Virtual Patrols during Campouts

[frankj]

We use two man tents because they work for both car camping and backpack outings. If boys want to bring their own tent, that is ok. As for virtual patrols, we do it on campouts to make the cooking groups "more even." I don't like it and agree with BW that it undermines the whole Patrol concept. When the "cooking groups" notion is mentioned while organizing for a campout, the boys will sometimes form little bands to go in together, at the exclusion of other Scouts. This thread has prompted me to bring this up to the SM and see if we can't start doing this correctly.

 

 

[anarchist]

kenk,

first...gosh lets have virtual patrol, eat virtual food at a virtual campout around a virtual fire... and the adults can all go fishing!

 

At most troop campouts two boys can effectively function as a patrol but cost of food can be difficult without serious planning work...It's why we like 8 to 10 scout patrols.... usually have at least five boys at any event...At camporees, where patrol competitions are an issue we have been known to do 'merges' for man-power reasons. But two, three, or four boys almost alway equal a functioning patrol.

 

Adults cook for adults only, I view it as a solemn duty to prepare meals for the adults which smell so good they leave scouts sniffing the air and drooling uncontrolably...and thusly encourage them to aim higher next time...But scouts cook for scouts (and any adults they might care to ask to dinner)or go hungry.

 

As to quality of meals...SPL checks menus at planning sessions and "too much junk food" or not enough "real food and real cooking" results in a "do over"...

 

Tents: we generally plant 2 scouts in a two man tent (Timberline 2XTs with vestibule). XTs have two doors and a built in vestibule...sweet!

We actually start the NSP on their first patrol campouts in 3 man arrangements to help break them in easy (Timberline 4XTs with built in vestibules). Then they move into 2 man tents. Our three man tents are usually used when we have odd numbers in patrols...say 7 boys...then it is two 2-man and one 3-man tents for that patrol.

 

However, "gear" is generally not permitted in tents... Backpacks are "racked and covered" next to the tents, clothes bags and personal supplies, (NO FOOD OR SNACKS) go into the tent along with sleeping bags, "ground cloths",pads, all purpose paper etc....shoes and boots are left in the vestibule.

hope it helps

anarchist

[EagleInKY]

Eagle76 - "The car-camping-only contingent on our committee recently voted to purchase an 8-man tent for the troop."

 

Since when does the committee decide what type of camping the troop will do and what equipment to buy? In my opinion, these decisions are left up to the "program" side of the house - the PLC and the Scoutmasters. The committee's job is to procure what the program side wants. Not to make judgement calls on their plan.

[scoutingagain]

I would have to fully agree with Bob White, Eamonn and others that have concerns over virtual patrols on campouts. They are correct, they do not help in forming patrol identity. But they do allow boys to figure out how to deal with organizational issues.

 

The unit I serve, operates very similarly to EagleKY's.

 

On most outings the 4 patrols we have will function as patrols. Sometimes we end up with that low turn out. We only have a core group of scouts that really like winter camping for example.

 

And as I said, for the most part the boys workout the virtual patrol issues themselves. Typically the SPL will get together with all those that plan on attending the next outing. Sometimes 6-8 scouts show up. 3 from one patrol, 2 from another, 1 from a third and 0 from another. The Scouts, will usually then say, hey why don't you guys eat with us, or you guys do breakfast we'll do dinner and they end up functioning as a single unit similar to a crew. Usually an elected PL will take the lead, sometimes the group will appoint someone who hasn't had a chance to lead.

 

Now I could, as an Adult, walk over and say wait a minute, this isn't the Patrol Method as laid out in the book! You guys can't do this! But I don't. The scouts themselves have worked out, what seems to me, a very logical way to run such an outing under the circumstances. Is it perfect? No. Is it Boy Lead? Yes!

 

I don't think the concept of virtual patrols for outing is a good one, however I think it is better than saying each patrol has to have a certain number of participants or no one from that patrol is allowed to go. If it happened more than a couple of outings a year, I guess we could look at forming fewer, larger patrols.

 

SA

 

SA

 

[Eagle76]

EagleinKY - You're preaching to the choir. But this is exactly the situation we (The SM and I) are facing: a troop committee which utters the phrase "It's a Boy-run Troop" like a mantra, while inserting themselves into all levels of the "program" side of the house.

[FScouter]

I cannot believe that any leader would tell a patrol that they would not be allowed to participate unless they had a minimum number.

 

Why can a patrol of 2 on a campout not work?? For that matter, why would one boy not work?? What is the objection to this??

 

I'm not seeing the value in a dummy patrol with a "good" number of boys at the expense of eroding patrol identity. The number of boys is NOT a prerequisite for the patrol method to work. The recommended number of 6-8 helps the patrol method work most efficiently. Having fewer on a campout does not mean the patrol method will not work. Eliminating a patrol for an outing removes all opportunities for the members of that patrol to work together and learn and grow. Why would an adult leader do this?

 

The fact that this "virtual" idea might come from boys and be "boy led" doesn't mean it's right. Part of our job as leaders is to guide these boys in the right direction. The solution to lack of participation is NOT to dissolve patrols.

 

So again, why can a 2-boy patrol on a campout not work?

[EagleInKY]

Eagle76 - Sounds like time to conduct the "Troop Committee Challenge". This is a great training course for the committee and helps them understand their place in the organization. Include as many of your SM group as well. It's great to see the lightbulbs go on, "Oh, we're supposed to do/not do that???".

 

SA - "I don't think the concept of virtual patrols for outing is a good one, however I think it is better than saying each patrol has to have a certain number of participants or no one from that patrol is allowed to go. If it happened more than a couple of outings a year, I guess we could look at forming fewer, larger patrols. "

 

Well said. Let me, for the record, say that I am not in favor of virtual patrols. From time-to-time, they are necessary. And, in our troop's case, it's the boys that are deciding to do it. They'll come to me sometimes and ask, and I'll tell them it's up to them.

 

As for high adventure activities, I think the crew concept often is the best solution. HA activities are often a cross-section of your troop (due to costs, interest and abilities). You have to be flexible in how you accommodate these things. Boy leadership is a must whatever you do. I've been to Philmont three times. Never did we base crew membership on patrols. Did it hurt the patrol system in the troop? I don't think so.

 

We're putting a lot of attention on the patrol method right now in our troop. Of the eight methods, I believe it is the one we are weakest on. I hope that we'll see big improvements over the next six months.

[scoutingagain]

FScouter,

 

I don't know if your comments are directed at my post or not. I never said a 2 scout patrol couldn't work. I just outlined how the unit I work with ends up with virtual patrols for an occaisional outing. Adults certainly don't direct it that way. It's not even like someone says, "OK, lets make up a virtual patrol." The scouts are usually used to working in groups of 4 or more. If there ends up being less than that, they simply naturally tend to regroup themselves that way.

 

I guess the trade off is Patrol Identity vrs respect for Boy Led decisions. I don't know which is more valuble. The scout decisions to regroup themselves does not effect their safety during the outing so we let it stand. Yes it does erode to some degree patrol identity and it is not something I actively encourage. If anything, we try and do our best to work to have enough involvement to keep patrols together. Sometimes, it just doesn't happen that way.

 

SA

[jr56]

Sometimes we resort to "virtual patrols" because of not enough participation. Is it proper and the best way to do things? Probably not. Adults never do cooking for the boys. We sleep in 2 man tents.

[FScouter]

There have been comments to the effect that mixing up patrols on a campout solves a problem. Yet the problem has not been stated except as "not enough participation", as if it is understood by everyone what this problem is. Why is a virtual patrol "necessary".

 

Can anyone be more specific about the problem(s) that are being solved by eliminating a patrol on a campout? Just trying to understand the thought process.

[Greying Beaver]

Yeah, . . . we've had to use the "virtual patrol" on campouts, too. Then it got to be a little too often. The troop solved the problem in a very practical way. We ask that each boy provide $10.00 for food for 2-night campouts to cover the four meals. After combining patrols for cooking and eating purposes off and on for over a year, we told the troop that patrols would no longer be combined for cooking, eating, and clean-up purposes. If two boys in a patrol sign up for the campout, they have $20.00 to work with. If one boy from a patrol signs up, he has $10.00 to work with for all four meals. We held our ground. You shoulda seen the feathers fly on that one! Parents of the inactive boys were not happy about that. Some tried to throw their weight around about their sons not getting credit for the leadership positions to which they were elected (Two were PL's.) but did not actively serve (Yeah! Really!). Unfortunately those boys disappeared off the radar screen.

 

The bottom line with the boys who did go camping was their merging into one patrol. They came from three patrols. They were happy. No problem.

 

Oh, yeah, . . . All of them made Eagle.

 

"Patrol Method". Works, don't it?

[kenk]

Greying Beaver,

 

Maybe its just late enough that my brain isn't working well, but can you clarify your troop's approach to renewing the patrol method, why that made inactive parents upset, and how that affected their boys' leadership? I guess I'm not understanding.

 

Thanks,

 

Ken K.

[ozemu]

I will not allow patrols to camp with less than four members present unless it is a backpacking type activity with lightweight gear and stoves etc. I see this as a mandatory aspect of care. This is my interpretation only and I will sometimes be convinced otherwise and can be approached by Scouts with solutions of their own.

 

My reasons are that the camping experience becomes a chore of cooking, cleaning, sorting and fixing instead of playing and learning. There is therefore significant pressure on less reluctant Scouts to not let the Patrol down. Ordinarily a disolved Patrol would split its attending members among other Patrols or combine with another low attending Patrol.

 

Patrols are always the basis of every activity. If there are activities planed that require a few members in a Patrol there are issues of Patrols of less than four being unable to compete/participate. The PL also has a pretty negative experience.

 

And as for two person tents - I'm with Eamonn (Patrol sized is a norm here).

[scoutingagain]

I'll try and answer you FScouter.

 

I don't know that virtual patrols(or as I will refer to them from now on as "outing crews") solve problems per se and I agree if used too frequently they do inhibit the development of Patrols. They do make the logistics of an outing a little less cumbersome though. In the unit I serve THE SCOUTs have figured that it is easier to say, bring and set up one dining fly, for a crew of 6 and share it rather than bring and set up 3 dining flys for 3 patrols of 2. The same goes for cook kits, food and stoves. During the planning meeting before an outing the Scouts figure out what they need for an outing and the best way to address the needs. If forming a crew is more efficient due to turn out, that is what they do. If there are enough scouts to stay in patrols they will. To me this shows these scouts are willing to look at a challenge, (an outing) and cooperate to most efficiently meet that challenge. They all share the burden of chores during the outing. They sleep in twos (sometime threes). There isn't the attitude, "Hey, I'm not sharing with those Flaming Arrows. They can get their own stuff." Or "If they only have two guys, tough nuggies."

 

I notice in two of the additional postings, its ADULTS, that seem to step in and forbid this.

 

 

SA

 

 

[Gags]

Kenk,

 

I think 2 man Timberlines have plenty of room to two people. The more room, the less incentive to keep an organized pack and sleeping area. And if you have 11/12 year olds saying they don't have enough room with their gear, then I think the larger problem is the kind of gear they're bringing, and their expectations of "personal space". Too much extra space can easily lead to a "party tent" atmosphere.

 

A 4 man would have plenty of room for 4 young scouts. Even with backpacks if needed. And it still can be split up weight-wise if you need to backpack with it. Although finding a spot big enough to pitch it could pose a problem.

 

I don't see a boy having a space problem with a 2 man until he's probably closer to 14-15. And then as anarchist mentioned, you can always cover the packs and leave them outside.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

--Gags