Stosh

The physical setting determines troop size. I was once told that the seating in a church holds a maximum amount, half of which will be filled on average. So a church with seating for 200 people will have 100 average attendance each service. I'm surprised how accurate that is. One of my former troops always had 20 boys for the size of the facility. Even if Web 2 crossovers doubled that number, by the time the next group of Webs came along, we'd be back to 20 boys in attendance each week. Stosh

My dad back in the 1950's sang in an all men's chorus at the Methodist Church. Of course they did the Christmas Concert thingy and afterwards the church distributed Christmas hams to all the members of the chorus. One problem, one of the members of the chorus was Jewish. Christmas might have been a stretch, but a HAM? OMG! I remember being there one year when they with all the fanfare possible presented him with his ham! He graciously accepted it just like everyone else, but what he did was after the concert he would stop by one of the needy families in the community and give them a ham for Christmas. For a Jewish guy, he knew more about Christmas than us regular Christians.... 50 years have passed and it's one of my best Christmas memories ever. Stosh

I tossed in a few items that balanced out much of the scoring. Uniform - 1) "Class-B", 2) partial, 3) full Extra credit if shirt is tucked in. Yell - 1) Make one up on the spot, 2) yell, but a joke, 3) Real yell Extra credit for enthusiasm. Patrol size based on 8 members - 1) Only part of the patrol showed up for the event, 2) All showed up but less than 8, 3) all showed up with more than 8 members, 4) 6-8 member patrol all present Extra credit for teamwork Rank - make adjustment for any patrol member that is not yet FC A TF gets more credit for fire building than a Star This way a NSP in full uniform, with a rehearsed yell, 6-8 members all present, all TF may indeed win the event if they do fairly well on the actual skills of the station. They don't ask me to judge competitions anymore because it was unfair to "add" these requirements. It solved too issues at the same time, I get out of judging and the big troops always win. Smaller troops simply go through the motions because they know they haven't a chance to win anything. Nothing worse than a NSP of fired up Web II crossovers winning over a mature patrol is boys that think all they have to do is complacently go through the motions to win knowing they have it locked up. Stosh

Any social support group is necessary for a person's development. I go with the natural mom and pop as the best. Barring that as not possible, individuals will find alternatives, self-selected mentors, other family members, gangs, etc. Yet as you point out, Moose, none of these are infallible either. Some are better than others and some are very detrimental at best. I think that a few are privileged to have a good mom/pop option, but most people have to settle for some of the grey areas in between. All options must be weighed as one evaluates each situation. Is a great mom coupled with an alcoholic dad better or worse than a great mom with an absent dad? Generally speaking a decent mom/pop combo seems to fit the bill the best and I think that is what Eagledad was getting at. I tend to agree with him, but on the other hand the orphan really struggles, but will hopefully get through it. How others in society react to these situations is critical as well as you point out. In Scouts, being sensitive to this is a great asset for any adult that works with kids. Holding a Lad and Dad event really brings a negative focus on the single mom struggling to keep her boy in scouts. Worse yet, the alcoholic, absent dad shows up with the boy. Now his problem becomes yours. Stosh

The SM that took over after I was let go in my last troop had 3 boys of his own in the troop. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see where that one is going. Happens all the time. The nice thing about me is that I have no family agenda, my boy hasn't been in scouts for 20 years. What one does is FOR THE BOYS, not just MINE! Stosh

But it is just as valid to say that children of abusive homosexual parents suffer just as much. Maybe an abusive single-parent isn't a good situation either. So it can be said anything is better than abuse. But once that is factored out, the original thread said the male/female parent couple provides socially better than same sex couples or singles. Moose your analogy is like saying getting run over by a semi is worse than getting hit by a motorcycle. I like the idea of not getting run over at all as the best option. Playing the "better than" card is just an attempt to justify the lesser option as credible when it isn't really. Stosh

Having extensively studied the social dynamics of "family" over the years, the article tends to support the scientific studies over the past years rather than a pop culture attempt to dissuade people otherwise for whatever reason. The traditional studies all support a balance between male/female traits and how important they are on child development. Girls interacting with their fathers will understand and have experienced what is important for a future male mate. Boys also watching their dads will learn how to effectively interact with a female spouse. Girls interacting with mothers will learn how to be mothers themselves while boys interacting with their mothers will learn that "When Mom is not happy, nobody's happy!" And what happens when the surrounding culture says otherwise? Girls you need to grow up and have careers and forget about having children of your own. If you do, someone else will have to raise them, probably some sort of institutional daycare processes rather than the traditional family home. Kinda hard for a child at age 5 to sort all that out for him/herself. Or worse yet, the woman who is stigmatized for staying home and raising a traditional family. Of course we all know she doesn't really work! These interaction dynamics are vital for all developing children. This has been until recently an accepted scientific tenet. So once we alter these dynamics, further scientific studies will need to be done to effectively show what these alterations produce. Now we as Scouters need to be sensitive to how this all works. Single moms come to BSA looking for a male influence on their child that they aren't getting from a non-participating father. .... And we provide female leaders. How does that work out? Differently than male leaders? Add to that whole process a child that has a step-parent? Are the dynamics different? What about conflicting loyalties the child must deal with in that whole scenario? These social changes have been profound over the past 50 years and there seems to be an ever increasing discomfort that goes along with it. Political agenda are necessary to justify these changes in an attempt to alleviate some of this discomfort, but it's going to take a long time to sort out the effects of such social changes. The traditional "definition" of family has changed, but so has community and a whole list of other changing social dynamics that individuals need to sort out for themselves and can no longer rely on the tried and true principles of the past 10,000 years of community/tribal/family dynamics. Stosh

If Patrols had less "mechanics" and more Patrol overnights, they would be what Green Bar Bill called "Real Patrols." "Mechanics" are good, but they aren't the answer to all issues. Give me a boy who cares and I can teach him mechanics. If I teach a boy who doesn't care the mechanics, I open the possibility of creating a tyrant/bully. GBB Real Patrols rely on a quality, caring leader that promotes the servant leadership dynamics based on a serving, caring leader rather than a managerial dictator. Both are well versed in the mechanics of how things work. Stosh

Happy Holy-Days must really irk the non-religious to have to say even that much. Stosh

Those that fail to plan, plan to fail. Adults and boys all need to sit down and work out a plan of action towards a specific goal. Sounds like everyone is pulling their own agenda cords in different directions. Gotta get everyone on the same page! Those that don't want to work out the situation can be politely asked to leave and those remaining dedicate themselves to working it through. UC and boy-led, patrol-method training will go a long way to solve a lot of the problems mentioned. It's a BOY Scout program, if the adults can't figure it out, let the boys have a chance at it. What's it gonna hurt? Can't get any worse. Stosh

Next thing you know they'll be out picketing the red kettles..... Merry Christmas Scrooge! Stosh

I came across a neat project. Find (in your case 3 old 100% wool sweaters, heavier the better). Toss them into a washing machine and agitate them on the most severe cycle a couple of times. You want them to shrink as much as possible! Dry out the now super shrunk sweaters. Lay them out flat and pin non-cotton fleece on the front and back. Have the boys put their hands on the sweaters and trace all the way around adding about 3/4" all the way around fingers and thumb. Make sure you leave plenty around the wrists up the arms. Now take the sweaters and sew along the tracings except for the wrist opening. Cut them out about 1/4" outside the stitching, Roll the wrist opening back about 1/4" and sew a cuff. Turn inside out and you have a super warm fleece lined wool mitten. Slide a leather chopper over the whole thing and you'll have the warmest pair of mittens you'll ever own. Of course if they ever wear out, just get another old sweater. Then again, if one finds the fleece expensive, they can go with just the wool mittens. The non-cotton fleeces do well to wick away moisture from your hands and keep them warmer/dryer. The DL can pre-shrink the wool and dry out. The boys can trace and sew. Just pretend the sewing machine is a jig saw, they'll figure it out quickly. For the Southern boys, you can do the same thing using thinner sweaters and putting double layer of suede INSIDE the sweater. Then when you turn them inside out, you have wool lined suede mittens. In the milder climes, maybe just fleece and suede would make a nice mitten too. Make adjustments to what you think would work best for your situation. Stosh

What I can't get my mind around is: Why would a non-religious person want to join a religious program? If they wish to make waves, dictate to the program what it should be, etc. are but a few of the reasons, however, they would need to be successful in their efforts to insure they wouldn't be hypocrites. But then being a hypocrite doesn't always stop many people from doing what they do. We get all bent out of shape over these issues and yet live with hypocrisy all the time. BSA gets demonized for being religious and so they take it on the chin, but Salvation Army doesn't. Go figure. Stosh

When a take-it-or-leave-it option is put out there, there are those who will leave it. If there are those out there that take the Scout Law at face value and have chosen to live by it, I'm thinking this may be just a start of the exodus. This is a fundamental change in the scouting movement to something other than what it was originally intended to be. Stosh

If you do the math and crunch the numbers you will quickly notice that there are more boys outside of scouting that are eligible for recruitment than just the Webelos II boys of all the combined Packs in the area? I set up a table to recruit neighborhood kids at a church (our CO) and recruited 3 boys, none of which joined my Troop, but were set up in Packs and Troops in the area. It's rather unfortunate the myopic view of recruiting seems to be Webelos II only. Stosh

Over the past 35 years I have seen just about every one of the issues listed.... but not in just one troop all at the same time. A lot of what is happening in the troop is exactly why I left a troop after struggling for 13 years trying to make improvements and getting nowhere. At the present time, the Troop Committee is trying to get rid of the SM, but because he's best buddies with the COR and IH, he isn't going anywhere and the families of the troop are weighing their options. Their only option is the troop I took over until I was removed for expecting too much boy-led leadership which is now headed in the same direction as the first unit. It would seem, at least in this area, the trend for a lot of troops is to deteriorate into an adult-led program with a strong directive SM at the helm. And guess who are the first to complain about having to be trained? Kinda goes hand-in-hand. Stosh

Well said.

20 boy troop needs multiple patrols. A single troop run by an SPL (Super Patrol Leader) just doesn't allow for much of the BSA program. Multiple PL POR's are useless positions and only one boy at a time gains actual leadership opportunities. Whereas with multiple patrols, 3-4 boys gain leadership opportunities. Also in a patrol there is more necessity for team building in that each boy can have important input into the group rather than hiding in the back pew coasting along doing nothing. There are professional teachers out there that often find it difficult to handle 20 students at a time, and yet this is the expectation of the SPL? Definitely not going to work. The troop method is NOT a BSA program, but it is a convenient excuse to have adult-led especially when the SM and adults find it necessary to control all aspects of the program. As far as qwazse's comments, the "feeling of size" on a troop negates any necessity for recruiting. Basically it is difficult to manage 20 scouts, a Webelos group coming in would overwhelm the existing structure and program. No one wants to rock the boat so no recruiting takes place. A patrol with 4-5 members but needs 6-8 to be viable will recruit! If the PLC said all troops need 6-8 members in a patrol, or they will be absorbed into other patrols, they will indeed go out and recruit. A troop of 20-25 will simply say, we have all we can handle, we'll recruit next year. A single patrol troop of 25 that doubles to 50 will find their membership doubled, but if they choose the patrol method, they will go from 1 PL/APL to 6 PL/APL leadership teams and an SPL/ASPL team That means a 700% increase in leadership opportunities and no one boy has more than 8 others under their responsibility instead of trying to maintain control of 25. A troop of 25 facing an increase of 20 webelos crossovers will gladly register them, but within a year the number of active scouts will still be 25 unless the program changes. I have seen this process in operation for 15 years as an ASM and watched hundreds of boys drop out of the program because of it. When I quit that troop, I became SM of a 5 boy troop that went to 25 in 2 years and lost maybe 2-3 scouts over that time. The third year we went to 35 and that's when the troop removed me because I was boy-led, patrol-method and heavy into leadership development. Over the past two years, they have gone back to the old ways and now have 15-20 boys, 4 of which are the new SM's sons. Stosh

Been there, done that. Nothing you can do. Look for another troop, or in my case, start one. I found out along the way there are very vocal parents that really don't want boy-led, mature, confident sons in their household. They will have the leadership removed even if they are a very small minority. Just look at it as either they go or you do. Them helping you out the door is not all that bad. The incentive to move on to bigger and better sometimes needs a little push. Stosh

The only reason I get to be a SM is my wife supports me in the work. I know of a lot of people who are not in the program because of spouse concerns. That's unfortunate. Make sure that all you new Scouters out there get the wording correct in your prenuptial agreements. Stosh

One more thought. If the SPL can't make an event, that's why one has an ASPL. Sounds like the SPL did the appropriate course of action and turned it over to his ASPL. Nothing wrong with that, that's how it's supposed to work. As SM, I can't always make every event, that's why I have good ASM's around me. When this SPL quits over this incident, the ASPL is going to take over anyway, but now you're down one boy, probably one of the better one's too. That's unfortunate. Stosh

Boy-led would lead me to deal with this situation with a SMC even if that meant getting in the car and driving over to the boy's home to discuss it in person. Sounds like Mom is way too involved in the boy's decisions. Sure there's sports and that can be worked around, but once the season's over he can get back in the saddle. Sounds like Mom made the decision that he's never going to do a POR again. That pretty much cancels out his Eagle and the boy should be given the opportunity to speak for himself. Remember if given the choice between only Scouts and something else, there's a 50/50 chance you can lose the boy. Ultimatums never work out very well for anyone. Stosh

You are correct. It should be something SHE would enjoy, not what I THINK she would enjoy. #1 Guy Rule - SHE IS ALWAYS CORRECT. Stosh

After 60 years in the woods, I still sit for hours and just look and listen. One doesn't see the great horned owl unless you out wait him. Just last week I was out hunting deer and mentally saw my limit in squirrels, rabbits, saw a ton of stuff out there that only hours of patiently sitting quietly would allow for. So often our boys fly through the woods on their hikes like a bull in a china shop and wonder why the only thing they saw was the trail 3' in front of their feet. We had a very interesting "observation" while I was at Philmont. We were warned that there were multiple rogue bears in the park and to be on the look out for them and stay clear. It was late season and the boys happened upon a patch of wild raspberries and started to help themselves to the treat. Everything went well until I caught up to the group and passed right on by. The boys called out they had found some berries and I said, yes, I know, but I don't really want to stop and graze in the middle of some bear's kitchen. That was the end of the berry picking! The trail to Eagle is the same thing. One can focus on the goal so hard they forget to look around and enjoy the journey. Stosh

"It's been mentioned in other threads that scouting is traditionally a sport of observation." (qwazse) There is nothing in the book that says one can't teach beyond the requirements for a MB or advancement. As a boy-led program, not only do my boys have to demonstrate in their advancements, they demonstrate by teaching it. That way I know they really know their stuff. Last night my one boy taught the new boy the square knot. Next week the new boy will need to "demonstrate" by teaching it back to him so he can get it checked off. So where's the observation part of it? When we were teaching the new boy how-to-teach we showed a number of different ways to tie the knot. He could teach it any of the ways demonstrated. He tied the knot as he was taught, the "teacher" boy tied it backwards from what was demonstrated (still comes up a square knot) and I used the loop method, but I tied a thief knot instead. Then the new boy teacher was to look at the results and he said we all "passed". But I said nope, look again. He looked, and looked for a long time and eventually the other boy piped in that he saw the difference, and filled the new boy in with the way the knot was tied. He was focused on the knot, not the ends of the ropes. We spent time talking about the names of the knot, Joining Knot, Square Knot, Reef Knot, and basically had fun with how knots were important for future work in the troop. Knots are also supposed to be easy to untie as well as tie and we worked the square knot, pulling the one loop leaving a lark head knot on a standing rope and pulled it free. Important when one ties a square knot in their expensive necker. It was kinda fun to watch the boys. My one scout got up, introduced himself and said he would be teaching tying the square knot. He pulled out his parachute cord teaching aid (two different colors), and asked the new boy to get out his cords. Of course he didn't have any. Then the one boy asked the new boy what the Boy Scout motto was. "Be Prepared" and admitted he wasn't prepared. My one scout said, "Oh yes you are. Look at yourself." The new boy desperately looked all over and said he didn't have a cord. Then the one scout said, "Sit down and take the laces out of your shoes." (OBSERVATION) When the new boy comes back next week, I'm thinking he has all the information and skill to teach the square knot to yet other new boys when they come into the troop. So, how many SM's take that much time to teach the square knot? Too many times I see the adult toss a piece of cord to a new scout and tell him to tie a square knot, which he does and then gets his book checked off. Yes, it passes advancement, but does it pass muster as something useful for the boy to use. Do I go beyond the requirement? Yep, big time, but eventually I'll have a PL that can really teach his boys. I'll have a SPL that will be able to teach his PL's what they need to know. I'll have a TG that can also teach the new boys and I'll have Instructors that can take any topic at the drop of a hat and teach it on the spot. With a boy-led program, I can't settle for anything less. Stosh