JMHawkins

I have a scout who completed (but not a strong swimmer) the swim requirement during the swimming merit badge at a pool... Did the Scout receive a Swimming Merit Badge? If so, was he a stronger swimmer by the time he finished the MB?

The purpose of the requirement is to ensure safety of the Scout. Intepret it (i.e. use your judgement) in the manner you think most likely to keep the scout alive if when he flips his canoe. Swim tests should happen as often as necessary to verify the Scout (or scouter's) ability level is appropriate to the activity. He needs to convince you he can swim well enough to be safe while working on the MB. If he continues to have an attitude about it, I'd suggest you point out the requirement is to ensure that he doesn't drown while you are responsible for him, and therefore, he should kindly respect you enough to demonstrate his swimming ability so that you don't have to worry about it. He's working on a water-related MB. He should expect to do some swimming. If he doesn't like pond water, perhaps Canoeing isn't the right activity for him.

There is no Page 20 in the pdf version. I assume that's the page that bans all the things people think are banned but can't find the actual section mentioning it.

Does the Camping Merit Badge book explain what is meant by a "long-term camping experience"? I just checked (2010 printing) and there's no definiton of "long-term camp." But since it does sepcifically mention Summer Camp, I'll use that as the reference. If it looks and quacks like Summer Camp - sleeping in tents or structures that someone else put up, eating in dining halls most days - then it's "long-term camp" for me.

I can't help but thinking we would be better off if there were fewer rules and the ones that existed focused more on desired objectives and expected judgement than on detailed proceedures. I program computers for a living. They need very detailed rules to work. Witing detailed rules that work is way harder than most people think, and the most effective techniques for getting detailed rules to work would be impossible to implment for rules people are supposed to follow.

Scoutson joined Troop, went to Summer Camp. Twice. A couple of weekend o/ns. Next, Philmont. Seabase (sleeping on a boat. Could that count?)... As a Camping MBC (and sailor), I'd say sleeping on the boat does not count for Camping MB if it's a typical cruising boat (galley, berths, etc.). Camping is about sleeping in a tent, hammock, under a tarp, or under the stars, and about preparing your food without anything resembling a kitchen. It's not just sleeping in a sleeping bag. Now, if it was a boat like the one in Three Men In a Boat (To Say Nothing Of the Dog), then I would count it, since that was an open skiff and J, Harris and George were really "camping." Adirondaks at summer camp? Welllllll, I'd rather they were in tents, but that's probably a loosing battle since summer camps seem to be gung-ho to build adirondak shelters. For me, the problems with summer camp are that they usually don't pitch their own tent and don't cook most of their own meals (or clean up after them). Sleeping in an adirondak and eating in the mess hall is... a bit of a stretch to call that camping. But I can buy the the "only 1 week can count" compromise. Whether it was "real" camping or not, it's a great experience for the Scouts. If it counts for 1/3 of their "camping" then okay. But the other 2/3rds needs to be the real deal. Or, to put it another way, a scout who earns the Camping MB ought to be perfectly capable of planning and executing at least a long weekend trip to the local campground on his own without any adults. Whether or not he's allowed to do that, he ought to be capable of it.

Seattle Pioneer, Hear, Hear. Some days I think the B in BSA stands for "Bureaucracy" instead of "Boy." For the life of me, I don't understand why Advancement needs to be so complicated. Well, no, I guess I really do understand. It's partly because folks at National feel like they need to Specifiy The Rules, or else... well, or else I don't know, there will be chaos and we'll have Eagle scouts who can't tie a square knot or something. But it's also partly because a lot of adults seem to be screwy about Advancement. Credentialism is rampant in our society, and what official awards someone can claim is awfully important to more people than is healthy. So we're passing that neurosis on to our kids by turning their Tenderfoot badge into something that looks more like the grievance process in a union shop with a long history of bad blood between labor and management. So it's not all Irving's fault. I do blame them however, for not standing up and saying "fer cryin' out loud people, it's a youth program meant to teach, among other things, responsibility and good judgement. Adults will need to model good judgement by using it, which means we can't publish detailed rules to cover every possible situation." Instead, they publish a Guide to Advancement with bullet points four levels deep. Section 8.0.0.3? Really? Really? That's an example where National is catering to the wrong folks. As to SMASMs serving on BoRs, I completely agree with CalicoPenns' history lesson observation that BoRs are an opportunity for the Committee to evaluate the program as delivered by the SMASMs, and as such it's best not to have the SMASMs sitting on the BoR. But that doesn't require four-deep bullet points to get across. In fact, it would be an improvement if Irving threw out the existing G2A section of BoRs and replaced it with CalicoPen's post above.

I am curious about one thing with the approach of the equipment belongs to the CO, and the entire troop has lost the privilege of using the equipment. Does this also apply to the adult that left the equipment out for 5 days? If the question is in a lesson learned, the equipment belonging to the CO can be spared by the leader and a lesson still taught. I'm not sure I'm following your question. Are you saying the SM is at fault for calling the SPL and asking him to make sure the stoves get put away instead of putting them away himself? If so, yeah, maybe. One problem seems to be leaders pawning off task to their underlings, and that's one way to look at it, that the SM tried to pawn the job off on the SPL (who then kept the you-know-what rolling downhill to the Instructor...). But I'm guesssing that's not quite what happened. The SMs job is primarily to help the scouts grow and mature, not to clean up after them. Calling the SPL and letting him know things need to be taken care of is giving the youth a chance to develop self-reliance and organizational skills. It's always something of a fine line we as adults have to walk between being helpful on the one hand, and denying the scouts opportunities to learn by doing everything for them on the other. Sometimes when I walk through a campsite, I pick up candy wrappers I see laying on the ground, and sometimes I go find the Patrol Leader and let him know his campsite needs some attention. I'm sure I don't always get it exactly right, but I'm far more likely to pick up one candy wrapper from an otherwise ship-shape campsite than I am to clean up a confetti explosion in Shantytown. So, if you think Twocubdad should have just been kind and helpfull and put the stoves away himself, well, maybe he should have. If this was an isolated incident, I would probably agree, with a casual follow-up with the Instructor later about being careless. But it sounds like this was not an isolated incident. The original post says "Part of the problem we're having is the Scouts don't take responsibility for their equipment. It's been on-going for quite some time and nothing seems to get the Scouts' attention." So I think the kind thing to do here for the SM is to help the scouts learn to be more responsible. Now, all that said, I don't agree with Twocubdad's fib about the gear being stolen, nor his initially alllowing the consequences to fall on the (relatively) innocent folks in Patrols 2 and 6. That adds up to an adult knowingly perpetrating an injustice, which tends to distract from the real lessons the scouts need to learn here. But I think he was right to ask the Scouts to stow their own gear instead of doing it for them. The stoves being left out this one time doesn't appear to be the main issue - an ongoing pattern of carelessness and overall lack of awareness about what needs to be done is what I'm seeing from my end of the intertubes. If I'm reading the situation right, then the SM putting the stoves back in the Patrol Lockers and giving everyone a lecture won't help - it'll just make the problem worse. Again, I'm not sure I really understood your question, so apologies if I answered something else.

As many of you have suggested, our underlying problems is patrol QM is a throw-away position. No one wants to do it, there is no advancement credit involved... Well, interestingly enough, this thread is in the "Advancement Resources" forum, and I was wondering why it was here instead of the Camping forum. However... PORs don't exist in order to give Scouts advancment opportunities, they exist to make sure stuff that needs to get done gets done. Like equipment gets taken care of. I think the key to fixing the problem is shifting the scouts' thinking from "what credit do I get for doing this?" to "what needs to get done so we can go have fun?" Not always the easiest shift to make with teenagers, but I'm pretty sure you won't get past these problems unless you can get them thinking in those terms. Which is why I suggested removing the gear for the entire troop. It's a natural consequence of things not getting done. It also gets the point across that they're in it together. No good pointing fingers and trying to get the adults to blame the other guy. The adults don't care who screwed up, they just care that the Troop didn't get stuff done. It's not your job to manage the gear, it's their job to do that. If they don't do it, they eat cold food. Sounds like your Troop has a bit of a "not my problem" problem, where scouts assume someone else is responsible for everything unless they've been specifically told to do it. And even then the leaders seem to think delegating the task absolves them of any further responsibility. Stuff doesn't get done? Well "nobody told me to do it" or "I told Fred to do it" seems to the be the responses you're getting. Easy trap for that age group to fall into. Important trap for you to insist they haul themselves out of. Once they realize the work has to get done and the QMs aren't going to bear the brunt of the consequences for it not getting done (because the adults don't care who's fault it indivually is, it's the troop that screwed up), they should come around to doing their part. QM - Patrol or Troop - existst to make sure the equipment needs of the troop/patrol are taken care of. That is hardly a throwaway position for an active outdoor troop. If the scouts treat it that way, it probably means the adults are doing too much and the Scouts think gear is an adult problem. Step back and make it their problem.

The stoves are the property of the CO. The CO is generous enough to allow the Troop to borrow the gear. The Troop is not taking adequate care of the gear it is borrowing. Therefore, the Troop is no longer allowed to borrow the gear until they can demonstrate they are responsible enough to be trusted with it. Not just Patrols 2 and 6 - no one in the troop is allowed to borrow gear. All the gear currently in the patrol lockers is removed and no longer available. Nobody has a stove. Or a tent either, if those are Troop property. The PLC now has an issue to deal with. What changes are they going to make to re-establish enough trust to have access to the gear again? SM can probably make lots of suggestions if the PLC asks for advice.

You do not need to give a new CO the equipment you already own. That $30k and $40k respectively of stuff is owned by the existing "Parents of..." organizations. If the Troop is rechartered to some other organization, the "Parents of..." can keep the equipment and allow the Troop to use it. Not really any different than the troop renting stuff from REI occasionally. New stuff donated to the Troop would belong to the new CO, but there's nothing ethically dubious about the old CO keeping the existing equipment. But frankly, I'd just tell your DE you won't be rechartering and will be switching the unit over to BPSA or some other alternative since the council apparently no longer wishes to associate with your organization. Be blunt and cold. Let him know the alternatives are that you recharter as your existing CO, or you don't recharter with BSA. There are alternatives. BSA is just one provider, and your Council needs to realize that. You are their customer. If they don't want your business, you will out of necessity take it elsewhere. But also getting the CORs together as ScoutNut suggested would be a great thing to do. Pursue that in parallel.

This Scout hung out in a clique, which, for lack of a better term, I will call "the slackers." As his friends drifted away, I think he just lost any real interest in participating. Slackers or go-getters, I think this is the real issue. His friends aren't in Scouts. Teenagers want to be with their friends. In an ideal world, their friends are their Patrol mates, but that isn't always the case. I doubt there's much you can do with the program to revive his interest, unless you can manage to lure his friends back into the Troop. Of course, maybe there's something he could do to lure them back in. He probably knows them better than you. If he's "stuck" anyway, maybe you can challenge him to see if there are changes he thinks the Troop could make to re-recruit guys who've dropped out.

I guess I'm the person who introduced "who cares" into this discussion and... ... I'm glad I did. I think it's provoked some important debate. Or course "who cares" isn't really the question I was asking. What I was really asking was "what do you care about?" Do you care about the cloth sewn to the kid's pocket, or do you care about the experience and growth that patch theoretically represents? Just like all SMs think their troop is boy-run, all of use think we really care about the experience and the growth. And I do believe most of us honestly think that's the most important thing. But being the flawed humans that we are, what we think we believe sometimes gets garbled in the process of turning thoughts into actions. The human brain is really good at fooling itself. So every once in a while taking a step back and considering our own reactions to a question is a good thing. Helps us realize if we really do believe what we think we believe. Sometimes, we don't. I know it happens to me. The sign off pages in the Handbook, the Eagle applications, the patches, the Blue Cards, the Merit Badges, an Eagle pin dangling from a shirt pocket, those are at best very rough shadows of the real world. The real world is the experiences and growth a Scout has had. The patch on his pocket is nothing more than an oversimplification of that, a stick-figure drawing of a Michelangelo sculpture. Useful to note that you saw the sculpture, but not as important as seeing the scultpure itself.

Success is a youth aging out as an active member of the Troop, showing Scout Spirit and living the Scout Law, prepared to be a responsible, self-sufficient citizen as he enters adulthood. What cloth he has sewn on his uniform (if he even has one) is irrelevant. So, frankly, we should stop worrying about whether so-and-so "earned" this, that, or any other rank. Who. Cares. Focus on the program. Is the way you are using the Advancement method helping young men grow into responsible citizens? If yes, great. If not, think about what changes you can make in your program, but don't waste time worrying about how you can avoid awarding some kid a rank when you suddenly realize you wish you'd challenged him more than you did. That's water under the bridge. Do better next time, but don't try for a do-over on this one. I suppose people get their neckers in a knot over Eagle because it's the end of the road for using Advancement Method with that kid. Ooops, no more ranks to use as encouragement for him. Kid skates to First Class, there's always Star. Gets Star without really doing a whole lot, well, we'll expect more from him for Life. Ah, he wrapped Life up while we were busy with other things, but that's okay, we'll really challenge him for Eagle... Well, now he wants his EBOR and you're out of road to kick the can down. Ranks aren't important, program is. Any time you find yourself staring at the paperwork thinking "well, he's got all of them signed off, but it sure doesn't seem like he earned it..." don't blame - or punish - the Scout. Instead, figure out how the program failed and fix those things. (This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Yes, I'm the SM. It was a Committee Member, not CC or COR. Yeah, so maybe you consider sitting down with the CC or COR and asking if they'd rather find a new SM or a new Committee Member. BTW, not cruel, nothing wrong with the ice cream. MC needs to be replaced or educated. (edit: changed CM to MC, so no one thought I was talking about a CubMaster...) (This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Na, Tahawk, Kudu was quite clear in advocating patrol hikes. Re-read his post a little more closely and you will see that. Looks like everything in it is compatible with current G2SS guidelines. Besides, even if he was advocating patrol camping, he was doing it in what I took to be a suggestion to BSA. The tip-off is "Find a few experimental Councils around the country." Clearly BSA national could change G2SS rules to premit Patrol Camping if they so choose. Advocating BSA change a rule is not in the least bit inconsistent with following the Scout Law.

I don't propose watering down the test. I would just propose making it less high stress by having the younger boys practice it. Agreed! I might phrase it as, give the scouts an opportunity to become confident swimmers before putting them "on stage" in front of both their friends and random strangers. Self-confidence ought to be something that comes out of a good program. But real confidence will only come from the scouts proving to themselves they can do something. Practice is the only way to get there.

I looked over Wayne Brock's video blog, and watched several of the entries. First thing to realize is that the blog was/is directed specifically at pro scouters, BSA employees, as a way of communicating within the corporation. In one blog, Brock mentioned the BeAScout website and asked for feedback on how to make it more useful. He pointed out that BSA advertising needs a call to action, and that is to send prospective members to the BeAScout website, but that it wasn't really succeeding in drawing in new members. In the comments, there were several suggestions that the website email contact info for the prospective scouts to the unit leaders rather than the mostly obscure method that info gets to units today. Brock replied that privacy laws pretty much prevented that, and I'm sure he's correct about that. However, I didn't see a single comment from anyone on that thread that suggested doing a better job directing the prospective members directly to units in their area. Essentially make the website a lead-gathering portal for the units rather than the councils/districts. I was pretty stunned that nobody seemed to be thinking along those lines, since that is in fact how membership really works. Boys join a unit, not a coucil or district. The paperwork may go to the council office, but the council isn't the selling point, the unit is. But the pros running the site don't seem to understand that the pros don't have a direct role to play in the recruiting loop. Their role is to support the units own recruiting efforts, but somehow they seem to think they need to inject themselves into the actual information flow. The most significant change Brock could make would be to redirect the pros to thinking in terms of support roles and to challenge them to remove themselves from as many action loops as possible. They do that for some things, but it's uneven across the board. The current BSA website is terrible in that regard - it seems heavily geared towards supporting pros rather than volunteers and members. If I was Brock, that is the very first "tech-savvy" change I would insist on. Pros can have an internal website, but there needs to be one geared to the customers.

"Um, I think it's a pine tree, let me look it up." What sort of pine? Lodgepole? Bristlecone? Ponderosa? Jeffrey? Western White? Whitebark? Bishop? (I'm missing a couple I think...) So, I kindof agree that using a iPad as a crutch in the field is less than ideal, but an electronic teaching aide is a great idea. Something else to keep in mind, setting "...associate with adults of character who know this stuff" as the ideal is fine, but we have a shortage these days of adults who fit the description. It's been mentioned now and then that there's a deficit of experienced outdoorsmen to serve as scouters. We can't go back and fix that, we're stuck with it. But using electronics as a learning tool might help us spread what's left of the knowledge base more widely.

On the subject of electronics, our Troop now has a policy. Here is how it came about. On a campout, a scout brought a tablet device and watched a movie on it in his tent with his tent mates. The movie wasn't anything he shouldn't have been watching, it was within the guidelines of what his family allows him to watch. However, it wasn't within the guidelines of what another Scout's family allows him> to watch. Parents of said Scout raised a rukus when they found out and asked "what are you (meaning the adult leaders) going to do about this?" What we (the adult leaders) did was tell the PLC the general nature of the complaint and ask them what they wanted to do about it. The PLC created an electronics policy. It's up to them to enforce, which makes sense since the main problem apparently is what guys are doing in their tents at night and I'm sure not going to be intruding on their privacy. I'm not sure if all of the parents understand this, but so far so good. Me, I'll listen to an audio book while I'm walking around the neighborhood, but I don't hike with one playing in the wilderness. I do prefer to listen to it at night when I'm going to sleep instead of burning flashlight batteries reading.

A Scout is . . . . ...easier to define than produce. The argument isn't about what "real Scouts" are, it's about how they come to be. The discussion is not about who is or is not a "real Scout", it's about what sort of program has the best chance to turn the average 12 year old into someone who really is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. Personally I am convinced that the more adventure, the better the odds of a young man developing those qualities. Outdoors is inherently anti-bureaucratic, since Mother Nature does not give a twig about bylaws, resolutions, mission statements, committee meetings, or ISO9000 standards. Mother Nature is all about cause and effect, and is pretty good at enforcing accountability. The more I see of conference rooms and office buildings, the more convinced I am that modern civilization is more barbaric than the wilderness. We need to get kids out in the wild so they can learn to be civilized, unlike the feral humans inhabiting our carpeted jungles.

Interesting, Brock is 63. Apparently as part of accepting him as the new CSE, the Trustees are going to grant him a 2-year waiver to the mandatory retirement retirement age, allowing him to serve until he is 67. That means he'll have 4 years max in the job, something of a short-timer (only Harvey Price will have had a shorter tenure, and he was brought in as something of an emergency when Barber resigned amid the membership disaster of Urban Scouting). So, whatever Brock's strengths, he looks like a caretaker appointment. My assumption is the search committee could not reach consensus on what direction the organization should go, or else they would have hired someone who would have more years on the job. There are two other possibilities. One is that Brock has a significant amount of influence and wants his turn, however short it might be. The other is that perhaps he is an emergency firefighter being brought in to fix some disaster of Mazzuca's making. "Caretaker" is the most likely explaination, but the fact that Brock is only two years younger than the guy being forced to retire due to age is I think signifiant, one way or another. In addition to Brock becomming CSE, Wayne Perry (ex-McCaw Cellular/AT&T Wireless exec, former President of Chief Seattle Council, minority owner of the Seattle Mariners) will take over as National President. Not sure what that signifies, but it sure seems like Chief Seattle is one of the better run Councils, so that is an optimistic note.

Yeah, Shortridge is right, and the Scouters pushing (requiring?) a bunch of MBs from a brand new Scout are... misguided to say the least. A new Scout should be spending the bulk of his time working on T-2-1 requirements and just in general learning how to be a proficient in the outdoors. Earning MBs can come later. But... If he's working directly with a MBC rather than doing a class or Summer Camp version... hurray for him. So, here's my advice as a MBC to a Scout's parent. 1) work with him first to make sure he know how to call someone he doesn't know on the phone and make a clear request. "Hello, my name is Billy Jones, I'm with Troop 123 in Elmville. I would like to work on the Astronomy Merit Badge and my Scoutmaster suggested you as a Counselor. Would you be able to be my Merit Badge Counselor?" If he needs coaching on how to make a phone call and introduce himself that way, then by all means help him there. But once his SM has given him the blue card and MBCs contact into, that's really the first step, and from there the MBC should be doing any adult coordination/coaching, so then... 2) step back and let him sink or swim on his own. You can ask him occasionally (occasionally not meaning every night at dinner...) how the Merit Badge is going, but let him be responsible for it. Far more important than any particular skills he learns for the MB will be the skills needed for organization and self-motivation that MBs really teach, when done right. Don't rob him of those skills by being his Personal Assistant. it's a huge temptation for parents, but you have to let him do it or he's missing out on the biggest part of the experience. It's fair to promise a reward if he earns the MB in my book though, so he has an incentive. Make a big deal when he finishes it, and let him know (not just tell him, but make sure he sees it in your actions) that you are proud of him accomplishing something like that on his own.

We did a Webelos campalong at one of our Council camps last November. Adirondaks made it a little easier for the younger Webelos (temps were in the mid-20's, but it was mostly dry, which is always a bonus up here in the PNW). Plus it was where we had gone to Summer Camp so the Scouts were able to show the Webelos around and explain all the cool stuff they did and get them excited about bridging over to Boy Scouts. Almost had the entire place to ourselves, it was great. We did a service project and paid $20 for two nights of camping at three different campsites. I don't know if outside groups use it, I've never seen any.

Personally I'm not a big fan of troop trailers. Maybe it was because of the troop that jackknifed theirs blocking the only exit from the parking lot at the end of Summer Camp last year when everyone just wanted to get home... Most of the good backpacking locations around here are Wilderness areas, so 12 person party size limit. 2 adults, max of 10 Scouts. Works out prety good, either one highly active patrol where most everybody goes, or two average patrols that have 4 or 5 guys going each. I drive a Chevy Avalanche, and can fit 4 scouts in the cab and 12 packs in the bed easily. If the other adult drives a minivan that can seat 6 Scouts, we're set. Perfect. Several other ASMs have similiar rigs to mine, and minivans are pretty common, so... no trailer needed for backpacking! We just need 6 to 8 adults to go on the trip so we can have enough parties to keep each under the wilderness limit.