Jump to content

Why were Venture patrols done away with?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

After my son complained that he felt like all he did at this point was teach younger Scouts, I suggested to the PLC that they reorganize into older-Scout and regular-Scout patrols (as suggested by the Troop Leader Guidebook). The PLC unanimously voted to do so.

Today I was at my local Scout Shop and noticed “Assistant Scoutmaster—Venture” patches for sale, which led me to the discovery that older-Scout patrols were once called “Venture Patrols,” and had special insignia. 

Why were these done away with? Was it just confusion of terminology with Venturing, or was there some other reason? I’m highly tempted to find some old Venturing insignia and hand it out at the next Court of Honor to the members of my older-Scout patrol. 

Edited by Calion
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My own experience is that scout growth is dramatically slower without older scouts modeling the skills the new scouts need to learn. Troop Guides are OK, but they have to teach most of the skills in m

Great question!  In reality, they weren't.  That is, you can organize your Troop any way you wish, and if you want to have an older group called the Venture Patrol, then go for it. Here's a websi

A few reasons for Venture crew/patrols demise. 1. Not really popular outside of LDS units, and then it was those units that did not focus on sports. When the old  Leadership Corps was turned into

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Calion said:

Why were these done away with?

Great question!  In reality, they weren't.  That is, you can organize your Troop any way you wish, and if you want to have an older group called the Venture Patrol, then go for it.

Here's a website with some more details... http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/venture.html

Programmatically, who knows why the BSA moved away from this?  The old heads here (like me) remember the Leadership Corps, which was essentially the same thing.  http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/seniorscoutsite/leadershipcorps.html

The REALLY old heads will remember Rovers, Emergency Service, Senior Scouts, etc...

http://www.seniorscoutinghistory.org/

Enjoy the reads...

 

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Calion said:

Why were these done away with? Was it just confusion of terminology with Venturing, or was there some other reason?

A few reasons for Venture crew/patrols demise.

1. Not really popular outside of LDS units, and then it was those units that did not focus on sports. When the old  Leadership Corps was turned into Venture Crews in 1989 (although some units like mine continued using Leadership Corps until we ran out of patches circa 1995), it did not have a huge following. I was hired in 1996 to create a high adventure program based upon the activity pins that were associated with the program, we had 0 interest, and I ended up doing COPE instead of because NO ONE signed up for it.

2. Varsity Teams and Venture Crews for all practical purposes merged, sometime after 1996 (want to say 1998). Prior to 1996, Varsity Team members could only earn the Varsity pins, and Venture crew members could only earn the Venture pins. While the letter for the sash, from 1983 to 1989 called the Varsity Letter and after 1989 the Varsity/Venture Letter, could be worn by members of both groups, they could only earn and wear the pins for their specific group. Sometime after 1996, that policy changed.

3. Confusion with Venturing did in fact happen, and still happens to this day. Venturing appropriated the Venture program's designation, CREW, for their units. This caused Venture crews to be renamed Venture patrols. Venture's color was maroon, and was almost appropriated for Venturing. I have official clip art with maroon Venturing logos. And Venturers are still called 'Venture Scouts," which is what members of Venuture crews/patrols were called.

1 hour ago, Calion said:

I’m highly tempted to find some old Venturing insignia and hand it out at the next Court of Honor to the members of my older-Scout patrol. 

I would not use old Venturing insignia for Scouts as it is a separate program. As for old Venture pins, if memory serves they were restricted items. Now Venture patches, I see no issue with. Once uniform, always uniform. Even after Venture's demise, I wore a ASM Venture patch.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The rumor, never found anyone to admit it's truth, was that National was going to change the program to aged base and the Venture Patrols was the shoehorn for it. But, I think it wasn't a popular as National expected.

Nationals self interest for aged based patrols is holding on to membership. When the scouts get bored with Troop scouting, they can jump into Venture Patrols or Venturing for high adventure.  The problem with that theory is if the adult leaders can't run and interesting program for 10 to 13 year olds, what make's them think they can for 14 and older scouts. Venturing crews in our district last between 3 to five years. And most of them struggle while they are active. My question to troop leaders that want a Venturing program to keep their older scouts is "why not do adventure for all ages and then maybe you older scouts won't get bored". 

Barry

 

Edited by Eagledad
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

The rumor, never found anyone to admit it's truth), was that National was going to change the program to aged base and the Venture Patrols was the shoehorn for it. But, I think it wasn't a popular as National expected.

First I hard of this. Didn't National try this in the 1950s, and it flopped? I've heard stories that folks were automatically enrolled as Explorers, but still remained with the troop.

Quote

 My question to troop leaders that want a Venturing program to keep their older scouts is "why not do adventure for all ages and then maybe you older scouts won't get bored". 

That is a great question. I know it is more expensive to do HA activities, but it is possible. But we are an "old school" troop not focused on advancement, but instead on fun and adventure. If it takes 4.5 year to get First Class, so be it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

My question to troop leaders that want a Venturing program to keep their older scouts is "why not do adventure for all ages and then maybe you older scouts won't get bored". 

LOVE THAT ANSWER !!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

That is a great question. I know it is more expensive to do HA activities, but it is possible. But we are an "old school" troop not focused on advancement, but instead on fun and adventure. If it takes 4.5 year to get First Class, so be it.

Yep.  Adventure does not have to be expensive.  It can be, but does not have to be.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

First I hard of this. Didn't National try this in the 1950s, and it flopped? I've heard stories that folks were automatically enrolled as Explorers, but still remained with the troop.

Yes, it was a rumor by someone who knew someone. The New Scout Patrol was part of the plan, so it wasn't far fetched to me. Until the creation of the New Scout Patrol and Troop guides. Webelos joined when they reached a certain age. They didn't crossover as a whole den. Patrols stayed mixed because they only got 2 or 3 new scouts a year. The New Scout Patrol started the aged base format.

Barry

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Yep.  Adventure does not have to be expensive.  It can be, but does not have to be.

The problem is that ,many adults are stuck on the imaginary age 14 restriction. Our only restriction was physical fitness maturity to make sure the scouts could physically do the adventure task safely. Except for Philmont. Could not get past that restriction. But, we usually did at least two or our own high adventure pack packing treks anyways. So, everyone that wanted to go backpacking could go. That doesn't include our backpacking weekend campout.

Barry

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The problem is that ,many adults are stuck on the imaginary age 14 restriction. Our only restriction was physical fitness maturity to make sure the scouts could physically do the adventure task safely. Except for Philmont. Could not get past that restriction. But, we usually did at least two or our own high adventure pack packing treks anyways. So, everyone that wanted to go backpacking could go. That doesn't include our backpacking weekend campout.

Barry

On the trips I lead, I put in the remarks, "Must be 14 by the start date, or with adult leader approval."  I have made a few errors in judgment over the years in opening trips to all ages, only to wind up dealing with problems caused by immaturity or lack of physical ability to do the trip.  (not my own immaturity or inability...for those of you who want to swing at that softball... 😜 )

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

On the trips I lead, I put in the remarks, "Must be 14 by the start date, or with adult leader approval."  I have made a few errors in judgment over the years in opening trips to all ages, only to wind up dealing with problems caused by immaturity or lack of physical ability to do the trip.  (not my own immaturity or inability...for those of you who want to swing at that softball... 😜 )

Determining mental and physical Maturity can be tough. My older son weighed 105 lbs at age 16. Yet, he had more backpacking experience than most of our troop. In fact, he once carried his backpack and the backpack of a member of their exhausted crewmate a couple miles on a Philmont trek. On the other hand, I had some tough athletes who fell apart mentally. And that usually happens at the beginning of the trek, so we're stuck with them the whole trek. They are a challenge because everyone, including themselves, assumes they can do the trek based from their physical ability. I was lucky on one such trip that the scout's dad was one of our adults. We let him deal with his son. The constant physical effort of paddling for miles or carrying a 40lb pack up a mountain is as much mental as it is physical. Some folks just aren't conditioned for it. 

Barry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

Determining mental and physical Maturity can be tough. My older son weighed 105 lbs at age 16. Yet, he had more backpacking experience than most of our troop. In fact, he once carried his backpack and the backpack of a member of their exhausted crewmate a couple miles on a Philmont trek. On the other hand, I had some tough athletes who fell apart mentally. And that usually happens at the beginning of the trek, so we're stuck with them the whole trek. They are a challenge because everyone, including themselves, assumes they can do the trek based from their physical ability. I was lucky on one such trip that the scout's dad was one of our adults. We let him deal with his son. The constant physical effort of paddling for miles or carrying a 40lb pack up a mountain is as much mental as it is physical. Some folks just aren't conditioned for it. 

Barry

I would push it further and say it is mostly mental/psychological (rather than "as much")

We have some 12 year olds that do just fine. 

We have some 14 year olds that still have significant challenges with anxiety and homesickness.

I have already excluded two 14 year olds from our upcoming trek that have not demonstrated the level of maturity I want.  (Yes, I said "I want", because I will be responsible for them in the wilderness. )

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Yep.  Adventure does not have to be expensive.  It can be, but does not have to be.

I think "expensive" may be relative. The troop paying $120 for 3 vehicles to park 2 nights plus over $300 for gas for a weekend backpacking trip on the AT is expensive. But I know compared to Philmont, it is dirt cheap.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Yes, it was a rumor by someone who knew someone. The New Scout Patrol was part of the plan, so it wasn't far fetched to me. Until the creation of the New Scout Patrol and Troop guides. Webelos joined when they reached a certain age. They didn't crossover as a whole den. Patrols stayed mixed because they only got 2 or 3 new scouts a year. The New Scout Patrol started the aged base format.

Barry

I know in the early to late 1980s, 1982 - 1989 to be exact,  Webelos were coming over as full dens. I do not know when the NSP was officially piloted, but in 1986, my troop was asked to pilot it. IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE and we went back to Traditional Patrols a year later. Imagine everyone's surprise when NSPs became a recommended model in August 1989

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...