JMHawkins

I like to make dehydrated "bark" - sauces and what-not that dyhdrates to crumbly flakes. Cook spaghetti at home, put it in a blender with your favoirte sauce, puree, then deyhdrate that (using special sheets for the dehydrater, I image they'd work with Stosh's AB special too). Add some dehydrated ground beef, soak in cold water for 10-15 minutes, then heat. Spaghetti and Meatball Stew. You can make bark out of veggie puree, sweet potato, corn, etc. Use Pizza Sauce for Pizza Stew.

Frankly, I think the biggest cause of burnout is failing to see resuls from your work. Maybe that's why changing to a different position helps - in their old posisiton they solved all the problems they knew how to solve and so were just beating their head against a wall and not feeling like they were making any progress. Find a way for them to see (according to their POV) progress from their work. Not always easy, but I think that's the key.

I agree with Beavah, you don't have to make rules when people do dumb things. You especially don't have to make dumb rules when people do dumb things. Suppose UPS has a driver who they discover is routinely driving recklessly. Do they ban those big brown vans for the entire corporation? No, they fire the idiot and let the rest of their drivers - the ones with common sense - continue to do their job. It's a sure sign that a bureaucrat is in charge when an organization starts trying to write rules to prevent anything bad happening even if people are doing dumb things. It never works, but the bureaucratic mind doesn't care about outcomes, it only cares about whether the proper rules were followed. If everyone followed the rules and some sort of disaster was the result, well, you can't blame anyone because they followed the rules. That's a good outcome in their eyes. Bureaucracy is not about avoiding bad outcomes, it's about avoiding blame for them. Because of that there are two terrible things about bureaucratic rules. One of course is that they stifle the energy of the organization, but the other is that they actual make catastrophe more likely because they focus what energy is left towards blame avoidance rather than accident avoidance.

Unfortunately, too many unit leaders pay no attention at all to district leadership except to consumer the resources and activities provided. Seattle, I think that's just another part of the vicious circle Barry mentioned. If the District is bad and the district level volunteers are as obnoxious as what Basement describes, not only are the unit volunteers probably worked extra hard to make up for the lack of district support, they're also probably disinclined to get involved with a group they find mostly annoying. Without some really exceptional and committed folks, turnarounds are hard to pull off before rock-bottom because of the people already in place. It's usually easier to keep something working that to fix something broken.

The FB responses are not running in Irving's favor. I wonder just how Social Media savvy they are? Things like this can brew up into a massive PR storm pretty quick these days. All it takes is one national radio host or widely read blogger to point people at it and they could be in for a deluge of "what's wrong with you people?" comments. I suspect the demographic that isn't already unhappy with the GGG issues won't be real happy about the excessive nanny-stating. Way to misunderstand your target market guys... Until BSA can get a handle on their risk management process, I don't think it's a good idea for them to call attention to this stuff with the general public. I'd suggest that when you're in a hole you should stop digging, but I wouldn't want to imply they're using a verboten post-hole digger or anything.

Eamonn, 'zero tolerance' is not good. It is thoughtless and hurtful. It is stupid. It substitutes a faceless regulation for good judgement. Your son suffered an injustice and all the authorities involved knew it. They were just too panty-waisted to stand up and do what was right, which was to challenge the law and the system, to ridicule it if there was no other way, but at least make all involved know what they were...cowards. 100% agreed.

I know of at least one FoS contribution that was halted specifically over this new policy.

Actual things banned by the form: Pickaxe... Considering the popularity of Minecraft these days, banning a pickaxe might just be the single worst recruiting move BSA has made lately.

She thinks the BSA Risk Management issue is like when she was a programmer and you tried to boost word recognition in a speech recognizer from 98% to 100%...it was HUGELY expensive to close that gap and it usually was not practicable. So trying to remove almost all risk starts to get a bit ridiculous. None of us want our boys to get really hurt... Tampa, it's even worse than expensive and impractical. It actually starts to become counter-productive and additional poorly thought out risk management increases the chance of injury. Every additional rule that is added is one more thing that the people engaged in the activity have to think about and remember. Every additional thing they have to think about and remember means that much less brainpower available to focus on the actual task. Lack of focus in a dangerous environment is the leading cause of accidents. Every rule costs a little bit of focus, so if it doesn't produce significant returns in added safety, it is counter-productive. RichardB's rules are counter-productive. He is not fit for his job. Beyond that, the other elephant in the room when you're talking about Scout-aged boys is that they are prone to want to test themselves, to prove themselves, and they will engage in risky behavior to do so. It's part of growing up. One of the benefits of Scouting is that it gives them a reasonably controlled and supervised environment that still gives them the challenge they are compelled to seek out. If BSA continues down the road RichardB is hell-bent on driving down, there will be no more challeng in Scouting and it will not attract boys. So instead of risking falling off a tractor trailer with a handcart during their Eagle project, they will be racing dirt bikes, or experimenting with drugs, or hanging out with questionable groups - all unsupervised and without any risk management at all.

When we started up the troop, we were looking for used camping gear we could seed the equipment locker with. One guy came across a Craigslist ad for a tent. Reason for sale: "My 13 year old son already earned his Eagle, so he doesn't need to camp any more." Now cbowe, the problem there isn't the age, it's the attitude. Someone who lives and breathes scouting and is highly motivated by awards (remember that point, I'll come back to it) can no doubt get everything done in a short period of time. But like Beavah's comments about FCFY, the one-and-done approach doesn't leave much time for practice or repetition to build retention. Does that mean a kid who gets his Eagle at 13 didn't really learn the stuff? Well... it's a touchy subject, especially with the folks around here who did get the rank that early, but... A 13 year old will not have absorbed everything he can from Scouting, no matter how active or capable. Some things will take more time than that, and some things will probably take just being older and in the different context that places a boy in. None of that means it's wrong for a boy to get the rank that young, but it does mean a young Eagle still has a lot to learn and hopefully will remain active for a few more years. Unfortuantely, for those years, the Advancement method is pretty much off the table, since he's already just about hit the celing (sure, palms, but not quite the same motivation I suspect). That's the real problem. Remember I specifically mentioned a scout who really honestly completes the requiremetns for Eagle at a young age has to be pretty highly Advancment driven? That's true - he not only has to have the skills and interest in Scout stuff, but he has to be motivated to get the stuff checked off. If he's not personally advanceent-motivated, then the only way he'll get everything done and organized to fit into a two-year period is if an adult is handling that part for him. Frankly the biggest impediment to our Scouts advancing is them remembering to bring their books and get stuff signed off. So, any kid who honestly earns his Eagle at 13 is pretty highly motivated by the advancement stuff, but because we create a system that lets him burn through 90% of the available advancement in two years, over two-thirds of his scout carreer (if he stays in until 18) is missing one of his biggest personal motivations. I think we can do better.

It's increasingly clear to me that the wrong approach and mindset are being used with regard to saftey guidelines. We get the nonsensical results we get because things like pushing a wheelbarrow along a trail are apparently confused by safety "experts" with falling off a tractor trailer. Frankly it's probably a good thing the general public is ignorant of BSAs safety regulations. If they knew the details, they'd be likely to conclude BSA knows nothing about the subject and simply responds to accidents by banning entire categories of activities without understanding what exactly led to the accident. Is an organization who's most effective response to a kid falling off a tractor trailer is to ban hand carts doing anything proactive to prevent the next injury?

Thanks for clarifying the BALOO/OWLS stuff.

JTex, I think you have plenty to focus on just getting going as a WDL without worrying yet about camping rules a troop may have. I'd suggest waiting for events to develop for the time being. When you get an official invitiaton to a campout, if it comes with a restriction on mothers camping with their sons, you can address it with the SM then and let him know the rule doesn't work for you and your son. He might surprise you, the SM may be a perceptive fellow who "waives" the rule before even mentioning it to you. Especially if you end up as the COR (if I remember correctly, I think a CO with multiple units has to have the same COR for all units, so if you became COR for the Pack, you would also be COR for the Troop and your statement "that doesn't work for me" potentially takes on a different context...). I disagree with qwazse about getting a dad to be ADL so your den can accomdate these rules. Since the restriction apparently doesn't come from the CO but rather from them SM, I think the SM can probably find a way to make it work for one campout with women along. I'm not entirely sure, but I think your den would still need a BALOO-trained adult along even if there are trained SMs because BALOO* and IOLS are targetted at different age groups. Like I said before, I don't think you need to go out of your way to accomodate the troops rules. Boys can still join the troop even if they didn't camp with them. And in the overall scheme of things, it's probably more important for Boy Scouts to learn about recruiting and marketing than it is for Cub Scouts to learn about jumping through hoops. I also think it's good for Boy Scouts to learn that when you have the authority to make rules, you also have the responsibility for difficulties the rules create. *BALOO - I forget the exact acronym, but this is the training an adult leaders should have to take Cub Scouts on outings. If you haven't gotten it yet, you should do that as part of getting ready to be a WDL. IOLS is the equivalent for adult leaders at the Boy Scout level.

Well, so, here's a question. Has the Troop officially invited your den to join them for a campout?

We are not raising a generation of whimps. We've already raised one, and it's put itself in charge of making age-appropriate guidelines. The question now is, are the rest of us courageous enough to replace these fools who think it's dangerous for a 12 year old to use a wheelbarrow with sensible folks? Because that's what's needed. Unreasonable saftey rules are in fact counterproductive. Quick, what makes up the bread in the SSD sandwich? Supervision and discipline, right? Both are undermined by rules like the ones in the spun thread. Disciple ultimately requires respect, and rules that don't pass the laugh test erode respect, and eventually discipline. And Supervision is undermined by stack-of-phonebook rules that can't be easily remembered and that are long on official definitions but short on common sense. Do you want the guy supervising the waterfront to have his nose buried in the G2SS clarifying subsection 3.g, or do you want him watching the people in the water?

JTex, I would suggest you contact the SM of the troop and explain that you've heard women aren't allowed on their campouts and that, if that's true, your den can't camp with his troop unless there's a waiver for this policy. Don't be controntational about it, don't suggest it's a bad policy or that they should change it, just point out that if that's the policy, your den won't be able to camp with them like they always have in the past. Start off with the assumption that it's just a misunderstanding and that the troop would actualy have no problem with a female den leader - or any other Webelos mother - going on a joing campout. But even if it's not a misunderstanding, try not to make it sound like a moral issue, or any sort of big drama(even if it feels like it is). Just state it as an obstacle with no more emotion that it would have if it was a simple scheduling conflict. Then leave it up to him to figure out a solution. Meanwhile, look around for another Troop you can camp with. I would not make any effort to find substitute guardians for any of the boys in your den to conform to this troop's gender policies. It is within their rights to make their rules, and within your rights to excuse yourselves from participating if the rules create a problem. And frankly, unless you share a CO (and even then, maybe not) I don't think there's any such thing as a "feeder pack." Your families should pick the troop that will be the best fit for them. Besides, the boys in your den don't need to camp with the troop they end up joining, they just need to camp with a troop, any troop, for their AOL. So I wouldn't worry about giving the Calivin troop ("no girls allowed") a fair shot. Attend a troop meeting perhaps (I assume they let you in the door, though maybe you have to promise not to give them cooties) so the families know the troop exists, but if they make it difficult for you to camp with them, that's their problem and not yours. Live the Scout Law - be friendly, courteous, kind and cheerful with them. Perhaps it's all a big misunderstanding. And if it isn't, cheerfully thank them for clarifying and go camp with another troop.

Hard to figure this guy out. Interesting description of boy-led. I wouldn't normally expect a boy-led Troop to be as crips and polished as described. But then I'm inherently suspicious of the "need" to keep the adult leadership closed. Not just closed to women, but to men who aren't "in the club" too. Our troop has high standards for our adult leaders (well, not too high, I got in after all) but new faces are welcome if they meet them. Not that this discourse is not a peak experience Tampa, my last "peak" experience was when my old Peak1 white gas stove developed a crack in the generator tube and started spewing flaming liquid out the side.

Yeah, so I know what "boy-led" is. "Boy-led" doesn't mean pizza and video game night is okay for the monthly "outing" even if that's what they decide they want to do. If that's what the boy leadership of a Troop settled on, then it would be up to the adult leadership to redirect them towards more appropriate activities. Likewise, if they're content with a program, even if it's a traditional outdoor one, it might be time to push them to expand their scope. Unless all 3 of your adult leaders are retired men of leisure, I have a hard time reconciling an active troop with the claim you don't need any more ASMs. Every trip needs two deep adult leadership, eh? (wow, I'm starting to type like Beavah...). If you're doing a weekend campout a month plus a week of summer camp for the new guys and a week HA trip for the older guys, your handful of ASMs are going to be pretty busy. And ideally that should be the minimum a troop is doing. Last weekend 4 adults were camping with our troop. It was 4 because we needed that many drivers and the destination was far enough away it didn't make sense for the drivers to just drop off and go home. I only had to remind an adult once to leave something to the Scouts. We've had a couple of split weekends lately where one group of adults goes with the majority of the troop on a trip while a second group works with a smaller group doing service projects at a local campground that will host a big district event next month. This summer we're going backpacking on Mt. St. Helens and it's a 12 person limit set by the USFS, so max of 10 Scouts per party. We have 15 signed up already and more likely to sign up before the cutoff, so we'll need at least 2, maybe 3 parties, which means at least 4, maybe 6, adults to fullfill BSA requirements as the groups will need to hike and camp separtely (the patrols won't be 300 feet apart Kudu, they'll be more like 3 or 5 miles apart). The next month, the SM and myself are going on a week-long kayak trip with the older scouts, and two weeks after that the troop goes to Summer camp. The SM and I can't really afford to take a second week off that soon, so we have three other ASMs going to summer camp. The month after summer camp, we have another backbacking trip with Wilderness Area 12 person limits and multiple groups needed... All of which adds up to plenty of opportunities for ASMs to help out without getting in anyone's way. You're not assuming that every ASM goes on every trip are you? Even at our weekly troop meeting when we have most of the ASMs show up, we spend most of the night standing in a gaggle at the back of the room talking among ourselves about camping gear, chatting with new parents, and occasionally saying "I don't know, you should ask your Patrol Leader about that" to a scout. And BTW, my "vision" isn't to give the troop female role models. My "vision", for your troop anyway, is to keep it alive. If the attempt to prevent a woman from becoming an ASM is going to destroy the troop, maybe that's not a very practical choice? I tend to agree with Stosh's post on the difference in dynamics, and I would not want my son in a troop with a majority female adult leadership because of that. But like I said, having a female ASM isn't going to undermine strong male role models. Not having a troop at all on the other hand, is going to do that for those 12 boys without fathers in their lives.

Well, I had a big, long, really well-written response (probably would have won an award!), but the Internet ate it. So, I'll give the (probably better) condensed version: One: get the scouts doing more outdoor activities and you'll have plenty of space for more ASMs. We have 10 for 38 scouts and more would be even better. Get them backpacking by patrol with each patrol going to a different area (meaning two adults per patrol). Get them out for longer trips. More time in the outdoors and it'll be nice to have someone to spell you for a bit. Challenge the boys to step it up. Two: what's going to be better for the boys, to have a troop with a female ASM as an authority figure along with the men, or to have no troop at all and go back to having nothing but female authority figures in their lives? Is it really the right thing for you to drive the troop into the ground over this? Frankly, I agree that male influences are critical for young men of scout age and do not think anyone need to go out of their way to add more female authority figures to the average boy's life, but adding a woman as an ASM is not going to turn your troop into an estrogen bath or prevent any decent men from providing good male role models. Suggestion: sit down with the CC/COR and map out a plan to add enough ASMs to get this woman into the mix. Include in that plan the need for the troop to do enough outdoor activities to keep all the ASMs busy and glad of having help. Challenge the boys to meet the goals of that plan, and keep the troop alive. Suggestion two, if you can't in good conscience and generous spirit do that, then step down now and let someone else take over while the troop is still functional instead of intentionally presiding over it cratering.

Dwalto, Welcome as others have said. A couple of suggestions. One, if there are more competent adults willing to work as ASMs than there is work for them to do, maybe the Troop should take on more activities? Our troop has 10 SMASMs and we're all busy enough that we welcome every new face who can pitch in. You said the Troop is boy led - boys can sometimes be awfully content to do the same old same old. Maybe you need to challenge them to do more. Two, if you really are "full" at the ASM position and you have already turned down qualified men who want to join, then it would be horribly unfair to those men to let the woman jump the queue and get in ahead of them. "Because she's a girl" is no more reason to give her a position than it is to deny her one. But another thing to keep in mind is that part of the "adult association" method (the good part, the part that doesn't qualify as "sitting around") is that multiple positive adult influences are an important part of a young man's development. Seeing one or two decent men is great for a boy, but seeing those good qualities modelled by several men (and perhaps a woman or two) is even better. Can I ask how many Scouts you have in your troop, and how many ASMs? I'm assuming you're the SM, right? (edit - ah, you've answered already) Oh, BTW, just to clarify things, your CO is not fighting you on the issue. They own the troop and if they decide the troop should have a female ASM (or a female SM) then that's what's going to happen.(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

I just have well-behaved kids Tampa! Sort of. And the babysitter adores our dog... I'm not bashing public schools Pappadaddy. My father was a public school teacher, principal and superintendent. But to borrow a meme I used on the Bye, bye Bob thread, he was one of the Mission people, and there's no shortage of Organization folks in the schools. Schools are important and there are things kids learn best in a classroom. But there are other very important things kids can't learn in a classroom, and it's essential that we not allow the Organization folks to claim all the kid's time and all their parents money. We have to allow kids the opportunity to learn the non-classroom things. Plus, it's easy to say "it's for the kids" and probalby even easy to convince yourself it really is, but sometimes it's not for the kids, it's for the paycheck. It's our job as parents and citizens to figure out which is which. On the babysitter front, Tessla is right that some parents look at school as free daycare. Those fellow citizens of ours pose a problem, because what they want from the schools isn't quite the same as what we want. One of those interesting dilemmas of being a citizen...

Public schools are free daycare... Have you looked at your property tax bill lately? They ain't free... The average around the country is something like $10k per year per student. Works out to somewhere between $9 and $10 per hour. I can hire a babysitter to watch three kids for $10/hr, if that's all I'm after.

There is much that a young person needs to learn and only a portion of it can be taught in a classroom. Locking our children up for 8 hours a day in an institutional setting is an impediment to learning, no matter how carefully we engrave the word "School" on the side of the building.

Sorry, but the Chief Scout Executive is the top employee of the BSA. Basically what we call in most organizations an Executive Director. I'd rather it be someone who knows how to run a non-profit in that position. Personally, I'm not all that sure someone who knows how to run a non-profit is a good idea, at least if the way you evaluate that is by experience at non-profits. Sort of like hiring someone who knows how to run a bank to be your CFO. I think the world of non-profits may be changing, and someone too heavily invested in the status quo might turn out to be a terrible choice. There is a tendency in the professional non-profit world to focus on fundraising to support the fixed budget needed for pros - offices, salaries, medical coverage, etc., which tends to create inverted assumptions where the pros view the volunteers as customers instead of colleagues. Getting the "customers" to pony up cash takes on bigger and bigger importance as the fixed costs grow. Now, none of this says we should abandon having paid positions, they're necessary. But Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureacracy applies to non-profits as well as government agencies and big corporations too. That law says there are two types of people in any organization - those who focus on the needs of the mission, and those who focus on the needs of the organization. Initially the mission folks run the show, but over time, the organization folks take over, and the mission suffers. Nothing about anyone being bad guys, just the natural tendencies of human behavior. The only way to avoid that is bringing in outside leadership that occasionally busts up the organization folks and sets back the bureausclerosis. Bringing in an outsider might be the best possible thing, though it seems like that's not an option being considered.

Kudu recommends movie night showing Master and Commander for TLT. So Beavah, I take it you might suggest Rashomon for UC training...