Stosh

I guess I'm not all that in favor of polling the youth to see what they want and design a program around that. I'm sure that the BSA doesn't want to become a training ground for candy store or computer game shop managers. If we rely on what the kids want, one is going to get some pretty strange programs, depending on the whims of the youth's imagination. To poll scouters, one is going to get a bit less diversity but it will boil down to going back to the old ways or let's do something that we think might be interesting to kids. Other than polarizing the leadership of BSA I'm not seeing much progress here. Polling parents, one will get whatever dreams they themselves were unable to get as youth, i.e. soccer and stage moms, little league dads, etc. The BSA does not presently have a clearly defined marketable package for people to consider. I'm not thinking that BP sat around trying to come up with an idea for a program that he thought the boys should/would/could do to improve their development in life. He drew on his own personal experiences and translated that back into a program for boys. One man's ideals, not a group consensus. Multiple voices cause a cacophony of noise, but not much consensus in the long run and will only serve to confuse people even more. I'm thinking this may be some of the problem we face today. Not many companies, activities, programs, etc. have survived 100 years in today's world. Heck, even whole countries have difficulty pulling that off. As fluid as the whims of people seem to be, change occurs on a regular basis, but for some reason the principles of certain organizes when they stay firm, somehow survive. Up and down cycles of interest come and go. A powerhouse troop may last but a few years and then they struggle, only to resurrect back once more. This dynamic occurs in all organizations, not just the BSA. When one doesn't realize this natural occurrence, they have a tendency to panic at the low end of the cycles and sit back on their laurels at the high ends. Is success measured in the big numbers of the top of the cycle and failure measured in the smaller number of the bottom? In the 50's and 60's we were on a roll, big time in BSA, it had grown steadily and rather consistently for many years (50 years). Then at it's peak, it was decided to "improve" that which was working and it became evident that the "decline" began. Is it a result of the change in BSA or a natural wave of the cycle? Do we measure success by the number of boys enrolled or the number of boys helped? Did we do anything for boys that didn't Eagle? Maybe we ought to make getting Eagle easier so more boys can feel successful? There are a lot of questions and not many answers. Until someone sits down and defines what it is we are all about, what we want to accomplish and a means to measure it's success other than just totaling up a bunch of numbers, we are going to struggle. I spent 4 years as a scout and only made 2nd class. I have camped and hunted, fished and hiked, skied and canoed all over the United States. I have been working with youth for over 40 years and 20 of them as an adult BSA leader. If one were to only measure my BSA record, it wouldn't amount to much as a youth. But if one were to measure the influence of BSA, it wouldn't show up in the numbers. We have no idea what or if the program is effective in the lives of individual youth in our country, because it is not measurable. Even trying to get a definition of leadership development from an adult-led program vs. a boy-led program will produce two different options. Sure, we can "adapt" to a modern electronic world and allow iPods and have LAN parties for our boys, but does having 8 boys' faces glued to an electronic game really play itself out in the patrol method? Does texting and cell phones replace the Signaling MB that everyone is all agog about coming back for 2010? We all need to stop and reflect what it is that we intend to attempt before setting off willy-nilly into the unknown. One wouldn't do that in the BWCA on a high-adventure trip, so why would we as a national program for youth consider it? Eamonn has the right idea to start asking questions, i.e. polling, but we must all realize that the questions we ask may or may not get us to a goal/purpose when that goal or purpose isn't clearly defined in the first place. Hopefully I'm not in the minority when it comes to believing in the basic principles outlined by BP 100 years ago, because in spite of the ups and downs of natural cycles, the program has and will survive as long as we hold them as primary to all other concerns. Stosh

I would take maybe 5-10 of the greatest assets of the program, i.e. leadership, outdoors, etc. and make sure they are goals that people understand and want for their children. Obviously if people have to ask what the purpose of a program is, it is not being clearly marketed in the population. The last thing I ever want to hear about BSA is "what does it do?" It should be obvious to the average person. When someone sees a scout in uniform it should create an image in the person's mind what that means. When one sees a military uniform, even between the different branches of the service, a police uniform, a fireman's uniform, people immediately have an understanding of what that means and don't have to ask, "Why are you wearing that particular uniform?" If the BSA program is all over the place with it's aims and goals, this will confuse the population from wanting to join in. If my kids go to a church youth group, it follows that I have a certain amount of expectation for what my kid will receive in return. If I think he/she will benefit by being in that group, I'll support the program. If not, I'll pull my kid and put him/her where it will benefit him/her more. If every Tiger Cub scout's parents were told that over the course of the next 10 years, your child will receive the best leadership training available to youth in this day and age, at least they will perk up their ears. If the program doesn't deliver that, then that's another story. A poll of expectations and assumptions on the part of outsiders is vital. A clear understanding of whether or not those expectations and assumptions can be fulfilled are mandatory or BSA will be seen as not holding up it's end of the deal. BSA has to constantly ask themselves have I fulfilled what I promised or implied to have promised for this kid? If not, why complain when the parents and or scout seek out other avenues of growth for their kids? After a year does my Tiger kid want more or does he have a bad taste in his mouth about what he thought he was supposed to be getting? When an Eagle Scout walks down the street, or puts a reference to it on his college or job application, does the person reading it know what that means and how much they can rely on it to better their school or business? If I were to run a poll, the first question asked to any potential new scouts' parent is what do you expect or assume is going to benefit your kid if he/she is involved in BSA. Then I would poll the insiders as to whether or not they are providing that. Otherwise all you have is two ships passing in the night. I have so much time in the lives of my child, how can I get the best bang for my buck? If I believe BSA can't provide it, I will find someone else who will. If a boy eats, sleeps and breathes Scouts, there is no way a parent is going to keep him from the program. But if the boy is waffling about yet another week of Scouts, then they will be the first to suggest he seek something else. Stosh

Ever since it's onset, Scouting has been a unique program for boys, an alternative to the every day world the scout finds himself in. Since 1972-ish, BSA has been trying to adapt scouting to be like everyone else and relevant to the lives of boys. It's emphasis has not always been altruistic and has at times buckled under political and ideologies that are different than it's original intent. The numbers have fallen. Is is because scouting is no longer relevant or has it fallen prey to the whims of the world. Being like everyone else may be a goal for some, but remaining a vital but unique concept has in the past proven to be an asset that people turn to because there is no other place such benefit can be attained. One can try and justify competition by playing like everyone else and they can try and justify competition by being like no others and standing out from the crowd. Until the words "I was president of my 4-H chapter", or "I was team captain of my football squad", or "I was president of my student council", stand equal to "I am an Eagle Scout", I would like to think that BSA might want to consider being different than the rest rather than trying to compete with them. I have always felt BSA stood for quality, not quantity, but unfortunately that doesn't pay the bills. Instead of asking such poll questions such as "How does BSA stack up against the local school programs", or "How do they stack up against extra curricular activities," or "How do they compare to the local YMCA programs", maybe they ought to review what they do best and improve on it. I have found over the years that when asks the wrong questions, they will always get a wrong answer. Stosh

Maybe take your most challenging scout (for a lack of better word) and ask him if he wants to be PL of the new cross overs. Sometimes if they have a purpose and focus it helps keep them from bouncing off the walls. It's a big risk, but sometimes the boys will rise to the occasion. Otherwise have him take over as TG and take the PL of the NSP under his wing and help him get his patrol up and running. Sometimes that mentoring dynamic is good for the boy to focus as well. Whatever you do, it is time for this boy to start focusing on something besides himself. If he's the center of attention to himself he'll just continue to act up. Once he focuses on something beyond himself and is given some responsibility to go along with it and some level of expectation to perform, he just might step up. Just my 2 cents worth. Stosh

Not everyone in the hospital is in the psych ward. Homeless shelters are not the same as rehab centers and to classify everyone who's down on their luck as alcoholic, drug addict, serial killers, probably isn't a rational conclusion. I met a homeless man in Kansas City. During the course of my visit with him at lunch time, I found out he was college educated, recently laid off and because of that his wife divorced him. Of course his stint in the shelter was only for about 4 months at that point, but he had a lead on a job and was looking forward to getting the pieces of his life back together. I didn't think to ask him if he was an alcoholic or check his arms for needle marks, and I forgot to ask him if he had killed anyone recently. He was articulate and friendly and those subjects didn't seem to come up in the conversation, maybe I should have asked. I'm not an alcoholic, never done drugs, haven't killed anyone and yet when I was younger I was homeless for about 2 months until I got a part-time job that allowed me to rent a room for $12/week. It was in the dead of winter in Wisconsin and kept warm and slept in a chair at the state unemployment office while waiting for any job to open up. Like I said earlier, maybe one ought to find out who these men are that the church wishes to help before drawing conclusions. Stosh

I have always used Speed Lea's 6 levels of conflict to resolve the problems I have often faced. If one cannot define the problem they cannot solve it. What seems to be happening here is that the problem is beginning to be defined and yet there are those who have chosen not to deal with it. This does not create a second problem, it only adds to the first. Instead of having the problem of boys bullying others, we now have a problem of adults allowing boys bullying others. Adults ignoring a problem is tacit approval of it. Now, the PLC may wish to address the issue of boys bullying others, but from the description of the problem, they are attempting to solve the whole problem by addressing only part of it. Good luck! One cannot cure a situation by only masking the symptoms of a deeper lying problem. It's not a matter of one person blaming another, the environment in which bullying takes place is often times the catalyst for the behavior. If there's a long stretch of straight road for the next 50 miles and not towns, and no traffic, aren't we all tempted to push the pedal a little further closer to the floor boards? And if we get away with it for a while, the next time the temptation appears, it's that much easier to go along with it. Being reactive to a problem such as this means that for a long time, not being proactive has created an environment where this behavior has been routinely overlooked. As with any behavior, unless identified and nipped in the bud, it will only become more frequent to the point where people actually can justify it by, "We've always done it that way and nobody's really gotten hurt." Every boy that comes into my troop gets a SMC at the end of his Scout Rank achievement. It basically goes: "If you are threatened or feel threatened by anything that happens in Boy Scouts, you come to me and I'll correct it. If I don't listen, you go to an ASM or CC/CM and tell them. IF they don't listen you tell your parents. If they don't listen you call the police." I also at the TF SMC re-emphasize this and expand it to include things at school and at home. As I develop an environment of trust with these boys it is my responsibility to assist them in learning and developing in a safe environment. A Scout is Trustworthy. If I can't be that for everyone of my boys, then I as SM/CA am not leading by setting a very good example. I had one new boy come to me after a few months and say he was afraid of one of the older boys. This is level 3 conflict. 1) there's a problem, 2) it's undefined, and 3) someone's to blame. I asked the older boy what he was doing to intimidate the younger boy (flat out and in his face!) He didn't know. I sat the two boys down and we talked about it. (Level 3 is addressed) The younger boy admitted it was mostly because he didn't have to deal with high school aged boys and it was scary (Level 2 is addressed) The older boy suggested that the new scout be his buddy at the next campout so he could get to know him better. (Level 1 is addressed) They hit it off and I'm thinking the new boy now has a new "older brother" he never had and was enjoying it a lot. Not only that whenever the new boy felt threatened by other older boys, he now had a "older brother" who would help him out as needed. Group dynamics is a fluid thing, but as an adult one has to constantly be vigilant to any waves going on that inhibit the progress of the program in place. The minute one leaves the door open for just a second, the temptation is there to push that pedal a little closer to the floor boards! Heck, we as adults do it, why wouldn't the boys?! Stosh

As a former minister, I would welcome both the BSA and GSUSA groups stepping up and assisting in this important ministry of their CO/sponsor/beneficiary. I'm thinking that if the church thought for a second there was a dangerous security issue they would address it long before it came to light. I wouldn't look at this as a negative thing for the gals, but a great opportunity to put some of their skills out there and help in a real viable way. We talk to the kids about good turns, but here one has a golden opportunity served up on a silver platter for the kids to roll up their sleeves and start doing good turns instead of just talking about them. Every group of youth I have "exposed" to such service have been deeply moved and have caused some really "special" moments for them and the groups they represent. Youth spend a lot of time in their formative years worrying about acceptance and self-esteem. A couple of opportunities to help out and I'm betting you're going to have a difficult time getting these kids to think about anything else for a while. You may have to limit the help to once a month so that the other parts of the BSA and GSUSA programming can get done! Stosh

Besides the BSA perks, i.e. mess hall at camp used as a drill hall, insurance, there's always the issue of trained leaders. This is primary in my opinion. All the adults that wish to "hang out with the boys" needs YPT and if they wish to become involved directly with the boys, there's the basic CA training. It also makes it easy to "scapegoat" BSA along the way at times. When there's a potentially dangerous activity at an event, we can always play the BSA trump card and say, "BSA policy won't allow that." This allows us to exit the field, or not take the field when it assumes greater risk than what the adults feels is appropriate for the boys. We also hold the boys to a higher standard of safety because of BSA policies. For example, National has allowed the crew to operate under the umbrella that if it's appropriate for the hobby, it falls into the guidelines of BSA acceptability. However, we are dealing with a special group of people in the hobby that lack the maturity and legal status normally acceptable in the hobby. Our boys are trained to a higher level of safety expertise than the average person in the hobby. By doing this the boys are better trained and they can also recognize unsafe situations around them that they need to avoid. All of this emphasis is a result of the BSA policies being passed on to the adults in the Crew through their policies and programs. Without the BSA umbrella, it is my opinion that the quality of organization in the crew would not be to the level it presently is. It is not just parasitic, where we just take from BSA, but we symbiotically work with BSA to provide a viable programatic option for boys who wish to get into the high-adventure opportunity of the hobby. Insurance, we can get that through other options connected with the CO. We could work to get the CO to change their by-law policies to accommodate the youth, and we could do all kinds of things without the assistance of the BSA. With that being said, we would not have achieved the level of quality in our group without the assistance of the BSA. Stosh

Okay, John, here's the $64,000 question.... If the fry pan was to be kept warm, which kid should have slept with it in his sleeping bag instead of leaving it out in the cold? Stosh

I got the BSA Dutch oven. I got the BSA fry pan, nice enough to hang on any wall. I got a 14" Dutch oven that will hold my cast iron blueberry muffin pans (notice the plural???) I got the $250 Dutch oven table for only $180... Nanner nanner nanner.... Stosh

"If you don't use the Venturing structure, don't do Venturing awards and don't go to Venturing events why bother registering as a Venturing Crew?" Our CO is a reenacting group which mandates that all youth must have a parent that is a member in order for their children to participate. Due to the fact that there are a number of youth interested in the hobby that have parents that are not, this allows for a viable alternative. BSA provides insurance and a structure of trained adults that are capable to taking care of these boys in the absence of their parents. The youth thus operate as an auxiliary of the CO, supplementing their numbers and falling in with their numbers at the various events. I am CA of the crew and captain of the CO. The last four years I was also the president of the CO. The Crew's CC is a former captain and president of the CO as well. We are both BSA trained. Many of the CO also "keep an eye" on the boys in the field offering one-on-one safety with the boys. Because the group is 100% totally focused on reenacting, the boys have never expressed any interest in the Venturing program of advancement and have chosen to pursue the advancement of the hobby instead. We have had boys that have functioned as high as lieutenant in the field (National mega event). Right now 3 of our boys hold NCO positions that are valid in the Crew as well as the CO and the reenacting world. An opportunity presented itself last summer when the CC was asked to take command of the regiment as colonel and he asked me to be his adjutant. That would have left the company without military leadership, but the CO decided that the next viable candidate to take command of the CO/Crew company would have been our senior sergeant moving him up to lieutenant for the event. While he was 20 years of age and 6 years of experience, he was still a "youth" in the eyes of the BSA. I chose to not take the adjutant position. Both trained crew adults would not be close enough to supervise the crew but the lieutenant would have done just fine. I went as captain and my crew member was my lieutenant for the event. This was the decision of the CO that a crew member would actually take command over them for the event. With this alternative structure, the boys don't wish pursue Venturing advancement. The "advancement" they gain in the crew carries over into the adult world of reenacting which they seem to prefer. The "leadership" training these boys receive parallels those goals and focus of the BSA program. Since last summer, my lieutenant has enrolled in ROTC and taken basic training. His only comment was that the opportunity in the Crew gave him sufficient advantage of leadership and discipline to the point that upon completion of his basic training he was promoted. He said the discipline was greater in the crew than in ROTC. He did enjoy being a private once more for a while and just do as he was told. Once they recognized his leadership skills, that didn't last. Two other of our boys have enlisted and served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. One received medals (and on full disability) for his service as a marine in Iraq and the other is serving as an NCO in Afghanistan. Our marine still takes the field with us as best he can for the big events and our Afghanistan soldier has already inquired when the next event will be following his deployment. Any boy that comes from a BS troop MUST stay with his troop and gain his Eagle to stay active in the Crew. So far 7 Eagles have served in our Crew. Only one did not fulfill his commitment. One of my Crew boys is an Eagle, 3rd ASM on my Jambo contingent with me. While we do not actively follow the Venturing program, I'm thinking we're doing something right along the way. Stosh

What's your best thorn John? I use the comment, "If you do it your way, you'll get what you want, if you expect me to do it, I'll do it my way and you'll have to take your chances." So far I haven't had any takers. Stosh

Slaughter cattle? How many of the boys deer hunt and process their own deer? It's a skill the boys would appreciate knowing. I'm sure if there are any adults in the area that do that, they could do a nice seminar on processing their deer for the boys. Maybe the boys could do a little on hide tanning too while they are at it. Remember, not all meat comes in plastic wrap.... Stosh

I like Eagle92's insight into the adult issues. As a SM their number one job is to constantly work themselves out of a job in a boy-led program. If everyone is looking to the SM for the answers, there's something wrong. He/She must constantly be teaching the boys to do what he/she is being sought out to do. Every boy that turns 18 whether they Eagle or not should be a fully trained SM! If this is not the case, then the SM isn't doing his/her job! BP said that an adult shouldn't be doing anything a scout should be doing assumes that the boy has been trained and supported in those efforts. I have boys asking me questions that relate to being an adult leader in a boy-led program. Just last meeting my Eagle candidate boy commented to me the boys won't listen, won't stay on task, etc. My first comment was "Welcome to adulthood!" Then I asked him if he was that way when he first came into the troop. When he answered in the affirmative, I then asked him what I did to get him to where he was. With a big grin he turned around and went back to working with the boys. He's going to be a great SM some day. Heck, he's 90% there already and he's only 16! My younger boys teach knots, the older boys teach leadership! Yes, I do not expect the boys to meet their advancement requirements, I expect them to go above and beyond every step of the way. I never ask if the boys can tie knots, I ask if they can teach them too. Knowing knots is for the benefit of the boy, teaching them is for the betterment of others, and that's leadership. If as an adult I expect that of the boys, eventually they come to expect it of themselves, too. That's what boy-led is all about. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

The very first step in the process is to educate the adults in the process. They all need to be on the same page and equally committed to the change. The biggest problem with boy-led is not the boys, they will adjust quite readily, but with the adults that can't let go of controlling everything to make sure their dear little darlings are successful. I have had many adults comment to me how hard it is to bite one's tongue and stay out of the situation so the boys can work out the situation on their own. They are also the same ones that comment, "That's not the way I would have done it, but it seems to be working out pretty well anyway." The most important item in an adult first aid kit is the tongue depressor. Stosh

What does the crew president have to say about this? This is a 100% adult run unit. There are no youth officers. >>> This is exactly how my crew is run. if the president is not meeting WITH the committee or addressing the CO at some point in the year, in my opinion, you don't have a crew. Crew committee doesnt meet. As far as I can tell they figure out what adults are doing when whoever shows up to meetings. As a side note - no parents are involved as leaders in this crew - only members of the CO. >>> Again, this is exactly how my crew is run. Meeting indoors in the winter just because its winter would be a show-stopper for my youth. As these are shooting crews and with the amount of snow we get meeting outdoors during the winter just isnt possible >>> My boys always seek shelter in the winter time, it's Wisconsin for heaven's sake. Have you suggested the crew attend a Council/Area VOA event? Our council doesnt have a VOA. There is just not enough interest to start one. The same with a council Venturing event our Crews just arent interested in attending. 2 years ago there was a Area Venturing event. None last year but I hear they are trying to put one together for the spring. >>> My boys have no interest in anything other than the focus of the crew. In 10 years they have never attended an event that wasn't related to their interest. When my son was in this crew I asked the adults running the crew about attending Venturing events. They are only interested in shooting and shooting only and will not even bring up attending any type of events to the youth in the crew. >>> This is exactly the situation we are in and it's preferred as such by the boys. As far as training is concerned in two years when the BSA makes it is mandatory for any leader who has direct contact with the kids that problem will take care of itself. Our council has defined a direct contact leader for a Venturing Crew to be the Advisor and Associate Advisor. This crew has already figured out they only need to get one person trained (advisor) and just register everyone else as a Committee member who are not required to be trained. These committee members can then continue working with the youth without training. >>> The CA and CC are the only trained leaders. Local Tour permits I know when my son was in the crew they tried to set up a contest between the crews and another youth group, no one showed from the crew. I dont know if they have tried to do this again but as I have been told not to bother them with all the scouting paperwork I would guess that they just dont bother with tour permits. >>> Tour permits and rechartering is handled by the adults. Might as well let the charter lapse Not my call. As I said before most of the District Committee would agree but its not their call either. >>> Our crew is often cited as one of the best in the Council by both the DE and Council personnel. Our CO is very pleased with the Crew and feel it's a vital asset to their program. My biggest conflict is that we have a new Council Commissioner and new SE who are saying that units like this will be dropped. >>> This sounds like a problem not with the Crew, but with the Council personnel. As a UC I dont want to see these units dropped and need to at least put in some effort (Ive only met with them once) to advise them and offer my assistance what is required to keep them chartered. >>> It sounds like one needs to find out what the burr is under the saddle of the Council rather than what's wrong with the Crew. From the comments made, it sounds as if my crew is remarkably similar to the situation being described but no one is concerned. Yes, we have a very high attrition rate. There are a lot of boys who think this is going to be exciting and fun, but once they get in and find out that it's work, they drop. Those that stay are in it for life. I have charter youth members who are now adult leaders in the crew 10 years later. Given the information, thus far, I would start with the Council rather than the crew. The crew might be doing just fine. If I were to take a guess, I'm thinking the Council is worried more about numbers than programming. Stosh

If my memory is correct, it was Eleanor Roosevelt that said one is a victim only if one allows themselves to be. As a SM I don't let the boys run rough shod over the troop even though they are boy-led. There is a certain amount of decorum of decency that is required for the boys to operate and show leadership in an environment conducive to it. Yes, difficult times require extra leadership requirements, but a long standing pattern of disruptive behavior that is beyond the skills of boys at that age is not tolerated. It is okay for the boy to deal with another boy that has dropped the ball on some expectation, but to deal with malicious and destructive behaviors is not necessary. Obviously from the discussion so far there are many adults that don't seem to have the skill sets to deal with it, let alone expect the boys to have them. All boys in the troop deserve a safe and constructive atmosphere where they are allowed to learn the skills of everyday life. If the adults don't allow for that, then whatever one is trying to teach the boys is a waste of time. I've had my share of disrupters and bullies over the years. They all have had the opportunity to change, but if they don't they're gone. One can't allow the destruction of a whole troop just because of the behavior of one or two in the group. I believe we are responsible to provide leadership development for as many of the boys as we can, but it isn't going to happen for all the boys. Some just aren't going to be successful, not because they don't have the skills, but because they don't have the will/attitude to make it happen for themselves. Obviously the majority of these boys that are disruptive are not just this way at Scouts, it means they have found their troop an environment that allows for their misbehavior and capitalize on it. When this happens, we allow ourselves to become victims. More than once I have told a boy they may get away with such behavior at home or at school, but not here. I suggest they save their disruptive behavior for when they are at home or at school, because it isn't going to be tolerated in the troop. About 90% of the time that works for the boys. It reminds me of the old dynamic that when we are at home we go by home rules, when we are at grandma's we go by grandma's rules. If one thinks they are going to get away with things at home like they did at grandma's, guess again. When in Rome, do as the Romans. When you are at scouts, we operate under the Scout Oath and Law. If one wishes to advance, they may wish to consider doing the same thing elsewhere, too. With rules and expectations clearly defined, most boys will take them under consideration and toe the line. If they don't, they will understand that the problem arises from themselves and can't blame others who may wish to allow it and become victims. Any psychologist will tell you that unless the person wishes to change, they won't no matter how much counseling they get. Stosh

Because the .577 Enfield and .580 Springfield both shot the minnie ball rather than a patched ball, they didn't foul as readily. When I load my Enfield clean, the minnie falls all the way to the bottom without ramming. Once the barrels began to foul (50-75 rounds) the men had a special minnie with an extra zinc ring on it that would scrape the barrel when loading. This helped a bit, but the best option for the men in battle was to pour water down the barrel to soften the burnt powder and then ram a load. This helped a bit. Once the piece became so foul it wouldn't shoot, they would pick up one from the ground and hope it wasn't as dirty as the one they had. After a battle it was found that there were a number of guns with 2-8 rounds already in the gun. At first they attributed this to men panicing and ramming more rounds without firing. However, these men were very well trained and the theory now is that when a man picked up a dropped piece he would automatically load without running the rammer down to see if it was loaded. That took extra time he may not have had. If he put a round in and it didn't go all the way to the bottom, he'd drop that one and get another and load until he found an empty gun. The ball and buck smooth bores didn't have as much problem because none of the 4 projectiles were large enough that they couldn't be rammed. The rate of fire for the flintlock smooth bores was about 4 a minute and the percussion caps, 3 a minute. It was easier and faster to charge the flash pan than put a cap on. However, the range of a smooth bore was about 100 yards and the effective range of the Enfield/Springfield used in the Civil War was 450-650 yards. The technology changed but the tactics didn't. However, with the smooth bore 4 balls went out the end of the barrel but with the minnie setup only one went. The casualties of the Civil War was not as high a rate as the previous wars until the men began to take shelter and more accurately aim. By the end of the war trench warfare was the way to go and the casualties began to rise considerably as they figured out the advantages of the minnie setup. I hunt with my rifle/musket in shotgun only areas and those that are restricted to 50 yards on a modern shotgun are envious of me when I take aim and drop my deer 200-300 yards out and with the paper cartridge I can reload faster than any modern patched speedloader on the market, too. In spite of the technology changes only about 10% of the deaths in the CW were on the battlefield. All the rest of the deaths occurred due to medical limitations and disease. Of course if one is doing rendesvous era one must keep with the flintlock to be correct. The fur trader could make his own black powder, pour his own lead balls and replace the flint at any creek. With the percussion cap he had to carry an extra piece of high technology that couldn't be replaced in the field. It wasn't until the invention of the brass cartridge came along and multiple rounds/fire power began to take over did the fur traders/buffalo hunters of the plains make the change. Early rimfire .45 caliber bullets didn't have enough powder to be very effective. Once they incorporated the center-fire cap in the shell case, did the higher amounts of powder become the norm. Also if one does fur trader prior to the CW, the gun was .36 cal. and after .50 cal because no game east of the Mississippi required the heavy guns of the plains. The Pennsylvania Rifle (misnamed the Kentucky Rifle) was .36 cal. Modern reproductions are difficult to come by at that caliber. Remember, the fur trader carried a hunting weapon, not a military one as did most pioneers crossing the plains later one. Stosh

Thanks for the correction, I was operating on a 59 year old data drive that seems to short circuit on occasion. Stosh

My crew does not follow any BSA program format. However, the leaders are trained and all the adults that have regular contact with the boys have YPT. We are a small crew but we've been around since the formation of Venturing back in the late 90's. Our CO is very pleased with the operation of the crew and so life is good and the Council supports our lack of BSA programming as long as the boys get what they want from the program. Stosh

If one thinks the necktie is too short, most of the neckers are worse. That's why I prefer the necktie to the necker. When they come out with the proper sized necker, the necktie may become history. Stosh

War of Northern Aggression???? I suppose you're one of those guys that think damnyankees is all one word! If one studies the tactics of the era, a full volley was not used very often. It meant that the whole company/regiment was going to be totally unarmed for the next 20 seconds. Ever wonder how far a cavalryman could close the gap in ranks in those 20 seconds? Usually the commands were fire by rank which would mean half the men would shoot and the other half remained loaded. Once the smoke cleared the other rank could fire. The average infantryman carried 40 rounds in his cartridge box and another 20 in his pockets. Those 60 rounds if fired at 20 second intervals, which is how long it took to reload, they would run out of ammunition in 20 minutes. The rate of fire was far less than one would imagine from today's movies. Fire by file was the most common form. The first two men on the far right of the company would fire together, then the next two men to their left would fire so on down the line. With 50 pairs firing, by the time the first two men were reloaded the smoke had cleared and they could then fire once more. This meant that the company could as a whole keep up a constant firing against the Seee-shesh for quite some time with no breaks. Stosh

Those 2-quart canteens can be gotten on E-bay and are great. Little heavy when full, but the extra water and over-the-shoulder strap make it easy to handle. The wooden pack boards were great in that they could hold a double Yucca or military duffel if necessary and with tumpline would ease the lack of waist belt. The only problem was with the ride against the back. Padding the wood or rope webbing often times made them more tolerable. One of the really nice thing about them is the load switch out on portages. Put a duffel on and portage a load. Drop the load off the board and go back for another load. The problem with today's framed packs is that one needs a frame for every pack. With pack boards, you need only one board for every boy regardless of how many packs are needed. Two or three packboards lash nicely on a travois as well. Two packboard also work nicely as tent poles on a makeshift tent, just put a metal pin in the top of one of the uprights and slip it over the tarp grommet and you're all set to go. I have found out over the years that mahogany is the best wood. Very light and very strong. Oops, forgot to add. If you get a "new" 2-qt canteen off of E-bay and it leaks, just put some parafin in, warm up the canteen gently (i.e. don't torch it) and let the parafin seal the leak from the inside. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

I have two green neckties and wear them when I am not wearing my WB necker. The WB beads do a nice job of being somewhat of a tie "clasp". Put the beads on, then the tie. Twist the beads once behind the tie and tuck the tie into the beads leaving the beads on top. Hold the tie nicely and display the beads over the tie. No UP has said anything to me yet. I figure until someone with a full, correct uniform dresses me down, I have nothing to worry about. I am one of the few scouters who even wears a full uniform. I do not wear the necktie for "formal" occasions only. It is worn most of the time. Yes the old ties are quite short and I am 6'. If tied with a full Windsor, the bottom end is quite short, but being underneath it's not noticeable especially if held in place with the beads. A tie clasp would have to be worn too high to catch the bottom of the back end. If one uses the half Windsor it's not as big of a problem, but I don't think it looks as nice. Stosh

Gunnison 4 by Kelty! I have a 3 man tent by Kelty that's almost 20 years old and looks brand new. I've been in a lot of tents over the years and Kelty is worth every penny spent! I like the Kelties because they have great vestibules that double the size of your "out of the weather" storage and the rain flies go all the way to the ground. Gunnison 4 has double doors and double vestibules and the fly goes to the ground all the way around. Stosh