DuctTape

A bear's sense of smell is so powerful, they know where the humans are without any soap or other smells. When camping in an established campsite, especially at a park the bears already know the site. They will visit if it is on their route, soap and other smells wont make increase it.

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." is the official mission and the Scout Motto is of course "Be Prepared". The BSA website needlessly muddies up the mission with all that corporate gobbletygook. And often the motto is focused on having some piece of gear, or knowing some skill. I often looked at the motto in concert with the oath and the bsa, mission. To Be Prepared is to be willing and able to make that ethical decision as is one's duty as promised in the scouth oath. Many years later I found out that was exactly what BP meant. He wrote in Scouting for Boys (I paraphrase due to memory issues) that to be prepared is to be in a state of mental and physical readiness to do your duty.

Agree with Barry. Also most of the T-Fc skills can be attained just by doing scouting stuff itself.

I cannot recall any time in the past when most of a patrol attended an event. There were always conflicts. A patrol can still be a patrol with two guys. IMO that is better than ad hoc, plus it allows for the addition of a patrol member whose conflict was eliminated at the last minute.

Fred's response nails the BSA mission. Good job.

While I do not think it is needed, and I agree with others about your integrity and have no doubt you will complete all the requirements as written, I would encourage you (if possible) to find a different MBC. Not for the reasons of people thinking mom just signed off, but for you. One of the methods in scouting is adult association and the opportunity for the scout to work with and learn from another adult who is an avid cyclist is the real benefit of the mB program. No matter your choice, I am sure you will excel.

Yes. For a while it has been been popular to say govt should be run like a business but I never bought into that idea. While budgets and financial controls should exist in both, the inherent differences between governmental agency and a business are to profound to be run the same way. To wit, the primary function of a business is to make profit. This is accomplished by maximizing the delta between income and expenses. In simplest terms, providing the least service (goods) for the highest price possible. The primary function of a government agency (should be) to provide a service to the public with the cost shared across the community. In simplest terms, providing the most service for the least cost possible. The primary functions and methods to achieve them for a business and a government agency are opposites for the most part. While some business sense is important in running government, the mindset is completely different. Public policy, and providing for the safety and general welfare of the people is best not driven by a profit motive. In my opinion many in government (both sides) have either willfully engaged in profit based decision making to enrich themselves, family or friends or are so entrenched in a business mindset that they are unable to comprehend the mindset of public policy for the general good so they have unwittingly abdicated their true responsibility. And partisanship is just the gasoline on the fire.

"Form the patrols for the event..." confuses me. I think of it as the patrol forming the events. I find most ad hoc patrol issues arise when events are planned as a troop instead of as a patrol. If the patrol is the primary unit, then all decisions, events, planning arise from that primary unit. When the troop is tbe primary unit which makes tbe decisions, plans the events it is no wonder the patrols break down. In essence the troop is trying to operate as a giant patrol ineffectively.

Don't cross tbe streams. It would be bad.

This puts a fine point on why I despise mb universities. The DOs should almost never be pre-requisites; the DOs should happen after the mb counselor has provided his/her expertise to the scout. Then the scout DOES, demonstrating to the mb counselor (or discussing, whatever the req states). If done beforehand the scout doesn't benefit from the adult's expertise and the mb is reduced to a cub scout "do your best" award. IMHO

a cut/dry measurement can be made objectively, but the a complex evaluation cannot.

An informed opinion by a person with expertise is much more valid than an impartial objective metric in evaluating complex, nuanced, context based behaviors.

The other problem with purely objective metrics is it leads to check boxes, and the "letter of the law" mentality vs an honest evaluation. Evaluating the application of skills and knowledge requires a non-objective approach.

One aspect of cub life, which if mentioned I missed it, that I think negatively affects troop life, is the family signing off on cub items. When I was a cub, it was the den leader only. Even when mom/dad gets that the SM or patrol leader will be the one to sign off, many parents (and scouts) who came through cubs will say "I saw them do it (I did it with my mom). Will you sign it off". This even bleeds into the mB program where the scout fills out workbooks with parents and then shows up at mB universities and gets a mB signed off.

Another thing to consider when the "others" are solely the parents is the inherent hierarchy of the parent-child relationship. In some (many?) cases it might be difficult for either/both the child and parents to suspend that relationship hierarchy for the scout to actually lead. IMO unless the individual circumstances make it impossible to have others besides parents, I would be extremely suspicious of any project completed solely by a scout and his parents.

There are many other options besides paid campsites. Also the youth planning and leading is more than just putting down a credit card. I also mentioned the training of adults. Most of the time when I hear the "yes, but", it is a way to justify the present course regardless if another may be far superior albeit imperfect. Instead of looking for obstacles which make it a challenge, find a way to do it the better way for the benefit of the boys. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I am not a cubber, so my questions are for my own understanding. Are the bobcat,wolf, bear, etc... ranks or awards? I was also under the impression (from my days as a cub scout) that the dens (bobcat, wolf, etc...) were based on your grade level, and did not require achievement of the previous level. I remember a friend joined our bear den and had never been a cub scout. Has this changed?

Separate paperwork and reservations provides more opportunities for scouts to plan/lead and for training adults.

With 35-40 kids, and ten adults/drivers, why all going to same location? Sounds like each patrol could have a completely different adventure. 5 patrols each with 2 adults to be g2ss compliant.

Presence on a trip, or in immediate vicinity of a parent does change the dynamic. As does presence of any adult. This is why the 100yd distance is so important as a stepping stone to independence of the patrol. Which leads to patrol hikes without adults present and eventually fully independent scouts ready to be adults themselves. The growth opportunities for the scouts should always be in the forefront of the scouters (and parents) mind as well as the obstacles we put in place (inadvertently) which have the effect of hindering that growth. Awareness of the growth opportunities as well as the choices we make which lead to being obstacles help us make better choices to help the scouts grow. Often we can justify a choice which hinders the opportunity for growth. I submit we should have not just any reason, but that reason should be compelling to a greater interest of the scout(s). We should step in/out as needed with the goal of stepping out and back ,further and further to allow for the scout to become independent and be able to "do things for themselves and others".

I can understand the frustration some feel when they witness a boy completing the requirements "at the bare minimum" or "with minimal effort". I think for most it comes from the desire to want the best for the boy. Some see the a boy who completes the reqs with minimal effort as cheating himself out of what he could achieve. We are scouters because we believe in the boys and their potential, so I can understand the frustration. The boy's pride in their own achievements is typically proportional to their efforts. That said, I think all we can do is model, encourage, and mentor. The cub scouts are "to do their best" and that is the requirement. The boy scout has a minimum metric to achieve but we should still be encouragong them to do their best. Not because it is necessary for sifn-offs, but because they will feel more proud of their accomplishments. Cubs leaders can help with this by not just signing off on the best-try, but also making sure it was their best, and focusing the boy to reflect on their pride of success based on their effort.

I agree with ParkMan. I would also recommend getting some key folks as "vocal allies" who not just support the vision, but understand it as well. This way after you present the vision to others they are able to take point on promoting it. To affect a significant change like this you should understand the different factions and how to deal with them. There are more, and subsets but in general: 1. Allies-those who agree and understand. 2. Middlers-those who can be persuaded. 3. GoAlongs- those who dont really care one way or another. 4. Resistors-those who will fight the change.

I think CP's point, and please correct me if I am in error, was that the ISP did not force a quality outdoor program to become inferior and that the rank requirements in some aspects were significantly more difficult that present. Also the skill award concept was a positive step. I also recall there was a minimum time requirement at each rank; eg. 2 months as a tenderfoot (I could have the time wrong). The ISP had issues, the present system has issues. In the end it is up to the local unit to provide a robust program. I do not think the ISP prohibited that, and in some ways might have helped with the requirements, skill awards, growth conference, etc... It may have been possible for a scout to advance bypassing the traditional outdoor skills, but in my council I saw a more robust outdoor program then, compared to now. At present, in many troops the outdoor skills are done at the bare minimum; car camping only, propane stoves as primary (fires, and woods tools are one and done requirements). Advancement seems to have gone the way of cub scouts where that is the goal of each activity to "get things signed off". While I agree that many appear to have voted with their feet at many junctions in Scouting history, without a substantial data set of exit interviews we cannot know for certain the primary reason.

Summer camp is a great place to do the observations requirements.

to the question of where would they learn all the stuff if all they did was go camping, hiking, fishing, etc... I would answer that those activities are where they learn that stuff. To go on a grander adventure and have more fun requires learning how to use a map & compass, eating requires learning how to light a fire and cook over it, packing appropriately, etc... Just about all the requirements for T-FC are accomplished just by camping, hiking, etc... with your buddies. Advancement isn't something separate from those activities, it IS those activities.