acco40

Yes. I believe Girl Scouts is not age dependent but grade level dependent. Do your best to be honest, fair, friendly, helpful, considerate, caring, courageous and strong in your decision.

When I was the Scoutmaster, I had strict age limits for all merit badges. The Scout must be at least 11 years old or completed the 5th grade or earned AOL and is at least 10 years old. Also, they have to be younger than 18. To allow any other age is not wise. As an additional "requirement" - as the gate keeper, I would sometimes make sure the Scout had previously earned any prerequisite MBs if applicable (Swimming before Lifesaving for example). Other than that, I would advise a Scout if I thought it was not a good idea IMO to pursue a MB at that time but I would not refuse to sign his "blue" card if asked.

Isn't Scoutcraft simply the crafts we teach Scouts? If so, then are we not arguing a moot point? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

If you search hard enough you can find a hand written note by President John F. Kennedy that he wrote to his father when he was a Scout (Troop 2, Bronxville N.Y.) asking for a raise in his allowance. It is priceless. Remember, he wrote this when he was 12 years old! If you wish, send me a line and I can email you a pdf of the letter itself. (Not a hoax.) A Plea for a raise By Jack Kennedy Dedicated to my Mr. J. P. Kennedy Chapter I My recent allowance is 40. This I used for areoplanes and other playthings of child- hood but now I am a scout and I put away my childish things. Before I would spend 20 of my .40 allowance and In five minutes I would have empty pockets and nothing to gain and 20 to lose. When I a a scout I have to buy canteens, haversacks, blankets, searchlidgs [searchlights] poncho things that will last for years and I can always use it while I cant use a cholcalote marshmellow sunday with vanilla ice cream and so I put in my plea for a raise of thirty cents for me to buy scout things and pay my own way more around. Finis John Fitzgerald Francis Kennedy(This message has been edited by acco40)

Signed off merit badges are proof of completion in the eyes of the MB counselor. However, for Safe Swim Defense - physical fitness and ability groups state that the Scouts should have the necessary physical fitness level (usually by a health history form) and demonstrated ability. As a Scoutmaster on a troop event, you don't have to take the possession of the swimming or lifesaving MB as "evidence" if you do not want to.

Horizon - well said. Now who really believes that SoCal is just a bunch of fruitcakes?

To paraphrase my colleger calculus professor ... Scouts skills are like sex, you don't learn by taking a class, you learn by doing. Camp, work with rope, sharpen an axe & knife, etc. IOLS is supposed to make the participant get a flavor of what the boys go through. Are the boys experts after a one hour troop meeting on knots? Of course not, so why do we expect the Scouters to take a course like IOLS and become the expert? I found the best teaching tool is to sign up to teach a skill. Pride, fear, etc. are great motivational tools to make one learn the skill before a bunch of folks start looking to you for guidance.

Gags- I think we are in agreement. For some, a Scout's Own does satisfy their own personal need for worhsip but yes, probably not in the eyes of most major organized religions. The point that I'm trying to make is that a Scout's own service should not try to satisfy all walks of religious life - for if so, it is bound to fail. It should strive to be inclusive, respectful, etc. John-in-KC - Saving the Philmont grace, to me, is a "major" theological event on par with the Lord's Prayer, Declaration of Faith, Hail Mary, etc. It is giving thanks to Lord for various "things" and the only drawback to some is that it doesn't seem to have the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from any major religious organization. From my persepctive, even 100% of the Scouts/Scouters in attendance to a Scouts own service are members of the same religion - I would still recommend the boys plan a generic service and not just copy down what they been exposed to in the past. It should not be looked on upon as a tool to replace anything but as a learning vehicle.

Are you guys familiar with ABLE (Advanced Backcountry Leadership Experience) training? They rolled it out in our neck of the woods and it was well received. I don't know if it went national or not. it is supplementary training for IOLS (sort of). Kudu - I disagree with many of your statements. Patrol leaders are not interchangable every six no more than our presidents are interchangeable every four years. We have the capability to elect a replacement - based on scout skills, leadership qualities or who will give us the best tax breaks. What does one do with a Scout who wants to lead but has difficulty? The same thing we do with a Scout who wants to cook but has difficulty. We teach them skills to do the job. I'm mystified why that bothers you so.

I think having the boys planning a service or even a grace before meals is a good teaching tool. I've counselled boys, don't ask someone to take off their hat, ask them to prepare themselves for grace. Don't tell them to bow their heads, kneel or turn clockwise three turns and stomp their left foot. To each his own. Is it a worship service? Of course it is to those who worship during the service and of course it is not to those who do not. Personnally, I don't give a rat's ass if the service doesn't satisfy some Catholic, Shiite, Methodist or a Rabbinical Jew. So what? That is not the purpose - they need to get over it. The practice does open the eyes of the scouts to different religious cultures, practices and some are amazed that not everyone "does" as they do.

I've taken, taught and was the course director for Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills. I've taken WB for the 21st Century (i.e. the "leadership" version of WB). What is more important? Well, it depends on where one's deficiencies lie. I've had SAs that were propane, knot, tent, fire, knife, axe, etc. experts but could not relate to the boys or had absolutely no expertise in working with young teens and pre-teens. They needed WB. I've had SAs who were expert leaders but had no Scout skills - they needed IOLS. This will raise eyebrows - what I would like to see added to WB is a large portion of child development knowledge specifically about 11 to 17 year olds (I'm Boy Scout biased, I admit). Again, old vs. new WB is a dumb argument. Both are equally patrol based however. What do I feel is needed more? Well, to take WB, one needs to be trained in their position and for SMs and SAs that means that they have already had IOLS so I say go for leadership training. Kudu - I'm confused with your White Stag reference. I thought White Stag was a leadership course for Scouts, not Scouters. On a similar vein, I know that troop leadership training (what was called Top Knot in our council) went to NYLT over the years. My son was a NYLT participant, Troop Guide and finally the SPL. NYLT, for better or worse, has become kind of like a WB for the 21st Century for youth. Personally, I think these types of leadership courses do more to meet the aims of Scouting than Scout craft courses but each can be of great value if used properly. I think the big fallacy, and thus some animosity, is that somehow those who have taken Wood Badge (either flavor) have gotten some sort of magic pixie dust sprinkled on them. Yes, I do have some WB ashes but that is more of a memento and does not make me better or worse than any other Scouter.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Kudu - Do I sense a little bit of bitterness? The Wood Badge syllabus/course material is a restricted item so I can only comment on my experience in taking the "new" course (WB for the 21st Century). Your "cultish" like description for WB can be attributed to the Parol method too. Patrol cheers? Patrol flags? What's that all about? Look at the "obnoxiousness" that Wood Badgers have about their critters (well Beavers are inherently obnoxious but those Bears can't be beat). Paticipants are arranged in patrols, eat by patrols, study by patrols. Yes, you may be at 300 ft but your message, once received done here on the ground seems muddled. Are you speaking of changes to the Intro to SM Fundamentals course? Wood Badge? I can debate specifics but not generalities. My point was that the current course is more about leadership and yes, it borrows from corporate culture and it is not about tying knots or handicrafts.

Hmmm, I took a Physiology and differential equations course in college. Which one was better? I think they both stunk because in neither one did I learn anything about ancient Incan culture! Saying the WB for the 21st Century Course is better or worse than the previous course is a non-productive debate because their intent was to teach different things. If one want to argue about what should be taught in a Wood Badge course - go for it.

la Nation, la Loi, le Roi!

21st Century Woodbadge is not about scouting skills. I know, even the Wood Bage websit states - It is first and foremost, learning by doing. The members of the course are formed into patrols and these into a troop. The entire troop lives in the out-of-doors for a week, camping, cooking their own meals, and practicing Scout skills. It is more of a leadership concepts course and a vehicle to simply boost one's Scout Spirit. Heck, it closely resembles some of the corporate leadership training courses because they utilize the same sources/authors. Some get a lot out of the training, others, very little. I give the BSA credit for trying to devise a course for adults that range from high school drop outs to those with advanced college degrees. Just like a college degree, the Wood Badge beads can mean a lot or very little depending on the person that they were awarded to. But also, like a degree, the beads give one a modicum of "noticability" that open doors. However, just like there are quite a few college grads that lack common sense and knowledge, there are WB bead wearers who just "don't get it" so to speak. If you are contemplating taking the course, my suggestion is to go for it. It may not provide a great benefit (but then again it may) but rarely does it do any harm.

From what I read, they are still doing treks, but not for the BSA. They are doing treks for members of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) and utilizing the BSA (Philmont staff) as management and guides. I went on a trek to Double H and I rate it higher than Philmont. I thought it was wonderful and a great motivator to lose more weight! (This message has been edited by acco40)

If a troop is not being run correctly, I'd rather see the troop fixed as opposed to starting another unit. I know that it can be difficult if everyone is not on-board but still, my preference would be to fix up the building, not create a new one. But if the desire is to have an all male Venturing Crew for boys under the age of 18 what is the point? Why not have a Venture Patrol and run the troop the way the BSA intended it to be run? 10. FINALLY we can become a scout-run unit. No adults planning the same program year. Thankfully those adults reliving their boy scout days tend to stay back in boy scout troops (Oww, the truth hurts). Fix the troop. That is not the intent of how a troop should run. The PLC should be running the annual planning. 9. No Advancement Method. No adults on our back about badges. Have enough pressure with SATs, college entrance ... We learn, help, go on adventures, and have fun. Somewhat legit but advancement exists in Crews, but I don't believe it is a method. Troop Scouters should counsel Scouts about advancement but if that gets to an annoyance level for the boys, something is amiss. If it is coming from the parents, can't help there. 8. No attendance pressure. Fewer, BETTER meetings and outings. We can now do it all - School, Sports, Jobs, and Scouting without "participation penalties" (which of course are illegal) As you pointed out, troops may have attendance expectations but not requirements or penalties. 7. No camp (and only camp) outing every month mentality. We decide our own interests and plan activities accordingly to fit our schedule. One of the things a Venture Patrol should work on during troop meetings is their special patrol outings. 6. More fun to be in a small group of similar age, interests who want to be there than a large troop of 11-18 year olds who mostly don't want to be there. Have not met a Venturer yet whose parents made him/her join. That is why I like NSPs and peer based patrols and not a 16 yr old PL with a 14 yr old APL and 11 & 12 year old patrol members. 5. At MOOTs, Quests, etc., we give adults something to do - usually training. It can be anything really - "Survival tootbrush - Fraser fir or Balsam fir?" add free coffee and a patch and you can keep them busy for hours. Meanwhile we are COPE, rock climbing, or shotgun shooting. Scouts can and should plan out thier troop and patrol outings. Heck, only in a troop can you camp with NO adults (it's called a patrol outing). 4. Easier on adults who want to help, i.e., it is far easier to become a Venture consultant than a Boy Scout merit badge counselor. I'll pass on this one. 3. We can shoot pistols. I can concede on this one. 2. No more little kids. Again, plan your outings the way you want them. and number 1 1. Girls Violates the assumption, but yes, if that is the goal go for it. I tried to recruit a bunch of 19 & 20 yr old SAs when I was Scoutmaster but the committee (mostly wives of the Scoutmasters) were not overly supportive of that idea.

As an adult, I'm allowed to wear my WB beads, trained strip for my adult position, etc. I'm not allowed to wear youth rank patches (although I'm tempted to wear my Lion rank badge just for curiosity sake). There are boorish Eagles, Bobwhites, Beavers (almost all!) - but of course no Bears. I may wear my Wood Badge beads to a troop meeting or roundtable and it will draw many reactions. Some view it as "bragging", others recognize it as a sign that I've been trained (at something but they usually think it was some type of Scout skill expertise), etc. I usually treat my beads like OA regalia - appropriate for Wood Badge events only. However, sometimes it communicates to other adults and Scouts that like you, I take the effort to get trained. I agree, some take the training for the do-dad or patch or bragging rights but i don't think that is the majority. I have a graduate degree. I don't hang it up in my office at work (who cares?) but I did put it in my office at home for the simple reason that I wanted my children to see it and get the implied message that at least their dad thinks that getting an education is of and in itself a worthwhile goal. I'm sure some would see it as bragging or worse. It reminds me of college football. How many like those buckeye stickers on the OSU helmets? I think most Wolverine fans think they are stupid, boorish and childish. I'm sure that alumni of THE Ohio State University think differently. Same goes for WB beads and Eagle patches. I'm more proud that my sons have earned Eagle than anything that I have done in Scouting but I also know that wearing the "Eagle Dad" and "Eagle Mentor" pins are not appropriate on a Scouter uniform - so I don't wear them on my uniform. For the past few years, I've been a sponsor for our council's year end Eagle Award Banquet. We (sponsors) are paired with an Eagle Scout we don't know based on career or hobby choices of the Scout by the council. Sometimes I wear my Scoutmaster uniform - it is a Scouting event after all and an adult wearing the uniform sometimes puts the boys more at ease. Sometimes I wear a business suit but when I do, I make sure my Eagle Dad and Eagle Mentor pins are on my lapel. My WB beads spend the night at home in either case.(This message has been edited by acco40)

I think some of us forget that the badge/knot recognizes/identifies the individual not the other way around. The individual makes the badge so to speak. The badge doesn't make the individual. My son's were no different ten minutes before they were Eagles as they were ten minutes afterwards. I'm not minimizing the award/honor, but I think we put way too much emphasis on earning the rank. Advancement is just one of the methods we use. Do we give awards or honors to the Scout who associates with the most adults? Why not? Why does one of the eight methods trump the other seven? To answer my own question (which was somewhat rhetorical), earning the Eagle rank requires perseverence (can't earn it in a week), effort (for most) and a desire because although relatively easy to earn in the eyes of most adults, for a boy it is a big deal. But it should only be a motivational tool to help the boy make ethical decisions, become a good citizen, etc. That is the real goal, not to "make Eagle." I'll be honest. During many of my Scoutmaster Conferences I surprised many Scouts with this question - "Why on Earth are you in Scouting?" The question was usually reserved for Scouts just about ready to earn the Star or Life ranks. Sadly (at least for me) the answer for the vast majority was "to get Eagle." Rarely was the response to "earn" Eagle, have fun, learn outdoor skills, go camping, etc. I didn't expect them to state - to learn citizenship, develop personal fitness, grow in moral and ethical strenth and character. When I asked them why they wanted to "get" Eagle it was many times to pad a resum or college application. I never heard to be recognized as a person of character or similar statement.(This message has been edited by acco40)

They can choose not to use the BSA Advancement Program, choose to restrict certain activities, put in place additional training or YP or religious requirements for their adult leaders. They own the unit, and as a unit volunteer, you work for them, not da BSA. Ref. your COR training (yeh did COR training, right? ). I'm a little out of my swim lane here, but I don't think a CO can choose to not use the BSA advancement program, although I'm trying to guess exactly what you mean with that statement. They can't arbitrarily make up rank requirements. They may de-emphasize advancement, make up "awards" that are CO specific, etc. but I don't think they can just have a blanket "not use" the BSA advancement program and remain a unit of the BSA.(This message has been edited by acco40)

The mission statement (goals) are as Twocubdad stated. That goal may be accomplished on school nights, in hotels or while driving an ATV but that is not the BSA program. If the goals or aims are accomplished utilizing the 8 methods - that is the BSA program. So again, the mission may be accomplished in numerous ways but not all are the Scouting program. As Scouters, we are supposed to strive to accomplish our mission, not by any means possible, but by using the methods of the BSA.

If we follow the program like we should ... The members of a Board of Review should have the following objectives in mind: To make sure the Scout has completed the requirements for the rank. To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit. To encourage the Scout to progress further. Provide quality control on advancement and the program as a whole So, if a Scout has not been advancing, slipping attendance, etc. it is completely appropriate to initiate a BOR with the Scout and encourage them to progress further (not just in advancement mind you) and find out about what kind of experience, good or bad, he is having within the troop. It doesn't matter if we start throwing around pejoratives and call this nagging or pushing. It really is simple. Learn the program. Execute the program.(This message has been edited by acco40)

The boys don't get to make the "laws" - rank requirements, merit badge requirements, etc. The adults are not supposed to pick cafeteria style what part of the program they want to implement - hmm, I like advancement but not uniform, and instead of adult association, lets use computerized training etc. Units don't get to choose their preferences about "God", "Gays" and "Girls." From that perspective it is not a democracy. That was the point I was tryin to make. Units should not have the opportunity to "decide" that they don't want to require a scout to tie a bowline and would rather have them tie a hangman's noose even if the "vote" was unanimous. Too many times, when a Scoutmaster or Committee Chair make the "correct" but unpopular call, the adults (rarely the boys) think that because most of the adults disagree that the call should be changed.

I agree completely. But if the desire is to have an all male Venturing Crew for boys under the age of 18 what is the point? Why not have a Venture Patrol and run the troop the way the BSA intended it to be run? That would help to alleviate the problem of having the older boys leave in droves. Moving the age requirement back up to 12 would help too.

I'm slightly biased but the Scoutmaster should be perceived as God on these matters - omnipotent and never publically challenged. All SAs (Assistant Scoutmasters) should be backing up the Scoutmaster, not second guessing their actions. The committee members should support the program not sit as judge and jury for the actions the SM. If a certain Scout or Scouter is an issue with repetitive behavior issues during outings, the committe may get involved as the request of the Scoutmaster. Scouting is not a democracy. Many folks seem to forget that.