Beavah

Yah, so here's a Patrol Method setup from a large (120 boys) troop I know that's very successful. New Scouts New Scouts are brought into one of 3-4 New Scout patrols, more or less by Webelos Den but it never quite works out evenly. There's a Troop Guide and an ASM or adult "patrol coach" for each NSP. There's also a "Lead ASM for New Scouts" and an "ASPL for New Scouts". The New Scouts program is very tightly focused on FCFY, so much that they have a pretty well-defined "curriculum" that is managed by the ASM/ASPL for that division. They may attend campouts on their own (just NSPs) or with the rest of the troop, but even when they're with the rest of the troop a fair bit is just New Scout Curriculum rather than troop program. Patrol competitions happen between NSPs, but not outside the first year program. This highly structured and supported method gets us around 85-90% retention through first year. It takes a lot of arm twisting to recruit Troop Guides, though. Middle Program At the end of first year, NSP's disband. Boys can choose to form a new patrol or join one of the Middle Program existing patrols. Still, there's some coordination/control by the "Lead ASM for the Middle Program." The structure also includes an ASPL-Middle Program. Patrols at this level have a less structured "curriculum" and have more flexibility, but there's still a kind of standard program based on required MB's. Each patrol continues to have an adult patrol coach. There's a lot more attrition in the Middle Program, as boys move from the highly structured first-year program to the less structured program. A lot of the attrition is associated with sports choices/outside commitments. Typically half way through each year, patrols re-align into fewer, stronger patrols. Both the NSPs and the MiddlePs do car-camping almost exclusively. Hard to do anything else with that many boys, eh? Venture Patrols There's a very strong older boys/Venture Patrol set, again with a Lead ASM and an ASPL for this program, and an ASM patrol coach. Venture Patrols are fairly independent - lots of backpacking and such. Most of the Senior Leadership (troop positions, ASPLs, etc.) are drawn from this group, and the SPL is required to have been a former ASPL. Multiple high adventure trips run every year, and retention at this level is high. Da troop graduates about 6 Eagles a year, almost always Age 16-17. Obviously, the "outer structure" of this program is very adult-specified. Within that structure, youth take on a lot of responsibility for "making things happen". There's a lot of adult coaching to assist when needed. In many ways, this unit runs 3 semi-independent programs under one roof. It's a successful program, with a very well liked SM, and a lot of happy kids/families.

Yah, good discussion LongHaul, thanks. A successful transition program ensures that the boys are ready for independence at the new scout level. They have camped with this troop and are secure in their safety. I can't really speak for EagleDad. I think that a transition program can help, sure, but successes there in terms of scheduling and such are fairly rare, even with "feeder pack" relationships. Tough to do, never seen it work that well in most districts. With a good transition program, I think first year in Boy Scouts is still pretty scary. You're movin' very quickly from being reliant on adults to bein' reliant on older kids and yourself, and yeh still don't know the players very well compared to the adults you've been with for many years. What happens with the Webelos Den of 7 that has been together for the last 4 years? The PLC decides who your patrol mates will be and that is how we teach boys to form bonds and patrol identities? Next year we reshuffle according to the number of new scouts? Lots of ways to handle it. Mostly boys (& parents) request who they want to be with, or in some cases who they don't. Within dens of 7 or 8, there are always smaller groups of tighter friends. And your old den-mates are still there on the campout, eh? Friendships also change with time. Your best friends in 5th grade aren't always your best friends in 6th. The NSP doesnt have an ASM assigned to them the TG does So a NSP has both, eh? Unlike the other patrols. NSP dont camp as patrol without the rest of the troop so they are never on their own Good gracious, why not? This again seems like it's a "not like other patrols" feature. Seeing boy run in action is always better as a spectator than as a participant? Huh? No spectatin' in vertical patrols. I think the notion is more like "it's best to participate in boy-run at the level you're ready for, and watch older boys model the other parts of boy run that you'll move into as you learn and grow." New scouts are full participating members of their patrol, and they often "tip the balance" in patrol competitions and become the heroes - but only if you have vertical patrols where competitions are fair. Think of it this way, does every patrol with a New Scout go into slow motion? Explain each step and skill as it is being done? Does the PL explain what he is doing and why for every move? Does each patrol member explain each task, its importance and the proper way of doing it? Should the first year of scouting be like school, where the NSP goes into "slow motion"? Do yeh have to move ...step... by... step... through explanations... and practice... to explain... each task... and it's importance... and the proper.... way of doing it? Or should it be more fun and zany, where you're learning a lot of things just by participatin' and watchin' and osmosisin' and getting a little advice here and there from your older buddies? Instructors give the first exposure to a skill so that instruction is uniform. If every patrol did its own version of instruction the skills will become as variant as language. Why is non-uniform instruction such a big deal? Our older boys do know what they're doin', don't they? TLT does happen, right? I'm not sure uniformity is a worthwhile goal. This should be a game. Kids should be having fun learning and teachin'. There's also the "instructor ratio". Do yeh suppose it's better to have one Instructor/TG presenting to 16 New Scouts (school class model), or do yeh suppose it's better havin' one APL showin' 3 or 4 boys how to do somethin'? Which allows for more coachin' and practice? More grist for da mill, eh?

Yah, AntelopeDud, me and my fellow Beavah SR540 often see the same planet lookin' from opposite directions, eh? It's a forum feature. I think we've both got good eyes and good hearts, though, and the difference in perspectives helps us all learn. I agree at times good kids can be boneheaded, and a few not-so-good kids can even be cruel. I also agree that it's necessary to treat the symptoms for the good of the group and the boy. When bad happens, respond. As firmly as is necessary. Yah, sure, that might even mean a temporary generic "ban" on pranks, or prank "supervision" eh? More likely it's sending a boy home, and having a group discussion about why. My point is that yeh also have to dig deeper, and look at the causes for behaviors. One dumb prank might be boneheaded, but several mean pranks is likely the sign of a deeper disease. SR540 describes one - "cool vs. geek" cliquishness in a group which encourages nastiness. There can be others, like a boy who is really hurting inside because of some family issues or other stresses. I think it's of utmost importance to identify and respond to those causes, even more important than it is to respond to the symptoms. The Scouting Way is to try to avoid "adult bans" in favor of encouraging more positive "youth choices." Where we have to treat a symptom, we do what we need to... temporarily. But then we go after after da big goal, eh? Helping the kids grow and change so that we fix the "causes," and they make better judgments. That way things'll be OK even when adults aren't there, which is a big percentage of kids' lives, eh?

Nah, FScouter, my "disdain" is for people who quote BSA materials without demonstratin' any genuine knowledge or experience, eh? Like an amateur tellin' an attorney how liability really works 'cause he read about it online, or a businessman trying to tell a teacher how a classroom should be run because he read a book about teaching. The printed materials can be great, eh, but rendered into nonsense when spouted off by those without experience. Your personal jab in response to a legitimate scoutin' topic, though, is a sterling example of courtesy and kindness that I'm sure we'd all be happy to share with da young people we care about, eh? If yeh don't like it, ignore the thread. To clarify, for everyone else, all responses are welcome - how you implement the BSA Patrol Method, in your interpretations of the BSA materials or in your tweaks. What works for you and your kids, that the rest of us who are interested can learn from?

Yah, so LongHaul's plea to da group seems like a good topic, eh? What do each of us see as the Patrol Method, and how exactly do we implement it? As threadstarter, though, I'm going to beg da group for three favors: 1) No quoting books, manuals, or "authorities" dead or alive. Speak only from your own personal experience on what you did, and how it worked for your kids. 2) Be completely honest. That means sharing what the challenges/failures/weak points were of the way you implemented the patrol method, as well as it's strengths. Try to be as complete about strengths - for example, if you say "youth run", what exactly did the youth take ownership of and do, and what was still adult stuff? How many of the youth did the running? How well? etc. etc. 3) No critiquing or criticizing someone else's post as being wrong, incorrect, not by the book, or whatnot. Real, honest "I want to understand better" questions only. Sharing failures is OK, too. "Hey, we did this, and it didn't work for us at all" is often more useful than "everything worked great."

Yah, SR540, I've never known a youth of any age to be deliberately cruel as you suggest. Quite the opposite, eh? Most kids are generous, kind souls. Being mean is not a function of age. It's a function of environment. If we've really done our job as adults of settin' up the structure and environment, then kids finding where they fit in with a group does not involve cruelty of any sort. You have to ask yourself what about the program made it possible for being mean to be valued by these kids as a way of establishing social status? If we let that happen, it's our fault as adults. No fair hidin' behind "But it's a great program (in other ways)." Would those kids who were picked on think it was a great program? Maybe the adults were too aloof, so that their example didn't speak loud enough. Maybe there weren't enough opportunities for youth leadership, where social status could be decided by contributing service rather than pecking. Maybe the adults were too weak to confront the issues, or didn't know how. The point is, the attitude was the problem not the notion of playing pranks. And if yeh let the attitude go on, you may well have created "fine, upstanding, contributing members of society who were good husbands and fathers". And who were also just a bit racist, or sexist, or condescending to those who worked for them. You know. All the things that can be done in "hidden" ways, like teasing or ostracizing the "out crowd." If that means screening pranks to make sure fun is had by all instead of some kid being humiliated for the enjoyment of another, I'm cool with that. I'd rather everyone have a good laugh than one kid with deeply hurt feelings and another kid getting sent home. Yah, I'd like to convince you, or at least convince others, that there are better ways to go. This is an "adult control" way. In Scouting, we're all about youth leadership and "self control" ways, because those also lead to good choices when no adult is watching.

Yah, BA, dat's Northern Wisconsin, eh? Udderwise, why would I know so many cow pie jokes? You'd have to tape record me and then play me back at half speed to make a Minnesoooda accent, eh? BSA produces all kinds o' other support materials, eh? Climb on Safely, the Fieldbook, Program Helps, and on and on. Doesn't mean that they expect every troop to be doin' climbing or sailing or even backpackin'. They're providin' resources to help with the Outdoor Method. Yeh can use other resources, too. BSA provides resources to help with meetings and Patrol Method and youth leadership too. Doesn't mean they expect everyone's goin' to do meetings exactly that way, or not use other resources for youth leadership. They're just holdin' up their end of the charter agreement - providing resources to support the CO/unit's scouting efforts. Same with uniformin'. They provide resources to help troops with uniformin'. Even troops that get into it in a military-inspection "big time" way. But just like the Outdoor Method, they don't expect every troop to get into it that same way. They don't even require an official BSA uniform for membership. Yah, sure, BSA's goin' to expect the paid staff to help 'em defend their materials copyrights and brand identity, eh? Part of the business. But that's a kinda independent business/marketing issue, not a program one. I'm glad you like the BSA uniform support materials. Super that they work well for your unit, and make your kids proud. Just like I'm glad other units make full use of other BSA support materials for their programs, that you might not dig into as deep.

What I need here is for some one, actually everyone to explain what the Patrol Method is and how to implement it. Yah, I hear you. What you see out there in different troops is about 6 major variations on New Scout Patrol/FCFY and a dozen permutations - as you see in various people's postings. Even the system a couple o' people have described of rotating New Scout PL every month exists nowhere in the official literature. Quite the opposite - "Members of a new-Scout patrol choose their patrol leader...just like any patrol." (BSHB #33105 p. 18). So all I can give yeh is the best ways (plural) I've seen. One of which is the old, long-standing BSA way of new boys joinin' existing patrols that are "permanent". IMO, they never should have switched to NSP/FCFY, they just should have done somethin' like what EagleDad suggests and provided some guidance on supportin' new boys within patrols. Assigning a boy to a patrol is telling him who is friends will be, who he is to bond with. Nah. If a boy comes in with a couple of friends, put 'em in a patrol together. Putting boys in a patrol gives them a smaller community where they can make new friends, and bond with people, though, sure. No more traumatic to a kid than gettin' assigned to a homeroom in school. Lots better, actually, because a good PLC will try for a "good match." Assigning the PL and APL to a group of new scouts tells them straight up that A.) they are incapable of being a real patrol and B.) all that talk of a boy run program was in fact just talk. Yah, same for assigning 'em an adult ASM-NS and a Troop Guide, eh? No other patrol has 'em. Fact is, we all recognize 11 year olds aren't yet ready to lead or camp on their own. Put 'em with a real patrol, and they get to see boy run in action, for real... and get to see themselves some day being "cool, like their PL". Putting a new scout into a functioning patrol immediately is the same as taking a new recruit and sending him into combat as part of an existing squad. What happened to basic training? Yah, can't buy the military analogy here. To do Basic Trainin' that way, you need a Drill Sergeant - an older, more experienced enlisted man who tells you exactly what to do. Think of it more like a new freshman joining a sports team or an extracurricular like the school newspaper. There are older, more experienced seniors who are leaders and team captains and editors. There are some sophomores and juniors who are first or second string players and solid beat reporters. You're the newbie, not yet ready to be team captain or editor, but still a full-fledged member of the team, or ready to pick up basic tasks and assignments for the newspaper. Why do we need or what is the function of Instructors if each patrol trains its own? Not everyone is a teacher. Yeh mean your patrols don't have/do their own instruction?? Good gracious, why in the world not? We're not school, we don't need many teachers. Just teammates showin' new guys the ropes. Beavah

The pranks I listed happened at church camp of all places by good kids who came from good homes and were extremely active in the youth group.... Trust me, they knew what they were doing was wrong since they always had a lookout to make sure an adult wasn't approaching. In each instance, the target was one of the kids who was not part of the in-crowd or popular. In other words, the weak and vulnerable were targeted by the cool or popular kids. Symptoms of a bad program? Not really. Yah, really. What yeh describe is a culture where youth deliberately and with some sense o' malice targeted other kids. Da fact that the kids were from "good homes" and were otherwise "good kids" illustrates that there was a fundamental weakness in the program that was affecting kids character in a negative way. That weakness is what needs to be addressed, not "prank screening". Yeh shouldn't think for a moment that because you've curtailed pranks you've changed the "cool kids vs. dorks" dynamic which is the real problem. In a healthy unit, OGE's now infamous snipe hunt would have made him famous. He would have gotten so many kudos and so much positive recognition for his bravery and determination in staying out all night that he would have gone home braggin' to his parents about it. And along the way, he might have learned to laugh at himself more readily. "Yah, I might be tricked easily, but at least I'm determined" . Me, I'm forgetful and I talk kinda funny, eh?

Unless I missed a post, I was the kid in the Snipe Hunt and it certainly didn't help me (elsewise why would we be discussing this?) Yah, I think da thread got started just to share good, funny camp pranks, eh? You're the one who brought up your bad experience. It is interestin', though, that people are much more willing to share fun pranks than fun skits. I think that reflects the relative impact on the boys as well. Of course, I've seen plenty of abusive, off-color, and inappropriate skits in my day. Maybe skits should be disallowed as well. Inappropriate skits and inappropriate pranks are just symptoms of poor unit culture and program. If yeh find such things, don't waste time on the pranks or skits beyond what you need to. Fix your program. Ask yourself why da kids are doing that - how are you set up so that they're not learnin' those lessons of character and judgment as they're coming up?

Wow, a resurrected "dead horse" BA, I don't think anybody's ever called me "dude" before. Thanks. Sorta feels like being "carded" at the pub for the first time in 40 years. If your unit program is big into uniforming, and that reflects your CO's mission and goals, good on yeh! That's why all those uniform inspection sheets and Insignia Guides and such exist. To support units like yours that really get into how far down from the shoulder seam a World Crest should be sewn, eh? But you know as well as I do that your unit is an oddity. The majority rarely do uniform inspections, if at all. Heck, I betcha not one in ten troops even owns an Insignia Guide. If it were important, we'd all be given one for free, eh? There are other ways to view the Uniform Method, and other CO's. LongHaul gave you just one among many. His troop is certainly making use of the Uniform Method, just with a different twist. The BSA's sole practical interest in all those Rules and Regulations is to maintain some control over its brand identity. You know, so some political party doesn't use Boy Scouts for their own ends, or Colgate doesn't use 'em to sell toothpaste. National needs to keep marketing control. So yah, sure, Venturing Division doesn't want green on tan, because their marketing strategy is to try to make Venturing not look like dumb Boy Scoutin' with its uniform fetish. That's their only interest, eh? Loved your comment about all the photos, though. Yeh do know that it's fun sport each year to flip through the catalog and promo materials and find the dozens of "uniform errors" every year, eh? Remember the guy with the green shirt and red shoulder loops that was on the scouting.org front page for a while last year? And even as I type, there's a lad on National's home page who is wearing a Trained patch with no badge of office. Horrors! Don't they take their own Insignia Guide seriously?? :) (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Here are a few of the real pranks I remember from summer camp... [followed by several in bad taste] Yah, yeh know... If you're really gettin' kids who are doing pranks in bad taste, or nasty, or whatever, I think you have to take a good close look at what in your program is not working. That kind of thing only happens when the unit program is failing to achieve our goals of character and citizenship in important ways. The problem isn't the "prank". That's the symptom, eh?

Yah, yah, easy there, LongHaul. I was just given a strong dose of "alternate theory" so that pargolf would look at all the options, eh? As yeh know, I'm a lot more an advocate for "what works for real units in the field" than I am for "what somebody paid to have printed in a book." Especially when da professionals who make the books don't get evaluated or promoted on their knowledge of the program or the quality of their service, eh? So if you're doin' a good job with New Scout Patrol of FCFY, by all means, carry on! Use what works. As I've said in the past, tho, I've been part of both kinds of units, and supported a lot more as a commish. Of the two, I think vertical patrols makes the most sense, and from my observations it works best. It gives the older boys someone to lead, it gives the new boys some older boys of all ages to look up to, and it preserves patrol identity over a Long Haul. :) There seems to be at least a half dozen different versions of "New Scout Patrol/FCFY" and a bunch of variations on those, which to my mind illustrates a problem. Despite all the trainin' and materials, it's not being well understood/well implemented. People don't get how to do it well. Maybe because it doesn't work that great, eh? The best I've seen is when you have a great ASM/NS, who has the right zany personality to connect to those kids, and a couple of good Troop Guides. But then that just ain't much different than Webelos III, eh? Rotating PL once a month and giving each boy a chance to sit in at the PLC , run a patrol meeting and organize the patrol for the monthly outing is a good way for them to gain experience. I'm with EagleDad here. I think kids who are brand new to a troop aren't lookin' for leadership roles. They're looking for "where do I fit in?" and "Is the next campout going to be fun?". The "experience" they need to gain is takin' care of themselves in the woods for the first time. Then good Followership. Leadership's a fair ways off. How do you achieve these vertical patrols without reorganizing patrols every time you get new scouts? Close as I can tell, it's the horizontal patrol units that are perpetually re-organizing patrols. Older boy patrols get reduced in size and participation rates, and combined constantly. The vertical troops I know are runnin' with the same patrols 10 years later. New scouts join a patrol with a few friends. All of a sudden the 2nd year boys are "experienced hands" and good followers, who have young guys to show the ropes to (and begin gettin' leadership experience). Older boys who are ready for leadership are the natural leaders, right when they need it for rank. And there's the added bonus in vertical patrols that patrol competitions are fair and fun, between patrols of relatively equal experience and size. This ain't hard. Think Hogwarts. Unless you are loosing as many as you are gaining you have to form new patrols which must require reorganization and the break down of patrol identity. Yah, sure, if you have big gains in membership yeh might need to add a patrol occasionally (but not every year!). So yeh ID the best few lads for the job and you give them the special task of startin' a new patrol. They love the challenge. And they have the experience and skills to handle it, which an 11-year old doesn't. Their old patrol(s) continue on and become part of the competition, which only adds to da fun!

The "district has no commissioners", yet the DE gets a promotion? What am I missing here? Yah, you're missin' the fact that the DE evaluation process has nothin' to do with unit service, or really any service. As DE4 describes, it's really mostly a matter of whether you accidentally live in an area with growing youth demographics, or can "take shortcuts" to "grow" numbers then get out of Dodge. A truly dysfunctional corporate culture for a membership service organization. And it costs us in terms of keepin' quality DE's and SE's.

I fully confess to bein' a conservative old coot. I think a lot of newfangled notions are derived from just sloppy, emotional thinking. That bein' said, I hope I'm always opposed to the notion of banning. I don't see that it has any good place in a free society. Banning books is one of those things. If your ideas are so weak that the only way they'll convince anybody else is if there's no other ideas allowed, then your ideas should probably wither and die, eh? But really, that same principle applies to everything else, too. A few people abuse firearms, either in anger or in stupidity, just like a few people abuse alcohol and some others abuse driving a car. But that doesn't mean that banning guns, or reinstituting prohibition, or eliminatin' automobiles is a just act. When I see people who right out the gate start makin' rules and banning things, it really gets my American up. I remember when kids first started showin' up on ski slopes with snowboards. Lots of prejudice because they were kids. Lots of prejudice because they dressed funny. Some real issues in terms of safety and courtesy, because the skiers and snowboarders hadn't yet figured out how each other moved so as to be courteous or safe. And right away the "let's ban it!" crowd got goin'. Yeh see it in cities banning skateboarders (kids dressin' funny again)... sheesh, you'd think we'd be happy they're doin' something athletic and not smokin' weed and gettin' obese. Just Googled and found bans on snowball fights and sledding by various schools and districts. And it seems like we've got a veritable army of "Let's ban it!" types in Scouting. Does anybody really think that Authority "banning" things ("we know better than you do...") is anything other than an assault on the fundamental notions of Liberty that are necessary for American citizenship? How can it have any place in Scouting, where our very aim is Citizenship? Teach children. If your ideas or your character are so weak that you can't convince or inspire others, then you will never succeed by trying to prohibit others or squelch ideas. But yeh will teach them about tyranny. Beavah

Or yeh could give up on all that silliness and do things da way it's supposed to be done. Move your new boys into real patrols that aren't age-based, rather than keepin' all the inexperienced lads together. Who in their right minds puts all the experienced lads together, then grabs one at semi-random to make him "leader"? Check out all of the past threads on "horizontal" vs. "vertical" patrols. "Vertical" is the way Scouting was designed, and the way it was done for most of its history. Without FCFY so kids can work at their own place and Advancement stays in its place as only ONE method of scouting. Just to give yeh some alternatives when you find that you really don't like the "feel" of two hordes of munchkins.

Yah, what is it with old people always tryin' to ban anything that was invented after they were kids? Almost makes me ashamed of my (few remainin') grey hairs. I have several scars from ridin' a bicycle when I was a lad. My parents never took my bicycle away. Teach Children. Banning things is the lazy way. It's also not the best citizenship lesson for preservin' a free society, eh?

And who makes these decisions? The Patrol Leader. When would you say a 16 year old might know the nuances of when a nice prank turns bad and would he know what to do about it? Yah, the same way we expect him to know the nuances of when and how workin' on a campfire is safe and when it isn't - and what to do about it. Or knowin' how to get his guys to do KP without being too "mean." We should be teachin' boys to make decisions and judgments. Whether it's a physical safety call or a Scout Law issue, eh? Yeh are teachin' them that, right? And lettin' 'em practice? Could he stop his friends and say, "Wait a minute... This is starting to get mean." Yah. Seen it happen all the time. Way before age 16, eh? Isn't that what you expect of your PL's? Now I remember back in the day, I was a naive country boy off at college the first time I got short-sheeted. Darn confusin' that is! You keep it safe der, anarchist.

troop policy is "ya wake up, ya get your buddy up to take the trip with you..." Yeh gotta be kiddin' me. Now there's a policy lookin' for a problem.

By rthe way, FScout, what's the "F" stand for? Yah, that really leaves the imagination open in all kinds of bad ways. I remember a boy named Josh, when I was a young SM, back before Oklahoma was a state . Josh was "hefty". Not particularly well coordinated. He went out on a troop ski trip to a small local hill. It was cold. He had difficulty. The PL & TG who was working with him and other younger boys was doin' his best, but he missed the "warning signals" that Josh was gettin' too stressed, and kept pushin'/encouraging him to keep tryin'. We lost Josh to scouting. I expect maybe he'd report that he felt "hammered on" or "humiliated" or maybe just a bit frustrated and embarrassed on the bunny hill that day. Could the PL have done better? Sure. Did the SM work even harder with PLs on strategies for recognizin' and helping different kids in the future? You bet. Should we stop skiing, or ski instruction, even if Josh comes back and relates the awful tale 30 years from now, still recalled through 11-year-old eyes? Nah. Do we have lots of kids who stay in scouting because of things like skiing, and the friendships and tales that come from that? You bet. Pranks are no different, eh? Yet another activity that can be used to develop understanding, leadership, and character. And yet another place where a youth leader or an adult can blow a call for a particular kid. And learn from that, too. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

SR540 beat me to my comment. A wise fellow Beaver as always. Yah, Its Me, adolescent middle schoolers and high school aged young men no longer think that songs and yells are very fun. More like embarrassing or childish. With a certain amount of adult energy and pushin' they will get into it a bit, but only if da songs are more Weird Al than Kumbaya. Patrol names that work are more likely to be "The Farting Cows" (with da appropriate patrol "yell"). But all that's campfire stuff, though, not meetings. Thank goodness, or Pastor John may be wonderin' why exactly he lets the Boy Scouts use the room next to the Ladies Guild. I will agree with you that meetings are the most poorly done things in Boy Scouting most of the time. That's true of cubbing too . It's tough to plan an hour and a half of learning, fun, an jollity week in and week out, that meets the needs of kids age 10-17. Never have I had a lad at Eagle time tell his BOR that meetings were one of the reasons he was a scout. Mostly, the boys honestly confess that meetings kinda suck (to use the kids' vernacular), but they get done what they need to. Outing is what it's about in Boy Scouting.

Yah, John, but that change was a while ago, eh? The Eagle percentage has been increasing steadily for the last 10-20 years, well after that change should have had its impact.

I believe the maturity of boy scout age kids does not allow for the ability to make this kind of distinction. Yah, this is one of those baby-boomers, eh? The ones who looked at da older folks and said "don't trust anyone over 30", who now feel anybody younger than 30 is not to be trusted. If Boy Scouts are really mentally incapable of this kind of reasoning and empathy, then Scouting needs to close its doors, eh? We can't possibly trust youth leaders with outing plans, and cooking with flammable fuels, and all the other things Patrol Method and Youth Leadership say we're supposed to do. That would be irresponsible of us. They can't even be trusted with a joke; givin' 'em any other responsibility would be foolish. Nah. I don't buy it. The kids I've known, even the Baby Boomers, have been pretty capable and caring souls. They learn fast, too. If you're havin' a problem with their behavior, I think yeh have to look to your example, and what and how you're teachin' 'em. Not write 'em off as bein' incapable.

We have adults that snore so they tent alone and we try to pitch our tents at a distance from them. Another fine example of discrimination in Scouting. How does ostracism fit in with the 6th point of the Scout Law? Yeh should be happy that we snorers keep da nasty woodland critters from eatin' the rest of you at night. (yah, check that out. Thanks, ADud) Beavah

pranking someone because you yourself have been pranked makes no sense to me Doesn't make much sense to me, either. When you pull a prank, you do it because it's clever, novel, and humorous. Yah, sure, and because it's an indirect way to teach us all not to be too serious all the time, and to build friendships and community. If yer doin' it just for reprisal or to pay it forward, yeh missed the point. Good reason why the humor-impaired shouldn't be involved in pranks on either end, eh? (moved this back here to try to get pranking off the Fear thread, which I really meant to be about somethin' different) Beavah