Beavah

There is nothing wrong with any type of organization protecting their "name" with exclusivity. There is nothing illegal about trying to do so within the American system. Whether it's right or wrong to do so depends on other factors. In this case, I feel it is dishonest because the name Scouting, and the Scouting program in its methods, form and function were not created by the BSA, and therefore are not the BSA's to protect. The BSA knows this. To force other organizations out of business because they use a derivative of the international scouting methods developed by BP, when the BSA's program is itself just a derivative of those same works, is not honorable. It is like a bratty child being given a toy by a parent, and insisting that no other child can have a toy that looks like his.

Yah, the green frootloops on the green Venturing shirt just don't look good, eh? Red is better, especially for nice contrast in a photo shoot, but a bit too Christmas-tree for my taste. I like wearin' my grey tabs with the Venturing green shirt. I think those look best, and they match my grey pants and my grey beard.

I vote with Fuzzy and everyone else. Service is somethin' you do to help other people out of generosity. If you benefit from the work you do (by having better tents on your next campout, or being able to go to the Packers game as a troop), then it ain't service. Even if it doesn't go into your personal scout account, if it goes toward your troop it benefits you. Don't shortchange your kids or your community or the image of scouting. Six hours ain't much. Get 'em out in the community doing real service for an organization or person that needs help.

I'm with jmenand here, eh? Baden Powell, not the BSA, did the heavy lifting. Indeed, the BSA benefitted substantially from gents like Hillcourt who were trained in Scouting (the movement) outside of the U.S., and who brought that "intellectual property" to America. If modern "IP" law applied back then, the entire BSA program would be paying licensing fees to the scout associations in Denmark and Britain. I like da BSA, eh? I'd stick with 'em as a provider of scouting materials and program. But the BSA's claim to scouting terms and the basic scouting program is dishonest and dishonorable.

If the 'in perpetuity' wording really meant literally forever, then there would be no reason to have a lease at all. In essence it would mean that BSA effectively owned the property. Nah, there was an important exception, eh? The lease was in perpetuity as long as the property was used for Boy Scouting. So, it retained the city's rights in the event the BSA tried to sub-lease to a laundromat, or build an apartment building to raise money, or.... I understand the argument that a government body can choose (presumably on behalf of the people it represents, or at least on behalf of the lobbyists it represents) to subsidize or not subsidize whatever it feels like. The problem I have is that these days government bodies make up more than 25% of the spent dollars and employment in the nation. In some states, the government also owns way more than half the land. So the decision by a government body to subsidize or not subsidize something has nearly the same effect as government endorsement or repression of that viewpoint. It is very difficult for a "private" entity to survive a government ban because the government has grown to be such a large percentage of our economy. If, for example, states or the federal government decided to stop "subsidizing" churches, temples, mosques, etc. by giving them preferential tax treatment, the property tax bills alone would wipe out those religious institutions in all urban areas and many other places. The income taxes would destroy most of the rest. Most churches, orthodox temples, and mosques share the BSA's viewpoint with regard to sexual orientation. So if the rationale being used in Philadelphia holds, it becomes a very effective mechanism for the state to use its economic power to suppress many or most organized religions, and their related social services and educational arms. The only solution to this is greatly reduce the scope of government, or ensure that preferential tax, rent treatment, government grants, etc. are given in a manner representative of the general populace. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sure, FB. But at least the barn will fit on the plot of land I have, eh? It's one or two steps better than random leader speculation from (perhaps widely different) circumstances. CNY already brought in another piece of data: active participant scouts vs. roster scouts. So another question would be "What % of the boys on your roster are active (come to at least half of the meetings/outings)?" That might be the most important figure, given Eamonn's original question. The actual attrition may be laggin' bigtime, and not show the real problem, if units keep kids on the roster for a long time. I love to go where da cowpies grow and smell that dairyair.

Talk to a group of Lads who have quit and ask why? Boring meetings is up there at the top of their list. Assuming this data is accurate, and assuming it's the real reason why the boys quit ("boring" is boys' throw-off, easy excuse to give each other and adults, which could mean anything from "I wasn't good at it" to "I was afraid of the older boys" to "my friend Billy quit" to lack of support from home). Makin' those assumptions though, I have to agree with Eamonn that most parlor scouting meetings I've been to are somewhere between mediocre and dreadful. Make that all parlor scouting meetings. Every other activity, when you meet to practice you get to play the activity - soccer, theater, band. Not sit around and talk about the activity. Da BSA's standard example meeting encourages sittin' and yappin' rather than playing. Meeting indoors is probably the worst.

Yah, Fuzzy. Actually, I was lookin' for the data first. People talkin' about causes without knowin' the numbers is like buildin' a barn out of cow chips. * What are different troops' real attrition rates (i.e. what percentage of the boys who join do not eventually age out at 18)? I'm assuming a troop with a decent program, not one that's "on the rocks". * What are different troops' year-to-year changes in recruiting numbers? How wide is the swing? No point in speculatin' until we know what the range is, and whether we think it's a problem. SR540 doesn't view it as a problem in his unit, and I'm agreeing that it seems "normal" around here. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

That's another interestin' thing to me, how the number of recruits for each troop each year tends to vary pretty widely. So some years, yeh get a big class of 20, which becomes a "baby boom" that drives the troop program as it ages, and some years you get a small class, which might become very small after some kids leave (small groups are often less self-supportin', and tend to have higher attrition, don't you think? Especially in same-age patrol structures.) Twenty incoming every year should yield a troop size of 130 or so if there was no attrition; so 63 would be about a 50% attrition rate. That seems not too far from average around here for troops, perhaps on the high side. If the average class is 15, troop size (6.5*15) of 98, attrition of about 1/3 seems right on target, even a bit "good." Is that what other folks are experiencing? 30-50% total attrition over program life, with some degree of boom-and-bust (or at least high and low) recruitin'? Just curious about da "real problem."

Yah, it's good to give kids room to experiment and learn from mistakes, for sure. But that's not the place to start them learnin'. If we all had to re-invent everything for ourselves, humanity would still be livin' in caves. Yeh have to begin by teachin' them. Explain how the stove works, why you do what you do. Demonstrate for them how it's done. Guide and coach them for a while as they do it. Let 'em grow at least a few neurons under your helpful, courteous, kind, and cheerful guidance. Then let 'em go and compete and build experience on their own. Same for your PL's teaching cookin', eh? Explain how to put together a good lesson. Demonstrate how to deliver it. Guide and coach your PL's for a while as they try to teach their patrol-mates. Then let 'em go and compete and build experience on their own. So which setup yeh choose probably shouldn't depend on your philosophy. It should depend on where your kids are at. Or at least, dat's my philosophy, eh?

Never seen it for urban kids, but definitely have seen some successful HS crews (and before Venturing, HS Explorer Posts). With a little "buzz" they can be as popular as corn to a hog. For years, the two biggest units in our district were HS crews. Big thing is havin' the adult leadership you need, and treatin' it like any other extracurricular activity. I'd suggest starting with one "fun" focus that you think will attract kids, then expandin' from there. Should be perfect for 9th graders lookin' to "belong."

SR540 mentions: "51 boys and 11 adults at summer camp this year....I have 20 new scouts that I work with and they all attended summer camp for the first time this year." 40% of a troop bein' new scouts is interesting to me. Suggests a unit of mostly middle schoolers. That got me wonderin' about attrition rates in different programs. This gets us a bit closer to Eammon's "what's the real problem" question. What's the experience of the group? What percent new scouts each year? What percent of your active scouts are middle schoolers?

THAT'S NEARLY $500!!!!!" Yah, dat's less than an 8-week season of youth hockey up here, eh? But in that 8-week season, the parents and the boy will see real progress in skills and fitness and fun. Yeh get real progress if you have to come out and attend all the time and work hard. Not just patches, either. Faster on the ice and a better slapshot, and some real team spirit. For kids to feel the progress of gettin' better, and for parents to see it, the kids have to participate regularly enough to grow. If you offer that, parents find it worthwhile to pay bigger $, and kids find it worthwhile to pay with their time. It's funny that we have "fitness" as one of our aims, ain't it? Who in da world thinks a boy can develop fitness on one outing a month and a parlor meetin' a week? Or worse, on one outing every 3 months and a parlor meetin' when nothing else is goin' on? I think with scoutin' as a drop-in activity, we become more like occasional babysitting. Parents pay for it, and they get junior away for the weekend doin' somethin' worthwhile, but if there's anything else available, well... those things are commitments, and scouting isn't. So real leadership might be lookin' at the many youth activities that are attracting kids - the bands, and the robot clubs, and the sports teams, and the school newspapers.... and talking to kids about why they attend and what they get out of them, and looking at the level of commitment required to get that. We may learn something. Are we really providing the same value as the other options out there? Or are we stuck in the 1920-50s model, when there wasn't competition?

SR540 asks "What do you have to lose??? " That's easy, eh? Time. Adult time is a valuable and limited commodity. The time you spend hand-holdin' that one boy through camp because he hasn't bought in, doesn't understand the rules, hasn't come on anything so doesn't listen to his PL, or know how to cook, or... is time that another boy who also needs your attention isn't getting it. Sometimes yeh go after the lost sheep, because it's a good-odds sacrifice you're willing to make. But sometimes a boy or a parent is just takin' advantage of the system and your time. And what applies to our time as adults applies double to the time of our youth leaders. They have to give up more of their time and energy dealing with this one-timer, so that they have less to pursue their own interests, or do other cool things, or make their patrol "hum," or just to hang with their friends. Again, sometimes it's a sacrifice they're willing to make, because it's the right thing to do (for a boy who was sick, or grounded for grades, or...). And sometimes they feel taken advantage of, by a boy who isn't willing to make a trustworthy commitment to be a part of the team. Teachin' character sometimes means saying "no", eh? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Radar O'Reilly calls out "Choppers!" The camp staff pops in a CD of "Suicide is Painless". Yes, it's incoming Helicopter Parents...

Yah, sure. Around da bigger towns in our district, one of the reasons is that all of the other youth activities charge more and have strict rules about attendance. So in the parents' and the boys mind, it's important to be sure to make those events, because attendance is required, otherwise you don't get to play, or you don't earn your Red Belt, or... The Boy Scouts is the only team that doesn't have any requirements or expectations for attendance, so naturally it's the least valuable, and at the bottom of the list. Not sure that gets us anywhere about teachin' character. So don't be beatin' on the kids too hard for wantin' their troop to have requirements like all their other activities. But yah, sure, keep your eyes open and your wits about yeh lookin' for other reasons for the problem too, eh?

Been to both, seen lots of troops at both. I think a lot depends on da troop, eh? Troops that do a lot of campin' and have solid patrol method goin' usually prefer the patrol cooking. They can eat better, have fun, and be just as fast (by the time you figure in walkin' to the dining hall and back, doin' the group sing, etc.). You can also chat with kids individually and even work on some stuff durin' dinner, which is pretty hard in the dining halls. I think it's best when the patrols also plan the meals, which is somethin' the patrol cooking camps tend to get in the way of with pre-done packages. If you're fire-cookin' a lot, though, it can get a bit long unless the guys are good at bankin' coals and there's dry wood. Troops that have a lot of younger guys, or have segregated their younger guys so that it's less likely anyone in their patrol knows how to cook & clean, are often better served by dining halls. And, too, if the kids' aren't used to campin' in all kinds of weather and conditions, then adding in a cooking task can be too much, eh? Dining halls are a much better match for such units. Same with units that are more "troop method," because their adults tend to want summer camp to be "time off" from the load they have durin' the year. I will say that cookin' lunches can sometimes be a pain. That can be hard to do, with kids all over camp at activities and the tighter time. No-cook lunches often work best. For me, I'll take eatin' out in the breeze over crammin' in shoulder-to-shoulder in those hot stuffy dinin' halls to get my soggy waffle.

These are goin' to be field uniform pants, eh? Well catch me in a trap and turn me into a pelt! A field uniform pant that can actually be worn in the field. Scout Salute to the people in the Supply Division! Beavah

Scouts may work on a merit badge with one, two, three (as many as he wishes) counselors. If a Scout already has some requirements completed and signed off on in his blue card, those requirements have been met and the new counselor can't retest on them - though s/he can spot quiz - but upon spot quizzing, can't remove a requirement from the completion column if the counselor isn't happy with the answers. Yah, that's just not accurate, eh? There's no provision in any of the BSA program for a boy to work with more than one counselor. Nor would we want boys to be counselor-hopping. "To the fullest extent possible, the merit badge counseling relationship is a counselor-Scout arrangement in which the boy is not only judged on his performance of the requirements, but receives maximum benefit from the knowledge, skill, character, and personal interest of his counselor." - National Executive Board (quoted in #33088D). The purpose of the MB program is to develop a relationship between one counselor and a boy. In describing the process, #33215B states: "The counselor may ask you to come see him so he can explain what he expects and start helping you... when you know what is expected, start to learn and do the things required." In other words, each counselor has what he expects... his interpretation and expectations for each requirement, which a boy should know at the beginning of the relationship. Those might differ between counselors, or not be clear from the written text. "The counselor will ask you to do each requirement to make sure that you know your stuff and have done or can do the things required. When the counselor is satisfied that you have met each requirement, he or she will sign your application." The counselor in that relationship will make sure you can do the things required, and only when he is satisfied that you have met each requirement will he sign your application. No provision for partials. Nothing about having to accept another counselor's signoffs; no statement about not retesting. It's all about developing a mentoring relationship that challenges a boy so that the Scout gains "the kind of self-confidence that comes from overcoming obstacles to achieve a goal, and learns career skills, develops socially, and may develop physical skills and hobbies that give a lifetime of healthy recreation." "So-called partials" aside, the main question was just how long do you give a Scout to earn the badge they started working on? BSA regs are clear on this - they have until they are 18 - and councils, districts and troops can't change that rule. Yah, sure, they have until they're 18 to finish anything, eh? But when was the last time you set aside a project for 4 years and then came back to it? It's pretty much like startin' from scratch. Then think about how much the boy has changed in those 4 years. It's certainly not the kind of mentoring relationship and learning that the BSA is talkin' about when it lays out the MB program. So there's nothin' wrong with a counselor or a unit usin' "soft" deadlines to help boys recognize the underlyin' reality and spurrin' them to move along. It's what we call "teachin'". And when workin' with a counselor who's giving his time for you, stayin' in touch and being timely is also what we call "courteous."

Ducks? Owl, have you been huntin' duck scouts again? That's a rather extreme penalty for not wearin' proper uniform pants. Personally, I like the idea of havin' duck scouts, and then using my labrador to round kids up when I want them. Even better if I can get the pooch to deliver the scout I want right to me.

If a counselor is going to run the boy through the previously signed requirements, what's the point of giving the boy a partial in the first place if it doesn't mean anything? Yah, but FScouter, in the BSA program, a partial really doesn't mean anything. There's no such thing in any BSA advancement literature. That blue card section is just a reference for the scout as he works with his assigned merit badge counselor. "And our organization does not give us the leeway to cast off the parts of the program we don't agree with. " So I assume you're against partials. Most of the rest of us use the BSA program and materials as a way of helping kids learn and grow. So if a partial helps a boy, we use it. And if a deadline helps boys, we use that too. The methods serve the mission, eh? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, there's no doubt that a lot of MBCs out there are shortchangin' our kids. And it's only natural for kids (like adults) to take the easiest path to the reward, eh? When reportin' MB's to the council, someone in your troop (usually the advancement chair) has to sign the statement "I certify that the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the Boy Scouts of America." I think you have to do that honestly, don't you? And if you can't do it honestly, you should explain to the boy why. Boys are honest and honorable critters if you give 'em a chance. Then help them to have a real MB experience. Then do your duty and make sure the first MB counselor gets re-educated.

Yah, you old Owl, I hear yeh. I agree that sleepin' in a platform tent set up by someone else, eatin' in a dining hall and using the camp latrine is a fairly lightweight way of rackin' up days for camping MB. Same with the camporee you mentioned. And there are LNT issues tenting when there's a 'dak next door. If it's any solace, hiking from Adirondack cabin to cabin still counts for Backpacking MB. Just curious how many troops find # of days to be an issue for Camping MB? My experience is the same as Eamonn. Most non-LDS troops with active programs have little trouble making the 20 nights in a year of active program (10 months of campouts = 20 nights, plus 6 nights of summer camp), two at the outside. Where's the hurry?

Does anyone really believe that boys read up on the adult bylaws and mark their calendars to see when the arbitrary 1 year limit is up? This limit thing is really more of an adult demonstration of power to say NO. No need to read up on adult bylaws unless you're an adult-run troop, eh? The SPL and PL's can be pretty good at communicatin' rules like this if you're youth run. I think it works best with a tighter deadline, though. Figure on da end of August or September. That's plenty long enough for boys to finish up, and close enough that the goal can be kept in front of 'em by a friendly PL and ASM. Any boy who is really workin' can have a deadline extended, and any boy who really doesn't try to finish in that time really didn't care about it very much, and would probably never finish anyway, eh? If a counselor refuses to recognize the completed requirements signed off by a previous counselor, that says more to the counselors distrust of other counselors than anything else. MB counselin' isn't about checkin' off boxes. It's about developing an interest and a talent under the guidance of a mentor. That takes a bit of time to build a relationship and share experiences. My guess would be that such a counselor cares a lot about the scout, and wants to make sure his MB experience is a high quality one. He/she is usin' the opportunity as a method to build citizenship.

Yah, you guys all should be paddled. Da guy was askin' a serious question. Yah, I'd say that to meet the requirment, the boy should detail out how the trip is goin' to be run, using the points of Safety Afloat that he learned for 1st Class. Seems like just votin' "I want to go on a raft trip" ain't enough, eh? Have 'em go through each of the Safety Afloat points, plan instruction, call the whitewater outfitter and make reservations, learn how to decide what class of whitewater is appropriate for the experience and ability of kids in his patrol. Make youth leadership real, eh? Yah, and don't forget, if yeh let ducks be scouts, then they shouldn't use rafts. They need to be paddlin' duckies in whitewater.