Stosh

I believe in the BSA program as it existed 50 years ago. Yes, I go back that far. I was a Lion Cub after 4 years of Cub Scouts. I never made it to Webelos. When I was old enough I went on a Boy Scout activity as a Cub Scout. We hiked 5 miles out to a wooded area where I started a fire, and cooked a steak, potatoes and warmed up in my mess kit a can of baked beans which I opened with my Scout knife. When I was done, I scoured out my mess kit with sand, wiped it out with grass, sterilized it over the fire, put the fire out and hiked 5 miles back into town. Because I was a stupid little Cub Scout, no one offered any help or guidance. After 4 years of Boy Scouts I had attained the rank of 2nd Class Scout and earned one merit badge, stamp collecting. I then quit and went on to other more interesting activities. My "patrol" from scouting (we all quit as a group) continued to camp until we got through high school and then went our separate ways. After 50 years I still camp, canoe, kayak, hike, bike, fish, hunt and totally enjoy the outdoors. I have been to the BWCA 4 times, Philmont, camped in 6 different Scout camps and helped a lot of boys get through Scouting. I was released as SM from my last troop because I expected too much leadership from my boys. We were right in the middle of Harcourt's patrol method training at the time. Because I am being black-balled from scouting, instead of spending all three of my weeks of vacation with scout activities, (summer camp and Jambo last summer), this year I have a camping trip planned for Yellowstone and another to Virginia. I'm also looking into the possibility of Isle Royale if I have enough time. Next summer it's on the agenda to kayak in Alaska. They say the Misty Fjords are worth the effort. Modern BSA with all of its rules and regulations have pretty much taken the fun out of the program even for me. While I enjoyed working with youth over the past 40 years, it's time to be a wee bit selfish and get in on all the things BSA has kept me from doing. This year with the high water on the Mississippi, I scooted my kayak out over the ice until I got open water and then went back into the back waters where I saw for the first time a rookery of 75-100 nesting herons and egrets. Try drifting into a migrating flock of Tundra Swans with bunch of Boy Scouts sometime. Like that will ever happen in my lifetime. Last Christmas I kayaked the Everglades. In whitewater rapids where kayakers were required to have cockpit skirts and helmets, I soloed an 18' canoe. What a rush! After 56 years of being outdoors, I just might get used to being "retired" from the adventure of scouting. When I reach the "you can't do that attitude" it'll be from by body telling me I'm too old for such foolishness.... Too bad Scouts can't have bucket lists.... Your mileage may vary, Stosh

"Would you please show me where in the BSA literature that is written?" My standard question for anyone making up rules. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

I wonder if anyone was bold enough to ask Camping why he got left behind, too? Stosh

jrush, you are correct in that it clearly states that a POR is not necessarily a leadership role, but one would think that somewhere along the way each scout needs to be sufficiently trained in leadership to be able to carry out a leadership project. That is stated explicitly in the requirement. Given what the requirements state, and in reference to what is asked in the initial thread can an Eagle Scout serve as an SPL... The answer lies in whether or not the Eagle Scout can effectively carry out a leadership position without any real leadership training. Sure one can take on a leadership project and get a task done by directing his buddies in the project. However that does not show sufficient skill in interpersonal relationships, charisma, etc. necessary to lead a group of boys as SPL. Being an Eagle Scout does not hold any sway in actually accomplishing anything after receiving that rank. Once they have attained the rank, there is nothing according to any requirements that says he has to actually function in the position. If he gets the position and does nothing, it can't be held against any advancement. Once that happens it is a political/honorary position and can do extensive harm to the troop. Sure, a pre-Eagle can fall into this situation as well, but the SM has a bit of leverage and withhold advancement for not fulfilling the responsibility. There is a thin vague line between responsibility and leadership. If the expectation of the position only requires me to accomplish a task, I do not need to demonstrate any leadership at all, i.e. taking notes at the PLC as a Scribe. As long as I take notes, I'm safe. However, being a Senior PL means I need to work with other scouts and be able to lead them effectively. If one has never been a PL, I would think it pretty much a useless opportunity to think he can lead them. To have organizational skills (i.e. organize an Eagle project) and design a task that needs to be accomplished is one thing. If the plan is laid out and the others take on the actual directives of getting it done means the "followers" have had to take on real leadership to get it done. An SPL that says PL-1 do this, and PL-2 do that, and PL-3 do something else, makes a good organizer, good planner, but a true leader will then motivate, inspire, and assist the PL's in doing what is expected, otherwise he has to sit back and let PL-1, PL-2 and PL-3 be the true leaders. I guess it is my opinion that a true SPL is as his title indicates a SENIOR patrol LEADER. Not all Eagles are qualified to be such, even if they have fulfilled all Eagle rank requirements along the way. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

OMG~! I realized Sunday am when I woke up, I was obviously one of the unfortunates left behind. Stosh

Although it does nothing for one's knees and feet, have you considered using a tump-line. I attached one to my standard backpack and it works wonders. Now I can alternate carrying loads from hip to spine and occasionally shoulders for a short time to rest hip and spine. All this can be done without stopping. A second tump-line on the middle thwart can also improve the pressure on the back of the neck and shoulders that carry a 80# canoe. Also, the dorky horse-collar PFD makes a terrific neck pad as well. I also covered the thwart with pipe insulation for even more pressure release. As long as your legs and feet can take it, the load is adjustable for the rest of the body. I found that with the tump-line, I could add 20# without much effort and still cover the same distances. Eventually my limit was reached by what my legs and feet could tolerate and had nothing to do with the pack, just the weight. Most packs are measured in cubic inches and with internals, the sleeping bag is considered part of the measurement. Most internal frame packs have compression straps on them, the externals do not. There's nothing in the book that says you can't add them to help insure the seams from blowing out on the pack itself. Just make sure if you add more weight to the external frame, you carry extra pins. But if you do it right, the pressure straps can also take the extra weight off the pins along with pack's seams. 3/4" - 1" nylon straps with metal double-D rings should serve you quite well. Pressure straps don't need quick release and the metal double-D rings hold up better than the plastic clips. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

Of course there's always historical precedent. When belts were first used with loops they were threaded into right loop and coming around to the left side to buckle. Today's belts thread first into the left side finishing up on the right side. Now if you were a Federal Civil War soldier you'd put it on correctly so the buckle showed "US". The Confederates would put it on "backwards" so the buckle said "sn" (Southern Nation). So, Mikeb, unless it's a life or death political statement, I'd just go with threading the belt in the manner of 1865. Your mileage may vary, Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

I'm thinking you have two very different expectations designed for your plans. Carrying an 80# duffle a couple of miles on a portage occasionally is not the same as carrying 80# around Philmont all day long is mountainous terrain. When I was in the BWCA we had a 3 person crew for each canoe. 4 duffles and a canoe per crew. Each duffle held about 60#'s a pieace. Two would carry a duffle on the front and the other on his back. The third crew member carried the 80# canoe. The boys always stuck me with carrying the canoe. At least until they did the math and figured out they were either carrying 120# or double portaging. I was only carrying 80#. For NTier one can get away with 120# in a double duffle, and if it's late in the day and you're tired, you can always double portage. You also figure that for about 80-90% of the time you aren't carrying any weight and are resting up for the next portage, a luxury you won't have at Philmont. Think this through. The reason they don't make 80# packs is because unless you're 18 and in the military, most people aren't going to do well with it. You also need to take into consideration to an even greater extent, at NTier you use your feet 10% of the time at Philmont it is 100% at a time. If you normally exert a load on your feet at 200# every day, now your feet will need to endure 280# with each step. A voyageur of the 1700-1800's could portage pelt bales that weighed up to 600# for a short trek along a portage. No mountaineous terrain. That same person would not be able to pull that off at Philmont! I've been to both BWCA and Philmont. I normally plan that I can carry twice the gear at BCWA than I can at Philmont. 80# canoe and 40# backpack. That's my limit on both. I know it is standard fare at BWCA to have Duluth Packs, but if you show up to Philmont with one, you'll probably be asked to stay at base camp. Your mileage may vary, Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Everything is relative. For the first time in your life you can look down at your belt buckle and see it correctly. What's the problem? Stosh

I have often wondered why scouts needed to "hold a POR" in Scouting, unless it is an Eagle Mill looking to make sure all the boys walk through all the requirements. JASM is just another POR to hold a prestigeous/honorary POR in a troop as if they have retired from active Scouting. Like of like having a honorary, non-functional SPL. It is important for the troop that the POR's actually function in those positions and quit having the POR patch-wearing scout goof off for 6 months to gain rank. If an Eagle scout wants to be a TG and some FC scout misses out on an opportunity to rank advance, so be it, wait until a functional position opens up and volunteer for it. And who says one can't have 2 TG's in a larger troop? Eagle Mill, by virtue of it's own definition requires boys to hold POR at a young age, i.e. 14-15 year old Eagles, and no where in the requirements does it expect the boy to actually do the job. Idealistically he will, but functionally it always leaves lots of room for discussion and fodder for this forum. If an Eagle Scout wishes to be an SPL, so be it, if some other scout has to wait 6 months to get his POR, so be it. Better yet, instead of having a bunch of honorary JASM's sitting around doing not much of anything, why not have them patrol up, do high adventure, and instead of keeping their nose to the grindstone looking for Eagle rank, just have fun and enjoy the fruits of their labor? In Scouting the rank requirements for any and all ranks are the MINIMUM expectations of what skills and knowledge a scout should have. There are no requirements that define the maximum. Why not let your Eagles go out and find what those may be. In a patrol-method, boy-led program, the SM and ASM, theoretically, should have very little to do. By definition a JASM, except for the excuse of his age, are expected to do very little as well. Reaching the highest rank/achievement in the military, business or whatever, means the expectations to function at the highest level BEGINS, in Scouting, somehow it means the END. In the long run, I don't see that definition as being very helpful to the program. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

Duct tape the potentially problem areas. Heel and balls of foot. The sock rubs on the tape, not the skin. Double socks and good shoes. Haven't had a blister or foot problems for 20 years. That includes a 2 week trek at Philmont! One boys listened to my advice before we left on the trek and he and I were the only two that did not get blisters. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

Start by picking/selecting/electing boys that actually can function in that position. Too often these selections are made for the wrong reasons and the unit will suffer. If doing the same thing over and over again hoping the next time things will be different, might be the definition of insanity, but it is also a good process for destroying a unit. When people say, "we've never done it that way before," it's because the hole they have dug has gotten them into problems. Doing anything different will produce different results. Let the boys be creative. Before I was removed as SM of my former troop because I expected too much leadership out of the boys, I used to have volunteers "take lead" on projects/activities. It was up to them to work it through (with adult help if necessary), but the expectation was to not "hold office", but to get the job done. 90% of the time it produced unbelievable results. The other 10% were the ones that sabotaged the process because they didn't want to do the work, but they wanted the prestige. It became embarrassing to them when they fell flat or the boys missed out because they goofed off. Their parents didn't like it when their boys looked bad in front of the others and the Committee agreed. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

I would think it would depend on the Scout's qualifications just like any other position in the unit. If he is an Eagle and never been a PL, how can he be a senior PL? One needs to look at the function of the position and the qualifications/talents the Scout possesses. Just because someone needs POR and/or some other non-functional expectations, i.e. age, rank, social status, etc., isn't qualification sufficient for the job. Too often it's like some marriages. One picks a spouse hoping they'll change, grow up, or whatever. When it doesn't happen, only bad things can happen. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

I've been getting bumped repeatedly by both Foxfire and IE for malware issues when using this site.

My knickers aren't twisted. I was only quoting National BSA in their most recent publication. Of course everyone can make their own decisions as to how they wish to show respect or not, that's not the problem. Yes, BSA is changing, and everyone has an opinion on whether or not it is beneficial. I see it as moving from natural open spaces to Sesame Street. After all that's what these people, and for the most part, their parents grew up on. While it is maybe no longer a tradition to salute other scouts, it is no longer traditional to do the scout handshake and most youth prefer knuckle bumping. So be it. I'm sure there are a lot of things going by the wayside, like hat tipping, etc., but until BSA drops it from what is being taught to the youth for a TF requirement, it still holds valid along with the Scout Sign and Handshake. The handshake and salute in our culture have been around since the Middle Ages, I'm thinking it's going to take a while before it goes completely away. After all, when the Flag Code of the USA was first introduced, men would stand at attention, with their hat on if there was one present, hands at their side, to show respect to the flag. Only women and children put their hands over their heart. Times change.... Your mileage may vary, Stosh

I grew up in the 60's/70's and it was customary for people to be anti-Vietnam and show disrespect. BSA has stood up against the atheist's argument, against the gay argument and they did so with the military argument back in "the day". One can argue all they wish on this subject and point out to me a ton of anecdotal cases where troops have ceased to use the salute except for flags, yet BSA literature still has respectful saluting of others in the explanation of the salute. And yet if one wishes to question anachronistic customs?, why not start with the uniform. That smacks of military.... Heck, the boy's are buttoning them up only after they come in out of the public eye so as to be ready for opening flags, and have them off again before they leave back into the public eye. Heck, my council camp has no-uniform day for flags at summer camp. It can't be all that important to these people. Oh, yes, and they still use the Scout Salute without the uniform..... People can make up all kinds of rules to be convenient to "the current circumstances." The left-handed handshake is basically gone too. It's more of a gotcha joke than a real handshake, and they have changed it around so much no one really knows what format to use. And although it's traditional, there really is no need for opening and closing flags either. Youth do it very seldom at no other time except Scouts. Usually it's just the stand up for the Anthem and not really a ceremony. I, too, can cite hundreds of exceptions on the subject of saluting, but I can only quote the one source and that came out of the 1999 BSA Scout Handbook, page 20. A lot of the old customs were meant as a way of expressing social graces. Handshake use to close contracts, greet people, etc. Taking off one's had to touching the brim. etc. were all ways of expressing social courtesy. Now that the customs have become anachronistic, I'm thinking the respect they used to convey has gone by the way-side as well. If anyone has a beef with it, they can take it up with Irving..... Stosh

Or, you could save the salt for corn-on-the-cob. Handbook for Boys, 1952, p. 46: "The Scout Salute is used to salute The Flag of the United States of America. Use it when you are in uniform, instead of tipping your hat. You give the Scout salute when you approach a Scout leader, before you speak to him. A salute as you leave him is courteous too." Scout Handbook, 1999, p. 20: "The Scout salute is a form of greeting that also shows respect. Use it to salute the flag of the United States of America. You may also salute other Scouts and Scout leaders." Regardless of what Wikipedia says, BSA Publication is clear. Saluting others has been around in BSA publications for 100 years. It might be a bit watered down over the past 50 years, but it is still there. Maybe it isn't the salute that has disappeared, but the courteous respect it conveys has. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

I use "time-out" but the offender determines the length of time. The discussion usually goes something like: "The behavior is unacceptable, time out until the behavior changes." If the offender then repeats, it's time-out until help can be acquired to make the appropriate behavior changes, i.e. parental involvement, counseling, etc. It's the offender's choice as to what help he thinks is needed and for how long. The third strike means permanent time-out. Obviously the behavior is not going to change, but it is my responsibility to insure the behavior no longer affects those to whom I owe the responsibility. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

I usually use a 3-man tent which is quite low-profile and so at 6' I have a wee bit of a getting dressed problem. Solution? - buy a camp shower. Go in, get dressed standing up, and bingo, you're done. I picked one up for about $35. It doesn't need to be anything terrific, just a privacy screen. If it's raining, I stick with the struggle in the little tent. I have actually used it as a shower too. Not too bad on extended campouts. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

You are on the right track neil_b... One can have a boy "led" program without it being a patrol-method process. This might work in a small troop of 10-20 boys, but for the most part, unless the SPL is heavily directed and supported by adults, he's going to have to be a once-in-a-lifetime natural leader to be able to successfully pull it off. BP promoted patrol-method so that the size of the groups the boy would be responsible for actually leading would be small enough for him to handle. SPL is something that was added on for whatever reason. I never used an SPL as a SM and when I was an ASM, I didn't get involved with the SPL's and focused on other issues that I though were more important. Just try and keep it in mind that Position of Responsibility and Leadership are not synonymous. Stosh

PSA? Purposely Secret Acronym I don't know why anyone wouldn't know this.... We had a safety/environment director who sat in on business meetings where acronyms were being tossed around all over the place. When it was time for her report she gave a long report on the green-savings of watching our FBV's. Every other sentence had this inserted. She kept it up until someone raised their hand and sheepishly asked what FBV's were. She proundly announced that was Frequency of Bathroom Visits. Ever since then if an acronym was used, it was identified first before it was used again in any presentation. Stosh

I would have a second SMC with the boy and find out how he is going to fulfill the advancement requirement when it comes to the 12th point of the Scout Law. That should open the dialogue as to whether or not he is intending on being honest about his Scout career. Leave the ball in his court and if he cannot justify his beliefs against those of the BSA he will make the choice on his own as to whether or not he stays with the program. I would assume every SMC from this point onward would pay particular attention to this issue. When you get to TF advancement have him cite examples how he took on the challenge of each of the 12 points. He he says he did nothing towards the 12th point, ask HIM what you as SM should do about honestly signing off on that requirement. If he has no answer, you have your answer right there. He will have to face that decision and deal with it on his own. As SM you need to help him work through his issue, you're not there to just judge and arbitrarily write him off. Listen to what he has to say and then help walk him through what the 12th point means and how honestly dealing with it is in his best interest, not only in Scouting but in his everyday life, just like any of the other 11 points. Your mileage may vary, Stosh

For the most part, the SPL position is more of a political position rather than a truly functional one. As one grows to the point where an SPL is necessary to actually function as such (4-5 patrols), the boy needs the skills to meet the definition the troop sets forth as the job needed to be done. If the SPL is to be the senior most patrol leader and help the PL's do their jobs, that takes a different leadership skills than trying to be the super "patrol" leader and run the whole troop while the PL's sit back with nothing to actually lead, then a Superman cape might be the only job requirement. Heck, most adult SM's can't lead a whole troop so they have a ton of ASM's... So figure out what exactly it is the SPL is going to be expected to do. If the expectations are too high and no one is capable to doing the task, the SPL will end up a non-functioning political position. If the boy does not have the skills, it will end up a non-functioning political position. etc. If a troop has 4-5+ patrols and actually needs a functioning SPL, the only "suggestion" I would have to offer is an SPL can be elected from the current PL's. Unless a SENIOR PL has no PL experience, the position will end up political. I'm thinking a Life Scout who has never been a PL or if he was was ineffective, will in fact, only because of rank and seniority get SPL, it'll only be political. In case someone doesn't understand what I mean by political, it means the boy will wear the patch, get the credit, but will not, or cannot actually function properly in the position. An effective SPL should be training his PL's to someday take over. Each PL should be doing the same thing with their APL, and the APL needs to be training up the patrol members to someday take on effective leadership. To take and make eligible for SPL an Eagle Scout who has never functioned as a PL but floated through the ranks with POR's that didn't require leadership skills is not going to be very effective for the troop. I don't have a problem with non-elections of the SPL. If the PL's want one of their own to step out of their patrol so they can spend more time helping the PL's, this is a good thing. If one of the PL's offers to drop out of his patrol to help the others, this is a good thing, if the SM requests one of the PL's to take on helping all the patrols, not just his one, this is a good thing. To arbitrarily elect from the masses an untrained, unqualified, senior scout of a certain rank, ... good luck, you may get lucky, but there are better ways of getting a functional SPL. Your mileage may vary Stosh

It always surprises me when it comes to patrol level issues the first step is to process information acquired from other adults, whether it be books, forums or interviews. Why not just skip to the end and have the boys sit down and figure out on their own what they think they'll need for the patrol equipment. If the troops has money burning in their pockets, give them a patrol box and have them do what they think is best to identify it as their patrol's. Then leave it up to them to figure out what best to put in it. This patrol interaction process will go a long way to develop the comrade of the group. If the boys want to raise their own money and buy tents for their patrol, they are more likely to take care of them. If they want to do their cooking on the fire, why buy a stove? If a stove is needed, backpacking or double-burner? Along with their discussion on what they need, they will naturally evolve into why they are going to need it. If they have no intention of ever going anywhere other than as backpacking, why have a patrol box except to store equipment back at the meeting hall? If they are going to do 100% car camping, then a 2 burner stove would be good, etc. After their first outing, if they needed anything, then they know the next step in identifying what they are going to need. You will also find that each patrol that figures out how to best do it will demonstrate leadership to the other patrols as they try and figure out what gear they're going to need. NSP comes in and has a smorgasbord of patrols to learn from and they don't need lectures, lists or adults telling them what to do. Give them a box and have them fill it. The first thing these boys will do is start talking to the older patrols and finding out what they did and the learning starts! After all don't most SM's want their younger boys to learn from the older boys? This will happen naturally without adult intervention if they only get out of the way and quit making rules on how they think it should be done. Your mileage may vary, Stosh I put together a camp kitchen many years ago. Had a lot of nice things in it, half of which I never used.

I have used Yahoo Groups in private mode for both forum as well as main web-site. It has a lot of functionality and doesn't take a techie to work it. Stosh