DuctTape

Counting twenty minutes of EDGE in place of the Patrol Method in the "Patrol Method" session of Scoutmaster Specific Training? I think kudu is referring to Adult Leader training, he specifically stated the Scoutmaster Specific Training. In my experience, many of our adult leaders need more intensive training in how to train using the Patrol Method, not so much how to train specific skills using edge.

Any entity can apply for a Federal EIN. One doesn't need to be tax-exempt or a business. The pack, even the den level can apply. Call the IRS and ask how to apply, or apply online. http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-%26-Self-Employed/Apply-for-an-Employer-Identification-Number-(EIN)-Online

Some AT hikers use the play filter system, but those who do, either retrofitted it as an inline filter for a hydration bladder, use the bottler attachment and squeeze it through (not using gravity), or they sit and wait. Sitting and waiting is not desireable to backpackers in general. The more popular filter (that isn't a pump) is now the Sawyer Squeeze.

Backpackers in general do not use gravity filters as they are intended for base camp, not moving. On the AT and other trails, you will find many who use inline filters or squeeze filters. They are similar to gravity filters and can be used as gravity filters, but not all gravity filters can be used by backpackers on the move.

An natural shelter which is completely LNT would be in winter and making a snow cave, quinzee, or igloo.

Nice idea packsaddle. I would add, if the beaded ones start to talk about WB, mention you have a badge made of wood too; you carved it out of hickory. Then begin to talk about more scoutcraft.

More often than not (no pun intended) I use a double sheetbend for the extra holding power.

I was thinking the same thing as the final option on the continuum of options. Less than full resignation from the troop and failure to convince the SM to change, a scout may register jointly with another troop and participate with them as well. This may provide the opportunity for recognition into the OA as well as other potential opportunities.

The SM should be deferring to the boys, to that I completely agree. However, the idea of going to the committee to over rule it appears to be a slippery slope. I disagree it is a BSA policy decision, unless someone can point to the BSA regs which require the SM to hold the OA election. What is the purpose of the SM signature on the blue card, or the SM signature on the OA election? It is BSA policy the decision is to be left to the SM. As I said, if the decisions he is making do not fit what the charteing organization desires, they can find a new SM.

Is it just me, am I the only one who thinks if the committee over-rules the SM, it is over-stepping its bounds in this regard? The committee isn't supposed to micromanage the SM's decisions. The committee's responsibilities are to support the SM, not to over-ride (except in the case of safety or policy of which this does not appear to be). If the Chartering organization has an issue, they can find a new SM, but they also shouldn't be micromanaging the decisions. This seems like a slippery slope to me.

Sorry to hear about you friend. The riding with traffic rule isn't just a BSA, it is a State motor vehicle rule (at least here it is). While a bicycle is not a motor vehicle, if one is riding on the roads it is considered one and thus riders must follow the laws for the MV including the direction, signalling and traffic control devices.

While I would not say SM is correct in his decision as I defer to the youth leadership to make the decisions, I would also not say the SM fears are unfounded either. In my experience, and likely the SM, there are many cases where the OA is a popularity contest and the arrowmen do not live up to nor fulfill the purpose of the OA. This is not the SM, nor the boys fault as it is the fault of the individual odge who does not do a good job of promoting and ensuring the purpose of the OA is being met. The same is true at the troop level if a troop is not fulfilling the mission of the BSA. Many discussions on here already about Eagle mills and non-camping troops already. if it happens at the troop level, of course it happens at other levels. Thus the SM fears are not unfounded. They may be inaccurate for a specific lodge, but they do have a foundation in reality. I would invite the SM to visit with boys from the lodge and learn how they are fulfilling the mission of the OA in their own respective troops. Perhaps these boys would be willing to present to and help your troop with their own elections to ensure it isn't a popularity content and also so that the candidate understands the honor and the expectations of the order.

My dad lives in Germany. The german system is entirely different in its structure. Students are tracked into different programs from about the 5th grade. IIRC, about 25% of German students go to the university prep school (was that the Arbiter exam?) Another 25% go to the realschule (did I spell it right?) In the US the schools are intermingled. Except for private prep schools, there isn't a tracking system in which students may never switch. The Gymnasium, Realschule, and the vocational are integrated into one system which students are not identified, and tracked into a predetermined outcome. Thus the 12 grade HS diploma earned by each student is very different depending on the classes they took. The observation that a german 10th grade diploma is equivalent to the the US 12th grade diploma is accurate only because the US doesn't grant the diplomas early (except in rare situations) and students continue to take classes for college credit in their 11th and 12th grade years. They graduate after 12 years, but the official course of study is based upon 10th grade level. For example, in my HS 40% of the students are taking college level classes (and receiving college credit if they pass the exam) in their 11th grade year and beyond. Since the US design has all the students in the same school it is difficult to compare. Which design is better is a matter of discussion.

One problem with the NAEP scores article you posted and the 40% proficient... There are four levels of which the bottom level is the only one considered "failing" as it is below the basic competency. The proficient is the name of the second highest level. Reporting that 40 % of the students achieved a proficient level or higher is akin to saying 40% of the students received B's or higher. The system isn't perfect, and there are certainly specific areas which need some help. However the current meme that the system is fundamentally flawed is false. It is much better than the perceived perfect system of generations ago when we supposedly ruled the world. There are pockets of areas in the US which are struggling academically because of other variables and they aren't the curriculum, schools or teachers.

The article began with a statement of "fact" regarding US students. My initial post was in response to that opening line.

The CC and the other "reforms" are attempt to fix something which isn't broken. It isn't the educational system which is broken...

The unfortunate part of the article is its initial premise. The "it's long been known...", is the narrative many would like us all to believe. Fortunately that narrative is extremely misleading. More info: http://www.epi.org/blog/international-tests-achievement-gaps-gains-american-students/ What is most unfortunate are the education policy decisions being foisted upon us by non-educators who believe the narrative promoted by those who have profit motives.

I still disagree with your contention that "Ideals trump skills". Even the quote doesn't make that claim. They go hand in hand. The ideal to observe the law and do a good turn require the boy to have the skills necessary. To be prepared to do ones duty is to have the skills for "any old thing". One cannot fulfill the ideals without the skills. Neither ideals nor skills trump the other.

Have heard that one before. Still funny though.

Been in a hammock almost exclusively for quite a few years now. Cold is an issue just as it is in a tent, but is easily overcome with some skill. I hammock in subzero F all the time. Lowest was in the negative twenties F. I use ccf pads in these extreme temps. Inflatable pads are not the best to use. While hennesy hammocks have a big marketing presence, there are many other options available. One last comment about protection from bears; a thin layer of nylon provides no additional protection from such an animal. I have had bears sniff around my tent in the past and also sniff around me in my hammock.The idea the tent will somehow protect someone from a bear is laughable IMO.

I hope I didn't come across as providing accolades in an attempt to make someone feel better. My point was more about the many who never fulfilled the requirements but were just signed off . It isn't the scouts fault, it is the adults who subtracted from the requirements.

I think I see where our disagreement lies. It appears you are operating under the premise that the goal of scouting is to develop character. I don't disagree with it as a goal, I do not think it is the only goal, nor even the primary one. Scout virtues as defined by the Oath and Law provide direction but do not supplant the goals of Scouting. I take my direction from the "Aim of Scouting" penned by John L. Alexander, "The aim of the Boy Scouts is to supplement the various existing educational agencies, and to promote the ability in boys to do things for themselves and others. ...The method is summed up in the term Scoutcraft, and is a combination of observation, deduction, and handiness, or the ability to do things."

I would say high character and low competence is far from equally successful as high in both. Secondly, just because a few professionals choose a different knot for their specific need, doesnt mean the original bsa knot is never used by anyone else for a different specific need. I agree with you that the figure 8 on a bight is NOT easier to untie than a bowline especially after a significant load was applied.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development. I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.) When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law. Hmmm. I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development. The reason for no discussion is to allow for the story to sit in the mind of the scout and allow them to reflect upon it internally. A discussion at this point would take away from that. There is a time and place for discussion and when someone isn't being scoutlike, that would be an appropriate time. Discussion of the yarn will happen organically, it does not need to be forced. The SM minute is not a school lesson to be dissected, discussed and evaluated; it is a parable for the individuals to reflect upon internally. If the goal is ensure they are "getting it", observe their actions. If they are acting scoutlike, they are getting it.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development. I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.) When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law. Hmmm. I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development. I think you touched on the solution earlier. The SM minute and the boys leading by example. Both are a result of the SM. First the SM minute should be a yarn about how a boy demonstrated a scout's character. No discussion, just a story with an ending like "A Scout is Trustworthy". Kind of like Aesop's fables. The boy led example is also a result of SM actions through PL training. The SM trains the PL's by leading by example. The PLC meetings/outings should model how the PL can make more explicit the living the scout oath and law. An easy way is to expect a reflection minute at the end of every meeting/outing for the PL to explicitly acknowledge a time when one of his members acted scoutlike. Ex: Tommy demonstrated Cheerful when he was on KP duty and he not only did the job but did so without complaining and with a smile on his face. He could also encourage the other patrol members to acknowledge their peers at this time. When patrols report at flag, they could also include one "living the scout oath" acknowledgement.