Beavah

Yah, I expect what the lads want is just not to be bored, eh? Nuthin' worse to a boy than to be made to sit still for an hour or more while adults do things. Doesn't necessarily mean they want to lead. Does mean that they want to do something. That's what I think @@Eagledad was talkin' about. Yeh can be very adult-led, but with the boys developing as live-action helpers. That's not boring, eh? Yeh know you're the guy to get the flag, yeh know yeh have to wear full uniform, that sort of thing. There can be lots of spirit in bein' a follower under adult leadership. Look at any sports team. If yeh leave the lads bored until they get older, though, then pretty much yeh set da expectation for do-nothing older boys. Like as not that's when yeh start to see some hazing and other behavioral issues too. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Except that's not what da fellow did, eh? What was actually said was that Protestants and Catholics are two different religions, not that Protestants aren't Christians. Hate to tell yeh mate, but Catholics are in a different religion than I am. Only thing wrong about da statement is that there are a lot of different religions within Protestantism. So if a fellow says that two snowflakes are different when they obviously are, and another fellow insists that they're not, what does that make the other fellow? Not bigoted, I don't think. Perhaps just confused? B

Yah, hmmm... I confess I prefer units that allow their boys to pray authentically, accordin' to the norms of their own family or church practice. I think it does a better job of buildin' the sort of reverence, respect, and understandin' that we want the lads to learn. It's truly inclusive, as long as each boy gets his turn, and da encouragement/validation to pray personally. Or yeh could do it all at once, and make a truly Joyful (if cacophonous) Noise unto the Lord. Prayer can be personal or shared by a community of common belief, but there's no such thing as generic prayer, and we shouldn't pretend there is. More importantly, we shouldn't hold generic stuff up to the boys as "better", because that's truly being irreverent toward their tradition. For me and I expect for a lot of folks who think about it, da animist pseudo-native-American stuff that sometimes poses as generic prayer in outdoor and Scout settings is just awful. I think da OP has to follow da guidance of their chartered organization, but I'd have let the lad become Chaplain's Aide. The boy had clearly thought about it and was interested in doin' right by the position. Excludin' him because of his own deeply held belief just seems harsh to me. Once in da position, I would have tasked him with selecting other boys from da troop to offer prayers and reflections accordin' to their own traditions on some sort of rotation. Maybe even get him a set of da Religious Award materials matching all the different denominations represented in the troop and havin' him encourage those boys to pursue the awards. With him helpin', even. Seems just more brotherly, and more reverent. Beavah

Yah, the impetus to write more long and legalistic stuff is always control, eh? Yeh want to control folks with lots and lots of regulation rather than hire good people and trust their judgment. Sometimes it's because somethin' bad happened and yeh want to "fix" it with a policy rather than educate folks (or "fire" folks), even though policy rarely "fixes" anything. To my mind Merit Badges work best when yeh have a counselor who is genuinely competent in da field, and yeh let him/her decide what's important for a beginner to learn and be able to do. Who cares if not everybody in da country is doin' exactly the same thing? Yeh need different campin' skills in the desert than in northern winters. I'm with @@fred johnson. I'd prefer we take a hatchet to da "requirements", but add to the expectations for "doing" like nights of camping. Boys learn by doing. Beavah

Yah, this is the point that many folks affiliated with a single troop seem to miss, eh? There's no such thing as One Universal Scouting Program. There are lots of different local scoutin' programs that together make up a brotherhood. Mostly that's based on the abilities and predilections of the lead adults, eh? It's also based on what the boys and their families need or want. Lots of times, different units don't even agree on da outcomes for lads that they want to see, let alone da style and methods to get there. Tight CO affiliations often come with a sense of purpose and outcomes; looser ones not as much. Yeh want to find a good fit. I like da questions about outcomes because it can tell yeh a couple things. Are the parents and troop leaders on the same page in terms of what they are tryin' to do? That's a big one in terms of avoidin' adult conflict and supportin' the boys long term. Look at the older boys, eh? Are there many? Do yeh want your son to be like them? Are the troop leaders even thinkin' about outcomes for kids, or are they mired in the details of "how" they do things rather than "why" they do things? Troops where it's all about "how" tend to be adult-run and a bit inflexible. Troops where the "why" is "to get them to Eagle" or "because that's Patrol Method" fall into that category, too. Next for parents is "Is there anything in the 'how' they do things that is goin' to drive me nuts?" This can be a bad meeting night for da family calendar, or being "too disorganized", or not being advancement-focused enough, or bein' too religious/not religious enough. Yeh need to ask and then see and feel these things because when yeh join a troop you commit to the bad with the good, eh? Yeh don't enter a long-term relationship expecting that you're goin' to change the other partner to be more like what you want. For the boys I don't reckon there's any question they can ask at one of these events that will help 'em. Boys have to go do things with other boys to get a sense. Best is probably "Did I like the boys I met? Could I be friends with them?" Beavah

Yah, @@blw2, take it from an old furry fellow who has seen lots and lots of kids. Relax. Your lad is 12 years old, in his first year. Go back and read "ages and stages" from your BSA training, eh? Boys that age aren't lookin' to stand out, they're lookin' to fit in. If in his first year of Boy Scouting he's accomplished that, he's well on his way. He's got friends, he's goin' along with the fun, he's watchin' and learnin' and gettin' comfortable with the way things work. He's growin' neurons! Da other stuff comes with time, eh? Give it a few years, and you'll wonder where that 12-year-old went. Give it a few more years, and you'll be wonderin' where this fine young man came from who is doin' all sorts of stuff you never dreamed of. Patience, and quiet support. That's the ticket. As an aside to spur da conversation, this is one reason why I'm more an advocate of mixed-age patrols, eh? NSP PL/APL roles almost always work out this way. Beavah

Nah, boys missing events is just life, eh? Sometimes boys have families. Sometimes they have other activities. Organizational behavior literature assumes a business environment, where everybody is expected to be there every day. The British Army I'm pretty sure is an environment where everybody is expected to be there every day. Green Bar Bill wrote at a time when Scoutin' was often the only organized youth program in town for most of the year. Sometimes, things change. It'd be interestin' if folks commented on what their actual attendance rate is. We'd all have to agree to really measure it, because I've found adult estimates to be off by 20-30% often enough. It's just somethin' to think about. If yeh have a patrol that's limping along at 4 on a typical campout, or one or more patrols are "collapsing" to 3 or fewer so they aren't really sustainable as a patrol on da campout, then the diagnosis is that yeh have too many patrols. Don't "combine" patrols temporarily, and don't make some poor lads struggle with a 2-3 person patrol that can't hike on its own. Definitely don't blame the boys. Just try fewer patrols with slightly bigger numbers to reflect your attendance rate. I think you'll find it works better, and because it works better da morale and attendance rate will increase. Beavah

Yah, @@John-in-KC has a good thought there, eh? I like EBORs in the field. There's just somethin' nice about an EBOR around a campfire. Changes the tone of the conversation for everyone. B

Yah, hmmm... Thanks for da thread merger, @@NJCubScouter. @@zuzy wasn't at camp, so all we're gettin' are hearsay second-hand reports. I reckon even if we deposed all of the lads and adults at camp we'd have a whole mess of conflicting opinions about what was goin' on. After a lot of work we might get down to there being good evidence that SM grumped at da SPL on Wednesday, that SPL mouthed off once on Thursday, etc. Those things are "facts", but are they useful? This isn't a problem of internet forums, it's da reality of Scouting in the real world. Even if we were sittin' there watching events ourselves we might see different things, eh? We work with what we've got, and we use our experience and judgment as best we can. You think tryin' to make Eagle in the new troop might be an issue, but there aren't any "facts" to support that, eh? Not even a hint of it from @@zuzy. Just your thoughts and experiences... and that's fine! Your thoughts and experience are valuable. Hopefully along the way lots of caring folks with experience give @@zuzy some different perspectives to consider, some ideas to think about... and then she and her son will do the best they can. That's how forums are helpful, eh? Not by providin' a "right" answer based on "facts", but by providin' options and different ways of lookin' at things based on experience. Beavah

Yah, I like to see 6-8 lads in a patrol in the field. Makes cooking about right primarily; also gives yeh a couple of guys to hang with when you're pissed off at one or two others. That having been said, I think in da modern world for most troops it's best to have slightly larger patrols than that. Attendance figures in, eh? If you're a fairly typical troop and your attendance averages 60 - 70%, then the ideal patrol size becomes 9-12 so that yeh average 6-8 on a campout. If yeh just go with a patrol of 6, then odds are once yeh factor in attendance you'll have Patrol Collapse Disorder where a patrol falls below 4 boys and there's pressure to "combine patrols" on outings. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... There seem to be two different threads on this, eh? I posted a response over in da other thread. Short version: I'd let him have a great time learnin' and growin' with the new troop, and go for Eagle there. I think it will be good for the boy, and good for Scouting, and be more meaningful all around. Long version is over in da other thread B [Moderators note: The threads have been merged, so the long version is above - NJCubScouter]

Yah, sure, and understanding takes effort, eh? Understandin' isn't dictated by the word choice of the speaker, it's dependent on the effort made by the listener. Lots of us have worked with boys of various backgrounds and cultures, international scouting, kids with disabilities and all the rest. It's really easy for boys to get upset sometimes... "Why won't he act normal?!" (talk the way I want him to talk, act the way I want him to act). The way we teach lads to deal with Aspergers kids or kids from other cultures is to teach 'em about the perspective and challenges of the other fellow, and help 'em to be better at listening for understanding. Not to try to change the other kid's behaviors or language, but to change the way they interpret it and respond to it. It's always easier to change ourselves than to try to change the other guy. Beavah

Yah, @@zuzy, depends what yeh want to teach, eh? I'm with @@John-in-KC on this. Not being around to witness the boy's behavior at camp, I'm inclined to believe that a teenager who has decided to leave da troop after some struggles with the adults might have behaved a bit like a teenager. Given the history and the lad's Aspergers, it's also not hard to imagine the adults not respondin' well to their perceptions of "attitude", so by no means is it all on him, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't learn from his side. So I'm thinkin' that there's stuff for the boy to still grow from, and workin' with a new set of boys and adults without "history" is a grand opportunity to help him face some of that and keep learning. I think he'll value Eagle and Scoutin' more if you give him that challenge. "Hey, some of it is on Mr. Old Scoutmaster, but some of it is on you, son. If you're going to really be an Eagle, you should show that you can be outstanding in your new troop, even though you're likely to have disagreements there, too." At the same time, some parents these days are into the conflict thing, eh? Teach the boy how to fight through obstacles and all that. If that's what you're into and think is most valuable for your son to learn, then encouraging him to go the Disputed Circumstances route can be OK. If that's the case, I'd stay out of it as a parent. Let it be his fight. My vote is still for the new troop. I like lads to spend their energy building up themselves and others rather than being disputatious. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... I'm not sure it's ever productive to tell/suggest other people how to write, or talk, or whatever. Seems like da better thing is to work harder on listenin'. B

Spun off from: The Senior Patrol Leader is In Charge Yah, figured I'd spin this off from da other odd thread that was gettin' all confusin'. The topic is "Patrol Method Made Simple". Everyone gets one post to offer practical advice to a well-intentioned scouter who has had a year or two in da program and is steppin' up to be Scoutmaster. He/She wants to use Patrol Method effectively. Give your pragmatic, practical advice on how to set that up. Assume a typical troop of, say 22 boys on paper, 15 active includin' three high school aged boys, plus 3 crossovers from one pack and two from another. Right now they've got patrols on paper only as administrative groups for meetings. Note: This is about Patrol Method, eh? Not Youth Leadership. Yeh can include a bit about trainin' or helpin' PLs and such, but let's not mix this up with Boy Led. Ready.... Steady... Go!

Yah, hmmmm... Is this Patrol Method or youth leadership? Seems like trustin' boys to be capable and to run things through happy chaos is youth leadership. Patrol Method is about breakin' up bigger troops into smaller independent functional groups, eh? That can increase opportunities for leadership and such, but it does lots of other things like leveraging identity and competitive spirit, increasin' opportunities for followership and smaller contributions to da group, allow for a degree of specialization, etc. I think we get confused sometimes. I know this thread is confusin' me! Sometimes real-world examples work better than abstract stuff. Beavah Spun Thread: Patrol Method Made Simple (for the Real World)

Yah, if we make Safety #1 then I reckon we'd never go into the woods, eh? Certainly we'd never drive there. All things in balance. Might be that if we want better trailer safety we should stop carryin' lots of heavy gear into the field, eh? Just, you know, go campin' and not glampin'. And for goodness sake, have a fresh set of drivers come for camp pickup. Six nights at scout camp can be a sleep-deprivation experiment. I don't see any upside in confrontin' other parent drivers or backseat driving from the car that's a half-mile back. Leastways, not beyond "Hey, Joe, how are yeh doin'? Are yeh good for this next stretch or should we get some coffee?" Much more than that and you'll just make people mad, and drivers who are angry are at least as dangerous as those textin' away on their phones. It's counterproductive. Get where you're goin', and if yeh really have a safety concern about someone's driving ability then quietly drop 'em from the pool of drivers yeh use in the future. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... I'm with @@Eagledad on this, eh? There are lots of ways to make an ice cream cone. Sometimes, yeh only have da ingredients for a banana split. By and large units sort out roles based on their vision and the needs of the kids. Strong units often invent or re-invent roles and structures as the boys themselves feel the need or the desire to innovate. The point is to give a scope for youth growth and development, eh? A scope that the adults can understand and support. All the rest is just noise. Now, I get where @@Stosh is comin' from. I'd say that in general, across the land, patrol method and patrol leaders are under-utilized and SPLs are over-utilized. That arises partly from age-based patrols where younger PLs aren't as capable, but mostly it's a function of adults not knowin' how to make that work. Da SPL-and-helpers model of youth leadership is easier for adults to grok. Patrols take more time. Beavah

Nah, real snow is dry. Too cold out for it to get wet. I reckon the best campin' is when yeh can fling your cup of hot coffee into the air and it comes down as caffeinated snow. Now that's real fun for all! B

Yah, just depends, eh? I hear what you're sayin', and I agree with you for drivin' through town or on the highway. Discourteous too. In town or on the highway in most cases help from neighbors and strangers is ready to hand. At the same time, lots of us live in states with remote areas and winter, eh? Spots where phone reception is poor or nonexistent, GPS reception not great (or digital maps not accurate), road signage minimal, and most importantly help is not near at hand. There are times when stickin' together is da safest practice, because yeh need buddy vehicles if yeh get into trouble, and because nuthin' messes up a campout like havin' one car that doesn't show because it's lost (with three young kids and only one adult) and yeh don't know if they're wrecked. After all, we can say da same thing for hiking, eh? Everybody on your own with a little planning, maps, GPS, and phone numbers... just meet up at certain points. Dangerous to stick together; can lead to roughhousing and misbehavior, plus lads hike at different paces with different tolerance for hard trails. Hiking is actually safer than driving, yet we insist on da buddy system and Rule of 4. Same thing for paddling... just meet up at certain points; dangerous to stick together, different boats and ability levels and speed, what happens if an inexperienced boat follows an experienced one too closely down a harder route on da river, etc. And still we use buddy boats or da Rule of 3 on the water, and.... So I was glad that @@RichardB dropped this from G2SS before we had a case in the news of car full of kids lost and freezing somewhere, and everyone wonderin' why the rest of the group had left 'em on their own. Best to trust to the judgment of the adults in the field. IMNSHO da rough guide should be somethin' like "If there's traffic and lots of other folks around, be courteous and don't caravan. If there's not, be safe and do... at least in small groups of 2-4 vehicles. Beavah

Yah, I reckon that's what most everybody says, eh? We all know that our troop, council, etc. does it best. Especially if that's the (only) one we're intimately familiar with. I don't mind a diversity of approaches. It allows us to reach more boys, use more adults with different skills effectively, respond to more local conditions. Scoutin' grew up in this country in part because of that diversity, eh? The more we push for a one-size-fits-all regulatory monopoly, the less mission-focused (and smaller) we keep gettin'. Beavah

I reckon it depends on whether yeh care about doin' what's safest and best for the kids and for other drivers, or whether yeh care about "what holds up in court". Courts are places we resolve disputes, eh? Better if yeh avoid disputes in da first place. I totally agree with @@Stosh, eh? Towing a trailer is somethin' that requires experience... especially a well-loaded scout trailer goin' to camp with a bunch of kids in the car. Experience with trailers generally, and some experience with your own vehicle and that trailer. It's not somethin' yeh can learn from readin' @@RichardB's Risk Zone documents, nor is it somethin' that da "law" will help yeh with. So don't worry about the law, worry about bein' intelligent and responsible. One of the other places where we do a bad job helpin' people understand da real risks is with distractions while driving. We get whacky about cell phone use, both in our Scoutin' documents and in regulation, mostly because it's new and we like writin' rules that affect young people but not old people. Fact is, the number one cause of accidents from distracted driving is talking with other people in the car. Drivin' while angry or upset is also way up there. So is dealin' with kid behaviors in a car. Texting or usin' your phone is comparatively less of a hazard, no worse a distraction than tuning your radio, or lookin' at a map for directions. We should understand that all these things introduce short periods of inattention (and longer periods if yeh aren't familiar with the device). They should all be approached thoughtfully, eh? Not necessarily prohibited because that gets silly and impractical, but they should be minimized, eh? Especially for da inexperienced or when there's more mental load on da driver. That's why I like usin' older lads ridin' shotgun to take the load off the driver, eh? Gives the driver a more alert/mature conversation partner, too, and someone who can monitor driver fatigue. That adds a lot more real-world safety than lectures on da Risk Zone. Plus helps teach the lads for when they're drivin' on their own. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... My question, as always, is "Is this really a service?". The BSA is in da service business, eh? We're providing materials and Helpfulness to organizations and volunteers who want to use Scouting. How is it a service to ask (or worse, "expect") volunteers to do this added paperwork? How does it make da program better for the kids? 10-12 outings a year, plus some day trips and service projects and such, times roughly 40,000 troops, plus packs, plus crews, plus posts... Hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours dedicated to fillin' out and updatin' this form online instead of workin' with kids. We get this backwards too often, eh? It's our job to serve da unit volunteer, not their job to serve the needs or wants of the BSA. Beavah

Yah, this is da issue, eh? Folks goin' lots slower than the speed of traffic aren't what people are expectin'. They force other folks to make sudden corrections or lane changes, and cause accidents. We all have to decide whether puttin' other folks in danger with our behavior is OK, even if we're able to get away with it without wrecking ourselves. By and large speed limits in da U.S. are set too low, sometimes contrary to state law in order to enhance local revenue. Speed limits seem to have relatively little effect on either driver behavior or safety. What's most important is goin' the speed of traffic and bein' predictable to other drivers, even if it's at a higher speed. Goin' too slow causes accidents, and speed limits set too low cause folks to ignore other traffic signals. Roger on drivin' an older vehicle. Of course, I reckon that any vehicle used regularly for Boy Scoutin' looks like a beater. Beavah

LOL. Yah, @@T2Eagle, yeh got me there. That's a hard document to locate, eh? Point 15 on a page of small print on a document almost nobody will ever access. I wonder how often anybody actually lives up to Point #1: 1. We will submit changes to notify the local council in the event our itinerary or activity changes. Somehow I can't see 99.9% of da units out there botherin' to call or email the council every time the itinerary or activities on an outing get modified. Can't imagine what da council would do with that if it happened! I reckon this is a bit like those units that have 100 page Bylaws, eh? At some point, it's just a bit silly, eh? Yeh have to rely on da Oath and Law, and just trust that an average parent knows how to drive a car with kids in it. Beavah