TNScoutTroop

Yep. Clearer, better and more comprehensive rules will go a LONG way toward solving the BSA's problems. It's nearly impossible to get adults, much less teens, to use informed judgment. If the BSA pros will just spell out EXACTLY what troops, leaders and Scouts should do in each and every situation, so many problems will be avoided. TN Scout Troop =;-)

For the record, we didn't say we had committed to refusing all transfers. We plan to caution people, in some detail, and probably discourage most transfers. But, we really haven't gotten that far yet. What we did, was pose a question, and a hypothetical response, if the answer to the question was negative: "What about a Scout who insists on transferring in, even after being discouraged: can we insist on some evidence of real skills? (If the answer here is "No!", we'll probably just refuse transfers altogether.)" This is all hypothetical, for now. We're just trying to work out how to handle things so we can serve our own boys, and help everyone else get what they expect from Scouting. We plan to be as much "off the radar" of the District and Council as we can, to avoid producing conflict. We do find it ironic that, when there are over 100 troops in the Council producing apparently skill-less Eagles, it seems to be offensive to so many here that we might succeed (it hasn't happened, yet!) in creating a working troop that insists that both Scout and Scouter skills be real. There's been lots of talk of us not following the rules, but it seems to us that a pretty strong case can be made that it's really the other 100 troops that, along with Mazzuca, aren't following the rules. But, we're not trying to change those troops, or Mazzuca, or the troops of the people here. Why is it such a big deal that we are attempting to actually follow the original (and in many cases, modern) rules, in our own quiet little corner of Tennessee? We're just here, trying to figure out how to work with our boys in a more traditional fashion, without stepping on toes or committing serious paperwork or bureaucratic violations. We doubt we'll really be 'competing' with other troops. Our 'market' is boys who've never been Scouts, or boys who gave up on Scouting as they encountered it. Most troops don't want these boys in the first place. So, what's the problem? Tn Scout Troop

'Mazzuca doesn't seem to care since in his own words,"Scouting is not about setting up tents or camping in the woods."' He said that?? Sheesh. Do you know where? TN Scout Troop

We've no interest in a dispute, but we can offer two observations. From our reading of older Scout literature, the idea that Scout badges indicate PRESENT skills seems to have been associated, in Hillcourt's, BP's, and other's minds, fundamentally with being prepared. In other words, it appears that in their minds, a Scout whose skills had lapsed was unprepared. Also, several of us learned at least some Scoutcraft and rescue skills long ago . . . and have found that we retained the ones we were willing to use. If you learn a skill, expecting that you will NOT use it . . . you probably won't. But, if you expect that you WILL use it, and have been mentally prepared to do so, the chance that an occasion for it's use increases dramatically. We've seen this be true with plant / animal ID, land nav, and especially, rescue skills. TN Scout Troop

Eagle92, you have our apologies for having hijacked the thread. The IOLS info you (and others) provided is invaluable, and where our immediate interest lies. TN Scout Troop

We're planning to work hard on actually using the skills we teach. That's why we're so excited about finding a camping location that is + close + free + free from cell signals + seemingly remote + relatively primitive + uncrowded + USFS, rather than NPS or TN Parks, so we can (judiciously) use Scout craft and pioneer skills Even the fact that the geology is such that the rocks are sharp is not all bad -- we'll emphasize watching your steps, and will work hard to avoid broken bones, but some minor first aid from minor to moderate rock cuts is not something we view as all bad. We don't anticipate a problem with the boys new to Scouting -- they'll have no expectations otherwise. But what worries us is transfers and Cub Scouts coming in from elsewhere. We've already had inquiries, and are telling folks, 'no boys from outside the church till we're up and running with an established routine and trained adults'. We've seen parents be all gung-ho about real skills before, and then turn on a dime once Johnny's advancement gets slowed down, till his skills are real. Conflict like that, we don't need. It sounds like the best policy may be to simply discourage transfers, and tell them "our troop is so different, that if you or your son liked Scouting before, you won't like our troop!". Thanks for the caution. Do y'all anticipate a problem if we were to simply postpone FURTHER advancement, till a Scout re-establishes his skills? What about a Scout who insists on transferring in, even after being discouraged: can we insist on some evidence of real skills? (If the answer here is "No!", we'll probably just refuse transfers altogether.) TN Scout Troop

Thanks for the links, JFL49. UCEagle72 has the exact quote. In my copy of the "Third Handbook for Scoutmasters", c. 1938, the quote is from Vol. 2, page 958, under a section headed "The Significance of the Badges". Regarding IOLS, we initially were told ALL training, including IOLS, needed to be renewed every two years. That has not been contradicted directly, but we were specifically told by the Council Training Head that the almost 2-year old IOLS certs held by 2 of us will continue to be valid. And just clear up: removal of badges is purely a unit function. We will not attempt to have the ranks rescinded by Council, nor are we aware of any basis for doing so. Rather, we will (and are) making clear from the outset that our troop is about actual skills, not nominal ranks, and will act and train (both youth and adults) accordingly. We (adults) are trying to retrain ourselves to say "badge" rather than "rank", so that we can follow the Hillcourt approach that the 'badges' are indicators of skill possessed, not rank achieved and held indefinitely. We'll happily assist either a Scout or Scouter who, after initially agreeing with this approach, changes his mind and wishes to move to another unit. They should have no trouble finding another troop in which 'advancement' can proceed based on fleetingly possessed skills: out of 100+ troops in Council, at least 99% follow that pattern. TN Scout Troop

Thanks for the link, Eagle92 -- that's EXACTLY what we needed. We finally were able to turn in our official charter application last week, with 6 adults and 6 boys. We'll pick a few more boys Sunday, and a few more adults over the next month. Our first official Scout meeting is Monday, and our first official outing will be a Tennessee River boat ride with an old Sea Scouter, on the 23rd. Several of us spent the day scouting out a remote (but close) campsite that's FREE, uncrowded and in a dead zone for cell phones (YEAH!). It turned out to be even better than we hoped, and will almost certainly be a primary campsite 'home' for our new troop. (Fresh beaver sign, free swimming rainbow trout, a 6' black snake, which we caught, photographed and released, and more!) Most of the adults are young singles who WANT to be trained in outdoor skills done right. In at least one case, that's what they are principally interested in. The guy told one of us he'd wants to do the training so when he has kids in the next few years (he's engaged), he can do camping and outdoor activities safely and competently with his own family. Turning them over to the local IOLS would kill their enthusiasm. We're just not willing to turn them over to all the overweight Scouters who are long on rules and short on skills. (There are some guys who are overweight and who have real skills, but at least in our council, the trainers with real skills seem to be in the minority.) Instead, since we posted earlier, our thinking has moved much further toward thinking of IOLS certification as "1st Class for Adults". That's what we're going to try, anyway. We'd been told that the 2 year old IOLS certs a couple of us have are still valid, but that we'd have to put new guys (and gals) thru the Council IOLS. We'd decide to punt, and wait a year since we can get buy without any new Council IOLS certs. Hopefully, your link will make that unnecessary! BTW, we've also decided that the Scout badges (TF, 2nd, 1st) will be ONLY for skills currently held. We'll probably give Scouts a 6-week grace period to bring skills up to spec, but otherwise, they'll have to drop back a badge. Ironically just after we made that decision, we found in the Hillcourt SM handbook a passage where Hillcourt specifically states that that is the correct approach! So, we're pumped! Thanks again for your help! Tn Scout Troop

We're still working out our policies on that, but basically, all leaders will have to be approved by the church, and will in turn, have to approve of our goals. But, we already have volunteers working to help us, who are not part of the church. And, even though all the youth are currently from our church, not all of them are committed to the same things we are. There's already been interest expressed by neighbors and others not in the church, and we've made no secret at all about what we're seeking to so. For now, we are not inviting boys outside the church, but only so we can get established and fully train our adults and volunteers. Later, we plan to invite boys from our neighborhood, and the schools nearby. We are committed to being as open and clear about our goals, content, and methods as we possibly can be. So while boys who participate will be taught things not often part of Scouting, neither they nor their parents or guardians will be surprised by any of it. TN Scout Troop

We just chartered (finally!) our new troop, and BL was NOT, and will not be, included or even mentioned. The consensus is that BL is short on useful articles that are consistent with Scouting's goals, and long on ads for overpriced gear. We've concluded that, not only is it an unneeded expense, but that the advertising and editorial policy are actually in opposition to Scouting goals we wish to emphasize, such as thrift and being prepared to use what you have and can afford. Given the fact that many of our Scouts are from financially limited homes makes this issue critical. The fact that none of our sons liked it just adds another nail to the coffin. 100% Boys Life seems to us to be one of those institutional goals that has little if anything to do with Scouting. Tn Scout Troop

AHG has not quite embraced the approach CS Lewis called "mere Christianity", but they are close to it. From the conversations we've had with them, I don't think that there would be any difficulty for any (o)rthodox congregation ("o", not "O"), who holds to the beliefs found in the early church creeds. On the other hand, if "people of other faiths might feel even more uncomfortable", wouldn't that be sort of the point? AHG is specifically trying to be a girl's scouting organization for the sort of traditional Christians excluded by the GSUSA (or whatever acronym is correct). And, if that's exclusive of other faiths . . . well, again that's sort of the nature of orthodox monotheistic belief systems. When truth claims are specific and taken seriously, they tend to exclude competing truth claims. The only way round this is to not make those claims seriously, as modern mainline liberal (and non-orthodox) denominations tend to do. As far as size goes, I think BSA is trying to connect with an organization that's growing, during an era when the BSA is shrinking rather dramatically and persistently. AHG serves a population -- evangelical or orthodox Christian churches -- that is substantially underrepresented among BSA CO's. Many, perhaps most, orthodox denominations tend to perceive BSA as at odds with specifically Christian beliefs in the way GCUSA is. If the affiliation with AHG opens these denomination's eyes to the fact that it is possible to charter and operate a specifically Christian, and genuinely outdoor focused, BSA troop, the result may well be substantial growth for AHG, but also significant growth even for BSA. Except the RC congregations, none of top CO's found in the CO list in this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America, are specifically orthodox. Even the Baptist category includes both the fundamentalist Southern Baptists and the quite liberal and non-orthodox American Baptists. And, at least in our area, there are hardly any troops sponsored by Southern Baptist churches. The very existence of organizations like Royal Rangers and Christian Service Brigade is almost certainly resulted from ignorance of the fact that it's possible to charter and operate a specifically Christian troop. When those competing (b)oy (s)couting organizations got their start, BSA was still in its heyday, and probably wasn't worried about reaching out to under-served populations. But today, after decades of shrinkage, BSA professionals are probably looking over the demographic data with a fine toothed comb, looking for those population niches. Affiliation with the AHG opens to door for the BSA into one of those populations. TN Scout Troop

We're trying to do what some here have discussed: establish a Christian Scout troop side-by-side with a AHG girls group. Several statements have been made that seem to be incorrect, at least based on what we've been able to discover. + So far as we can determine, BSA is not NON-sectarian, but POLY-sectarian. The fact that many troops were in the past associated with what might be called "American Civic monotheism", along with the low profile most LDS units keep, has created the perception that a vague and nonspecific monotheism is the Scouting norm. But, this was never actually the case. (Perhaps this belongs in the Scouting 'myths' thread?) + Again, so far as we can determine, this has NEVER been the BSA position. Rather it has accepted local units that are specifically sectarian, in many different ways. + By contrast, the GCUSA has adopted -- nationally -- an exclusively non-theistic humanism as its sole sectarian affiliation. It's not possible to have either a truly Protestant Christian, or a truly Mormon Girl Scout troop. Thus, the GCUSA is MONO-sectarian. + We're pretty sure that the BSA's affiliation with AHG is not exclusive. We may be mistaken, but it's our understanding if the "Druids of America" want to set up the AOG (American Oak Girls) and worship the "oak tree God", and do fund raisers, so the troop could go to a Camporee at Stonehenge during the solstice, the BSA would go along. . . . Now to what we're interested in: we'd be very interested in keeping in touch with other units that are establishing affiliated Scout / AHG units. If you'd be interested in that, too, please PM us. TN Scout Troop

"Hell is a myth and Satan doesn't exist. Have a nice day." On being told that something similar had been placed on the tombstone of a recently deceased atheist who was a mutual acquaintance, CS Lewis remarked, "Bet he wishes that was so!"

Just noting, for the benefit of future readers of this thread, that it appears that the "test out" IOLS option, may not be documented anywhere that's currently accessible. Perhaps it was mentioned in some document that has since become unavailable, but no one has been able to help us with any current documentation of this option. TnScoutTroop

Just noting, for the benefit of future readers of this thread, that it appears that the "test out" IOLS option, may not be documented anywhere that's currently accessible. Perhaps it was mentioned in some document that has since become unavailable, but no one has been able to help us with any current documentation of this option. TnScoutTroop

Thanks OGE, but we've got that. We're gonna order the paper copy -- that PDF is hard to read -- and see if we can find the statement about testing out in a more legible copy. But, right now, we haven't been able to locate any specific mention of that option. Using that faded PDF you linked (numerous sites have copies, but all seem to be the same file, which is a low contract copy) means we may well have overlooked it, so we're hoping someone can help us zero in on the quote we need.

We've posted about this elsewhere, but we're trying to do our own 36 hour IOLS+, instead of the Council's 12 hour (really!) course which culminates in an attendance card certification. We thought we'd found gold, with the info that leaders could test for their IOLS card. Now, however, we've been told officially by Council that this is an idea National has kicked around but never adopted. From past experience we know that we are at a dead end unless we can cite chapter, verse, and page number, and supply a notarized Xerox. After scanning through the IOLS trainer's manual a couple of times, we've come up empty (though we like the manual, and will probably use a lot of it!), so any help in locating the citation would be very welcome. TnScoutTroop PS: A new adult leader recruit (20 something) noted tonight that he'd been camping several times with some Eagle Scouts a few years ago, and was afraid to go back because they were so lacking in basic skills!

OK, we're gonna conclude -- pending any more substantial comments -- that the purported "ego issue" with Scoutcraft training is just a red herring, thrown out for unknown reasons.

Guys, as interesting as it is, our question wasn't about the relationship between Patrols and skills, or even about management vs. Scoutcraft per se. Basementdweller wrote "I wonder out loud whether a Course of pure Woodcraft would be successful. I don't think it would because of egos." DesertRat77 agreed, and nobody seemed really to disagree. Our question is, why would Scout leader egos be MORE of an obstacle in a skill based WB or roll-your-own OLS+, than it is in the standard all White Stagged and EDGED-up version of those course? That's the part we're not getting.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but the observation that "egos" would make a Scout-craft focused Wood Badge unworkable was puzzling to us. It seemed that there was general agreement that this was true. But we don't see why "egos" would be more of a threat to a Scout-craft focused Wood Badge, than it is to the current management methods Wood Badge. However, none of us are beaded. Anyhow, since we're embarking on a roll-our-own IOLS training that's getting close to Wood Badge in length (2 full Saturdays + 2 Fri PM - Sun PM weekends) and that is focused on learning, and then teaching Scout craft skills, we'd like to know what specific problems you envision.

Very helpful. Posting mostly so we can save the whole thing. But, FWIW, if you can train your boys to like oatmeal, you can buy 50# of rolled oats for $1/lb or less. It will keep for months in a closed garbage bag in a closed garbage can.

Good points, Beavuh, about the difference between sons and other boys. But, so folks don't worry, we should explain a bit more. Regardless of NRA standards, we'll have some safety standards of our own. The most important is a 1:1 ratio between trained (adult or older Scout) and untrained shooters, with a trained shooter assigned to watch and help each untrained shooter. The second is limiting who is at the range, so we don't have Scouts standing around idle. Bored boys and guns don't mix well. Besides the private range, we'll often be camping near a Forest Service range with 4 rifle stations. We've used that before, personally and with groups of people. The layout of that range makes it fairly easy to handle a group. And, we'll visit the range with only one patrol at a time. But, shooting is something almost all boys seem interested in, and we have the gear and the range access right off the bat. Other activities, such as climbing, caving, or backpacking, require expensive gear we won't have for at least a year or two.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is Tennessee, and several of us are country boys. We grew up shooting. Our sons shoot. Our fathers shoot. We've all been teaching shooting, without the NRA's help. None of us ever hit anyone or anything by accident. As far as we know, no one we taught ever did, either. That's not to say that there aren't any idiot red-necks in Tennessee -- there are. But while we may be red-necks, we're not the idiot ones. If it was just a matter of being safe, we could handle that without the NRA. We realize that, in other parts of the country, guns are dangerous and mysterious devices normally only handled by criminals and police. But, that's not the case here. And while it's no longer true that a gun is a tool like an axe or a saw, we're not that far removed from that either. It's a whole lot easier to teach a 11 year old to handle a .22 safely, than a full sized axe. But the BSA allows adults with nothing more than an OLS attendance card to do the latter.(This message has been edited by tnscouttroop)

Follow-up, sorry. Just checking out the NRA site -- it looks like if you get NRA Rifle instructor ($240 - $300) you can do a $20 home test to get NRA Range Safety Officer. Is that combo sufficient to keep the BSA paper pushers happy?

Ok, guys. We've got someone (ex-military) looking into NRA certification, but this quote has got us puzzled: "All rifle shooting activities must be supervised by a currently NRA -certified Rifle Instructor and when on the range, must be supervised by a currently NRA-certified Range Safety Officer." Does this mean that if you and your boys are shooting someplace OTHER than a range, only an NRA Instructor is needed? We have access to some rather unique private property, within city limits, where it's legal and safe to shoot (so long as we control point of aim reasonably) but it's not an official or commercial range.