Stosh

Oh, by the way, my boys don't use rosters..... The only time I see a roster is at summer camp where the boys need one for camp inspection. No one ever looks at it because they all know their part in how the patrol operates.

That would mean there are a lot of lousy scouts out there, I believe that to be a false premise. A good leader can make up for lousy scouts because the boys will follow if they really believe the leader cares for them. It's basic human nature. No one follows a person that gives indication one is not important enough to be taken care of. When one has to start quoting Oath, Law, rules and bylaws in order to maintain group control, then it becomes blatantly obvious that the "leader" is trying to enforce authority from a source other than themselves. To me that indicates a lack of leadership on that person's part. Leadership stands on it's own merits.

Because it is a stencil and not silk screen, the C in canoe and such like the o need something to hold the center sections in place and thus distort the lettering. I'd go with Canoe Trail as well and you are correct, the red angled tips are a give-away.

It always amazes me how people often purposely use management and leadership interchangeably. Maybe because people do it so much no one notices. Managers focus on the tasks needed to be done. A PL will have his duty roster all carefully prepared and posted. He's a good manager, he got the job done. Now he may delegate that task to another scout and follow up to make sure it got done. He's a good manager. He makes the announcement that the roster is posted. He's a good manager. Everything is all in it's place, duly organized and has measurable outcomes to indicate success. It makes him a good manager. But if the boys don't care to look at the bulletin board and would rather ignore the PL, then one can assume he might be a great manager, but he is a lousy leader. I find that the so-called leaders of the troop are often assumed to be leaders. They come to the meetings prepared, paper work is done, assignments are given out, and yet nothing gets done, the boys don't listen, they don't care what the "leader" has to say and disciplinary problems are a way of life. SPL's don't get the job done regardless of how much "training" they get, still the boys don't take him seriously and they don't listen. He's not a leader. One can't "train" a leader. They can encourage an attitude in the boys that will lead to leadership, but no manual, no lessons, no training is going to produce a leader. My only "training" for my leaders is "Take care of your boys." Those that do that have far less problems than those that don't. The best PL/APL team I ever saw was a PL that could lead and an APL that could manage. Between the two I never saw one problem that together they couldn't solve quickly and to everyone's satisfaction, including the adults standing around watching. Neither of them Eagled.

I'm think the same thing. The Venturing program does not use the patrol method. It is designed more like the standard top down structure used by the military and business entities. Maybe a "club" or "service organization" would be a better descriptor of a Crew. President, VP, Sec, Treas, etc. They focus on a certain activity, fun (local kayak club), service (Lion's, Kiwanis, etc.), but don't focus on a specific program, but something of like interest. Under those circumstances, they are not trying to develop a knowledge of group dynamics and leadership, it is assumed those issues have already been learned along the way. By the time youth reach the high school years (14-18) they are mature enough to theoretically handle the adult world of group organization.

I'm really not interested in a semantics competition, but if you insist. BSA is a non-profit corporation with franchises all over the United States. It is intended to provide goods and services to a certain market, i.e. young boys and girls. The program it offers is designed around attracting that audience. It makes contracts with individual girls and boys through its franchises to provide a program basically centered around character development, leadership, fun and adventure. When it fails to provide that to the beneficiary, (aka customer) the customer will shop elsewhere until they find a product that fits it's needs. The franchise has to meet certain expectations for the corporation or it will lose it's franchise and will need to either go it alone or find another franchise. I really don't know if the situation described is unique or there is a misconception of the free market floating around that isn't the general trend in the business world. When a corporation fails to meet the needs of the customer, it's market share drops and eventually it goes out of business. It happens every day. The more membership the BSA loses, the closer it comes to collapsing altogether. General Motors used to be too big to fail. It was the epitome of the business market 40 years ago. Well, it failed and the government stepped in and bailed them out just to keep them solvent. I don't think that will be the case if the BSA, which 40 years ago was viewed as too big to fail can't follow the same downward spiral. Evidence to support this comes out every year in the BSA's annual report. They are grasping at straws trying to come up with better market share and even expanding it's market as we see happening. But the underlying cause of the problem is not that one needs to expand the market, but to provide a product the market wants. Just ask Coca Cola how changing horses in the middle of the stream worked out for them. Until a business wakes up and decides to find out what the customers want and provide it to them, they will continually miss the mark with useless guessing as to what they might want. Go ask them, then design the program around what they want. They aren't going to buy it if it doesn't meet their needs. It's as simple as that.

It would seem that if the SPL were to be elected by all the boys, he would be Senior Troop Leader. The name is kinda misleading as Senior Patrol Leader. So if he's the Senior Troop Leader, what's the point of having patrols? If he is Senior Patrol Leader again, what's the point of having PL's? I have always taught that the SPL is slected by the Patrol Leaders to mentor them in a supporting role the same way patrol members select their PL to mentor and support them in their scouting career. So who's running the show? the needs of the patrol members or the SPL? I have always contended that the needs of the customer take precedent over everything else in a well run organization.

If I read this correctly, the "slippery slope" of education/advancement emphasis is valid. This is why I shy away from mixed patrols. My NSP can be compared to the Basic Training emphasis of getting activities oriented to instill appropriate skills in the new guys. The military and business have been using this model effectively for years. Once they are done with that, they can then take those skills and further develop them in activities that don't require intense training anymore. They take on challenges, solve problems, and aren't focused on "having to do advancement" and can relax and enjoy what they have already learned. Sure, some of the boys will become Instructors and go back to help the new boys, but they do so on their terms. This is the unique part of the POR system of Star, Life and Eagle. I, personally, would not like the process of always having new guys who I have to teach for the full career in Boy Scouts. By the time I get to the "fumes" age, I want to branch out into some real adventure and if I so choose, go back as an Instructor and help out the new boys on occasion, but not all the time.

The patrol method is designed for young leaders to be able to handle a group of boys in a learning experience. Youth of the boys' age (according to BP) can handle 6-8 boys effectively. How then can an SPL handle 30-40 boys when professional teachers can't handle a classroom of 20-25? The adults are setting the boys up for failure! The patrol method breaks it down into sizes of groups that will offer the maximum success for fledgling new leaders to try things out. 8 boys to a patrol, 1 PL/APL team should be able to handle it. 8 PL's the SPL/APL should be able to handle it. At that point, one is at about 65 members of the troop and NO ONE has responsibility for more than 8 boys! If the troop grows add ASPL's on each taking on up to 8 PLs and the SPL is responsible for handling 8 ASPL's. Still no one is overwhelmed with more than 8 people to be responsible for and the unit membership is in the hundreds. Drop the numbers down to 6 per patrol and still one is dealing with hundreds of boys in the unit with only 6 boys to take care of. The patrol method works if applied correctly. And just think about how many boys are developing leadership skills along the way. Of course this would mean the adults would have to get out of the way before any of this could even remotely be possible. Otherwise one is stuck with the number of boys a SM can handle being the only true leader. This is why the magic number of 20-30 seems to consistently pop up. It's the tipping point where even an experienced leader can manage.

I have been on this forum now for over 10 years now and there's an issue that I have interjected a number of times and have yet to get a clear understanding of how others "think" it's supposed to work. I am putting it in the Issues and Politics section because eventually some moderator is going to put it there anyway. My question is: "Who's running the show?" I hear comments about too many SM's doing that and it's not good for the boys. I hear conversation about the Patrol Method being a no-longer relevant part of the program. I have waded through hundreds of posts about SPL's and the problems they face, These discussions go on and on ad nauseum with no resolutions. Anyone walking into a unit meeting will within 15 minutes recognize who's really running the show. Yet with all the mentoring discussions, boy led discussions, "Go ask your PL" comments, it always seems that the "vision" for the unit lies in the authority structure of the adults. If one sits back and observes the dynamics of the group, it doesn't take long to recognize who the real leaders are. It is, for the most part, the adults. They give lip service to boy led, but when the the real decisions are made, it is some adult that holds the ultimate veto power in the group. The reason the boys are always asking questions and seeking solutions to their problems directed towards the adults is because only the adults have the final say-so. Why waste their time talking to the PL when he has no real authority or power to correct the problem in the first place. Even if they do offer a suggestion or solution it always runs the risk of an adult countering it with their veto position. Even the organizational structure of the BSA directives are oriented to adult led. IH at the top and the patrol member at the bottom. And this begs the question, for whom is the program for? the IH or the patrol member who's paying to be there. He's the customer after all. Why doesn't he have a voice in the product he's buying? Every business in this country is designed around the customer and it is up to them to create, make and provide to the customer what they want. This isn't happening in the BSA program, and for that the customers are voting with their feet. Using the now out-dated Patrol Method is one of the few ways one can get the "product" they paid for to the customer. Yet each year that passes, BSA steps further and further away from it. Why can't the patrol member be the one setting the tone? After all, he's paying for something in the program and should at least get his money's worth out of it. Yes, I have an IH and a COR, CC and MC's, I am the SM and I have ASM's to help, I generally don't have an SPL unless required to do so by council mandates, I have older boys needing POR's doing functional work and I have PL/APL teams running the patrols. What I do differently is the PL's are the highest ranking officers in the troop. They are not elected to terms, but are selected by the customers who expect to get what they paid for. If not, the PL is replaced by someone who does. Sometimes out of nowhere. It's the job of the PL to insure the success of the customer by the product being produced, an outdoor program for boys to learn skills and develop maturity into their adulthood. I was with an blatantly adult led unit that was the "gem of the council" because of the program they ran. They were an Eagle Mill par excellante. Most SM's looked with envy on how well it was run. They didn't have a troop trailer, they had a troop kitchen on wheels, multiple canoes/kayaks and trailers, they were on an annual rotating cylcle of BWCA, Philmont and Sea Base. Yet the dark side of it was there patrols in name only, and the number of boys coming into the troop exceeded the fall membership only to drop back to the original numbers by the time annual recruiting started again. 20 boys in the troop in the fall, recruiting took on 20-30 new boys and by the next fall they were back to the magic number of 20. Obviously that was the largest number of boys the SM and 15 ASM's could handle. So every time I hear discussions about marketing the BSA brand, membership "improvements", focus changes in the programs, etc.it always seems to boil down to putting the blame on the boys. They are interested in girls, cars, sports, etc. etc. etc., but no one ever puts the onus of the problems on the dedicated volunteers who are going out of their way to get as much bling as possible out of the process. I have never seen the customer being the problem. It's the shoddy product that is being duped on them that is the problem. Adding more bling and trinkets to the pig isn't going to produce better bacon. How many times does anyone hear "YES, you can do that" vs. "NO, you can't."? After all, every successful program always assumes the customer is always right, or they go out of business. So who does the BSA fit into all this? Look at the handwriting on the wall. Grasping for straws isn't going to cut it. Why not take a serious look at what the customer wants for a change?

The Mrs. is out of town and she didn't take my credit card away from me. I just purchased $100 worth of books on living off the grid. Basically they are books on how people survived in the world before electricity and modern conveniences. Yeah, yeah, Stosh is at it again. BUT jerking beef, making pemican, foraging for food or medicines, etc. will go a long way to lighten the load on any backpacking trek. Going to the local camp store to buy freeze-dried foods at ridiculous prices vs. making your own at home for pennies on the dollar? Our grandparents did this all the time and survived quite well. Unfortunately today's scouts will starve to death in the Walmart parking lot if the electricity goes out. These books will give suggestions on hunting, trapping, foraging, preserving foods, etc. all those things that are oriented to the outdoors where electrical plug-ins are non-existent. Sure, for a few bucks one can buy a solar charger, but if the electricity to run cell phones and internet goes out, the iPhones and chargers are just a boat anchor in the pack. Well, if we are teaching boys to be avid outdoorsmen, then we better teach them useful skills beyond S->FC advancement requirements. After all, my homemade teriyaki venison jerky is better than anything one buys in the store. It would be a shame to have Boy Scouts starving to death sitting in the middle of nature's grocery store. Oh, but you say, that will never happen. Well check it out with the people of Texas and Florida who went 3-4 weeks without eating anything other than what was salvaged out of their refrigerators and freezers if they could even get to them. Water, water, everywhere, not a drop to drink. Yes, this can happen even today and if it's your neighborhood are you prepared?

Some how celebrity status allows them to think they are experts on anything and everything. At least Scouting teaches the boys the kind of character and leadership to actually DO SOMETHING about making necessary improvements in the lives of other people. A Real Scout will walk the walk. Okay, you've taken a knee during the Anthem, you have my attention, now what? Nothing? The appropriate follow-through leaves a lot to be desired. The real changers of society are those that work to make it happen, not just protest and complain. Scouts are taught to work to make it happen. That's the part of scouting that keeps me going.

In my new troop, I have 5 boys, once we start growing, we'll just meet the challenges as they come our way. Same will hold true for your unit.

@cocomax Welcome to the "good old days". We are only a small minority of people on the forum, but that's okay. Maybe someone will someday listen to what we have to say. I only made 2nd Class, but what I learned has stayed with me all my life.

I have been involved with youth programs for almost 50 years now. Only Scouts focuses a bit of their program on leadership and character development. It is the only thing that keeps me volunteering for Scouts. As that emphasis wanes, so will my involvement.

Any event whether it be a scouting event or Red Cross relief operation, I always stop by Walmart and buy a large bag of trail mix before I leave. Then I never have to worry about where my next meal is coming from. I was in Houston and after 4 weeks, finished off my trail mix on the plane ride home. An airline bag of peanuts and half a glass of cola wasn't going to cut it for supper. It doesn't take a lot of organizational skills or menu planning to buy trail mix at Walmart.

I always carry a belt ax/sheath knife combo when camping. I have the historic BSA one, but when not on a scout event, carry a lighter ax/knife combo. Both are sharpened to knife sharpness and are most valuable for fire starting and cutting tangled cords in emergency situations when the boys spill their canoe in the rapids. If my boys wear a sheath knife, I don't say anything as long as they have a Totin' Chip.

I tend to wear hats except when sleeping and eating. I have a Smoky hat, well worn, flat brim went by the wayside within the first 3 months and now it has "character". I wear the Expedition BSA hat for serious scouting. It has the Philmont brands and 2010 Centennial brand burned on the brim. I wear a Expedition style hat (black felt) when not scouting and a Expedition style hat (tan with mesh) in the summer. Now all these hats have a ton of "character" and for some reason I get a ton of complements on all of them. I have no idea why because my Mrs. thinks they belong in the garbage and is always bugging me to get a new one. Maybe someday. Just recently the people at the Red Cross Chapter where I volunteer called me a TV celebrity when I got back from Houston. Unbeknownst to me, one of the networks video taped me at the Houston headquarters loading up my Emergency Relief Vehicle. The people back home knew it was me because of the stupid hat. In my avatar picture is my $175 Civil War officers' hat. It's the best looking of the bunch and after 10 years of reenacting it looks brand new. Do I take care of it any better than the rest? Nope, but it is made of beaver and of course it is waterproof, great for being outdoors in the rain. All my hats are full brimmed. Baseball caps are useless. No matter how you wear it, you are either going to get rain on your glasses, sun burned ears, or water down the back of your neck. Just isn't my cup of tea.

I started with 5 boys and it grew slowly so the adjustment was easy. One patrol one calendar. Two patrols, the PL's worked it out and the second patrol basically took the old calendar from the other patrol and tweaked it. Three patrols, again the PL's worked it out and now we had the NSP with an experienced TG to help them put together a calendar, again reminiscent of the old other patrol calendars. After a while the older boys began to get more high adventure oriented and added a one or two event change. When they did go to summer camp for instance, they all signed up for the off-site activities rather than the new scout program or just MB's. Yes, they did go to the same camp, but now more leaders were necessary for the off-site 2-deep leadership. It also gave some of the new ASM's a chance to be the SM in camp and the SM went with the HA patrol. As the troop got to the fourth patrol, the PL's selected an SPL to assist them in the coordination of the calendars. He was selected from the APL's, none of the PL's wanted to give up their position as PL's. It worked out just fine to have one boy with no patrol agenda to referee the conversation and offer suggestions on how to work out the one or two conflicts that arose. It wasn't much of a stretch. All in all, we "grew" into the process rather than trying to make the switch all at once. If I were trying to implement it into an existing troop, I would suggest working the system backwards from what I experienced, allowing the older boy patrol (Venture) an opportunity to come up with their own patrol calendar separate from the other patrols' calendars. The addition of one or two special activities, or going off-site at summer camp is not going to be a major disruption, but then as each patrol reaches a more mature stage in their planning, allow them the opportunity to select a couple of special activities for their patrol. Each year work back a patrol and if one has 5 patrols, within 4-5 years they will see how the new system works and adapt their patrols to the process. By year 3 or 4, even the NSP will quickly orient themselves to a combination of existing suggestions for their patrol calendar and still have a chance to add something special just for themselves, such as a campout that focuses on Scout-First Class advancement requirements in the field. If my Webelos boys can plan a Webelos campout, surely the NSP can figure it out as well. Be prepared for a lot of confusion from the boys in the beginning. This stuff doesn't just happen over night, but as time goes on, they adapt rather well to the new system and they get a bit of calendar similarities, i.e. camporees, Christmas Party, summer camp swim check night at a pool, and yet have an opportunity to do something special for themselves as well.

I've had an SPL only for about a year a few years back when I was a SM of a 4 patrol troop. We never had a PLC, all the annual planning was done by the patrols for the patrols. As we grew to 4 patrols the patrols did their own planning and when it got cumbersome trying to reconcile all the different calendars, the SPL assisted the PL's in getting it organized so that similar activities could be scheduled into the same months with a bit of shifting around. If 2-3 patrols all wanted to attend the same summer camp, the SPL would work with them an at least try to get them in the same month and ideally the same week. A little give and take and things worked out really quite well. In our case, the PL's selected the SPL and so the trust level among the SPL and PL's was quite high and the calendar process worked out well. I don't think they really had an official PLC meeting, just a gathering of leaders so that the wrinkles can get ironed out as needed.

Missed out on the discussion, but I skimmed through everyone's responses. 2 issues that come up that haven't been mentioned. 1) The SPL has only one month left before his term in office ends. He will be short on time for his advancement if he needs it. There's nothing in the book that says the POR requires that the scout serve the 6 months in just one position. All he needs do is 1 month in another position to achieve advancement. It's not the end of the world. 2) With only 1 month to go, I would think it a good idea to start training a new SPL to take over and what better way than to have the new guy get some hands-on experience? Sink or swim is a rough way to learn, but it does work. The new guy could get some "no safety net" experience handling the situation before he has an obligation to take on the job full time. After all, what better way to get "selected" for the SPL position? A well prepared speech to the boys or a demonstration of what he can do for the boys? I don't know what the motivation is behind the SPL's decision, or the SM's decision, but in either case, it's not the end of the world.

Testing post to see if multiple names can be put in. Haven't figured it out without going through the same process multiple times.Background color is fun.

OR..... just to the left of the "Font" box in the upper menu, third from the left end there's a little blue box. Click on it, a list box appears. Scroll down to "Member", click on it. Another box will appear where you can type in the member's name. Hit "Okay" and the link to the member is formatted for you. No @ is needed. @Back Pack

A NSP does not need to get to FC in the first year. I don't push that. Instead I work on seeing to it the boys get oriented to scouting, bond together as a patrol, and focus on age appropriate activities. After one year and the next crop of boys show up, they "transition" into a regular patrol whether any of them are FC or not. Basically it's a naming convention only. Yes, they continue to work on their advancement to FC even in the second year, but the TG drops back into his regular patrol and if he's done a good job, the boys do just fine on their own. The only time there wasn't a TG was when the new boys elected an older scout to be their PL. I didn't notice any difference in the development of the patrol that first year. Because of the bonding process that first year, the activities they are involved with are generally simpler in nature. Outings, summer camp, camporees, etc. When they get older and transition into a Venture patrol, their skill level allows them...as a patrol.... to go to high adventure together without having to break up the patrol. if there still are boys not at FC, a bit of peer pressure goes a long way to motivate them to get ready for the HA activities.