TAHAWK

"Ethics and moral behavior really can't be legislated." Behavior can be legislated, and the laws can be successfully enforced. As only one example, the concept of murder was introduced to formerly Saxon England by William I. He responded to the belief that this was all nonsense, and resulting behavior, with the rope and axe. After a time, it sunk in that killing another without lawful excuse was a wrong against the government (The People of xx vs. ), not merely a personal matter between families and their supporters. Those who "murder" now are outliers.

Wow! Serious case of WIII. Hillcourt in his 1930 Service Library pamphlet "The Patrol Method" anticipated that there could be bumps in the road. Of course, he is writing of boys with nothing to "unlearn" about an adult-led unit.(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

And when is to "safe" to allow Scouts to elect their leaders and let them lead?

"All Scouting is local." Require Life-Saving for Eagle, do you?

Definitely NOT "going on strong." I know the numbers here and nationally, and they are grim. My Council has about the same number of Scouts is had in 1912 when Scouting was just getting started. Happily, we have more Cubs, ho didn't exist in 1912, than we have Scouts and a chance to get those Cubs crossed-over in due course. The first step in dealing with a problem is admitting there is a problem. There is a problem. Scouting is not as popular with its "customers" as it once was, and Scouting's "sales force" (adults) is woefully understrength. However, having admitted there is a problem, the next step is to work on making things better, NOT getting stuck in a slough of despair and negativism. There ARE units that are strong and healthy. There ARE good things happening. We have an opportunity to make things better. Or we can compile lists of everything we think is wrong and congratulate ourselves on our, individual righteousness.

In the location where I Scouted as a kid, BSA arrived in 1916. As I told Old Dan, "This will never fly." ^___^

In the Golden Age of Scouting," West wanted to make all SM's paid employee's of the BSA so he could control them better. Boys went to Summer Camp by being divided up into Cabin Crews under a staff member. The "good old days" are definitely old. Good? Even polio aside, not entirely? But you can make a difference in the here and now. The first Scout Troops in the U.S. were started in 1908. Yup, two years before BSA existed. When BSA got to my area 1912, there were 99 Troops already. When BSA got to where I Scouted as a kid in 1916, there were already 123 Troops in the County. Mine was the 43rd, and kept that number So bureaucrats are essential why?

Maybe what you experience is just fine. Don't get "down" over bad news elsewhere or elsewhen.

In a wilderness survival situation, even one caused by being lost, there is simply no way to eliminate the need for judgment with sets of "rules." Situation alter cases. As a SAR volunteer years ago, we certainly did not want to chase lost people. But a situation may call for self-rescue (Survival situation on first day of 10-day trek. No one to "miss" you for 10-11 days.) BSA used to discuss self-rescue from being lost or "going for help. (How many stayed with an injured person and how many went for help? Finding your way back to where you were not lost. Wilderness navigation.) Self-rescue is not discussed in the Handbook, Fieldbook, or Wilderness Survival MB pamphlet, except to the extent that signaling is discussed and there are few words on topic in discussing the "T" in "STOP." Indeed, while the WSMB pamphlet says to bring a map and compass, it thereafter totally ignores the topic of navigation with or without a map and compass. So I think it is fair to say that BSA no longer teaches much about self-rescue in favor of the one-size-fits-all "stay put" ("[W]ait as calmly as you can for help to arrive.") - good advice unless it is not. Beav. ++

B.S.A. 2011: "Boy Scouting has relied heavily on an outdoor program to achieve its objectives. This program meets more of the purposes of Scouting than any other single feature."

Is the unit benefiting youth? Are they learning self-reliance, good citizenship, and the value of fitness? Are youth given the chance to really lead? If so, improve from there. On the unit level all the issues you mentioned can be overcome. National does not, for example, keep a Troop from camping every month of the year or from Patrol camping. If 300 feet is the be-all and end-all, do it. Shop around. Not all Troops are the same. Example: I posted my ire about the "super" summer camp (among many others) that handed out Scoutcraft MB's with no individual testing and, so, no proof that any of the Scouts knew anything/had any of the skills required AND with few qualified MB Counselors (Most were Scouts with minimal knowledge. [Did you know that a "bear bag" is a bag so tightly woven that a bear cannot smell the food through the cloth? 0___0 ]) BSA knows this goes on, orders it to stop, and deliberately takes no action to stop it. ("But we told them . . . .") By "deliberately, I mean, for example, Camp Inspectors being told not to inquire into such things. We are not going to that camp next summer and we told them exactly why. That they will fill every site every week is on the Scouters who take their units there. (I know two SM's who will continue go there, but their Scouts do not take any Scoutcraft MB's there.) Having witnessed the original BSA Wood Badge and staffed the second version (Said in the 1970's to be the death of Wood Badge) and the third (current) version, I can say that most of the leadership skills at the heart of the second version are present in the third. What IS missing is outdoor skills training beyond the First Class level. The second version of Wood badge had some outdoor skills training. That is gone, and BSA has utterly failed on that front. It is up to local volunteers, through "other" training, to fill the chasm left by BSA in training and literature. If we are not doing that, it's on us. National has not ordered that no such training be given. Paid Scouters would not be the staff even if it was national standard training. No one to blame but ourselves if we are not passing on outdoor skills.

Interesting. "trust" "trustworthy" 1. Does he do what he says he will do? (Within reason. Being hit by a car is an excuse. ) 1b. If he can't keep a commitment, does he give reasonable notice? 1c. Does he work to overcome barriers to keeping commitments? 2. Does he tell the truth? ("Truth" is a matter of honesty. Everyone can get facts wrong.) 3. Given a choice, will he likely do the "right thing" (Subjective standard, but so what? We all think some positions are beyond reasonable dispute. "Choice," unlawful acts aside, means he has the power within Scouting to make the "right" decision.) Those of us who have been around Scouting in this area for some decades agree that a "trustworthy" paid Scouter is remarkable. In fact, they are remarked upon. Unfortunately, they, like the untrustworthy ones, tend to leave Scouting. In the last year, the consensus two most trustworthy paid Scouters here left Scouting. The SE seems remarkably honest about some issues, but one has so little contact with him that it's hard to say more. Volunteers/parents are sometimes trustworthy and sometimes not. National is a puzzle palace. They are not frank. Sometimes they are not honest. They have a different agenda. Spin; spin; spin. Three words: "In School Scouting"

"Adult babysitter" "Adult Entertainment Coordinator" might go down better, and oh boy is one needed in our troop.

There was a considerable volunteer effort to promote attendance at Tinnerman, including fund-raising to supplement pay for Guides. Didn't work. Money was raised and spent, but attendance kept falling. Then Ontario revoked the permit to operate the base because Council had not built the $200,000 septic system (for dish and shower water) required by law. (Ontario had given Council a series of one-year temporary waivers.) The small number of crews signed up for 2011 were sent to Boundary Waters. Then the question was what do do given that there was no $$$ to build the septic system and fewer and fewer crews from Council taking advantage of the base and its program. The result was hardly a surprise. There is sadness, but not the outcry that accompanied the closing of two Council camps previously.

As a "Coach Counselor" (and "Patrol Dad"), I was given explicit and detailed guidance on Ticket-writing. As a "Troop Guide" I was given very vague instructions. I could not even get a clear answer as to whether specific goals were to serve the more abstract goals (I thought they should. I thought it was implicit.) I did the best I could. I have no idea whether this problem was specific to that Course. As in all human activities, persons in authority who are less than ideal to not enhance the experience. Sometimes, competency seems to be far down the list of priorities in selecting staff. (When one points out major internal inconsistencies in the Syllabus and is told "They [participants] will never notice," one concludes that excellence is also far down the list for that CD.)

"An approved climbing helmet must be worn during all BSA climbing/rappelling activities when the participant's feet are more than shoulder height above ground level. When using a commercial climbing gym, the climbing facility's procedures apply." This is cited as the basis for a restriction on the height that Scouts can climb pioneering structures without a helmet. But I keep getting told that safety harness must be worn and can find no basis for that "rule."

Parents often "know" their children feel a certain way despite the kids not realizing -- ever -- that they have those feelings. Ask the Scout in a manner most likely to get an honest answer.

So we are to ignore the evidence that totally refutes your argument? Gee, Rick, what if we elect to look at the facts? As for "what Wood Badge has done to the Patrol Method," whatever we might think of the third version of Wood Badge, it models the Patrol Method, including PLC, patrol meetings, patrol hikes, patrol spirit, and patrol camping in separate patrol sites. Just reality.

Your talking about a syllabus that starts talking about advancement in the middle of another topic and lists the boy-led troop as a source of information about outdoor skills. They mean well.

Yes, Rick, and Christ did not mention God in every sentence. The Patrol Method permeates the Scoutmaster Specific syllabus. You might also consider how the planned patrol cooking at the Summit, which you have pointed out, fits your claim that BSA has abandoned The Patrol Method.

You force me to defend a pretty weak syllabus, but the defects of that sometimes poorly-written and often poorly-organized document do not include "removed the Patrol Leader and any description of a working Patrol from the 'Patrol Method' presentation of Scoutmaster Specific Training,and replaced them with EDGE" or "Adult Association." At a bare minimum, if EDGE replaced The Patrol Method: 1) a description of The Patrol method would have been there before; 2) EDGE would be there now; and 3) EDGE would be there to the exclusion of material on The Patrol Method. Clearly, a description of The Patrol method was in the old syllabus. Clearly EDGE is present in the present syllabus. Clearly, the present syllabus describes The Patrol method. As always, you base your argument on wanting us to pretend that the presentation on the Patrol Method is confined to Pages 53-60 of the Syllabus. That is, you want us to ignore everything that went before the pages that you select, everything that follows, and everything incorporated by reference. IF BSA WANTS THE PATROL METHOD TO BE REPLACED BY EDGE: Why refer the staff presenter and the participants to the materials on The Patrol method in the handbooks? Why do we find the following in the self-same syllabus: "Patrols A patrol is the basic organizational unit of a Scout troop. Composed of up to eight boys, it is a good size for Scouts to plan and carry out projects, to hike and camp together, to take part in troop games and events, and to practice leadership on a manageable scale." . . . "Ask participants to turn to the discussion of patrols in The Scoutmaster Handbook, Chapter 4, The Boy-Led Patrol. Summarize the descriptions and answer any questions participants may have about patrols." . . . "Patrol Leaders Each patrol in a troop elects a patrol leader. The patrol leader takes a leading role in planning and conducting patrol meetings and activities, and represents the patrol at meetings of the patrol leaders council. Each patrol leader can appoint an assistant patrol leader to serve with him. (Participants can find more information on patrol leaders in The Scoutmaster Handbook, Chapter 4, 'The Boy-Led Patrol.')" "Senior Patrol Leader The senior patrol leader assumes the most leadership responsibility of any Scout in the troop. Elected by all troop members, the senior patrol leader does not belong to a patrol, but rather provides leadership for everyone in the troop. Depending on the size and needs of the troop, the senior patrol leader can appoint one or more assistant senior patrol leaders to take on some of the obligations of troop leadership. The senior patrol leader is the troop member with whom the Scoutmaster works most directly. By helping the senior patrol leader prepare to lead troop meetings and activities, and by being on the sidelines to coach and support the senior patrol leader during those events, a Scoutmaster can ensure that the senior patrol leader succeeds, has fun, acquires leadership skills, and enables the troop to be boy-led. Patrol Leaders Council The patrol leaders council is the primary leadership body of the troop. It is composed of the senior patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, the patrol leaders, and any troop guides. Important functions of the patrol leaders council are planning the troops overall program, leading the preparations for troop meetings and campouts, and ensuring that all troop events are efficient, interesting, and well run. (The responsibilities and activities of the patrol leaders council will be discussed more fully at the end of Session One.)" . . . "Of course adults have vital roles to play in the continued growth and success of a Boy Scout troop. However, adults roles are designed to allow the boys to learn and practice effective leadership skills, and to have the satisfaction of knowing that with the guidance, coaching, and support of adults, they did it themselves." Clearly, Rick, the presentation on The Patrol Method begins before page 53 of the Syllabus. ANd it goes on after page 60. Following page 60, the syllabus and AV materials emphasize boy-leadership by focusing on a model PLC, "the vehicle through which a Scoutmaster can ensure that a troop is, in fact, boy-run and uses the patrol method." "The commitment of the boys to the troop and the program is also critical. One way to ensure that commitment is to give them the responsibility for doing the planning." "The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that Scouts who are given the responsibility, resources, and support to plan and run their own troop meetings are learning extremely important lessons in leadership. Their growing confidence and advancing leadership abilities are a direct result of the efforts of their Scoutmaster to provide support and guidance and then, for the most part, staying behind the scenes." "The boy-led troop is perhaps the greatest resource available to a Scoutmaster. By giving responsibility and guidance to the boys for planning and then carrying out their own program, adult leaders are helping Scouts become good leaders and allowing them to design adventures that are within their current levels of skill and confidence." Consistent with the concept of "Patrol and Troop hikes," one of the exercises towards the end of the course is to "Lead participants through the experience of a patrol planning for an outdoor activity." Later in the syllabus, these comments are made: "Too often, a troops program is planned by adults and then offered to the boys. It is far more effective to give the boys responsibility for selecting and carrying out a troops program with adults in the background roles of supporting and coaching." "A troop's annual program should be driven by what the boys want to do, not by what adults prefer. Involving all the Scouts in a troop in the planning process helps ensure that this will be the case." Rick, I and many others see "EDGE" as a tool to prevent adult-led units. It creates as the goal NOT adult-led camping clubs for boys ("Webelos III") but, instead, boy-leadership in patrols and the troop. In fact, as a tool of Webelos III, it stinks: "Whatever the case, you as Scoutmasters can be most effective by adjusting your leadership styles to match the needs of your troop. Rather than taking the lead yourself in situations where the boys are capable of finding their own way, you can coach and support them in providing their own leadership. And when they do need more hands-on direction from you to teach them a skill, to set a boundary, or to move them to a new level of their development, you,can do that, too." Could the syllabus be better? Absolutely. To address just your pet peeve, I would like to see more emphasis on separate patrol activities and on a troop as a collection of patrols. I would like the word "leader" to apply only to boys with "Scouter" or "adult" as the label for those 18 and older (I tell participants that I use the words in that fashion and why.) But I am long past seeing everything I don't prefer as the result of conspiracy, as opposed to differences of approach, opinion, experience, or competence.

"In a nutshell, that is why Leadership Development is such a destructive force in Scouting: Wood Badge Logic. Bottom line is that leadership skills "experts" removed the Patrol Leader and any description of a working Patrol from the "Patrol Method" presentation of Scoutmaster Specific Training, and replaced them with EDGE. Yours at 300 fee" Based strictly on the actual documents, your statement is simply incorrect as a matter of fact. "Logic" plays no part in it.

"It's only fair: Game of Life experts replaced the Patrol Leader and any description of a working Patrol with EDGE theory in the "Patrol Method" presentation of Scoutmaster-Specific Training." No, "teaching EDGE" did not replace the Patrol Leader or the description of a working patrol in that training, inclusive of the materials incorporated by reference. And the notion that application is to follow teaching is as old as my Scouting experience, so back to 1954. As for "leading EDGE," that to is simply a reformulation of the idea that the objective is boy leadership and getting the adults to the background. What has happened over time is that the emphasis on separate patrol activities has been lost, and that, I think, is a mistake we are paying for. The syllabus has been weakening on that aspect of Bill's method for generations. "I wonder if even one out of a thousand Wood Badge Staffers is aware of the Patrol System's minimum standard of at least 50-100 yards between Patrols." As good an idea as this is, it was never a "standard" in the U.S. where we never used the Patrol System, only the Patrol Method, as you know. "If Wood Badge uses the term "Patrol Method" and still hangs portraits of Baden-Powell smiling benevolently as the participants sing "Back to Gilwell," then they should know what Baden-Powell meant by "Patrol System." Participants would be interested in BP's notion that the Patrol leader should be appointed by the Scoutmaster. The earliest literature directed to U.S. Scouters on the Patrol Method ("The Patrol method, B.S.A. 1930.) said that "the only way for the Patrol Leader to be selected is by the express wishes of the Patrol he is to lead." Id. at p. 19. I wonder if it is the case that Bill influenced BP as he influenced West.

No, you missed having a competent staff.

"Potential" my eye. The debt is there. The date due is known. It is more reasonable to estimate how long how many will live in the future than to estimate global warming in the future based on the 18,000 years of actual and estimated data. So take the low estimate. That's still $20 trillion and growing -- money we don't have and will need if the G is to meets its obligations under current law. Things may change. It could get worse. There is no rational basis to assume it will get better without killing off millions, abrogating the obligations ("Those SS benefits? We were just kidding." or "Inflation. What inflation?"), or raising more revenue. All will take hard choices, and if they come to kill off the elderly, their may be resistance (although not from the insurance company calling itself "AARP"). Technical, schmektical. What we have been talking about is the unwillingness of our political class to do anything. The existing $trillions of debt and unfunded obligations is just one measure of the incompetence of those who regard themselves as superior types and us a schmucks to be handled. "What are yeh talkin' about? When yeh borrow money, it's still da bank's. They can come and foreclose on your property. When Congress issues treasury bonds on da full faith and credit of the nation to borrow money, there is an obligation to repay it. Only the Tea Partiers in Congress think that they can just default on that promise if they wish." Gee, as a matter of law, it's not the bank's money when you negotiate the check. If it's the Bank's money, they could come and take it or have you arrested for refusing to give them "their money." Foreclose? Sure. But you decide how to spend the money you borrow, and when you spend the money, you know there can be personal consequences. Not the governing class. It's never their money, and they act like it. Special retirement plans. Special medical plans. Bridges to nowhere. "Culture" for the unwashed peasantry. Whole floors of hotels and staffs of dozens of personal assistants for the First Lady. Jet off here and there. (Hear that sucking sound. It's jet fuel by the 1000's of gallons, but you get told what light bulb to buy to save energy.) Dubious wars. The Golden Fleece x $billions. And personal responsibility? Not for a cent. They are superior people. We are lucky to have them deciding what to do with our money. No personal consequences at all. Other People's Money. They are entitled. "Of course much of Bell Labs' work was supported by federal grants, they never took on projects that even approached da scope of NASA, and the breakup of AT&T led to a free market in communication that produced innovation, lower costs and increased services for consumers, the internet, etc." A small minority if Bell Labs expenditure was from the government. AT&T was the largest business in the world. It had 1,000,000 employees. It was a legal monoply whose profits were a fixed % of expenses. More expense=more profit. They didn't need government money. As for the "Scope" of what "Labs" did, do you find semi-conductors useful -- transistors, chips? AT&T invented them and held the patents. (And Bell Labs scientists got a Nobel for the science, one of nine Nobel prizes awarded to Labs scientists.), Television? Lasers? Fiber-optics? Cell phones? Modems and the Internet? The programming language that runs the Internet? And these are just applications. AT&T Bell Labs made us first in the world in basic research. None of what NASA did would have been possible without Labs. Whatever benefits AT&T's deal with the government had (and losing one end-to-end responsible entity is a BIG loss), losing AT&T Bell Labs was not a good day for the U.S. or the World. "I can't speak to Kaiser vs. the Navy Yard. I can speak to all of da private contractors in Iraq who were absolute disasters, and did a real disservice to our men and women in uniform." Disasters in what sense? Did they deliver the wrong stuff? Did the bullets not shoot? Did the fuel stop the engines? Oh. You mean dishonesty? Yup. Crooks. Send them to jail. And the government types who let it go on so long. And what of the Corps of Engineers who screwed the pooch by "flood control" And how about the Dept. of the Interior who stopped forest fires so we could have Super Fires And give a jeer for the Bureau of Indian Affairs that can't find much of the money earned by Indians and "held in trust" for them And the House Post Office Scandal And Abscam And Charley Rangel and Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff and William Jefferson and Jim Traficant and Randy Cunningham and William Jefferson Clinton, who never had sex with that woman. Sorry. Trust is earned. Stink doesn't just go away. Throwing the bums out may encourage the others. "'What's worst is the uncertainty. Money is in huge supply, hence the low cost of money. But those with money are afraid to invest it because they have no confidence in government, and neither do the citizenry.' That's a nice theory, eh? Again, it doesn't fit the data. People seem very willing to invest in the government (Treasury bonds) because there is so much demand for them that the yield is at historic lows. Right now, people with money are afraid to invest it in private industry and the private capital markets, because the unemployment rate and prospects of lower government spending combine to mean that there will be lower demand and economic contraction. Da only sector of the economy that's healthy right now, ironically, is luxury merchandise. Rich bankers have money to buy yachts." I think your political leanings, 'eh, preclude you from seeing "government" as anything but what is has been in our lifetimes - the folks who want spending to increase because they know best -- better than you do about how to spend your money -- and who personally benefit from growing government. "Government" may shortly be more and more people who feel that "starving the beast" is the only way to control it -- or say that to get votes. I use "government" to mean whoever is governing. Money is in abundant supply. If there was a shortage of money, the cost to rent money would not be low. The cost to rent money on the public and private markets is, in fact, very low on a historic basis. Criteria to borrow money are very tough. The Fed promises to keep interest rates at historic lows. The value of the U.S. Dollar has fallen and keeps falling. Bonds are available to buy at low cost because the G keeps borrowing and there's an abundant supply of money to buy bonds, as well as CD's. Public confidence in the economy and government's ability to "fix" the economy is low. If the polls are wrong, I guess they are wrong. Gold and Silver are at record highs. That is all data. I think we need investors to be willing to take risks in the marketplace in order to increase private sector employment. The President says that too. But, being a politician, he says many things. If you feel that a lack of confidence in government's ability to fix the economy -- uncertainty, has no effect on decisions to invest, can you find anyone who agrees with you? If you think constant talk of raising taxes on business in the aftermath of in fact raising takes on business has no effect on the willingness to invest in business, does anyone else agree with you? If you think proposed law restricting carbon emissions has no effect on certainty about the future, does anyone agree with you? On the other paw, if you see government as the answer, it does not matter if private investment takes place and it may be very bad to restrict government spending. And if no one agrees with you, you could still be right.