Eagle94-A1

If pioneering is no longer considered Scoutcraft in 2017, then why is basic pioneeringskills still required for Scout, Tenderfoot,Second Class and First Class ranks as well as a Pioneering Merit Badge, designed for 12 year olds as you mentioned, still around? Pioneering is still a traditional Scoutcraft skill, still required for advancement, has the potential to keep older Scouts involved if given the chance, AND had relevance in the 21st Century. Don't believe pioneering is relevant in the 21st? Ask the NASA astronaut who lashed the Space Shuttle's broken arm intoplace so that they could return to Earth. Yes the OP has been answered. Sadly you and the rest of national do not see the point. The rules and regs are sucking the lifeblood out of Scouting.The ban on water guns made us a laughing stock nationally, and is ignored not only by volunteers but also professionals. At the one day camp, the DE said "Waterguns are no longered allowed by the BSA. So bring your personal water soaking devices to cool down.: The ban are wagons for under 14 and service projects caused a bunch of 8 year old Bears to laugh when I told htem about it. Yes, a bunch of 8 year olds thought the rule was a joke. Look at the restrictions on power tools. You do realize that Girl Scouts can use powertools, but we cannot ? https://www.kansasgirlscouts.org/content/dam/kansasgirlscouts/documents/All%20Safety-Activity%20Checkpoints.pdf Maybe should quit as a volunteer now. I should have realized when I worked for national back in the day that the powers that be do not listen to those of us with boots still on the ground until after the mistakes are made and a solution is needed to fix problems.

Concealed on the person, i.e. under a coat, shirt, etc. At least in NC. In a backpack would be considered storing, plus with other camping gear you have an argument for a legitimate activity needing it. Me personally, my buscraft/survival knife is HUGE My wife and her family got me a Becker 21 Reinhardt-Becker Kukri. I made a MOLLE compatible sheath for it so I can put it on the outside of my ALICE and other packs. And just like firearms, you need to be careful where you bring ANY type of knife, sheath or folding. Until NC changed the laws stating sub-jurisdictions could not add to the knife laws, there were some areas in the state I could not bring my Gerber Gator because the blade length was to long.

Richard, Just because something comes from across the pond, doesn't mean our Scouts would not be interested. Heck Scouting for Boys came from across the pond. As for where ideas come from BSA's program, here are two links I found from councils' douments on pioneering projects. http://www.pioneeringprojects.org/resources/ebooks/LeaderTrainingConference.pdf http://www.pioneeringprojects.org/resources/ebooks/A32_PION_PROJECTS.pdf If I had more time, I would start pulling historical BSA photos with now banned pioneering projects. My personal favorite is the 30' Signal Tower with a Scout on it from the 1937 NSJ. And if you want, I look at my collection of handbooks and field books when I get home. But if you have time, and the museum is not already packed up and moved to Philmont, maybe a visit to the archives would show you some of the wonderful pioneering projects BSA allowed in the past. Regarding supplies, with proper planning you can get them. For the Arial Runway project, my troop called it The Bosun Chair, we were able to get supplies. We either got them donated, or got permission to cut down. Helps to have someone with access to a tree farm. EDITED: Forgot to add, I used pictures from overseas deliberately to show relevance today. If BSA wants to use oveseas Scouting associations as models for going coed (the one going around looks like how the Finns do Scouting and Guiding), then why not use their examples for pioneering. But I did find that some Troops are ignoring the G2SS ban and making pioneering projects over 6 feet.

Agree 110% I think that some attempts have been made with Journey to Excellence, but I think the standards are so low or focused on the wrong aspects of Scouting that many consider it a joke. I would say training is needed. But on the Boy Scout level, training is going down. I admit I complained about the month long Scoutmaster Fundamentals I took back in the day. But part of that was I was a new ASM just from the ranks who also did Brownsea 22, the NYLT of the day, and really knew the program. Over the years, I've seen how important that training is, especially for those with limited or no experience as a youth. Instead of making Training easier, they need to focus more on the basics. But even with more and better training, you still have volunteers who think they know better. I personally trained some folks, and later they told me "Scouting needs to change with the times." More later.

I had some folks look at me crazy last night when I was discussing sheath knives at a upcoming camporee. I actually had a parent pull up state law and attempted to say that sheath knives were illegal. I told him the key words to the law is "illegal to carry concealed."

When you got key Scouters in the unit who are ready to go coed, it may not matter what the Boy Scouts want. The only choice they have in voting on to accept girls or not is with their feet. Regarding COs. so many are hands off, I do not think they will care.

He did talk to 2 other parents, and they were OK with it. But they are also Scouters who camp with the troop. Now his mother, who is a committee member said heck no her granddaughter will not be in a coed troop, so it's going ot be interesting. As for me, I'm with my sons. Both of them are against the BSA going coed. I don't know if they will quit, join the troop that will go all male, or go to Trail's Life. But they do not like the idea of girls in the troop.

Hawkwin, Not only was i told by Scouters in my district that they would create "paper girl troops" and fully integrate them into the existing Boy Scout troop, when I mentioned this at the council meeting, several others agreed with me that this would indeed happen. Further, the Council President, Commissioner, and Scout Executive essentially acknowledged that paper girl units would indeed happen, and that Boy Scout troops would essentially be integrated. They did not seem tpo be bothered by this. And 12 of the 18 Scouters present didn't seem to care if it happen either. heck several agreed with me and said they would do that. If we follow the UK's model, then eventually ALL units will go coed. This hill especially happen when the LDS leave the Boy Scouts IMHO.

No you were not the only one.In fact I commented on how it was not really an appropriate article for Scouting magazine since it focused on family camping instead of patrol camping for the 11-16 years initially mentioned, and that BALOO covers a lot of the materials for Packs to go back and teach to their new families. Another reason why I'm worried about "family Scouting."

Sadly, the way the BSA has handled the town hall meetings, it is a major charley foxtrot. At the meeting I attended, about 15 people were there because it was very last minute. Most were Venturing leaders, and only 3 of us opposed Boy Scouts going coed attended. And all my arguments on why their proposal won't work were ignored, or had a look of 'Yeah, we know what's going to actually happen and we don't care." But I know there are many opposed. I had a Scouter tell me 'Hell no I won't allow my granddaughter to join the troop,'" yet her son is 110% for BSA going fully coed. heck he was the one saying he doesn't care what the actual format is, he's going coed. And I was told that one of the oldest troops in my council, it actually predates the council, will dissolve if they have to take females into the troop, as what happened in the UK.

When I commented how a 'separate but equal" program will not work because you would have two sets of meetings, camp outs, summer camps, etc and that I have been told by Scouters that they will integrate girls into the troop if they have "separate but equal" the feeling I got at the council's meeting was one of 'yes, we know that's going to happen and we don't care."

Why not swimming? You do know that BSA made Uniform swim trunks at one time! Seriously though, BSA at one time made OD swim trunks that could be used as uniform trunk. An aquatics director I know had connections with national supply, and got them to make them. rationale is that aquatics staffs sometimes cannot make it to dinner on time and needed something they could just put a shirt on with. Plus it promoted uniformity of the aquatics staff. Didn't go far with that one. Here's a link to a pair on sale on ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/391703233196?chn=ps&dispItem=1

Please tell me you are joking. The issue is that under current GTSS policies, pioneering projects are extremely limited. Note: Pioneering projects, such as monkey bridges, have a maximum height of 6 feet. Close supervision should be followed when Scouts are building or using pioneering projects. Unless NCAP has been changed, the only way to go higher than 6 feet is at a council summer camp program with the council's risk management's approval. What's going to happen when we host the WSJ in 2019? will we ban structures over 6 feet? Or will Summit staff go around and approve everything? let's face it, pioneering is a traditional Scoutcraft, and some countries think the BSA is silly for the restrictions. Gone are the days where Boy Scouts in the US could build cool stuff like towers, Bosun Chair Rides, Ferris Wheels ad nauseum. I remember when my troop growing up use to build 2 towers 15-20 feet and 25-30 tall, connect steel rope between them, and connect a Bosun's Chair so that folks could ride between the two towers. We use to have a 30 minute wait to have people on the ride. When national put those height limits in effect, my troop stopped going to Scout Shows because they were BORING. We went to only 1 after the ban, and that was because William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt was there. As for pioneering being a MB targeted to 12 year olds, Then how do you explain these: http://www.scoutresources.org.uk/SR/pioneering/index.html https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8c/8a/51/8c8a514796cb2cd6d70de72f1307415b.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7f/78/21/7f7821be92984d0c66513dbfb2fb2a1f.jpg http://the.earth.li/~db/photos/World%20Scout%20Jamboree/World%20Scout%20Jamboree%20-%20photo054.html https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1f/11/81/1f118151ffdafe8facd28d6696d4830e.jpg

My advice: llegitimi non carborundum.

Variety of reasons why a camp will put age restrictions. One reason is the popularity of the class. Age limits are used to restrict the number in the class to a manageable level. Another reason might be to have incentives for the older Scouts to come back to that camp. But the #1 reason may be local laws. Some jurisdiction do have restrictions on shooting sports. One guy I met told me that the camp he worked at straddled a state line. Shooting Sports areas was a distance from the bulk of the camp because the state that the areas was in allowed folks to use firearms at 16, and the state the bulk of the camp was in would not allow any shooting sports save archery.

Back when I was a COPE Director, we could certify pioneering structures. So I see the usefulness of a pioneering certification. But who would it be for Scouts or adults? If only for adults, why not for Scouts? And if for Scouts, will we put in stupid age restrictions?

Apparently they are not allowing commentary on the article. I Asked why are posting articles on family camping with 11-16 year olds, what that is Scout aged youth and should be doing Patrol camping. I also stated that the article is in the wrong journal since all the information is basic BALOO level info, and most packs I know of do an intro to camping for their new families. EDITED: This really concerns me because it appears that BSA IS trying to promote family camping now. I have seen, and am unfortunatley seeing now, what family camping does to troops and patrols.

May I try again When the powers that be looked at the stats for membership retention back in the day, they noticed 2 trends. First was that Scouts who got First Class in a year tended to stay in Scouting and eventually earn Eagle. That lead to the creation of "OPERATION FIRST CLASS!" (sic) Over the years that has morphed into First Class Emphasis; First Class, First Year and whatever else they have called it over the years. The second trend they noticed was that the majority of First Class Scouts who earned it within a year of joining were in patrols that were comprised of only 11 year olds. Remember, LDS units put all their 11 year olds into their own patrol(s) with an ASM over them. i do not know the percentage of LDS troops during the study period, but today it's approx. 33% From my own observations and talking to LDS Scouters, the goal is to get their 11 year olds to First Class before they turn 12. I don't have the actual numbers in front of me regarding First Class, but extrapolating from Eagle data showing LDS units have a higher number of Eagles than non-LDS units, it is a safe assumption LDS units have a higher First Class Scout rate than non-LDS units. If 33% of the units are producing a high percentage of First Class Scouts, then why don't implement their patrol model? Hence the birth of the NSP.

Yes I remember the days of less paperwork. And I miss them. But I admit to mix emotions on the topic, at least how it's done in my neck of the woods at the district level. I like how it's done and am comfortable with the expectations. In my part of the woods, there are two meeting, one optional. Every year the District Advancement Chairman (DAC) has a meeting for all SMs, Eagle advisers and Life Scouts. The purpose of the meeting is to talk over the entire Life to Eagle process, expectations, etc. It's not mandatory, and the recommendation is that at least 1 representative form each unit goes in order to bring back info. This year it was done at Roundtable. Yes he has a high expectation. He wants the proposal as detailed as possible so that A) potential problems can be avoided (one eagle project was so screwed up that the organization no longer allows Eagle projects, and this is after being beneficiary for over 11 year) and B) if something was to happen to the Life Scout, someone could pick up where he left off to complete the project (apparently this happened once when the DAC was a Scout). District approval meeting takes no more that 60 minutes, at least that is what is alloted. The Life Scout discusses his project in addition to handing over the preliminary work for the committee to review. Questions are asked, advice and recommendations given, and a sample book is shown to show the expectations. If needed, the DAC rehashes the group meeting. If not, the meeting is over and done with. I sat in on 2 project approvals. 1 was less that 10 minutes as that Scout's SM attended the meeting and prepared the Scout. The 2nd approval took a little longer since the Scout did not have anyone working with him. He was in and out in 25-30 minutes. Part of the expectation is why. The rationale for details is again to prevent problems from occurring with prior planning. Also so that if something happens, someone can pick up and complete the project. Another reason is for the Life to get a taste of the real world. The Eagle project is a good learning experience for doing projects as adults. Final reason is to create a project book that the Scouts can look at and be proud of in the years to come. I'll be honest, While I was extremely proud of my project, compared to some of the projects these Scouts are undertaking today, I am a bit embarrassed. Heck even from 15-20 years ago, the projects are much better. One of the things the Advancement Committee use to do was published the Eagle projects in a year book. Some of these projects are a book unto themselves.

Oldest completed the 2 Eagle required MBs and SMC he needed for Life yesterday. At the SMC discovered he taught the wrong first aid skills, but he is working on that. So it looks like he will be up for his Life BOR on the 28th. Also, some of you may have remembered the challenges my troop was having 12-18 months ago. It was bad. The camp out this past weekend was AWESOME! SPL and PLs did their job, and it went very smoothly. With the exception of new parents interfering some, it was flawless in execution. Even with the bad weather we had,back up plans were made by the SPL, and he improvised some when we couldn't do exactly what was planned, but also didn't need to go full blown back up as predicted. Over all a great weekend

3rd Edition SM handbook is EXCELLENT!!!!! I also highlyrecommend it. Just don't lend ithem out. I did to a new SM starting a new troop. Troop folded and I never got my books back.

They also got a bunch of tools used for maintenence as well. The Old Ranger's House (OHR and in one article called a house) was converted into a workshop/storage area. Sadly that's the camp I grew up at, Salmen Scout Reservation's Camp V-Bar.

That is becaus up to1989, there was no such thing as a NSP. From 1972 to 1989 you had mixed aged patrols, aka traditional patrols, and the Leadership Corps of older Scouts. I know that at one time BSA had Explorers in troops for the older guys, but do not know the time frame. So mixed aged patrols are the traditional patrol recommended by National from 1910 to 1989, and many units continue to use traditional patrols after national started recommending NSPs because the traditional patrol works. It's not a matter of ignoring what nationals tells us to do, it is a matter continueing to use an approved patrol type, after all National still allows folks to use mixed aged patrols, in a manner consistent with the Patrol Method. Do you want adults treating a patrol like Cub Scouts stil? I do not. That is why I am a proponent of traditional patrols.

Agree 110%. When I was the "Troop Guide" (I was doing this in 1986 and it was called Patrol Leader at that time) It was extremely challenging trying to get the new Scouts up to speed. Instead of increasing morale, allowing us to focus on their advancement, getting htem better in tune with Scouting etc, there were arguments, no one wanting to listen, and not enough help from older Scouts on the camp outs b/c they were with their patrols. And our SM only interfered once, and that was when I was at my breaking point and the SPL took over my patrol while the SM had a chat with me. I say it was acceptable and needed interference at that point. We did it for a year because we had to, then went back to mix aged patrols. But in that year we lost Scouts due to frustration with the NSP. When I was a NSP ASM, I tried to mentor and advise the TG and PL, and after the fact. But the same exact problems I saw when I was a "TG" were recurring. Everyone brainstormed on how to solve this issue. The only way was going to traditional patrols. And it is working. That statement is what many of us who do not want to go coed fear: National will change the program to accommodate them. And they will. I remember being in school and hearing comments about how schools are focused more for boys than girls. Over time, curriculum have changed to accommodate girls. But it seems that it is overcompensating. Recess, or more specifically unstructured play time is gone in most places. I thought I was reading an Onion article when I read a story about school districts hiring recess organizers to organize a game for everyone to play. In my day organized games was PE. And there are other examples.

The reason Is stated the use of statistics on First Class Scouts for the creation of NSPs is because that is what national used to justify creating the NSP model. The more I think about it, more I realize LDS units must have influenced its creation since their stats would skew traditional patrols since the y keep all the 11 years olds separate. In fact if you think about it, they are aged based, i.e. 11 years olds separate from the rest of the troop; 12-13 in the troop; 14-18 Varsity et Not just where you live. In the three states I've seen it used, the only way it was "successful" was if it was a Webelos 3 program. That's not what Boy Scouts is about.