Stosh

Their work is valuable, their contributions as people were rather questionable during the time they could make a positive contribution to society. We expect to value Eagle scouts only AFTER they have died? I'm going out on a limb here, but I do believe the art world and even the world in general don't care one iota about the artists themselves, only their work. Whereas Sr. Theresa left behind a legacy of character and no tangible evidence of her ever living in this world. Do we remember her because of her work or because of the value of she who she was. If we are going to be producing young men of character, it really doesn't matter what work they do in life. I'm working on the value of their character when I work with this young boys. What they do for a living is of not concern of mine. Stosh

There's the scout uniform and then there's not the scout uniform. The Insignia Guide tells what it is, everything else isn't. I kinda thought that was pretty simple to begin with. Stosh

An artist who never shows his work is of no value to anyone other than himself. It is a self-judgment of his worth/value. Stosh

Ever consider asking Little Johnny what he would like? The parents don't care if he doesn't get the award because it wasn't important enough to get him there. Now you want to bend over backwards for the boy? Maybe he doesn't care either. Maybe when it all boils down to the bottom, the only one wanting everyone to get the award is the DL. If Johnny is having a good time hanging out with his buddies. That in itself might just be all he wants. If not, then work with Johnny, the parents aren't going to change. Stosh

I don't suppose one can do that because it's two different issues. Showing reverence for others deals with Scout Law, Duty to God deals with the Scout Oath. It's not word games, it's apples and oranges. Duty to God is rather self explanatory, but reverent means reverence towards more than just other people's faith. It also is a reverence and respect for their culture, they way of life, their traditions, how they do things, what they feel is important in life and their attitude towards life itself. To limit reverent to just religions is taking a rather narrow view of that part of the law. Why is it necessary to combine Duty to God and Reverent? They are two different things. It's your definition that seems to allow for combining them, but not all people think it's even possible. Does my duty to God imply I'm trustworthy? Maybe Loyal? Certainly my duty to God implies helpful, courteous and kind. I could go on but the point is made. To think trustworthiness is only acceptable in the realm of religion is not what most people think, why would reverent or reverence towards others only acceptable in the realm of religion? Doesn't add up for me. That's your beliefs, it isn't necessary to impose them on others. One shouldn't be adding or subtracting from the requirements. When I stand in a national cemetery and think of the sacrifice those men and woman gave to our country, it has nothing to with my duty to God, or even my faith, but my reverence for those people is emotionally overwhelming. I'm not worshiping these people. I'm not paying homage to them. I'm only holding them for moment in a feeling of great reverence. Maybe so, but reverent in a BSA setting means a lot of different things than just one's belief system. Stosh

I kinda thought the same thing. Which is worse, the combative parent or those in the room that didn't step up to confront the bully and protect the DL? Stosh

Not according to most definitions of the word reverent. Feeling or showing deep and solemn respect. That may or may not have anything to do with religion. I have reverence for our veterans who serve our country. I can show deep and solemn respect for my flag, other people, other people's religion etc. I have no idea how to show deep and solemn respect for my religion. My God, maybe, but not my religion per se. I don't have deep and solemn respect for my beliefs. I just have beliefs. A scout leader who doesn't understand it will dive even shallower into these requirements. According to Christian belief we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. If one is going to rely only on judgments, then NO Christian scout will ever get beyond the Scout rank and BSA requirements will keep it from ever being a Christian based organization. Then again the scout that goes to church every Sunday, drops 10% in the offering, and says his prayers every night just because his parents insist he do so is not doing his duty either. Have fun figuring that out under your definition of judgmentalism. Stosh

Inquiring about one's faith and judging it are two different things. I don't think BSA is in favor of the second part. If the boy is doing his duty towards his religion and is reverent towards others, there's no need to be doing any judging. Like I said it is okay to ask, but I didn't say it was okay to judge. If I ask a boy if he is doing his duty to his god, and he says he isn't because he has no god, then the discussion is no about his religion but why he is participating in a program that expects that. One can do that without judging the person. So he don't want/need Eagle, just an opportunity to hang out with his buddies. Nothing wrong with that. Doesn't need to be "god-fearing" to do that. All the boys go off to the interfaith service, he tags along sits quietly and just watches. He's done is reverent part. I have participated in worship experiences other than my religion. No big deal, I didn't get converted, I didn't die, and no one got bent out of shape or tried to convert me. Stosh

If one is a chef and never cooks, how is anyone to know and of what benefit to anyone is it? On the other hand if there is a chef who volunteers at the Salvation Army kitchen and makes fantastic meals for the homeless, one wouldn't need to even ask. But on the other hand some people are very private and keep to themselves. So be it, but what value is that to the world around them? It's kinda like a person joining a kayak club because they have a kayak in their garage. They haven't used it for 20 years, but there's a deep personal reasons why they don't. Have fun with that. People on membership lists like that are often called Dead Wood and that's not limited to religious organizations. So if the person shows it, there's no need to ask. If they don't, how is anyone to know? BSA is only saying it's okay to ask. Stosh

Welcome to the forum! I would poll the parents to see if they have any skills or interests the boys might be interested in. While a magician works well for BlueGolds, there are a lot of other 30 minute presos that might be of interest to the boys. Most boys don't know what a Dutch Oven is, but if someone came in a did a cobbler for the boys, I'm sure it would be a good time for all. I came in and did a Civil War demo that was supposed to be 30-45 minutes. I kept trying to wrap it up after 45, but everyone kept asking questions (mostly the boys) and finally after 1 1/2 hours the CM finally rescued me. I did one for the older boys on BSA books from the turn of the century. (Pee Wee Harris, Roy Blakeley, Tom Slade, Westy Martin, etc.) After 100 years remnants of those early scouting experiences are still popping up in Boy's Life. D.A.R.E officer with drug dog? Any dad Eagle scouts? What did he do when he was their age 30 years ago? Ambulance/First Responder crew shows off the ambulance? Contact your local hospital if they have a Life-Flight helicopter. That landing in the parking lot would be a pack meeting to remember. I've seen it done, it's impressive even for the adults. Forest ranger in the area? Master Gardener? Local Historian? Remember, some things the boys go to - airport, post office, etc. but some things can come to them. Those are the things you want to focus on and start with your parents and who they are and who do they know. Stosh

If one is a chef and never cooks, how is anyone to know and of what benefit to anyone is it? On the other hand if there is a chef who volunteers at the Salvation Army kitchen and makes fantastic meals for the homeless, one wouldn't need to even ask. But on the other hand some people are very private and keep to themselves. So be it, but what value is that to the world around them? It's kinda like a person joining a kayak club because they have a kayak in their garage. They haven't used it for 20 years, but there's a deep personal reasons why they don't. Have fun with that. People on membership lists like that are often called Dead Wood and that's not limited to religious organizations. So if the person shows it, there's no need to ask. If they don't, how is anyone to know? BSA is only saying it's okay to ask. Stosh

It's always easier to sell one's soul to the Devil, after all everyone else is doing it. We just follow along blindly like lemmings. How's that for a leadership program? Stosh

My kids hit the ditch many times because there is no adult safety net for them. Once they know this, things run rather smoothly. Part of the adult leadership is to assist the boys and I have assisted them into the ditch many times. Of course they were warned repeatedly "this probably isn't a good idea" along the way. But they have to learn. And listening to adults is probably not the way they want to learn. They get that at home, at school and at church, even at sports programs. After a while we all sound like the adults in a Peanut cartoon. Many times I have said, "This isn't a good idea, but if that's what you want to try, go for it." People learn best from their mistakes and after the crash, a thorough evaluation of the situation makes for some of the best lessons these boys will ever learn. By the time they are 12-13, they are pretty much over the experimental stage of leadership learning and are taking a longer view into the future of consequences before they decide. If they knew nothing bad was going to happen because some adult will come charging in and save the day, then they will never learn that lesson and will push the envelop every time and somewhere in their later teens when they have pushed so far the adults can't bail them out anymore , then all hell will break lose and the adults will be on this forum explaining how terrible their boys are. Sorry, that's a crash and burn that the adults need to learn, there is no safety net for them either. One can whine to the council office, but that doesn't always help. Twocubdad: there are ditches of various sizes. The little ditches for the 11-12 year old boys is a good thing and it's not supposed to be controlled failure. Your idea of "controlled failure" implies a safety net and adult directed controls. Boys react different between failure of a slap on the wrist bad (controlled failure) and crash and burn failure. The first lesson my boys learn in their first year of scouting is that there is no adult safety net. Adults can control, warn, direct, etc. all they want and the boys are going to do what boys do. By the time they are older scouts that can get to be quite challenging for the controlling, warning, directing adults. If, however, they really fail and suffer a bit for it, they will become self-cautious and mature at a rather rapid rate. If nothing else, they will think twice before making major decisions. THAT is a quality program. I have had 16-17 year old boys functioning at ASM levels of maturity and the nice thing about it is that they CAN control, warn and direct the boys in the troop! It's called boy-led, and led by boys that know what they're doing and if they don't do it right, there will be a crash and burn. Stosh

Not all schools are open to people expressing their faith (Ward Melville HS, Long Island, NY for instance). Intolerance for Christians is on the rise which in many respects is a good thing because they have flourished and grown under such circumstances. It's always difficult for the schools to have their diversity day event and then hypocritically proclaim their zero tolerance policies. Even students in the lower grades see this ingenuousness. If the 3rd graders can see this, why can't the school administrators? How are Scout units going to fair against such hypocrites? It didn't work in Communist Russia and isn't working in Communist China. It isn't working in Islamic Middle East and it isn't working in the US. If a grade school girl can stand up to the school board and embarrass them for their no ChapStick policy and a 17 year old high school boy can make the news by challenging his school policy on Christian clubs, then the BSA, if it really believes in its own Laws, shouldn't have any problems. Only when it sells itself short does it seem to loose its once honored status in the community. The Chapstick grade schooler, the 17 year old high school club member and thousands like them are our future, trust them, they will replace the zero tolerant hypocrites some day and things will be a lot more tolerant for everyone. BSA should be building those people one scout at a time. If not, it's going to take a lot longer to get done. Stosh

Okay, let's start with the basics: Define God. Once you've done that, this whole thread is a lot easier to deal with. Then once everyone has their definition and that will be different for everyone, then one as to pick the one they're going to use to measure the boys in the program. All this discussion does is stirs the pot and makes everyone upset.... but then maybe that's the point. Stosh

If one reads my comment carefully, the trick is not just the wool blanket, it's the combo of the wool and nylon. Nylon offers very little weight, yet does a fair job of holding out moisture and definitely wind. The blanket is the insulation part, kind of like a lined nylon jacket idea, but one can separate the two as need for layering. One really doesn't need a thicker blanket. The second poncho (also nylon) works as the "tent" water protection. There was one night that it got a wee bit cold in the thin air of Philmont, but I just put on a sweater, another pair of wool socks, long pants and the absolutely necessary wool stocking cap! That solved that problem. The stupid hat will do better for you than a thicker blanket. Stosh

First of all, a wet down bag is really, really heavy and will take a week to dry out. If you get that bag wet the first day out, you're screwed, big time. Seriously... if I had a down bag that cost $1000 and it got wet the first day out on a 10 day trek, It would be left along the trail somewhere. I took a wool blanket, laid out my pad, put the nylon tent fly down then the blanket, rolled myself up in it and did really well. Tossed my nylon poncho over me when it rained. It had plenty of layers to peel off when it was too warm. When my feet got cold, I put another pair of wool socks on. The nylon fly and poncho dried out rather quickly and if I hung the blanket over my pack it dried out on the trail. It never got wet enough to have to dry it for more than an hour on the trail. A lot has to do with how much comfort one needs to have for the trek. I personally can get by with a lot less than many of my peers, but then again, I'm too lazy to drag any more than I absolutely have to along on a camping trip/trek of any sort. Personally, I never would buy a down sleeping bag. Stosh

Bullies come in all ages and sizes. Stosh

I wouldn't be so quick to justify this situation by dumping on parents of the newer boys. Why should they be chastised because they want a good experience for their boys and their boys got stuck in a non-functioning patrol? If my kid was 12 and missing out on meals because older scouts are not trustworthy and the adults are letting them get away with it, I would be right in someone's face, and I would surely expect someone to be in my face if this was happening in my troop too. I'm first in line to limit limit parental involvement in troops, so for me to stand up for parents is really rare, but in the case described where boys are going off having paid their money and then not getting food for the weekend, has so many things going wrong on so many levels it's hard to even consider this thread might not be a troll-thread. And if I paid $15 for 4 meals of a mac and cheese coverup by the adults, I'm gonna say something, maybe more than something, maybe a lot. These younger scout parents have a legitimate beef, don't be justifying away a proper response by saying they're former den leaders, who in many cases know "how the program works" and expect it to function that way. Getting my kid fed after paying $15 is not being a ringleader, it's following the Scout Law on THRIFTY. Boys need to learn what TRUSTWORTHY really means. The adult leadership needs to start teaching leadership skills and the boys need to retain basic TF-FC knowledge beyond FC. Once this patrol becomes minimally functional, I could almost guarantee, the "former den leader" moms would back out of the picture. Until then I think it's proper they hold the adults' and older scouts' feet to the fire until they start acting like Scouts. Any boy half way through the program that isn't acting like Scout has some serious problems going on and I surely wouldn't be putting them into PORs where they are expected to mentor the younger boys on skills and attitudes that undermine the scouting program. All my boys know that in our council an Eagle candidate needs a recommendation from their SM. It is not required by National, but the council will not process the Eagle application without one. I am under no obligation to provide one either. The boys also know that I have sat on recommendations for up to a year for certain scouts over the years. One for 6 months and one for 12 months. As harsh as that may sound, I wear two Eagle mentor pins on my jac-shirt collar. One from a boy that took an extra 6 months to grow up and the other from a boy that took an extra year to grow up. I have never, ever had a patrol go off on any outing without proper food and equipment, because if any patrol ever tried that, THE BOYS would have cancelled an event. ... and yes, I have gone on trips without the boys because they couldn't get their act together in time. Over the years older boys have tried to push the envelop many times. It's normal for them to do so. I have come to expect it and have adapted to their games. They cancel an activity and I go anyway and bring back great pictures of what they missed. I eat better than they do for the same price and give out recipes when asked for them. I expect the boys to be real leaders having been taught how to do it. I've never had to kick a boy out of scouting, nor have I ever had to discipline one either. Remember, if it's boy-led, patrol-method, it doesn't mean the boys lead the adults... they are a separate entity that can assist the troop, but only if it is willing to do so. By the time my boys are 12-13 years old, they fully understand the consequences of their decisions. If not, by the time they are 14-15 they will... Where in the boy-led, patrol-method book does it say an adult has to step up at the last minute and bail someone's sorry butt out at the last minute? That may be in the edition you have, but not in mine. And by the way, fishing for the weekend because they didn't bring any food? Sounds like fun. Went to Canada fishing for a week in a similar situation, it was a blast. Coffee, rice, and spices.... and life goes on. Stosh

Grubmaster is totally incompetent. Can't take care of himself let alone his patrol. No leadership involved. PL is incompetent in allowing multiple instances of the Grubmaster's incompetence. Seriously you want none of the boys in this patrol mentoring the younger scouts. Nor do you want to inflict these boys on new scouts by making them a part of this fiasco patrol.. Sounds like a lip service, boy-led program that is really adult-led bailouts. Here's the solution, Meschen has it right: "In the 100 years of Scouting, no Scout has ever starved to death on a weekend camping trip." The second step is Kudo's 300' between patrols it cuts out the mooching. Duh! These are the older boys, they're going to push the envelop! Try to stay one step ahead of them for a change. Maybe the adults ought to take some time out there and learn some late adolescent behavior issues! If allowed to continue the whole idea of older boys mentoring younger ones is a farce. The NSP younger, same aged patrol is doing nicely? Maybe one ought to move the new scouts into the older patrols to teach them about leadership and teamwork, he said in a touch of sarcasm with a common sense load of realism. No, don't bring ramen noodles, bring a book on foraging wild edible plants and hand it to them. Your last bailout! From that point on and all future events, they are on their own, there will be NO ADULT checking up on them, no reminders, and NO ADULT bringing extra food, and if they go to the NSP and they bail out the boys i.e. take care of them, then the NSP boys are put into the troop leadership because they are showing more leadership than the older boys and it's time they mentor the older scouts so they don't Eagle out before learning what leadership is all about. Stosh

I find it difficult to believe that the 11 and 12 year old boys in your troop go to Philmont and Sea Base, BWCA and have full access to all programs of the local scout camp. Never said they didn't work, just said it was my experience that high school boys really don't want to hang out with 6th graders and if forced to do so, will either go through the motions just to get their Eagle or simply drop out. This is why SM's are pulling their hair out trying to get the older scouts to function in their POR's. Not all older scouts will idealistically follow along with what the adults think is correct. Ask them and they will tell you they would rather be doing something with their buddies than hanging out with "the kids". Gee, my patrol 50 years ago consisted of all my buddies the same age as me. We must have been 20 years ahead of our time as were all the other scouts in my troop. What you describe may have been what was normal for your part of the country, but not mine. My first year boys did very well at summer camp without outside patrol influence of older boys. Now if you count attendance at first year instruction by camp staff, MB counseling sessions, and the occasional question they might have asked an adult during the week as outside patrol influence, then yes they got wood craft skills, but the the leadership "training" they picked up on their own by working it out on their own. The boy who went to the SPL meetings learned by doing, not by watching someone else. Yep they sought out the same outside instruction for their growth just like any other mixed age patrol member in any other troop in the country at any summer camp. And when the instruction was done for the day, they went back to camp and figured out the next step on their own without having to rely on some older scout to tell them what to do next. They figured out how to lead rather than just follow. That assumption seems to be a personal bias that I don't seem to experience in my troop. But then again, I insist on boy-led with the patrol-method of scouting. Maybe if one had a adult-led troop to begin with it wouldn't make any difference if it was same age or mixed. I'm thinking that might be more the case. And like you said, there are times when NSP's function better as same age. I just offer the boys the option of doing that for as long as they want rather than having the adults step in and insist on mixing everything up. This is why my older scouts can plan high adventure and not disrupt the troop. Their patrol just goes and the younger scouts in their patrol, just plan more age appropriate activities. No ad hoc patrols necessary and no one gets left behind and patrol integrity is maintained. Mixed patrols don't have that flexibility, and need to break out of the patrol-method, re-organize patrols in order to handle a single activity. That seems like a whole lot of wasted time, energy, and effort that doesn't need to be there. Stosh

Wouldn't allow ad hoc patrols? Once again, when one takes comments under their own agenda the results are often different than what was originally said. So be it. Not my problem. I have ad hoc patrols being generated all the time. It can happen at any time any place. And they are not really "ad hoc". All patrols are free to reorganize into new semi-permanent patrols on the fly. What I find interesting is that if the older boys get together for their high adventure event, then they would want to stay as a patrol afterwards if the trip is successful for everyone in the group. The younger left behind boys ad hoc their remnants and they become a new patrol. Then at the patrol campfires the older boys can reminisce about their adventure and the younger boys can discuss the new plans they will need to be making as a new patrol. The point being boys will naturally congregate by age, interest and friendships. The ad hoc patrols being discussed here is not a natural progression of events for the boys, but an adult contrived mixed group that is expected to function according to a set of assumptions on the part of the adults. When they can't function under those assumptions, ad hoc patrols are arranged, again by adult intervention. NSP never gets a chance to bond as a group, but they may have been together since Tigers. Their first experience in disruption is 6 months into a new 7 year program. Sorry, I don't make up the rules, the boys do. If they want the same group from Tigers to Eagles, more power to them. People who feel it is important to have mixed patrols are actively pursuing a course of action that if left to the boys would not last as designed. Individual scouts who wish to pursue PL leadership may have to find a new patrol if they wish to lead, but it's the boy's decision not some arbitrary 6 month reorganization process because someone needs a POR patch on their uniform. This is why high adventure activities need to have ad hoc patrols, because the regular contrived patrol structure isn't flexible enough to meet the needs of the boys. My age based patrols didn't need ad hoc status, they were already organized that way by the boys themselves. Idealistically older boys mentor younger boys.... That's all fine and dandy in an idealistic world. But unless a boys makes a decision to lead younger boys, it's pretty much a tooth-pulling experience for everyone concerned. MattR started out this thread very obviously pointing this out. The older boys had a great leadership experience and would prefer not to have to mess with the younger boys. Go back and read about now how are they going to take what they learned back to the troop? OMG, the boys balked at it! And now the adult pressure begins. My point being, why in the world wouldn't one take the younger boys on a leadership training weekend too and then we wouldn't be having to worry about older boys needing to mentor younger boys. THEY WOULD ALL BE LEADER TRAINED! and the younger boys could lead themselves. Then the older boys could be left alone to do their thing, HA, patrol camping, etc. and the younger boys would learn right from the beginning what leadership is all about. And then they accuse me of pie-in-the-sky idealism when I simply let the boys have at it and then in the real world find myself with no where near the problems identified by people on this forum. It's not an issue of what's right and what's wrong, the only goal I have is what's working. At age 64 with 40+ years of scouting under my belt, holding 2 positions in scouting currently, started a brand new unit, District Commish is my ASM, and no where near burning out. I gotta be doing something right. Stosh

Boy led leadership is only half the equation for Boy-Led, Patrol-Method. I'm thinking ad hoc patrols at the drop of a hat may mean patrol method for some but doesn't bode well for morale building, team work when half the boys get left out. .... and yes I have had boys opt out of high adventure because their buddies couldn't go or participate. Stosh

If patrols need to be broken up to form high adventure ad-hoc patrols, how is the leadership and organization determined for those patrols? What happens to the leadership structure of the left behind boys? Why do I get the feeling this is a real morale buster for the younger boys? Stosh