DuctTape

Considering that camping is an integral part of scouting, one wonders why they are in scouting to begin with? Why join little league if one doesn't like baseball. Sure scouts is much more than a camping club, but camping is a fundamental part of the program. I also wonder how many of those adults who made those statements enjoy camping. My guess, is they do not and it rubs off on the scouts. They probably also don't know how to have fun camping.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. mB factories are popular b/c it makes it too easy. Not necessarily the requirements (although this is true in many cases) but the process being circumvented. The process is as much a part of providing scouts growth opportunities not to mention the loss of adult association as a result of large groups. How often do we say, "don't do for a scout that which they can do for themselves"; doing all the planning, communicating, logistics of a mB session for a scout is a denial of opportunity. Yes it may be popular, but so would be cooking for them and hauling all their gear straight to the campsite. Oh wait, sadly these are done all the time as well.

Maybe COs are not "sacred cows" in the strictest sense. They are, however, a historical part of our structure which brings its own problems. COs who do not provide any guidance/direction whereby units are so independent that they make it up as they go along and do not provide anything resembling the BSA program. The flip side is those COs who provide too much guidance/control and directs the units to do "their program" and not BSA. With zero oversight by BSA units and their leaders often have scouting, but not BSA Scouting. The contrast to the GSUSA model which has its own problems (as no structure is perfect) allows the future decision makers to construct the right balance. In the end (IMO) the question of COs and/or Council authority structure needs to answer the question... "How do we ensure the units and leaders are fulfilling the promise to scouts of a high quality BSA Scouting program"?

I see this a lot, but IMO is a symptom of failure to use the Patrol Method. The idea that a patrol cannot do a specific activity unless the rest of the troop is able to attend is the antithesis of the patrol method. The future of Scouts should be Patrols. A lot of discussion has been about structural changes. Start with patrols and design the rest of "next-generation-scouting" with the primary (sole?) purpose of engaging scouts in their patrols. I would even consider tossing "troops" and "packs" out the window. All scouting is done at the patrol and den level first. Maybe once/twice a year patrols/dens have combined activities like summer camp or pinewood derby. But bring back the primary unit... patrols/dens.

I think one of the sacred cows will need to be the Chartering Organization concept as the "middle man" in the bureaucracy. Authority of Scouting units will need to be controlled by BSA and not outsourced to a CO. There could still be a relationship of some sort with these other organizations but final authority and control will need to lie with BSA. edit: as far as recharter, the problem was an amalgamation of re-charter and membership. These are two separate items and need not exist together as paperwork. The Charter (if it continues) is an agreement between a CO and the BSA and does not include any membership info.

ummm, no thank you.

This will require significant training of parents to not interfere by "stopping by to visit" or "bringing treats", etc... As it stands, parents are allowed to view all program, so nothing bars them from interference except training them to not interfere. But I suspect, that is truly what many parents want (b/c they do not understand the real purpose of Scouts) so to suggest program will not change is folly.

According to this, troops have been out of compliance whenever they invite webelos dens (from another CO) to visit, or camp. IMO whomever wrote the Q/A, had a pre-determined answer and then just tried to justify it without realizing the implications. The easiest answer would have been: "Yes, however each of the units is still responsible to their own CO. A unit may invite individual members to visit, and participate in the unit's activities."

Maybe the lack of mBs and no dining halls will allow scouts to have a real summer camp as described by BP instead of simply "living under canvas".

Great article. I followed an embedded link to the other article about UVaS Scoutmaster training. Reading the content summary of that course should shame anyone who considers current scoutmaster training adequate.

From my experience, the saturation of those with adult-led scouting experience happened a long long time ago. With them it is even more difficult (impossible) to break them of that habit/belief. Most do not even realize it and will just respond with " well that's how my old troop did it." While I agree with Barry that an excellent patrol method, scout-led, scouting program will manifest as adults who are better able to provide a quality scouting program compared to those with little/no experience; those with a adult-led scouting experience are much much worse than those with little/no experience. At least the latter can be trained.

Are you saying they didn't just go to LicenseUniv and sit through a 1 hr presentation where they (maybe) "participated" in the discussion resulting in the DMV Commissioner granting the license?

If the purpose is for youth protection barriers to abuse as stated, then a mbc fits the criteria if unit leadership says "ok" regardless of paperwork. If not, then it really isnt about barriers to abuse.

While a MBC may not be designed to replace the direct contact leadership needs, a MBC as a second trained adult certainly fulfills the needs of youth protection barriers to abuse.

I agree with you about leadership development as an aim, which follows from the methods. I do not distinguish which method leads to a specific aim, as I believe they all have a role. I accept arguments that some methods may contribute more to certain aims, but it is not not a one-to-one relationship. I disagree with advancement being a goal and not a method. I agree that patrol activities will allow a scout to advance. As mentionrd, I see the methods working in concert with each other. As a method I see advancement as motivator, and an organizational structure. When advancement is used as a method in conjunction with the other methods it leads to the aims. Done inappropriately (as a goal in an of itself) it can detract from the aims. A simple example; a scout who desires to earn 2nd class (desire = motivation), will on a campout need to select a patrol site and recommend it to his PL. This requirement focuses the scout not only to look out for himself, but his mates. It involves the patrol (method) too, and together the methods provide training in good citizenship. The conversation with the PL helps develop leadership not only for the scout seeking 2nd class, but for his PL.

@desertrat77... your experience is a shining example of how the methods are used together. In this case advancement, personal growth, ideals and adult association.

This thread reminds me of a maxim my father used to say to me. "just because you can, does not mean you should."

Are the scouts not interested or just not seem to be interested? Appearances can be deceiving. I would start by having a conversation with the scout... "Hi Jimmy", good to see you. I have noticed you haven't been to our last couple of activities. We missed you. Everything going ok?"

so now we are pencil-whipping scouters with training. makes sense. 😢

Did she come to you and ask to be signed off? Did you ask her if she believes she has fulfilled the requirement as written?

Many many years ago our council (pre-merger) had donated/sold? Some local property to the county parks under the condition that they allow youth camping in perpetuity. This covenant still exists and many youth orgs (primarily scouts) use the property for camping. I remember using it as a scout. The only infrastructure were dirt roads and trails. Main areas had outhouses, which have been replaced by port-a-johns.

much has been discussed about council camps and their associated cost. IMO the biggest driver of these (continuing) costs has been the decades long increase in costly infrastructure to the properties. From construction of mess halls with commercial grade kitchens to pavillions and everything in between. Many of these construction projects were funded by donations but those donations were not enough to cover the legacy cost of the infrastructure. It is these legacy costs which are the drivers for budget shortfalls at the camps. If the BSA survives with the summit intact, we will see this same issue on a national scale which will make the original cost overrun of the summit look like peanuts. So then what is the solution? Well many (most?) troops camp a lot at various properties with much less infrastructure. National forests and other publuc lan likely are the bulk. They have little infrastructure to maintain. In fact my troop most often camps on public land where the only infrastructure is a parking lot. This is not a new concept. Most council properties began this way as wild forests where scouts could hike and camp. It was over time that council began to make camp indoors within the forest.

time to soak my outdoor clothes in permethrin for the year.

I am still waiting for certain parts of my body to grow and/or shrink based on the specific emails I received.

Operating separately as a single patrol has the advantage of strengthening the Patrol Method. Sure, every once in a while have a camporee where all patrols can compete. But most outings can and should be done by patrol. Even the boy troop with multiple patrols ideally should have patrol outings separate from troop outings.