SteveMM

I received the email on Monday, which had a link to follow for the form.  Here it is:

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/se-packet/2019-09-30/Additional-Disclosures-And-Background-Check-Authorization-NOT-CALIFORNIA.pdf

Ditto to everything said already.  Our troop did Country Meats as a fundraiser for Philmont.  In many cases, the Scouts didn't have to look far for a buyer, since their fathers just kept buying them at Scout meetings!

My son's ECoH was on Friday, and he's now officially an Eagle!  I understand that he officially became an Eagle the minute national rubber-stamped his forms, but it doesn't seem real until the patch is on the uniform.  He said it seemed rather surreal standing up there having the kerchief put around his neck and the medal pinned on, but pretty quickly it just seemed normal.  We're incredibly proud of him, needless to say.  I attached a picture below that I just love.  We had a slideshow running the entire time, which featured my son's moments in Scouting.  Our friend caught a picture of him standing on the stage with his Eagle, and on the slideshow was a picture of him trying on his Cub Scout uniform for the first time. 

16 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

Check out Boys' Life and Scouting Magazine. Sometimes I feel like those publications are nothing but ads. 

True that.

I was looking through my father's old Boy Scouts "Handbook for Boys" the other day.  It's from the 1949 printing, and I figure he got the book not long after that, as he turned 10 in 1950.  I was very surprised to see that there were advertisements in it!  I saw ads from Goodyear, more than one shoe/boot manufacturer, a knife company, Coca-Cola, and others.  I've attached a few pics.  I personally wouldn't mind seeing ads in the modern Scout book, as long as they were relevant to the outdoors or the program and not for video games.  Thoughts?

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

The summer camp guide should advise that scouts would have to complete that requirement on their own time.

Barry

It did, actually.  Attending the meeting was on the list of pre-requisites, and my son did it before camp.  However, while going through the merit badge class, the instructor just showed the video and counted that as fulfilling the requirement.  It was hard to believe, but giving Scouts shortcuts happens far too often.

I doubt many people will agree with me, but if this is an isolated incident I think you award the merit badge to the Scout.  This sort of thing happened to my son with the cooking merit badge at summer camp.  The counselor was very slack about requirements, and it was clear that he and another Scout from our troop only sort of completed some of the requirements.  Our advancement chair considered it, and said that since he had a signed blue card (i.e. not a partial) there was no reason for my son to re-take the merit badge.  Over time, he's completed the missing requirements over and over, so I'm okay with it I suppose.  One thing I will say is that the troop pitched a fit about it to council, and that counselor never taught that merit badge again.

I have a son who is about to have his Eagle CoH and a 17-year-old daughter who is trying to squeeze in her Gold Award before she ages out of GSA.  I'm a committee member in my son's troop and my wife is a troop leader in the Girl Scouts troop.  When the Boy Scouts announced they were letting girls join, my son and I kind of rolled our eyes a bit, but shrugged it off.  My daughter and wife, meanwhile, were furious.  I mentioned that some girls want to do "Boy Scouts stuff" like camping and backpacking.  My wife said that Girl Scouts can do that too.  While that's absolutely true, I think my daughter has camped out maybe three or four times in her entire scouting career, and all of them were closer to backyard campouts than high adventure.  

All of that aside, what it comes down to is that Girl Scouts and their troops have a LOT more leeway to do things "their own way" than Boy Scout Troops.  What has happened, though, is that very few of them seem to do the kind of hiking and camping that is typical of Boy Scouting.  While I'm not sure I 100% believe Scouts BSA when it said there was a groundswell of support for girls to join up, I do think there were a fairly decent number who wanted to, as we've seen from female Scouts BSA troops forming all over the country.  

I guess what I'm saying is that the Girl Scouts *could* have filled the needs of girls who want to do high adventure stuff ... it just appears they didn't.

This is a very interesting topic, because I can see in the original post a little bit of what might be happening in our troop.  It started this year.  The older boys, the SM, and both ASMs went to Philmont, while the remaining Scouts went to a standard summer camp with a very dedicated committee member.  I looked at it as a special circumstance because obviously Philmont is a fantastic experience for the boys who get to go.  However, at the very next meeting after camp and the trek, a suggestion for doing a high adventure camp at Summit Bechtel next summer was brought up by the SM's son and an ASM's son.  It was VERY clear that they'd been planning this for some time, and I wonder how much the SM and ASM were involved.  I raised my hand and asked where the first and second year Scouts would be going, and was told, "oh, well there's a regular camp ... they can go to there." 

I don't love this idea of splintering a troop's summer camp every year, although I do understand the older boys (of which my son is one) wanting to do older boy stuff.  I'd sooner it was maybe an every-other-year thing.  I'm a huge supporter of the traditional Boy Scout summer camp experience, and I think that experience is better for the younger Scouts when they've got some older Scouts around.

20 minutes ago, 69RoadRunner said:

Depends on the tent.  My son's Duomid weighs 35 ounces, which is less than half a Philtent and sleeps 2.  He left the inner attached, so he carried the whole thing and his tentmate carried more of their food to make it even.

There are many 1 person tents that weigh even less.

https://www.tarptent.com/product/protrail/#tab-id-2

https://www.sixmoondesigns.com/collections/tents/products/lunar-solo

 

You're right.  I'm actually remembering now that my son THOUGHT they'd split the tent parts up, but they actually did what you said -- one would carry the tent while the other carried the food.  

8 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

No, we are a backpacking troop. Some scouts go all out in the minimal backpacking experience and purchase their own tent. Ironically they don't always take them on Crew backwoods treks and instead tent with other scouts to reduce campsite foot print impact. 

Barry

Ahhh ... I see.  That makes sense, then.  I know one of the things my son learned from his Philmont experience this summer was splitting one tent between two hikers is lighter than each carrying a one man tent.  And, as you said, it reduces impact to the campsite.

I've seen that done on just about every "permanent" Eagle Project I've ever seen.  It's not unusual.  What it comes down to is whether YOU want it.  You're still the leader of the project, and if you don't want it, then it shouldn't happen.

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

because we allow single man tents

Interesting.  Is that for Youth Protection?

1 minute ago, Double Eagle said:

It may be his passive resistance to not go in order to tick off the SM.

This would not shock me.  My son has said several times to me that he's "done" with our SM for a number of reasons, including what I mentioned in the original post.  He still enjoys Scouting, thankfully, or receiving his Eagle might seem like a convenient way out.  Our ASMs are good and reasonable people, which helps.

How appropriate is it for the higher-ups in a troop (in our case, the SM) to pressure Scouts to get their Brotherhood?  At our regular troop meetings, I've heard things like, "We don't want any sash and dash OA members, so if you don't plan be involved, don't do it."  Now, I guess this doesn't sound all that bad, as he's looking for Scouts who will be active OA members.  However, my son and others who are OA members but haven't yet gotten Brotherhood are regularly harassed as well.  At the latest meeting, our troop's OA representative reminded OA members that there was a ordeal weekend coming up.  The SM then jumped in and asked my son if he was going.  My son (who is kind of done with the guy) shrugged, probably knowing that he wasn't.  The SM then looked at his own son, who is our OA rep, and said, "take him out back and beat him until he says yes."  This type of "joke" has led to the son applying his own pressure to my son (verbally, mind you) whenever he gets a chance.

A little background: My son hasn't been the most active OA member, for sure.  He did his ordeal in the fall of 2017.  He balances Scouts with playing soccer, which sometimes doesn't leave time for much else.  He's done his ordeal, one service outing, and attended conclave this year, but he doesn't regularly attend OA meetings.  His soccer schedule is now loosening up a bit.  He has his Eagle CoH coming up next month, and I think his plan is to focus on advancing and being more active in OA after that.

I know the answer to this is to have a talk with the SM, but I'm wondering if this sort of thing is normal.

1 minute ago, 69RoadRunner said:

They won't exactly prevent you from doing it, but Philmont doesn't want parents tenting with their kids anymore.  I don't think it's a YPT thing, but more of a keep the kids in the crew together thing.

We had 3 adults, 2 of us with kids in the crew.  The other 2 adults used Philtents and I took a 1 person tent.  

Our troop didn't run into that suggestion as far as I know.  My son's trek had eight youth and four adults. The four adults each bunked with their sons.  The four remaining youth split into pairs and bunked together. 

10 minutes ago, 69RoadRunner said:

If you have an odd number of scouts in the crew, he could use it.

True ... yes.  Also, if an adult is on the trek who doesn't have a child also on the trek, then the adult must tent alone, of course.  My son's trek had an even number of boys, so he just left his one-man tent at home.  He reported back that the Philmont tents were no problem at all. 

4 minutes ago, Double Eagle said:

I'm not in favor of all the solo tents. 

My son has a brand new (read: no food ever inside it) solo tent that the'd planned to take to Philmont, but he was told that they only want participants to use two-person ones because it reduces the amount of space in camps taken up by tents.

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Why not?

Barry

Bears think hammocks are tacos.

16 hours ago, 69RoadRunner said:

I used trail runners.  I think the support from boots is dubious.  Waterproof boots are waterproof in both directions. Once they're wet, they take forever to dry.  Boots are also heavier.  Every step lifting more weight is not joyful.

We picked up a pair of Oboz boots for my son.  They were remarkably light, and he said he was very comfortable other than a couple of minor blisters while his feet got used to the trail.  I think the boots vs trail runners debate is one of personal preference.  I didn't make the trip with the troop, but if I did I probably would have worn trail runners.  I use them for my everyday shoes anyhow.

5 minutes ago, JasonG172 said:

Again new to this!  Philmont provided tents? Opinions anyone.

Yes.  You can bring your own tent, but they insist that you certify that no food has ever been inside the tent.  Because ... you know ... bears and mountain lions.  They also discourage one-man tents.  If you choose not to bring your own tent, they will provide them for you.  

2 minutes ago, Double Eagle said:

We had a snowball fight on Baldy on 4th of July in 1982.  Back then cotton sweatshirts were common.  We  muscled through with all our gear and only carried two (at most) water bottles/canteens.  Those old red 1 1/2 qt BSA canteens had a cap that was a pain to fill sometimes due to location.  A beanie and gloves would have been nice.  Gear has improved so much.  Now boot types at Philmont, heavy or lightweight trailrunners, are always an issue and you can't find two scouts that agree.  I've see heavy climbing, military jungle boots (worked great), to almost sneakers.  Between loose rock and frequent rain/hail storms, you get the best of nature.   

There were patches of snow on Baldy this year while my son was there.  I'm not sure what day they made the trip up the mountain, but their trek started on July 4.

We had a couple of leaders on that trek go with trail running shoes.  They said since the trails are all very well defined, they didn't feel the need to have boots.  The trail runners aren't waterproof, but they dry quickly.  They said it was a strategy that worked well for them.  I suggested it to my son, but he's a traditionalist and wanted boots for the ankle support.

On 8/22/2019 at 5:22 PM, JasonG172 said:

Thanks for the review,  we just received our date for next year and I am now in GEAR MODE.  Pretty much made up my mind on pack (Osprey 60) so its the other stuff I am thinking about.  You mention your sleeping bag and I guess I didn't realize how much the temp dropped, I was just going to use my small compact summer bag but it sounds like I need to be looking for a 30 degree bag.  Is that what you're telling me?   

My son went with his troop in early July.  He had a sleeping bag that supposedly had a 20-degree rating, but in my research I saw several comments that it was really a 30-degree bag that would keep you alive at 20 degrees.  It was perfect for him.  He said he was never cold.  Speaking of cold -- be sure to bring little things like a stocking cap and light gloves.  My son moaned when I suggested he take them, but they don't weigh anything and he ended up wearing them a lot in the morning.

1 minute ago, NJCubScouter said:

I think a lot of Scouters have TRIED to do the same and have found that the parents and Scouts, given a choice between sports and Scouting, will usually choose sports.  So the "free market" dictates that it's us who make the accommodation, and not the coaches.  

Our SM has tried to do this, even going so far as to have a sign-in sheet so he can tally how often Scouts come to meetings.  Frankly, I bristle at this.  Scouts who don't show up won't get elected to leadership positions, nor will they complete requirements for rank.  That should be enough to encourage them to come to meetings. 

20 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

We generally work with the family to expect to have CoH no less than 6 weeks from the EBOR.  That also gives time to get responses to congratulatory letters from dignitaries.  

Our troop has its Greenbar next week, so we'll have the troop schedule for the rest of the year.  We plan to schedule about six weeks from that point, which will be about 7.5 weeks after the EBoR.  That puts us into the first week of October.  I hope that will be enough time.