Beavah

Yah, I'm with BA. Trottin' out "don't add to the requirements" at every turn does seem to be a bit silly, eh? Sets yeh up for all kinds of just-skate-by kinds of things that we really don't want to be teachin' kids. So I've got no problem with a troop that wants to hold the line on uniformin' at a BOR. I think da problem only arises when it's just for the BOR. If the troop generally is comfortable with lax uniformin', or the occasional "Untrainable" patch or whatnot, then it's not fair to the lads to change the expectations just for the BOR. The BOR's expectations should match the Scoutmaster's expectations and what the norm is in the troop, not spring some surprise on the kid. So if the troop has an expectation of full uniforming right down to the socks, then it's reasonable to expect that for a BOR under all but unusual circumstances. If a troop routinely wears shirts with jeans, then I reckon shirts with jeans should be OK for a BOR. Now I personally hate da shirts-with-jeans thing, but if yeh want to fix it in a unit, the place to do it is not the BOR. I'd say the adults in your unit need to get on the same page, evry. Only after they do that should they be workin' with the kids on the issue. Beavah

Just sent a PM to Eamonn. If yeh didn't get it, I'd suggest passin' a note along to Terry. B

Yah, if Scoutfish sent me a PM, I didn't get it. I've sent PMs to several other folks and didn't get da usual irate replies . Seems like da email system is down, which might be why no new members can join either. Beavah

Yah, I reckon that's what the lad needs... an adult lecture on deferred satisfaction. The boy's givin' you valuable feedback about your program, eh? Don't blame him for being honest with his feedback. He's sayin' its boring and he wants to go camping, and if that keeps up he's goin' to quit. Seems like a reasonable choice on his part. We have to remember that 3 months is forever in the life of a 9-year-old. Would you stick with a club that told you maybe they'd do somethin' you're interested in a year and a half from now? That's what it feels like to the boy, eh? Feedback is a gift. Accept it as such, and treasure it. Beavah

Yah, generally speakin', I'd say a fellow who makes a great Cubmaster makes a lousy Scoutmaster. It's two different skill sets and personality types eh? Great Cubmasters bring a lot of organization and high-energy goofiness and relate well to kids of that age. They're take-charge showmen. Great Scoutmasters bring a lot of mentoring, encouragement, and willingness to let kids be independent. They enjoy being with adolescents and young teens. Similarly da great Scoutmaster often makes a lousy Venturing Advisor, eh? Venturing advisors maintain collaborative, junior-peer relationships with older teens, and listen carefully to kids of that age group. Lots of Scoutmasters also don't do great with young ladies. So from what I've seen, each program does best with adults that have a certain personality and set of talents, eh? And generally speakin', very few adults have the breadth of talent and the ability to shift their thinking to be successful across different programs. I think, BTW, that da same thing applies to commissioners. A fellow who deeply understands the cub program often doesn't give great advice and support to a crew, and a lady who has Boy Scouting in her blood often pushes Cub Scouters in wrong directions. Commissioners do best when they stick with a program. Beavah

Yah, so let's stop guessin', eh? janeandraka, can yeh tell us which 3 positions your son holds? And how old son #2 is and what rank, and what position he feels he wants and is ready for and that the troop really uses as a full-fledged POR? In Boy Scouting, the youth choose who serves in PORs, not the adults. Either by election or by appointment by da SPL. Beavah

Yah, why is everybody so hot to close threads all the time? Seems like this is da natural place for mdsummer45 to return and post the results if she ever chooses to do so. Until then, the water cooler chatter is much like the stuff yeh talk about outside a BOR while waitin' for the board to call the lad back and render a decision. Amusin' and inconsequential. Beavah

Yah, I think 5 positions is just fine for a troop of 25. Three PLs, an SPL and a QM. So no, I don't think what your troop is doin' is at all unusual or out of line. They are not required to staff other positions if they aren't needed. The leadership boys just handle those "positions" as part of their job. Now, it is unusual as others have suggested to give 'em multiple patches. But I don't think that's quite what you're talkin' about. Some troops will use the full list of positions to give as many lads as possible the advancement requirement. I don't think that does the boys or the program any favors. Usually in such troops many of those positions do not require much (any!) real effort or responsibility, so the boy doesn't get the growth and benefit he would if he held a substantive position. Now, some families seem to like that kind of advancement mill or "social promotion" environment, eh? If yeh think that would better meet your families needs and desires, makin' a change to a unit like that might be a better fit. Otherwise, I'd say let your younger son have fun in the troop and find his footing. Positions will open up for him as he gets older and his confidence and comfort with his peers improves. There's a natural flow to these things in Scoutin', and boys tend to find themselves in positions at just the time they are really ready for 'em. Patience, mom. Don't be comparing your two sons too much, eh? They're different souls, and will take different paths through life. Beavah

Yah, I'm not really sure that da office in Irving needs to breathe for everybody in the country, eh? This is one of those places where we as adults are expected to use our brains. Is lettin' a lad tent with his grandfather or uncle who was sent by his parents as his designated adult "guardian" for the weekend an added risk to the boy? No. It can be safely assumed that grandpa has a lot more private "access" to the lad at home and other family functions. Is lettin' a lad tent with his grandfather or uncle a liability risk to the scout camp? Not unless there's a risk of the adult molesting other people's kids. It's not our responsibility to supervise or overrule the judgment of da parents. Is not letting the boy tent with his grandfather or uncle and making him sleep alone or with another boy an added risk to the boy? Yes. We can think of all kinds of scenarios from just bein' scared by nightly noises to sleepwalkin' to critters to gettin' cold to not havin' medical/emotional support where this would put the boy at added risk of harm. Is not letting the boy tent with his grandfather or uncle and making him sleep alone or with another boy a liability risk to the camp or scouters? Yes. It's fair to say that a reasonable person would not let a young child who has never done so before sleep on his own outdoors in an unfamiliar environment, especially in direct violation of the instructions of the parents and the desires of the temporary guardian present. Yah, this stuff is just common sense, eh? Why would you ever separate a lad from the relative he came to camp with?! Yeh don't need a written paragraph from Irving giving you permission not to be a buffoon. If this worries you, get da written permission from the parent and then get on with things. The rule is meant to protect da safety of the lads and more directly the reputation of the adults in all those other situations where it may be tempting or expedient to have a lad who is not related to you in your tent (not enough tents, homesick, etc.). Those situations put your reputation and da reputation of the program at risk; not respondin' to those situations can in rare cases enable a predator to become more bold. So the guidance is good, eh? Yeh should follow it. Just follow it with your brain turned on. Beavah

Yah, I've said it before, but it's worth repeatin'. Pretending that it's "youth protection" to forcibly separate a youth from the boy's relative and da parents' designated representative is foolish. Opens yeh up to all kinds of problems and personal and institutional consequences. That clause in G2SS was meant to apply to non-relative scouters and others, not to apply to grandparents and uncles who are actin' in the parents' stead. Scoutfish, IMO you should do what makes sense for the boys in question. If the separate tent nearby thing works and will be safe for 'em, go for it! More fun for them and for you. Otherwise, your duty is to take care of the boys, eh? Beavah

Now where I have problems with LNT is the lack of common sense I see in many instructors who just don't seem to understand that LNT has to be modified in established campgrounds with their pic nic tables, tent pads, and fire rings. Yah, they seem to agree with you, Le Voyageur http://www.lnt.org/programs/frontcountry.php I think some BSA volunteers like Charlie Thorpe have been collaboratin' on the development of Frontcountry campin' ethic additions to LNT. And the first place where LNT should kick in is in the planning stage for any back country adventure. Yah, "Plan ahead and Prepare". Principle One. I reckon they'd agree with yeh on that, too . I get irked when I gotta demonstrate my cat hole digging ability to a young LNT instructors who can't figure out that I've got over 50 years of backcounty experience behind me. Yah, darn it. I reckon I have 40 or so years of CPR experience, right from the very beginnin' when they started to teach it to the public. But I still have to demonstrate my CPR ability to a young CPR instructor every couple of years. Beavah

Yah, I'm not sure quite what to think of this, eh? http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-abby-sunderland24-2010jan24,0,935990.story On the one hand, I think it's OK for parents to encourage kids in their dreams. I also think we tend to mollycoddle kids in da U.S. a lot more than is necessary. On the other hand, I don't much like da pressure all of this pressure to "be the youngest to ..." puts on kids and parents. That kind of pressure tends to get in the way of good judgment and make folks press on when they shouldn't. I note that she's leavin' awfully late on her voyage, but she "has" to go this year in order to be the "youngest" even though it may be prudent to wait a year since she missed da departure time this year. Any sailors in the group want to comment? Seems like it relates to Scoutin' too, eh? People who want their kid to be the "youngest" Eagle, da "youngest" to earn all the MBs (or just to earn all the MBs). Beavah

So, my question is: Wouldn't making a "dirt toilet" be against LNT? Just depends where yeh are, eh? In most areas, makin' a single cathole for your deposit is fine if yeh choose the spot well away from a watercourse and use natural TP or pack your artificial stuff out. Makin' the sort of humongous multi-person pit latrine described in da 1960 handbook is not OK. Too much sh** in one place for the soil microbes to handle easily, and too attractive for critters. Other places like river corridors there's just too much human traffic for the environment to handle all the deposits. Some popular rivers get tens of thousands of visitors a season or more. Imagine dumpin' 20,000 lbs of sh** along a narrow river bank. That's way more than the environment can handle. In those areas, no catholes. Yeh have to use a groover and pack it all out in a poo pod. Still other places like deserts there just aren't enough soil microbes to handle things, eh? But there's lots of sunlight. So yeh deposit on da surface and spread it out for the sun to do its thing. LNT is just the ethic, eh? "If everybody did what I do, would I enjoy it less comin' back here in 20 years?" Most of da places we go get lots of visitors, eh? Ten thousand piles of toilet paper doesn't make for great campin'. Heck, I'm turned off by just one pile, but it seems like it's becomin' more frequent in places I hike. Ten thousand lashed gadgets is a lot of natural wood bein' displaced. A few thousand giant campfires will really spoil a beautiful area. What's really sad is how some scouter adults poo-poo the notion of LNT because it takes a bit of work and makes 'em learn a new trick or two. Like some of our woodlands, I reckon they're full of it. Beavah

What I don't like to hear is folks who feel they can choose, cafeteria style, from the eight methods to achieve the two out of three aims they think are important - and still feel they are fulfilling the BSA mission. Yah, but maybe they are fulfillin' the CO's mission, eh? That's their only duty as unit scouters. District, council, and national scouters achieve our mission by tryin' to come up with good program materials and workin' to help other organizations with similar values. It's a partnership; those unit fellows who are workin' on achieving their CO's mission aren't a subsidiary. As to choosin' Methods, there are units that I think use uniformin' method well, units I think use it poorly, units that are un-uniformed and ones that are over-the-top. There are units that use Outdoor Method to the max, and others that go trailer campin' durin' the warm weather months. If they achieve what they want for their boys, that's a fine choice. Close as I can tell, there are lots of different combinations of how da methods are used that lead to young men we can all be proud of. So I don't get too wrapped up in whether a unit is usin' all da methods, or usin' every method perfectly. Quite frankly, I've never seen a unit out there that comes close, and when some unit leader claims his unit does 'em all well I quietly chuckle inside. I figure he's either new and naive or old and deaf . Da Scoutin' program is pretty strong, eh? It can take imperfect implementation well, welcome partners with somewhat different goals, and still get da results we want. Beavah

[double post](This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, seems like folks are gettin' a might sensitive. As yeh all know, I work with and see all kinds of troops, and in the end a lot of different troops is a good thing. Most have caring leaders and do good things for the boys. Now, that's not to say I don't have my preferences, eh? I tend to prefer the troops that seem to get the best outcomes - those that keep their lads well into high school, and where yeh can trust the lads on the spot for any skill or any aspect of character. A bit of criticism and reflection is a good thing. Like da other thread on boys not being active in high school. There are troops where lads are consistently active in high school - even more active then they were in middle school. That's a challenge to yeh if yeh think your troop is doin' OK with lads who are drifting off in high school. It should be a challenge. It should hopefully get yeh thinkin' "Gee, if they can do it, why can't we?" That's how programs get stronger. Same thing here, eh? If some of da "mill" comments seem to hit a bit close to home, it's worth settin' aside ego for a bit and takin' a look at things. Talk to other scouters in your area. Have 'em come and visit and give you their honest impressions and critiques. Talk to boys in your troop. Talk to other lads. Might be that there are things you can do better, eh? Might be there are other things you're just fine with. Da term "mill" comes from schools, eh? The term is "diploma mill" referrin' to high schools and colleges that just pass folks along. School gets the money, student gets the piece of paper, everyone feels great except that junior can't read. It's been common parlance in Scoutin' for the many decades I've been around, referrin' to the same thing - troop gets lots of members, they all get the badge, everyone feels great except junior can't camp a few days in bad weather without retreatin' to the cars. Either that, or at their EBOR they really can't describe anything in the troop they really took ownership of, felt responsible for, or changed to make better because they spent all of their time followin' the prescribed set of courses run by adults. They didn't get da character. When I look at council stats, I can pretty much pick out da "mills", eh? Talkin' to folks at roundtable it's also pretty easy. EBORs tell the tale, too, eh? Da stuff Eamonn describes and other things. If it works for yeh, nobody is goin' to force you to change. But if da shoe is fittin' pretty well and you're uncomfortable with bein' in that camp, then maybe it's somethin' to improve. The best units are always changin' and improvin'. Beavah

There is nothing wrong with taking pride in doing any of the methods well. Yah, not meanin' to speak for him, but I reckon that what Eamonn meant is that focusing on the Eagle "count" is not doing the Method well. Advancement Method is meant to provide recognition to boys who have reached certain levels of skill and character, eh? And by providin' that recognition, to help other boys set goals and strive to develop that skill and character. "Count" has nuthin' to do with it. Da measure of the program is quality - the quality of the skills and character of all the boys, Eagle or not. Odds are that any program that focuses on "count", whether it's Eagle Count or Merit Badge Count doesn't understand how to use da Method well. Lots of advancement may not be an indicator of a healthy unit, but lack of advancement certainly is a sign of a sick one. Whole lots of advancement can be a good sign of a badge mill and a sick unit. Lack of advancement can also be a sick unit, but yeh have to be careful. Sometimes troops just get lads who aren't into badges, but are great leaders and outdoorsmen. Ultimately we want the lads to be self-motivated rather than motivated by external baubles. So if yeh do advancement well, it should become obsolete for the boys as they grow up. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

What is the possible reason that it is working for them in spite of the many variables already discussed? Do you see common things in their program? Yah, that's a good question. Hard to say. Different people, different styles, different kids. I reckon one thing that's common is that they all work on it. They've got a vision and if what they're doin' isn't getting 'em there, or they have to adapt to different lads, they do. That's why it seems a bit odd to me that folks are willin' to accept that it's "normal" for HS lads to fade out. If that's your normal, then yeh should change what you're doin' so it isn't normal anymore! Thinkin' about it some more, I'd say they all genuinely use youth leadership. Not token "write a duty roster" stuff. Older lads do the real deal. Have keys to the trailer, get to make purchases, are responsible for safety or teachin' younger fellows on their own. In some way or another they get treated like adults and allowed independence, but at the same time are expected to care/give service. They view the younger fellows as "theirs" - guys that they're really responsible for and who look up to 'em. That, and da adult relationships are strong, as KC suggests. "High Adventure" may contribute a bit, but it doesn't seem to be what drives it. In one unit that had a strong high adventure program which fell apart when the young ASM who pushed it left town, that loss didn't seem to affect HS youth participation in the troop at all. Beavah

Yah, that would be da courteous thing, Eagle732. Also da prudent thing, because if you're goin' to accept a transfer yeh want to know the story so you know how to help the lad, and you know about any "issues" that may affect your troop and your boys. Sometimes if they're runnin' a badge mill, they aren't necessarily runnin' high expectations for Scout Spirit either, eh? Beavah

Yah, but then I go visit a local troop, eh? They have a lot of high schoolers, includin' juniors and seniors. Those high schoolers are in band, and multiple sports, and are takin' a lot of advanced classes. A few are in communities where those band and AP and sports programs would knock your socks off. And those high schoolers show up almost every week at meetings, show up almost every outing. I can name a half dozen troops like that without strainin'. So it sure seems like it's possible to have high schoolers be fully involved and even to be more active as they get older. Sure seems like they don't mind hangin' out with younger fellows and are even proud to be leadin' the younger fellows. Now maybe they're just unique, eh? Have odd circumstances. Most are pretty long-term stable units with supportive COs. But I gotta believe that it's possible other places, eh? Just that sometimes we're willin' to settle for, and make excuses for, mediocre. Beavah

Yah, easy there BadenP. BrentAllen has demonstrated in a large number of posts that he is a thoughtful and committed scouter who is doin' an excellent job for the lads in his troop. I reckon he's contributed quite positively to Scouter.Com. Now the personal pot-shots and such are there, but that's sorta just what happens in da I&P forum. Besides, the "tin ear" comment was pretty mild and probably true, eh? I've got a thick skin, didn't bother me in the least. He's even doin' us a service here, givin' us a window into the thought processes of those that feel the way he does, eh? I think that's interestin', and I do try to listen and understand it. I find it fascinatin' that a few neo-con media gripes about individual studies are enough in peoples' minds to cause 'em to dismiss thousands of research papers and the considered opinion of the bulk of da scientists in a field. It's an interestin' problem of communication, and of education. There's no way in da media to address each issue point by point, and no way to present the other 5,000 studies without people passin' out of boredom. Science and hard work are boring, after all. It's so much more fun and exciting to grab a point here and there and shout "Foul!" at those who have done the work. A bit like all da folks on Medicare screamin' "Socialist!!" at the president. There's no easy way to address it, eh? Yeh sorta have to sit down with each one and explain what socialism really means, and how it doesn't apply, and then how the two programs they're most desperate to hold onto and expand (Social Security and Medicare) are the most "socialist" programs we've got. But yeh can't do that in the media. Explainin' things is boring. And if it's not boring it's considered condescending or elitist (because you took the time to get an education in the field and they didn't I guess). Yelling "Socialist!!" is much more fun and excitin'. That's why that approach has become such a favorite of special interest lobbies on both sides, eh? I know some of da ad folks who write this tripe, right down to sample letters for folks to post in blogs and such. It's all about whippin' up a frenzy and cloudin' the issue, because really understanding an issue takes work and expertise and is boring. If yeh get people excited they'll buy snake oil. I'm hopin' that the young people aren't as susceptible to this stuff as older folks are. So far that seems to be true, at least where the education system isn't a complete failure. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Gettin' juicier. What kind of amphibious craft does da Michigan National Guard have? Yeh really want to have some fun, have the governor of Michigan order the guard to blockade the port of Chicago. Or just issue a call to Michigan boaters to do it. Be even more fun if da Province of Ontario vessels participated. Raise all kinds of issues of interestin international law issues. Now that would get SCOTUS' attention . Da risk of escalation as much as da risk of harm is why courts should not dodge issues of import. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Not uncommon for scouts to not be as active in HS Yah, while I reckon this is true in some units, it certainly isn't true in all units. My question for everybody is do yeh settle for this as "normal", do yeh make "fumes" excuses, or do yeh look at your program and say "This ain't right. What can we do better?" Beavah

That is the current AGW discussion. Nah, that's da current line of argument bein' used by the attorneys for the defendant, eh? Yeh see attorneys makin' those kinds of strained arguments all the time when they have a weak case. It's a really poor argument, but it's all they've got. What they really need to do is settle the thing, so they're just tryin' to delay enough to get the best settlement that they can. That's what's goin' on here too, eh? It's ordinary political strategy as well, since politicians and lobbyists are a bunch of bad lawyers. What's sad is when regular citizens actually think it's a good argument. They just don't know how to recognize the tactics of bad lawyers. Beavah

Well, Michigan's initial gambit fails. Court issued a once-sentence denial of the preliminary injunction without comment. Continues da tradition of this court to dodge issues whenever possible. Be interestin' to see if they reopen the old case or try to punt on that as well. Michigan also needs to take some time to refine its argument. Beavah