Campout Participant Limits

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So, the only way a scout gets to go to Boundary Waters, or Philmont, or Sea BAse or any other High Adventure place is with his patrol and if he can't sell them on the idea of going to Philmont when the rest of the patrol wants to go to Sea base or stay home, then he doesnt go?

[BrentAllen 10]

Yes, OGE, and add in the fact that Stosh's patrols are age-stratified, so the couple of older boys in the patrol aren't going to get to go until the younger boys reach the age requirement. What about Jambo? If a patrol has members who aren't old enough to go or can't afford it, no one in the patrol goes?

 

For our young Troop, we have 2 patrols. Each patrol has an almost equal mix of 7th graders and 6th graders. There is no way either of those patrols can go to Northern Tier - half the members are too young. So the older boys from both patrols are going as a Crew. I have no problem with this format, for very special trips.

 

OTOH, I have seen Troops that constantly formed ad hoc "temporary patrols" for regular campouts because the patrols didn't have enough boys attending. I disagree with this philosophy. We want patrol spirit and identity as fierce as that of Scouters who have attended WB. I don't see how that can be developed in a setting where boys are constantly shifted from one group or patrol to the next.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[Eagledad 2777]

>>Notice how the word patrol can be completely omitted from the discussion? Notice how the leadership responsibilities of a big trip are shifted off the boys and onto the adults? >"Our troop creates a temporary crew or patrol for each special activity like going to Philmont, Canada or snow skiing." This happens when patrols don't organize their own independent activities. This is how troop-method units operate. The patrols are broken up for convenience sake.

[Stosh 3452]

LisaBob, please indulge me a few minutes... I would like to take your comments and intersperse what I hear when I see what is written, maybe it will give insight into how I think. I do NOT wish to judge how you are doing your program or how you perceive your situation, nor do I wish to imply there is something wrong with the way you do it. Obviously it is working for your boys and in the end that's all that counts. If my comments offer insight into a different way, then it's just that: a different way of doing things. My comments/thoughts are in ()'s.

 

"Of course, when the troop (how does a single patrol fit into this process? or doesn't it?) does its annual planning, the boys (as a whole group/troop, as a PLC or as patrols?) talk through the challenges of certain activities for a troop (or groupings of patrols) of our size. And there are some lovely camp sites that couldn't accommodate us (us as all the boys or us as adults, as a whole troop or as patrols, some patrols or all patrols?). So the boys (again, as a whole or as patrols) choose activities that fit with the needs of the troop (could these activities be broken down into smaller groups i.e. single patrols, maybe 2-3 patrols going at different times? i.e. 3 patrols one weekend, other three the next? Are all activities chosen to fit with the needs of the troop or can the activities be chosen to fit with the needs of the patrols too? especially the venture patrols who need a greater challenge than the NSP boys?) and we (adults or boys?) select campsites that work for us (again, whole troop or by patrols? or us meaning adults who need to be supervising all the boys together?). Although that means there are some places that we don't tend to go (could those sites be an option if not all patrols wished to attend? or if broken up to facilitate NSP expectations or challenge the venture patrols?), better that than frequently setting participation limits on ordinary camp outs (again maybe just one or two patrols would/could/should be involved. Maybe some of the venture patrols would think they're getting something special if they got to go to these smaller venues). Now if we got a lot bigger (say, 80-100 scouts)(10-12 patrols) then I can see where we'd need to take another look at the way we do things (such as breaking down into patrols, diversifying the responsibilities of leadership down to the boys in the patrols? letting the patrols decide?). But I seriously doubt that would happen (sharing leadership decisions with the boys is difficult, but not impossible, but it is kinda nice to have the boys stepping up and showing their leadership of their patrols and how they wish to fit into the troop as a whole). 60 boys (8-9 patrols) is a stretch for us and the troop (could this be viewed as doable if the numbers were broken down into patrols instead of the troop as a whole?) seems to function more effectively when we're between 40-50 boys (5-6 patrols, could more effectiveness be accomplished if the boys took more leadership responsibilies in how many more patrols you could take on?)."

 

As I read through this comment from LisaBob, I hear in the back of my head limits being identified along the way. To me, I hear in the back of my head a challenge for more opportunities for more boys, especially if one were to share more of the leadership and decision making with the boys themselves as individual patrols rather than looking at a huge single group. Everyone always says that if the problem looks too big, break it down into smaller, more easily handled parts and deal with them one at a time. By the way, what I hear in the back of my head, you know, the voices... aren't always a bad thing. :^) Somehow I find it a lot easier to deal in my thought processes with 5 patrols than with 40 boys.

 

Again, thanks LisaBob, and if I offended, my sincere apologies, it wasn't meant to offend. I hope that if my comments were constructive it might offer some new possibilities for your boys to consider.

 

Stosh

[Stosh 3452]

Jambo? Age requirements? signup is by individuals, not patrols. Jambo is not a patrol activity for any troop anywhere. If two contingents from a council are going, there is not even a guarantee the boys from a single troop are going to stay together, so that example is not valid.

 

Philmont? Age requirements are placed by Philmont, maybe the patrol should consider going when all the members are of the proper age. Having a Star Ranked PL of the NSP take the boys to Philmont is kinda dumb.

 

If the boys in the patrol are thinking as a group, they should be thinking in terms of what activities are relevant to their needs, interests, goals in scouting. Obviously NSP and venture Patrols think along different lines and to lump them together and say we operate as a troop does a great disservice to both patrols.

 

In a boy-led, patrol-method program, where the boys are all making their own decisions, both personally as well as a group leader, if the opportunity for Philmont is this summer, the Star-ranked PL of the NSP could turn the PL reins over to another scout and he would continue on as TG for the NSP, training the new PL and be eligible for the Philmont contingent.

 

Again, if people only think of the limits and not the possibilities, there's going to be a lot of missed opportunities for a lot of boys along the way. Maybe when the Star-ranked TG returns from Philmont he'll be able to return to the patrol and work at getting all his NSP buddies up to first class so that in a year or two they too can go. What better cheerleader than someone who's been there?

 

Stosh

[GernBlansten 10]

Interesting. Our troop has always done an annual troop planning session, led by the SPL. But its a troop wide activity. Then, we try to force fit the patrol method into what the troop planned for execution. The result, is it doesn't naturally work and we end up doing troop outtings with loose patrol identity if at all. Ad Hoc patrols are common as patrol attendance varies. Ain't saying its right or wrong, but it sure ain't the patrol method.

 

From what jblake is saying, all the planning and execution is at the patrol level, and the troop is just a collection of patrols who come together on one night a week at a common meeting place. I like the idea, but I can't imagine our guys doing it.

 

Heck, I can't even get my small Venture Crew to plan and execute automonously.

 

But there is light at the end of the tunnel. We have two newly birthed woodbadgers in the troop, the SM and another ASM, filled with EDGE and enthusiasm. I am excited to see how they transform the troop to this ideal.

[Eagledad 2777]

>> Having a Star Ranked PL of the NSP take the boys to Philmont is kinda dumb.>the Star-ranked PL of the NSP could turn the PL reins over to another scout and he would continue on as TG for the NSP, training the new PL and be eligible for the Philmont contingent> Maybe when the Star-ranked TG returns from Philmont he'll be able to return to the patrol and work at getting all his NSP buddies up to first class so that in a year or two they too can go.

[BrentAllen 10]

OK, I get how to play your game.

 

Come July, our two patrols will decide to realign themselves into age-based patrols. The older patrol will go to Northern Tier. Come early August, the boys will decide to realign themselves the way they were in June. We will send a patrol to NT, even though they register as a Crew. There, I think I got it.

 

[Lisabob 13]

Stosh you don't offend but it is clear to me that you do offer a very different sort of program. I'm not saying what my son's troop does is always right and I am quite open about the fact that I don't think they follow the patrol method very well, at least 50% of the time (probably more). I am in the minority viewpoint in terms of adults in the troop though, which makes that a bit of a challenge. Please reference the spin-off thread on ad hoc patrols as an example of what I mean.

 

On the other hand, what I described in terms of annual planning is pretty standard practice from what I can tell. In our troop, the PLC is expected to participate in/run the annual planning process although other boys are welcome to take part if they want to. In general I feel the adult leadership has too many fingers in the process, but the boys do make many choices about activities, trips, monthly campout themes, etc. Sometimes they come up with things that don't work very well in a scouting context. One year some boys decided they wanted to spend a week in the Carribbean. Great, but they had no interest in fundraising for it. Their idea was that mom & dad would simply pay and any boys who couldn't pull it off just wouldn't go. Hmm. Another year some boys wanted to do some sort of experimental flight thing (can't recall details - maybe ultralights? hang-gliding? anyway it was something much more serious than just hopping in a cesna and it raised some big G2SS concerns). The point is that sometimes there really are limits on what one can do in certain venues. Nothing saying mom & dad couldn't arrange that vacation or that the boy couldn't go hang-gliding independently, but those are not good themes for a monthly camp out in most scout troops.

 

This business of troops doing an annual plan does not preclude patrols from doing other things on their own. In fact we have a venture patrol that formed for that reason and yes, they do things that larger groups could not do (although you may have seen another thread where I vented a little bit on how that's going recently too). However, realistically, I've noticed it is quite difficult to convince the boys themselves that they can and should be doing more separate patrol activities. Most don't have the time and some don't believe me when I tell them the BSA allows this. So there are hurdles there, some self-imposed, but high and solid none the less.

 

Boys join a troop, not a collection of loosely affiliated patrols. The patrols are a fundamental sub-set of the troop and I certainly would like to see more attention given to the patrol method in my son's troop, but that doesn't do away with the need for some coordination and activity of the troop as a whole.

 

At any rate, what I was describing was typical monthly camp outs where the whole troop could participate. On those, we do not set participation limits, nor do I think it would be good if we did/needed to.

 

 

[John-in-KC 311]

There are a couple campgrounds in my neck of the woods where the Ranger has set limits on the number of folk in any one campsite. The causing factor for the limits didn't come from actions/conduct of BSA/GSUSA units, but the impact does hit some of them.

[Stosh 3452]

There's always going to be some resistance to developing a patrol method, both from the adults as well as the boys. Boys want (like it was mentioned) the adults to do all the planning, paying, organizing and leadership and they want to take BP at his word, this is a game and we're here just for fun. If the adults don't come up with some fantastically entertaining program, then they aren't a successful troop.

 

To take a troop and turn it into a patrol method unit doesn't happen quickly. It takes time, a long time. As has been pointed out, boys don't believe adults when they say they can run their own show. First of all, they don't want to run their own show, they want to be entertained and someone else run it. Teachers (adults) tell them what to do. Parents (adults) tell them what to do. Coaches (adults) tell them what to do. Now the SM (adult) tells them they can do what they want to do. Yeah, right! It takes a while to beat that hurdle, then you go through the crap activity phase where they pick junk that's not related to anything scouting. i.e. paint-ball.... Eventually the boys begin to realize that they can do some really good stuff once they realize the adults aren't going to yank their chain and haul them back in. This takes time for the boys to build trust in the adults and confidence in themselves. However, when that finally happens, then some good things will happen. Be patient.

 

Stosh