith, can you show me? ASM: I could, but better yet how about Mr. Peabody shows you while I watch. Then you can show the rest of your patrol while Mr. Peabody watches. Scout: Swell. Can I get my assistant patrol leader to come watch too? ASM: certainly. We willbe right here.

I agree. I also would add I have no idea what any of us are getting for the $85 membership fee that goes to National HQ. Sorry if I sound jaded with HQ as of late; I am.

Resurrecting a slightly older post instead of creating a new one. I have noticed in the last couple decades more and more eagle projects with plaques attached with the scout's name and troop number. While I appreciate knowing a project was done by scouts, I have begun to wonder about the creep from joyful service without recognition or reward to emblazoned plaques. I can see the benefit to the movement of recognizing the project as that of Scouting. Perhaps I am just being a fuddy-duddy or perhaps I am seeing how this named recognition decreases a main purpose of scouting of building character through cheerful service. Perhaps it would be better if there were official plaques from HQ stating simply, "Scouting America Eagle Project <year>" and more forcefully promote the "without recognition" part of service. Of course the scout is recognized by the troop, council, and HQ for their achievement of Eagle.

Perhaps it is time for National HQ to write a "Scout Parents Handbook" for us to give to each parent. Certainly a few here who could write it.

I do not disagree, there are certainly savings to be found. However we can say that even louder for National HQ.

National HQ needs to fund the councils.

That's not swimming then, it is floating. ???????

As long as the troop is using the methods of Scouting and following the "rules" regarding youth protection, guide to advancement etc... I see ultimate leeway. The council and district events are not necessary. Whether or not the troop is actually providing a true scouting program via the methods is a different question altogether.

I am not a lawyer, and have not read about the case. So with that, please correct me if I am in error. I thought a "hate crime" was an elevation of a criminal act not a criminal act in and of itself. So burning an (israeli) flag is not a crime, but a crime involving the flag and the expression of the alleged perpetrators could raise the crime level to a "hate crime". Is this correct?

Use the method of adult association via scoutmaster conferences to help the youth leaders achieve scouting's aim of making ethical choices within their programming decisions.

One way to encourage the scouts to have their handbook for signoff (As an aide from the cell phone issue) is to have them present it when they "request to be tested".. This also helps with the issue you presented in the other thread abput when do they get signed off. I am with you that it without botes, or assistance. The scout learns, practices, then is tested. The sign-off occurs with successful passing of the test.

My 1968 SM handbook also says the same as your 1942. However, I did say the SM should be counseling the boys to help them make decisions. There is also nothing wrong with parameters of the patrol size as per the handbook to mitigate the unlikely result you posited. Also by giving them the authority it begins the process of them making the troop decisions, also when something goes wrong within a patrol they cannot look to you as the culprit. Thus I still suggest having them make the patrols with your guidance.

Adults meddling with who is in which patrol rarely works out. I'd suggest giving the authority back to the scouts to create their patrols. SM conferences with SPL and other (youth) leaders consistently to help them make good decisions.

How were these "patrols" created in the first place?