HelpfulTracks

It’s absolutely possible. My daughters schedule could have had her accomplish this had she chosen to do so. She has heard me say for years that advancement is not a race, but a journey, so she is in no hurry.

She is however, both a Venturer and a Scout. Since requirements can be met as part of either, she has had the opportunity for at least 9 outings in that time frame if you include troop (3) crew (4) council(2) and Jamboree training (1). (Two events were same weekend so She had the opportunity for 9 of the 10, she did 5). Even without the crew she could have had 6 events.

This Summer she is registered for 36 nights camping and my son for 28. 

Highly motivated Scouts who love the program can accomplish a great deal.

5 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I think you are right. Including the ASMs in the PLC meeting could work in a mature program where the adults and scouts understand their place. Adults have some good ideas based from experience, and sometimes getting the information first hand would remove a level of communication bureaucracy. But, the meetings would require a mature SPL confident enough to not be intimidated by the adults' respected stature. That maturity doesn't require the SPL to be confident in running a meeting, but confident enough to engage with the adult in a mature friendly manner. That level of confidence requires some development of the program.

The "No ASMs" allowed meetings are generally a reaction to bad experiences, it certainly was with ours. But, as the program matures, the expectation of the SPLs will mature enough to control the meetings. Maturity means the scouts and adults respecting each other as equal partners in the program. Something that just can't be said, but practiced until attitudes and habits of respect are developed in both groups. In reality, very few parents can just switch off their parent roles the day they become a troop leader. Same goes with new scouts, adults hold a level of respect that is hard to get past without some practice. Both need time to mold into a trust relationship. 

I also agree that a large portion (at least 50/50) of the SM's responsibilities are to train and guide the adults for their side of the program. 

One other thing, I realize that our program was 100 scouts strong when I left as SM, a troop of 20 scouts could be a different discussion. 

Barry

Totally agree. Which is why the SM needs to be strong in youth led, so he is able to step in and guide the adults and SPL. He needs to be able to gently push back on the ASM and nudge forward the SPL until both parties understand the dynamic. 

It is an awesome thing when it works like it should. I had 2 SM's from other troops come to me at an event and suggest we do something together. I told them it sounded good, but that was the SPLs call. The SM's went to SPL, who said it sounded good and he would be glad to talk to their SPL's to see if they could work something out, but he did not commit. The SM's came back to me and told me the SPL would not work with them. I asked what he said, and because it was both appropriately worded and youth led, I told them I backed him 100% and they should probably have their SPLs talk to mine. A while latter the SPLs from those troops came to see me, I pointed them to my SPL. The poor SPLs looked bewildered. The three SPLs decided it was not really what they wanted to do as a group. But they did agree to do some other things. 

A while latter the 2 SM's and 2 SPL came back. The older of the two SM's told me that what they decided was not what they wanted to do. I asked all the SPL's what they had decided, which was NOT what the SM's wanted. I asked the SPL if what they decided was what they wanted to do. It was.  I told the SM's we would do what the SPL's decided, not what the SM's decided. 

The older SM called me lazy, pointing out that I had not moved from my chair during this whole process, while he had be going back and forth trying to make plans. He then stormed off with the younger SM in tow. My SPL asked if he had done something wrong. I had a long talk with him explaining that he ad done everything the way it should have been done, but some people don't see it that way. He commented "I guess they just don't get it."

A unit I was once involved with had two different types of PLC's; meeting PLC and Monthly PLC. 

Regardless of type, the PLC was run by SPL (or ASPL in his absence)

The pre-meeting PLC was 15 minutes before each meeting and post-meeting for 5-10 minutes after. The pre-meeting PLC was to review the agenda, what was going on and when, that materials needed were on hand and to make last minute changes based on need. The post-meeting PLC was q quick recap (Roses/buds/thorns) and reminders for next meeting. There was much discussion between the Scouts as well as Scouters about the need for these PLC's and they were eventually dropped. A few weeks later the PLC voted to bring them back because they made the meetings run smoother and more productive and fun. 

ASM's were part of these meetings because they were being asked to instruct or assist in instruction, bring materials, act as referees (or judges, or sometimes inanimate objects) for games and activities. ASM's spoke as they were called on by SPL. 

The unit had a montly PLC where they worked out details of upcoming meetings and outings. Few, if any, ASM's came to monthly PLC. ASM's came if requested by the SPL to report/speak on specific subject matters. The SPL called on them when their input was needed. 

Personally, I think it is good training for the ASM's to join the PLC. In that unit each ASM acted as an adviser for a single Patrol Leader. The SM was the SPL adviser. Having the ASM's at the PLC let both the ASM and PL's see how a meeting is youth led. They could see how Adviser/Scout interactions should be handled. It prepped the ASM's on how things should run when/if they were ever SM. And it let the PL's know how things would run of they became SPL.

We tend to talk about the SM's job only in terms of training youth. But the fact is, he is training the adult leaders as well. You cannot do that in a vacuum. 

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Considering the number of Yeti hunters out there ... If I'm going through the woods naked, I'm dyeing the hair on my Mediterranean back blaze orange!

I have a mental image in my head now. And I cannot unsee it. 😕

I can live with someone wanting to revoke my “real outdoorsman” card because I prefer my Scouts be in bright colors in the woods for their safety.

I can live with them being offended by it too.

10 minutes ago, David CO said:

I should think that a scouter would be familiar with that concept.

Well, almost. Last time I checked I was doing the labor AND paying for it. 

4 hours ago, mrkstvns said:

Group setting isn't necessarily the problem. It's how the MBUs are operated in practice...

* testing is often not done at all

* time is inadequate for most subjects

* some MBUs "double up" multiple badges into a single session that can not even adequately cover ONE of the badges

* parents pressure organizers and counselors to issue "completes" not "partials"

* counselors are supposed to cover ALL requirements ("no more, no less"), but in practice, are pressured to do less

* hands-on requirements or time-intensive requirements are avoided, 

* MBU classes are boring (indoors instead of outdoors, instructor-led not boy-led, etc., etc.)

There are indeed scouts who learn well in groups. There are also scouts who learn better when they can touch and do (aka, "tactile learners"), and there are some scouts who learn best when they can explore tangents and research things on their own. The MBU approach short-changes many scouts.

Then I blame the MB counselors. I have taught at these events and I do it by book (Guide to Advancement)

• The Scouts are tested - individually. The morning is for learning, the afternoon is for testing
• I cover the requirements I have time to cover, those not covered are not signed off on. 
• Parents do not sign the blue card, I do - and I have gladly explained that to those who care to discuss it with me. I have never been pressured into signing requirements not done, and I will not be
• I have NEVER said I would cover all requirements in a session, in fact I state that I will not
• There is time to cover hands on requirements, depending on the MB and the requirement, in fact I make sure my class registration reads that any research/reading/writing that needs to be done is done before hand and brought to the event, if they don't do that then they won't get that requirement signed off. That leaves more time for those requirements that are best taught hands on.
• I recently taught Enviro Science at a MB College. I brought the materials needed for the experiments, enough for each Scout registered plus a few. We also went outside and explored finding examples of environmental impact, erosion and pollution. They were off taking photos, collecting samples and getting in the dirt. Bringing back materials to show and discuss with me. We discussed in detail, with models, how to create a study zone,so they could go home and complete that requirement.  I brought an ant farm as an example. Another young man brought a cell phone video of he and his grandfather splitting a hive, he air dropped it to me and I showed the class. They were in awe. 

MB Classes are boring if we make them boring. If we make them fun, then they are fun.

So it's labor without payment?

Well I feel terrible for those young ladies that are being discouraged (or not encouraged) to show their pride in their organization. 

They are always welcome here in Scouts BSA.

I have no issue with teaching in a group setting of MBU's and like activities. After all, we teach in group settings when we are in the woods. 

It is the signing-off on requirements that I take issue with. 

In fact I think "a Scout Learns" better in a group; watching others, trying, competing and teaching others. But "a Scout is Tested" as an individual, which gives them confidence, pride and sense of accomplishment. 

I didn't give it much thought at the time, but back in February several of the girls that were joining from GSUSA were mesmerized by the equipment cage and trailers of the boys troop and the crew. The new girls troop has access to borrow from those cages until they build up their own. Quartermaster was the single most sought after position. 

Over the years and via different organizations I have dozens of shirts that range from pastel blues, to fire engine red to forest green, black, blue on and on an on. 

Personally if we are in council camps, state parks, around the city etc. I don't care what color they wear. 

But when we go into the back country I prefer the youth in bright colors. On the outside chance that they get lost I want every possible advantage to find them. 

Never understood it, but throwing your boots over the gate at Philmont. I still have my boots with the cattle brand on them. (which I guess is something of a tradition)

Of course, earning the Arrowhead patch is a tradition all its own, since you can only earn one per trek and not buy it. 

I know at Northern Tier we all signed (and added artwork) to a paddle. I'm not sure it was a tradition or even why we did it, because I did not see a bunch of signed paddles hanging around.. Maybe it was for someone in our group. I can't remember. 

Unless something has changed I think you mean NLS/DYLC. 

National Leadership Seminar & Developing Youth Leadership Conference.

NLS is for the youth and DYLC for the adults.(though some adults will sit in on NLS)

There are similarities in these programs and NYLT/Wood Badge in the sense that communications, leadership, mentoring etc. are the focus. Some of the exercises and activities are similar. 

You are divided up into groups for roughly a day and a half of training. They are usually run by Region/Section Officers and Advisers, with the Occasional National Officer/Adviser in the mix. 

It is a good program, and like most training programs the best parts are the opportunities to exchange ideas and learn from others. 

I hope that helps some, and have a great weekend. 

11 hours ago, dedkad said:

Many camps have been dealing with this for years when it comes to adults and scouts having to share a bathhouse. Problem is easily solved with a few portapotties and designated shower times for female adults, male adults, male scouts, and female scouts. And let's be real. My son barely changes his clothes when he's at camp, let alone take a shower. This is not a valid reason to keep girl troops from attending all weeks of camp.

I am sure you camp would love to hand off that responsibility to you. 

My scouts want their showers. Maybe it is the 90-105 degree temps during the day, or being covered in sweat, dust, mud, blood and ticks. Maybe it is covered with the smell of horses or grease or insect repellent or fish. At night, there is a line for the showers so they can cool off from the 80+ degree temps and sleep. They adults usually can't get into the showers until well after midnight.

I cant count how many times I have been to summer camp. I cannot remember a single week that we did not have 2-3 "scheduling" issues at minimum, double that number if there was a female leader along. Throw in a couple dozen female youth and I am sure the number of incident increases.

 As for portable toilets, a conservative estimate is about $2200 per unit for Summer camp duration, likely closer to $3000 given the amount of maintenance. Even if we only covered 1/4 of our camp sites and a hand full of program areas are talking $44-60K minimum for the Summer. And portables cannot be placed with the current bathhouses, because of terrain. They would need to be at or near the road, which makes them PUBLIC restrooms for all practical purposes. Scoutmasters round table at Summer Camp is usually full of trivial complaints, but often the biggest and most contentious issue is Scouts/Scouters using another units latrine facilities because it is closer and not taking care of them (i.e. the Troop has to clean other peoples mess). Oh, and who gets the portable toilets, the boys or the girls? That is a can of worms in and of itself. 

I am the first to step up when my daughter isn't being treated fairly. Well, maybe second, she is not bashful about sticking up for herself. But both she and I, as well as the vast majority or female Scouts and their leaders, understand there are practical concerns that need to be worked out, and most camps just are not there yet. And it will take time and money to resolve those issues. Is limiting weeks a perfect solution, far from it. The so called easy answers are just not that easy. But most understand we are working to get to a place where all Scouts have full access to our facilities. 

On 10/4/2018 at 1:40 PM, shortridge said:

@qwazse, I fully understand that the councils are looking at it as a business decision. But it strikes me as fundamentally out of synch with the aims, methods and values of Scouts BSA. The troops are equal; the leaders are equal; the programs are equal; the Scouts are certainly equal. Why not give them all equal opportunity to attend camp? Why grant boys priority status?

That sends a very negative signal to the new Scouts who will be joining beginning Feb. 1. The messages include:

- Boys are more important than you

- Boys have the power to exclude you

- You have to take the leftovers and castoffs

Are those Scoutlike values and messages?

Does such a thing exist, or are you stuffing a man full of straw?

Having worked for non-profits I can tell you too many of them do not treat it as a business, which is why many are failing. 

One mantra I was taught and believe; No Money - No Mission.

If we can't fund the program, what difference do the Aims and methods make. We won't be instilling Scouting values into anyone.

As a proponent of a BSA girls program my first and primary concern was the logistics of Summer camps. I probably even posted on this concern somewhere in this forum.

I knew there would be attitudes that would need to be overcome, operational issues to resolve, but Summer camp logistics, that is about money. Money most councils cannot afford to drop in a span of 1-3 seasons. Most BSA camps are geared toward the 95-98% male campership they have had for a century. Ask the female SM/ASM's that go to Summer camp. Camps are just not geared toward their small numbers for financial reasons.  It is far easier to accommodate a few female leaders each week than it will be to accommodate entire female units. 

Take something as simple as bathhouses. Many (most I have visited) share bathhouses between 2 or more camp sites. Parents of both boy and girl campers have raised concerns over sharing bathhouse facilities. So if you have a couple of girl troops that barely fill half a camp site, but effectively block 2-3 campsites, does that make sense financially? No, it is a huge drain. Does it make sense to turn away 30-40 boy campers each session even though there are empty camp sites? That is tens of thousands of dollars lost over a Summer. Does it make sense to raise every campers fee by $25 to make up for those that were turned away? Or does it make more sense to funnel girl troops into 2 or 3 weeks of the Summer until there is a critical mass of girls troops?

To quote my teenage Scouting daughter - "That's cool. Makes sense. It wouldn't be fair to the boys to do that. We just need to recruit more girls if we want more camp dates."

Another issue I have heard raised is medical staff. The girl troop leaders asked for female medical staff because the girls are more comfortable with female doctors. Of course the boy troops said their boys were more comfortable with male doctors. How do you resolve that? Double the medical staff? Double the cost?

No offense @shortridge, but digging in and pushing for an ideal solution out of the gate only pushes people apart and creates a program that doesn't work for most, if any in the long run. I think we have done a good job of creating a workable solution for now. And though not ideal, we can continue to make it better. That provides all of our youth with a better program than the alternative. 

18 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

When a new Troop starts from scratch and the Scouts are all inexperienced 11-13 year olds, I think it is best to delay election of an SPL and for the Scoutmaster Staff to temporarily provide a bit more of the “leadership”.  The goal would be to transition to a SPL leadership model as soon as possible, but not so soon as to implode the experience of youth during the earliest months.  There is a lot of this fact circumstance currently in the formation off all-Girl troops.

I disagree. The youth will learn far better by doing. By having the Scoutmaster and ASM's provide "leadership" the scouts are not learning now. The Scoutmaster and ASM's may need to provide more guidance now, but it should absolutely be in the hands of the Scouts to lead now. 

Yes, they are inexperienced. Yes, they will make mistakes and have failures. Better to have them now than 6 months form how. Every single unit has failures, regardless of how big the number on their anniversary bar. But that is how they learn. 

News flash, they will have failures with adults leading as well. But they Scouts will not learn as much from the adults mistake as their own. 

But don't take my word for it, some one with far more experience once said:

“Let them lead in practically everything. Let them work out their own problems, interfere as little as possible—but be ever ready to give wise guidance—not when you think they need it, but when they seek it. Keep in mind that unwarranted, ill-advised interference discourages leadership and that those boy leaders of yours are “learning by doing.”

Mistakes, some of them serious, are bound to be made; therefore, be ever ready with a kindly and friendly spirit to urge them to try again.

Help them occasionally with constructive criticism. But do your coaching on the sidelines always, never in front of the Patrols. And then, when the Patrol Leader succeeds in his job, praise him for it. Commendation which is justified and not overdone is an absolute necessity. Such statements of approval should be made occasionally before the interested group. They like it, and so does the leader, as long as it is short, free from “soft soap,” and genuine.” 

--- William “Green Bar Bill” Hillcourt

On 4/13/2019 at 10:21 PM, DuctTape said:

And gives a false sense of security. The GTSS has become a monstrosity which satisfies insurers but does little to actually increase safety and mitigate risk. Why? Just like a computer system which requires too complex a password that nobody can remember, people need to write it down somewhere usually near their computer which is easily found thus rendering the "increased security password" meaningless. The GTSS  has jumped the shark in this regards. I am sure the risk management experts will disagree as their system works on paper. The problem is theory vs practice.

Interesting you mentioned computers. 

When I first got into application development I received some sage advice. Others, as well as my own experience, have added to that advice over the years, for my own version of KISS.

1. You can design and develop the most beautiful piece of software in the world, but if no one uses it, it is worthless. 
2. No one will use your software if it does not help them achieve their task easier, faster or or with less hassle than the way they do it now. 
3. If you don't talk with, listen too, or simply ignore your stakeholders, you are going to design things that make their job harder, slower and more of a hassle. 
4. Build only what you need to solve the problem at hand. Don't over engineer. 
5. Not every problem is a nail. SO put down the hammer and figure out the real problem. 
6. At some point, the list of problems will outgrow the solution. When that happens don't just keep adding on (iterating) the original solution, but stop and look for a better solution. 

That sentiment served me well, and it holds true for things other than software. In the last 4 decades I have watched many well meaning initiatives collapse under their own weight from failing to heed simple realities like the ones above.. 

Substitute GSS or even Scouting Program for the words software above. How much of the above list can be applied to our Scouting program? How far has it pushed us off course in our game with a purpose of developing character, citizenship and fitness. Maybe it is time we looked for better solutions before our program collapses under its own weight. 

Oh, one more note. 

Velco works great, but sewing it on is a major hassle unless you have a heavy duty machine. I paid a lady I knew to do sew on the velcro. She asked that I not bring it to her again. 

1 hour ago, JosephMD said:

We send a letter too, and some of them will bounce, and I won't find out for a week, then it'll cost us an extra stamp and envelope.  These days, you have to use every communications method available.  Letters, e-mails, e-mails to scoutmasters, direct communications to TOARs, fliers in unit roundtable mailboxes, even telephone calls.  I still have people tell me that they didn't know. 

 

It also depends on the person receiving the communication. Some do great with email, others with snail mail, others with text, and so on. But they don't read/hear any of the other types of communication. It is difficult to know which type works best with an individual, particularly when they are candidates and the sum total of what you know about them is on a piece of paper that may not be accurate or legible. 

It is the same struggle every year. I hear "I didn't know I was called out" (they missed the call out event and no one in the troop let them know). Or, "I didn't know when Ordeal was" (even though they were given a letter at call out, sent a letter by mail, emailed etc.)

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

Simple solution: stop using Email. Pay the USPS 50 cents a pop to find your Arrowman.

It’s not just the email. Street addresses and phone numbers are often recorded incorrectly or difficult to read. 

But the real problem is that we need to track them in Lodge Master (the official OA system)

If the BSA ID or DOB are wrong or missing, it becomes a problem/hassle. Even if you have contact info.

What they sent you is not coyote tan. I have purchased it before and it’s not what you described.

Joanne’s Fabrics carries it. They are a National big box store for sewing and crafts. Most decent size cities have one.

They have long strips, like tape. Don’t get that. You want the pack with a couple of broader strips in it, each is enough for a couple of position patches with a little extra. It’s been hidden by all the tape strips every time I went, so you will probably have to look a little harder.

I share your dream brother.

Seems no matter how hard we try, what process we set up. It is the same issues every year. 

And I thought this thread was going to be about dogs.

I guess I’m already off topic 😇