qwazse

Yeh, because of the banning of independent patrol overnights!

My most recent lesson from the last little trek: If you lose that piece of gear your wife bought you for Christmas, Buy its replacement before she finds out! True story: this group of boys were surprisingly up and at 'em and ready to hit the trail each morning. I am usually last to pull out of camp. Finishing coffee, pulling together loaned gear, site check ... Gives me some peace and quiet on the trail. Anyway, last day, I get to the extraction and realize my sandals aren't clipped in. So when we get home, I post a notice on a page for folks who hike the area. Next weekend, there's a post from a guy with a picture of my sandals AND MY HEADLAMP that were left neatly on the rock that served as my cooking table ... ready to be packed. Shure enough, that wasn't in the expect pocket of my pack either. The fella said he left them at the trailhead. Evidently he'd never learned about finders-keepers. Clearly he'd missed my post when planning his trip. Turns out, had he brought them home he would have been just on the other side of town. Instead of a good Sunday dinner with a complete stranger, I wasted a trip to Sportsman's Warehouse looking for a model they did not have. The kids all witnessed this online dialogue, but the Mrs. didn't. I figured I was in the clear until the next sports store visit. So, the other night when we were trying to fish a moth out of Son #1's ear (!) Mrs. Q hollers for me to get my headlamp on account of all of our heads blocking the light above the man's head on the kitchen table. With no small amount of snickers, Daughter-in-law says, "He left it on the Sods." Let's just say the fan and vicinity required cleaning.

Well written. Oh, for the love of laurel thickets who teach so brutally that your GPS maps are a lie! Welcome to the forums!

Welcome to the forums. And, by the way you know to browse the G2A, thanks for all you do for the boys. You answered your own question. Troops may set policies regarding when awards are presented. My troop growing up did about the same as in your example. We all grew up strong and good. My sons were in he same troop under different SMs who preferred to operate differently. One would have he SPL distribute awards at the end of the very next meeting, the other two preferred to take one big order to the scout shop and distribute them at a CoH two or three times a year. Both boys are now strong and good young men. Even their sister says so. Awards cost money (plus shipping, if you aren't near a scout shop). The troop either fundraises or collects dues to pay for them. Having observed all that, I don't advise our latest SM one way or the other. I do tell him to make sure the scout's portion of the MB application (blue card) stays with the scout at all times. I think he's settled on giving awards at fairly frequent CoH's. That's fine. The boys are growing up strong and good as far as we can tell.

"Baggage" at this age could be the grind of advancement, crossover helicopter parents, splitting into groups of eight when your posse is 15 strong, wanting to master something your troop has no interest in, Uniforming like a third world general, patches for practically sneezing, ...

Every camp I attended always had one or more international scouts.

The coffee pot. My barista's miscela blend, ground for espresso.

For our district, it's not sports. It's theater. And a couple of grads are indeed making it big. Sometimes the combination of the two. Although the district hasn't fielded many pro athletes, That last phrase is tremendous. Any form of separate-but-equal is a non-starter. It demands a doubling of personnel when membership might only increase slightly, depending on location. When daughter became venturer, Mrs. Q became committee on paper. But she made it quite clear that I was the one who "did scouts." The reasons for this involved gifts and talents, as well as personality clashes ... but more importantly, there is a lot of work to be done for a household with three kids and as many pets. We had to divide and conquer. I don't forsee the next generation of scout parents being any different.

Welcome, and thanks for all you do for the boys!

It's doublespeak. I'm rankled by it. I can't imagine it sitting well in the heartland. That's so Greater LA can filter out us ne're-do-wells from parts east. Actually, it may indeed be a national survey. But I can understand the interest in knowing which opinions are from which stakeholders and special interests.

'Skip crews often pushed the boundaries by a year or so in age to include a devoted younger sibling or best friend. I nicknamed these lot "Venturers in Training." Many do wind up taking a turn as officers, where youth recruited at an older age are slightly more likely to sit on their hands. One desire of the developers of the venturing program was to have them involved with existing BSA and GS/USA troops and packs, thereby creating a conduit from existing programs to Venturing. It never materialized. There are some troops and crews that have gone maverick on this, and provided co-ed program, setting aside advancement, for 11-14 year olds. Their challenge, however, is insurance coverage, which they must acquire outside of BSA. and personnel who have to make up rules as they go along.

When is a belt not a belt? When it's a sash-rack! In the "red-beret" days, we would often fold it and stick it under an epaulet. I would not be displeased at all if a troop invested in stock 'biners or parachord, and made something for boys to hang their hats to their belts when indoors. What's the point of a hat if not to show how courteous you are?

I'm not sure my PL would call the house. Mom would talk his ear off! He would knock at my door and catch up with me in school. I don't recall any attendance problems with my patrol. Perhaps they were all new scouts, and I was working with them through their Jr. High years, before they would consider doing anything besides attending troop meetings and activities. Do any of your troops do roll-call by patrol for your opening ceremony? We do at summer camp, but not at meetings. I'm trying to get that to change.

Why I'm not an SM: He'll get it as soon as he learns . . . . . . to axe nicely.

Our scenario: merged troop of boys with preferences for two different camps on the same week. 2/3rds went east, 1/3rd went west. Divisions were not along patrol lines. I forget which contingent got the SPL/ASPL. Anyway, whatever problems it caused, the boys were expected to sort it out for themselves.

@@ianwilkins, the litigious nature of our populace (foisted upon us by the criminal behavior of a few) is indeed crippling.

Technically, at our camp, each area director signs blue cards. The sum of every MB in that area should be the director's "competency."

I was curious if @@Bingo's scout got his act together. Before I put my 9th Ed. BSHB on the shelf, I thought here would be a good place to outline Green Bar Bill's definition of scout participation. He called it "Three A's": Attendance "... there on the dot for all meetings hikes and events. When sickness or some other reason prevents ... you tell your PL in advance. Then he can announce 'All present or accounted for.' " Appearance "... Always show up in your scout uniform ... You can hardly be taken for a scout unless you look like one." Attitude "... Shows in everything you do ... Your SM gives his time and effort ... Back him up in what he's trying to do for the good of all of you."

Never settle! Our camp director asked us how we felt about him dropping cooking from the course schedule after the requirements changed. We nearly give the guy a standing ovation.

No worries. If it confused you, it likely did others. So, clarifying will hopefully help.

EM, you misjudge our people. Those are the moms who I have the darnedest time convincing to come camping with us! They are the ones saying this. Not us guys. Moms pay good money to live in this community (or commute their scouts here if they can't afford it), none of them are "kept" women. Not by a long shot. Several are veterans. In spite of press to the contrary, it still feels like a steel town, and Rosie the Riveter never really left the shop floor. Whoever in the couple finds the job "rolls the steel." Nevertheless, these moms want their boys (and girls, if they are asking for co-ed) in the program because they believe in our male role models -- however misplaced that faith may be. It may make you sad. It might inconvenience me. However, they are quite happy about it. P.S. - Just in case any of my daughter's friends from @@Eagledad's neck of the woods catch wind that I'm writing this. I got nothing against "kept" women. It's a noble and truly liberating way to live. It's just not how we roll on the boundary between coastal and heartland.

We have moms who camp with their families. But, taking a troop out in the big woods? That's men's work. Same applies to my crew ... we have the same problems as Flagg even when we have even numbers of male/female youth. If the GSS didn't require it, many parents would be fine with their girls being under the leadership of two adult males. Or ... under the leadership of an adult youth. Case in point: Son #2 was a welcome guest at many family camps (i.e. cabins) who had more daughters than sons. They could count on him getting the kitchen operating and then cleaned by morning. And, more importantly, without him and his buds, the ladies would be downright unruly. That's why I guess we have the "family camping" rhetoric. BSA doesn't believe it has the volume of men willing to take on co-ed units with minimal assistance from female counterparts (as would happen with an instant change in membership standards). So, they figure they need to recruit those moms of younger youth and hope that somewhere down the road more of them would lead patrol-method units. I view it with some pessimism. It's like ripping a bandage off slowly.

This is another example of drift causing BSA to waste words. What is "satisfactory effort"? Well, effort that satisfies someone. Who is that someone? The SM and the troop committee! You might cook me up a very nice steak and serve me a bit-size portion on day one, but if that's all you're doing, don't expect me to give your restaurant a 5 star review at the end of the week. (That's my beef against pretentious restaurants: small portions on big plates, as if I'm supposed to be impressed by the china.) So no, pretty much anything positive never did, does not, nor should ever fulfill the requirement. Same thing for the "active" requirement. Some fool asked for a rule from national, and over the years got a list of things we shouldn't hold against a scout (nominal dues payments, lack of attendance - if not specified in advance, shoddy appearance, etc ...) boiled down to oh-so-much-blathering in the GTA. The correct answer that will stand the test of time, IMHO: It's none of national's business, don't ask them, read the BSHB and ask your troop. If you think that those non-MB requirements were hollow as written previously, they will continue to be in the new writing.

Timmy: "What is it , Lassie?"Lassie: (barks at labtop) Timmy: "Oh no! Mr. Schiff's fallen into the echo chamber!"

I would point out that while Mike was SE of our council his investment in venturing was minimal. That's not a criticism. Nor does it trivialize what he did do in terms of making summer camp a destination for venturers as well as boys and Cubs. That's only to say that he wasn't selected for his preference for dark green uniforms.