numbersnerd

36 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

 We actually have the smallest member of our team act out the part and shoot a burning arrow .

Somewhere a member of the G2SS police is losing their mind.

As much as you may want to believe the content of this article, Buzzfeed's veracity and journalistic integrity is seriously in doubt.

6 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Likely it would look sort of like this

But you should only be stored in there after being cleaned via the 3 pot method...

16 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I want to say that was put in for our LDS brothers who still use the old 3 year Cub Scout program in use prior to 1982 when Tigers were introduced.

 

I know in my neck of the woods, once they join a den, they stay with them.

Ok, that makes SOME sense, just makes it unnecessarily confusing. Agreed about keeping them in the same den. Why kill the enthusiasm and camaraderie?

I'm generally skeptical about them as well, but my oldest is interested in going to an out-of-council one because my nephews are going (it's in their council). Only a few hours drive and he'd get to hang with his cousins, meet some other Scouts, and camp in a patrol with some new guys (yeah, an overnighter MBC, who knew?). I don't know that he's all that interested in the offerings to be honest. So if it's a more a camporee than an easy patch grab, I'm inclined to let him go. I think a lot of it has to do with context, the topics, setting, and quality of instruction. The last being the biggest x factor.

https://www.scouting.org/Home/CubScouts/Parents/Awards/advancement.aspx

The Wolf rank is for Scouts who have finished first grade (or who are 8 years old).

Personally I thought it would have been 7 yrs old in that most 2nd graders are in that range. Might be best to consult your UC and see what the options are. Odds are they will work to find a way to retain the Scout, especially if they have completed year in the program.

Much like replacing facts with emotion, replacing objective standards with relative ones never ends well. The end result is a morass from which it gets increasingly difficult, then impossible, to extract yourself from.

Scoutbook is pretty to look at, but cumbersome to navigate. As simple as it is to get info INTO Scoutbook, getting info OUT of it is painful. Reporting options are minimal. And that a generous assessment. "Reports" can be designed, but not printed, shared, exported, or otherwise used beyond viewing on screen. The user forum has a thread that is currently 140 pages long on reporting requests and complaints. The general response is to use a third party Chrome extension that basically does a screen scrape and export that to Excel. Scoutbook covers the basics, but not much else. Like most things National touches, it is helpful to the point of frustration, leaving you looking for another solution.

Scoutbook is user friendly for Cub Scouts, where so much of the paperwork is designed to be done by parents. Although if you get someone that is bling-crazed, you have kids all done with the entire year in two months and earning every by-the-way award available. Ugh. For a Pack of 40-50 Cubs, it's manageable and cheap. I CANNOT imagine using it to track anything in a Troop of any size. The Scout program has too many items and variables. Combined with minimal reporting abilities, it's just not up to it.

Not a uniform item...

We moved in the late 70's and in the rafters of the basement of our new house were two things.

A 4-ft tall wooden obelisk with hand-carved and painted merit badge emblems and names of the patrol members that made it in the 1930's. It had about 30 years of dust on it. It happened that one of those names was the current SM of the troop I was joining. I brought it to my first meeting and it stayed in a place of honor in the Scout room thereafter. His shock at seeing it again was priceless. I can only imagine the effort it took to make it. Truly wonderful.

The other item was of the same vintage. A solid metal Vaughn BSA Saf-T-Head hatchet. Still have it, still use it.

2 hours ago, Cubber said:

I'm not sure if anyone is still following this thread, but I talk with the CC/COR today. For those questioning my level of respect or loyalty- please stop. It's there and he knows that.

Basically, I think he is attached to the very long continuous scouting history of this Troop and does not want to let the charter lapse and start back at zero.  So he is working to covert the many leads he has received from council this year into real scouts, and also get a few of the older scouts to reengage with the Troop and breathe some life into it. He has many experienced scouters to act as leaders should this take off. He realizes it is a long shot, but wants his last six months the council has given him to at least try.

To understand how it got here: 10 years ago there was an upset between him and the CC and CM of this pack I'm in now. They parted ways and that CM/committee took most of the cubs with them to start a new pack. They then continued to recruit the others away and hold preemptive recruiting events for new Tigers each year. It starved the CO programs of new cubs and eventually there were no more Webelos transitioning into the troop. This went on for many years. 

That explains why they only had 5 cubs when I joined. I've built it to 32, so the pack is healthy now.  But this is our first year with Webelos, and they are all first years. No second years for him. The Troop unfortunately could not wait for the feed to begin again. The last boys have Eagled and are leaving for college in the spring. 

I told him that all the pack leaders need to understand his strategy with this troop and how he wants us to support it. He has not explained that to us. We want to support him, but we need him to tell us what we are supporting and how we can help him. And he has to be realistic about how tough it is going to be to sell parents on a start up. He knows. It was a good conversation.

Hope this answers some questions and thank you all again for your guidance.

-B

And that, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story. Even though it feels like 6 pages of posts to the payoff is a bit much, it's good that you had a productive conversation. It's easier to understand the COR's position now, but if you had that info to begin with, you probably wouldn't have even needed to ask the question here. I guess the main lesson is: communication is paramount. Even though it isn't the type of troubled troop that people run away from, it's going to be a tough sell to basically spin up operations again. I agree that more details about the previous disagreement should be available. Unfortunately you'll probably only get one side of the story, so no telling if you'll have the full picture. As long as your COR is forthcoming with the families and realistic in his expectations, hopefully nothing like the previous COR/CC/CM falling out will reoccur.  I can see families going either way even with the best of information. Good luck either way.

1 hour ago, David CO said:

That would be like Macy's sending Christmas shoppers to Gimbel's. What kind of crazy person would do that?

54 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

One things to remember about @David CO, he is a COR who is actually doing his job. 

 

Oh, I get that. It just that his stance, like the one the OP is getting, appears to be more about protecting turf than serving the best interests of the boys. 

1 minute ago, David CO said:

Absolutely, I would. Other units have the right to recruit from our unit, but we are under no obligation to provide them with the funds, equipment, volunteers, or access to meeting space to do it in. They're on their own.

I don't think this runs counter to scouting ideals. 

I guess if you're talking about using resources such as money and equipment, you might have a point. But volunteers? Like the leaders? It just comes off as as petty if you would tell a DL he can't take the den, as a DL, to another CO's troop meeting. Which is what it sounds like the OP's original question was about. So it appears we have some differing opinions on that.

40 minutes ago, David CO said:

If by saying us, you are talking about individual scouts visiting other troops on their own (not as a Webelos den), then I don't see any problem. 

If you are thinking of using the funds, equipment, and volunteers of your Chartered Organization to recruit for some other CO's unit, then I would say that such an action would be highly unethical. 

 

There IS a difference between a) advocating for a particular unit and b) restricting choices to one unit. Just as it would be if the CM or DL didn't give the CO's troop an opportunity to make their recruiting pitch to the boys. Either way, placing that kind of limitation on it is just plain wrong.

But think about this: if the troop has no scouts and the Scouting adventure requires a visit to a troop meeting, how is that accomplished? And yes, the troop visit, in addition to the adventure requirement, is a recruiting opportunity. Usually the entire den goes together to work on the requirement, but your interpretation would lead one to think it is not allowable. Would you really be supportive of that kind of restriction on activities?  Yes, they could do it individually, but making it unnecessarily difficult runs counter to scouting ideals.

What's been unasked so far is: why the troop got down to two scouts that simultaneously aged out/quit/whatever. That's a big question that would have to be answered to satisfaction before any family would give even slight consideration to joining the troop. But I have to say, after surviving the Cub program, most parents want and need a break, not the burden of starting up a new unit.

To echo that, troop choices do shift over time. Our pack had the same situation: most, if not all, Webelos went to a troop that had long been the destination for Webelos. Then there was a small splinter to another troop, and the same the next year. By the time our group got to that point, their visits made it clear: the de facto troop was not only facing competition, it was eliminated entirely from consideration. Every Webelos said, "No way", and preferred the troop that had been getting small numbers from our pack. The entire AOL patrol went to one troop together. The next round was similar, with only one boy not going, but instead joining the troop chartered by their church. But in all cases, the boys made their own decisions. The destinations morph and change, just like kid fads. Pokemon, fidget spinners, and ...next gimmick?

In short: No.

Scouting is a voluntary activity. Allowing for the freedom to choose the type of Scouting experience they want is part of it. Scouts (and parents) are allowed to choose what unit they want to be a part of. Not every unit is going to be a good fit for every boy and vice versa. In fact, BSA makes it pretty clear that level of comfort is a key consideration in deciding what Troop Webelos are going to join:

By the time Webelos Scouts are ready to cross over, they and their families should be familiar and comfortable with the youth and adult leaders of the troop, their role in the troop and troop activities, and feel excited about beginning this new adventure.

Now there may be some preferences, but that in no way should be mandated. A CC that issues such a restriction has stepped outside their authority. Maybe they need referral to some documentation. See page 79 of the document.

47 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

 

Common courtesy would suggest that one should not call themselves a moderator if they are not such. If the mods need to put that rule in writing, then I guess we will soon see a "sticky" stating such.

Impersonating a mod has been an offense that often results in the offender being banned for probably as long as message boards have been around. I can recall such since at least the mid 90s.

Common courtesy would dictate that if you are going to present something as a rule, it should be a rule, not a nebulous, unreferenced concept. And have it where anyone using the board can see it.

Impersonation? That's a pretty strong accusation. If someone was using a false moderator "title" to persuade, dissuade, or otherwise influence others, that might amount to something. But thus far there is nothing to indicate that was the case.

5 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

No, it isn’t. You cannot have “Moderator” in your title.  You are now just “Premier,” at least until you change it.  That’s a pretty lofty title anyway.

 Documentation for this and other rumors, err, rules is located where?

Making excuses for past behavior and the enablement of inappropriate adult intervention in the program does nothing to alleviate the problem and only models that behavior for those observing. In other words, creating the practice sets bad precedent. Excusing it will only lead to it's continuance and further erode the purpose and effectiveness of the program.

"Children" will only grow up as quickly as adults let them. Limit those opportunities and it stunts that growth. By defending the mindset that they are children instead of them as individuals ready to grow into adults, the die is cast. It's not a growth opportunity, it's heavily monitored activity sessions. If the boys know adults are always watching and ready to step in, it's not much different than school, and thus no real reason to be involved in the program.

I would hate to have my sons involved in such a troop where parents successfully badger adult volunteers and circumvent the boy-led aspects of the program. One shouldn't wonder that enthusiasm wanes at both the adult and boy levels in such a scenario.

13 minutes ago, Stosh said:

When I was in Cubs, many moons ago, the Den # patch was enough to distinguish the different groupings.  

Or that!

7 minutes ago, an_old_DC said:

I have not heard about Den Chief. New YPT will need to be taken annually (rather than every two years) and will take over one hour to complete.

Quadruple the time commitment for YPT? Yeah, that'll increase participation. Might mollify some helicopters, but even  choppers can only hover for so long.

So the iconic yellow neckerchief is only for kindergartners? Interesting to see if the feedback will be, "What, no yellow like when I was a kid?" I'd be cynical once finding out to enjoy that traditional combination of blue and gold would require signing up at 5 years old. Ugh.

If it has the traditional Cub Scout emblem on it, I'd be tempted to make yellow the standard Pack neckerchief until Webelos. That way parents are only on the hook for a new hat as a distinguishing element for each program year.

1 minute ago, Col. Flagg said:

No offense, but I have not seen a commissioner in 12 years. Looking at our district website we have 36 troops in our district and only 2 DCs. A larger number of packs and only 4 DCs for them. I know for a fact 2 of those 6 people are nearly immobile. The other four are so involved with their troops that they wouldn't have time to visit 5 units a year.

If BSA is betting on DCs to pick up the slack they may want to count how many belly buttons they have in those roles who can actually do the job. I'll wager most districts have paper DCs only, if any. I know mine is like that, as are the surrounding districts.

It will be interesting to see if the already thin commissioner corps downsizes once girls are in. How many DC's don't subscribe to the new policy and will decline the honor? How many adults that agree with it will have the time to devote to being a DC if they're trying to build a girl unit?

Could or should it have been posted in the other thread? Perhaps, but there's been some bleed over between the two and the references are much closer here. But I posted that for many reasons. One because of the size and depth of the impression the initial post made. Then the play nice post was so incongruent with that.

And it highlights something I fear is likely: the introduction of a double standard. Comments made by one gender are interpreted differently when uttered by the other. As it is now, boys are on equal footing because, well, they are all boys. The introduction of girls into the mix (spare me the separate units argument, it's already being undermined and disappears in multi-unit activities) only makes this more possible. Now they will have a set of proverbial eggshells to walk on. And when the rebukes devolve from "that's not nice" into "stop the bullying", the rate at which boys decline to join the program will only accelerate. Do boys need to learn how to navigate the intricasies of dealing with girls, socially and otherwise? Of course. I just don't think Scouts, especially 11-14, is the right setting.

Also, I fail to see how Latin Scot's post was directed at anyone specifically as nobody was quoted, named, or otherwise singled out. More of a blanket statement, similar to others that have been issued.

On 11/21/2017 at 2:09 PM, WisconsinMomma said:

When the girls come in, the male chauvinists can get out.   

4 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Play nice.  You don't need to take down people who disagree with you.  Stick to the ideas and don't make it personal.