Our guys made a disappointing choice

[gwd-scouter]

We have a backpacking trip coming up. The older Scouts are once again going on their own without adults and the adults and younger scouts doing an easier hike.

 

That was the plan anyway. Everyone arrives on Friday night and camps. Then, the older guys pack up their gear and take a rather strenuous series of trails. The younger scouts and adults pack up and take an easier trail. Everyone to meet up at the next campsite on Saturday evening.

 

At last week's meeting, there was some turmoil over who was considered an older scout and could go on the adult-less hike. Let's please not get into a patrol discussion here, that's an area our small troop still has some problems with.

 

Two scouts thought they should be included in the adult-less hike. While they consider themselves older scouts (they've been in the troop going on 3 years), they have not demonstrated the maturity or skills to conduct themselves properly on such an outing - especially if they are together. Besides, we had a trip last fall that was decided to be the shake-down trip for this particular trip and neither boy went.

 

Add to that, neither of these two scouts has attended many of our backpack trips in the past.

 

Finally, after seeing the plans and trails being taken for the hike, these two scouts voted against the hike-through plan and wanted an up and back type of hike. The younger scouts were also going to do a much less strenuous hike-through, but voted against it as well. That way, they wouldn't have to actually carry ALL of their gear. I can understand the younger scouts wanting an easier time of it, but the two guys that wanted to be included as older scouts voted to take the easier way as well. This does not show readiness to me.

 

My son and two other scouts that I consider very well qualified to hike on their own were disappointed in this vote. The whole purpose of their hike was to show their experience and maturity to handle themselves without adults. The three of them are completely capable of taking a long strenuous hike with all their gear. Now, the other boys have turned it into little more than a day hike, which our older scouts have done many many times.

 

I did have a discussion with the two scouts I mention here. Neither was too happy about being reminded of the shake-down trip that they didn't attend. One told me that my husband said he could go on this trip with the older scouts - husband says he doesn't remember telling this scout anything of the kind. The other scout was downright angry. In his case, while he's been in the troop for almost three years, his attendance is sporadic, especially when it comes to our more adventurous outings. We have younger scouts than he with more maturity, skills, and experience.

 

I wonder what these two took way from our talk and what decision they'll make. Will they go ahead and go on the hike with the adults, or will they just opt out of the trip altogether? I know where my money is on this, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

[shortridge]

A suggestion: The youth leadership may want to consider making shakedowns mandatory in the future, unless there's a really good reason for an exception (illness, family emergency, etc.). Otherwise, there's no real purpose in having them.

[Eagle92]

Om I got a little lost. Older scouts want to go on strenuous hike without adults. Everything planned,prepped and ok. THEN 2 "older" scouts vote against this idea at the last minute. AND you think they won't show up at all. to make matters worse, these two "oler scouts' talk the younger ones into not doing ANY backpacking.

 

See why you are disappointed. First and foremost is that it is a youth run program. So you got to live with the decision. I would however talk to the older scouts to see if they could modify their backpacking trip to the new format.

 

I would use the older scout who want to backpack alone, as well as the younger scouts twho want to backpack and see if they can convince them of the joys of backpacking. Grant you the older scouts may have to sacrifice their adultless trail to monitor and motivate the younger ones, but soemtimes teaching those younger ones is a goo experience.

 

Another factor is How long has this trip been planned and have the details already been worked out and/or paid for. Also did the PLC decide this months ago? If so you may want to say "we made the decision, we got to follow through"

[Knot Head]

I guess I don't understand. We recently did a backpacking trip where the old guys went on their own and the young guys (1 and 2 year scouts) were followed by adults.

 

On order to go with the old group you had to have attended Philmont or done prior backpacking with the troop to qualify. There was no voting and no "exception". The old guys picked their route and met us at the campsite. They did 10 in and 5 out and the young guys did 5 in and 5 out. We all went the same route out on Sunday but the old group left camp later and caught up.

 

II can't understand why these two guys were even considered for the long route if they were not qualified.

[gcnphkr]

Youth lead does not make it a democracy. If the original plan was a hike through, I assume decided by the PLC at the annual planning conference, then why allow a vote to change it in the first place?

 

On the other hand. You are allowing THREE scouts go alone on a day long strenuous hike? So if one scout is injured either he will be left alone or the scout going for help will be left alone.

[Buffalo Skipper]

I agree with Jet. I use a "rule of 4" when we have group hiking (separate from adults). I also agree with the shakedown. If you miss the shakedown, you go on the "easy" route (unless you have previously gone on the "strenuous" hike). No debate, no dicusssions. Are these two "older" less experienced scouts part of the PLC? This is something the PLC should decide. If they are a part of the PLC but are PLs, then their obligation lies with their patrol.

[gwd-scouter]

Yeah, sorry, my post was confusing. First, let me say that these two guys I posted about were not considered for the adult-less hike. They 'considered' themselves for it.

 

We have three experienced Scouts that have done a solo hike before, and quite long and strenuous multi-day hikes with adults. The idea of this trip was planned months ago, although the final details were not until last month.

 

Last November's backpack trip was a shakedown for anyone wanting to go solo on this month's trip. The two boys I mentioned that consider themselves 'older' scouts did not go on the trip last November. Yes, it was agreed to by the PLC and mandatory if a scout wanted to go adult-less on this trip - regardless of the reason unless the scout had experience from other similar trips.

 

Everyone knew this was supposed to be a hike through trip, and I agree that it shouldn't be changed at the last minute. All the scouts in our troop, with the exception of our one brand new scout, are capable of this hike-through with full backpacks.

 

The reason I think the two scouts I mentioned as considering themselves as 'older' will choose not to go on this trip is because they were the two that were pushing changing the trip to a round-trip (day) hike rather than an overnight hike through. Easier for them - they can leave their tents and things at the campsite since they will be returning later.

 

Also agree that having only three guys on the separate hike is not safe. Actually, son and I talked about that just yesterday and he agreed.

 

Oh well, guess our three experienced backpackers will have another opportunity to pass on their skills and knowledge to those less experienced.

 

I've tried for some time to get the guys to think of themselves more in line with their level of experience and not just by age and rank. I've known some 12-year-old first class scouts that were better prepared for more adventurous camping and hiking than some 17-year-old Eagles.

 

This little event may just help.

[Eagledad]

Yes, from the scouts perspective, shakedowns are important for training and for finding our physical and mental weaknesses.

 

But there is a bigger issue here and you nailed it, maturity. This is one of those situations where the boys have to learn the lesson. If they dont learn it here, it is going to hurt a lot more later on in life. Who knows if they listened to your wisdom, but that is your job and I know you do it well.

 

Before I became a SM, I was talking to a Scouter whom I respected very much. He was a very successful SM of one of the most boy run troops in our town. He told me once that good SMs usually are a bit of the bad cops for the boys because they dont always say what the scout wants to here. I know when he told me that, I was not going to fit that stereotype and instead I was going to be a good cop. But in the end, well.

 

Scoutmasters are viewed by the scouts as the vessels of wisdom, so there is a certain sting when the SMs words are not the path the scouts want. Good Scoutmasters are more consistent with their guidance because they work from their principles, not their emotions. Good scoutmasters dont see scouts as bad or good, but instead they judge their behavior as inside or outside of scout like behavior, or maturity. The scouts respect that because they see the SMs words as fair and just. They may not like what they hear, but they will respect it.

 

Your two scouts left your meeting disappointed. But since you are the fair minded wisdom of the troop, they likely respected what you said as the truth. Now they have to decide if they are willing to put forth the effort to against their will. If they do, they will have grown from their own initiative and matured a little. And really, that is the way it should be. We adults cant change boys; we can only show them the right path and the reasons why that path is better. They have to decide to change and when they do, it is usually for the rest of their life. That is why this program can be so powerful.

 

I hope they choose correctly.

 

I love this scouting stuff.

 

Barry

 

[SR540Beaver]

Wow Barry! You just described our SM pretty well as the bad cop. I kind of like getting to play the good cop as an ASM. Right or wrong, our troop high adventure trips are by invitation only. The SM is very experienced at high adventure and knows what to look for in determinig if a boy can cut it or not. You don't automatically make the cut based on age and rank. This has rankled more than a few parents in our troop as they feel the SM is playing favorites. Usually what is at play here is a parent who wants their immature child to go on a high adventure trip in the hopes that it will help him mature and settle down. The SM's position is that they have to do that before going on the trip to prove they are ready. He has seen kids melt down 6 days into a 10 day trip and it ruins the trip for the whole crew. If a boy's past action makes the SM believe he can't handle it, he is not invited. You prove yourself at home first before you get the chance to prove yourself on the trail. When our troop does Philmont or a troop planned trek somewhere else, there are up to 5 shake down trips planned. Attendance is a requirement. On occasion, the SM will allow one of these boys to sign up and participate if the parents really push hard. Some have proven themselves, but many have dropped early. One caveat the SM gives at the outset is that the parent wanting their son to go is not sufficient reason for a boy to participate. If the boy is forced to come and shows little enthusiasm, he will be cut.

 

Maturity and skill trump age and rank every time with our high adventure trips.

[Eagle92]

Ok I didn't realize that it was only 3 older scouts. I advise against it. Rule of 4 always in backcountry. Perhaps an adult who knows their place, i.e last in line, mouth shut and following the youth?

 

Since it's been planned I say go with it IF you can get a 4th person.

 

Playing bad cop is needed, especially if you set rules, you need to follow through. Best example I can think of is in the book For God and My Country when Lem has to punish his son for violating the rules.

[Stosh]

As a patrol-method champion, this is why one has a Venture Patrol and doesn't cherry pick top leadership out of the group to make it interesting for the older boys. As soon as the cherry-picking door gets open, it opens up all sorts of why can one individual go and the next doesn't. It's a personality, family crisis, etc. sort of thing that requires the SM to be judge and jury rather than letting the program work for itself. To rely on individuals and drawing distinctions between them will always eventually cause problems, as is why the thread was started.

 

Cherry picking your best boys to get special treatment is viewed by all the outsiders as unfair, and a point of conflict for those sitting close on the fence. Without teamwork of the patrols, this problem will always arise in the troop.

 

"The way a team plas as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime." - Babe Ruth

 

And of course everyone knows Benjamin Franklin's attitude towards individualims.

 

If one designs the program around winner/loser dynamics, that means there's always those that are going to have to be losers.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

Sounds like your Scoutmaster is a really good man Beav. No surprise, I enjoy reading your braggings about your troop, and your son. I also learned quickly to ignore age and because some boys mature faster, or slower, than others. And we once had an 11 year old bicycle racer in our troop, how could I tell him he wasnt qualified to go on a High Adventure bicycle trip in reality, we need him to train us?

 

One other thing that you kind of hinted to is the SM also has to be of some authority for the adults. Just like with the boys, I learned the hard way that adults need to prove themselves as well. We had one adult who didnt feel he had to attend any of our Northern Tier shakedowns and he made our lives miserable. But more importantly, he made his sons trip really miserable. As long as the SM is fair minded with everyone, folks may grumble, but they will respect the decisions.

 

As for the ASMs getting to be the good cops, I didnt get into that side of it, but that is the way it works out. The scoutmaster knows that, but they dont mind because it works to their advantage when the system is used correctly.

 

Barry

 

[Beavah]

Yah, depends a little bit, eh? I agree with Rule of 4, but this is at best sidecountry, not backcountry. There's ways to be safe with three or even with one. As someone who solo hikes and solo paddles a fair bit, I can attest to that.

 

As to da SM being the "bad cop." Yep. Absolutely. For the boys and for the adults. The SM settin' the standards is what allows the ASMs and especially the Patrol Leaders to be the good cops. That's an enormous gift to the Patrol Leaders which really makes the system work.

 

Beavah

 

[fleetfootedfox]

The Guide to Safe Scouting says, "Every BSA activity should be supervised by a conscientious adult who understands and knowingly accepts responsibility for the well-being and safety of the children and youth in his or her care." If the boys go off for the whole day on their own, how does that work with the BSA guidelines?

 

Maybe this doesn't apply for some reason?

 

If this was an overnight trek, you'd definitely be in violation as it says, "All backcountry treks must be supervised by a mature, conscientious adult at least 21 years of age who understands the potential risks associated with the trek."

 

However, your council may have different rules. The Santa Clara County Council web site says, "The 'safety rule of 4' requires that no fewer than four individuis, with a minimum of two adults, go on any back country expedition or camp out. If an accident occurs one person stays with the injured and two go for help."

 

You are saying "rule of 4" means 4 boys. They are saying "rule of 4" means 2 boys and 2 adults. Have to have 2 adults, not one cause of 2 deep leadership.

[gwd-scouter]

In answer to Stosh's post - in essence the three experienced scouts in our troop are our venture patrol, though we don't call it that. We are a very small troop and have struggled with the patrol method since our initial chartering. It's a work in progress, we are still learning, and we've made mistakes along the way.

 

All three of these scouts have been in leadership positions in our troop for many years. All three have almost never missed a campout or backpack trip. Two have been to NYLT. Two work on staff at summer camp. All three went on a adult-free hike last year for the first time. So, I wouldn't call that cherry picking. They have proved themselves. The two boys that want to be considered as 'older' scouts have not and if they are really honest with themselves they will realize that.

 

We are not taking a real backcountry trip. Going to a State Park in upper South Carolina that has many hiking trails - easy, moderate, and difficult - and most connect to each other somewhere. We go to this park once a year, so by the time a guy has been in the Troop for a few years, and if he goes on the trips, he's very familiar with the trails. After camping together Friday night, all will have breakfast and pack up. The adults and less experienced scouts will take a easy to moderate set of trails on Saturday morning, arriving at that night's campsite in the early afternoon. The experienced guys will take a different set of trails, more difficult and longer, and will end up at the same campsite in the early evening.

 

About leaderless outings: paraphrasing here, but the G2SS in fact does say that a patrol can do outings on their own, without adults.