DuctTape

I am with Barry on this. I would rather the webelos program be the best webelos program it can be and not attempt to be Boy Scout prep.

I am sure you brought with you a wealth of experience of best practices.

This is exactly the problem euth parents signing off in cubs, etc...

Not a bad idea. Those of us who are educators by trade and those with a wealth of experience would certainly be happy to share our best practices.

Yes. Which is why I posited the potential PL-SM interaction to discuss. As you mentioned the skill level, and environment play a critical role in this judgement. This is of primary importance as it furthers the mission.

The "best ports parent" I ever witnessed was a hockey father whose son was executing some questionable checks and getting away with them as the refs missed it. The boy was smart enough to do things when the refs weren't looking. The father told the coach to bench his son for his behavior, and have a conversation about "sportsmanlike behavior". This was extremely out of character for most hockey dads.

This does seem to be heading towards the ridiculous. The policy is 2 deep for the event, there is no distance requirement but with all things judgement is necessary. At summer camp is it expected to have 2 adults follow every group of kids to every location? Or on a camping trip, 2 adults with every patrol, or with the buddies as they are out collecting firewood. If one patrol goes on a hike, while another chooses to stay in camp and do totin chip, are 4 adults needed? Of course not. 2 deep for the event, not 2 babysitting every small grouping. If the patrol has an inexperienced leader who decides to take his patrol on a 5 mile hike away from camp, then the SM should be discussing how he will lead his patrol on a day hike without an adult. The conversation should lead the scout to understand his own strengths and limitations and construct a plan to be safe. The PL might request an ASM follow along for safety, or take along a walkie-talkie to communicate with base camp every 20 minutes, or modify the route to a cloverleaf which circles back through camp every 15 minutes, or realize he and his patrol aren't ready to take on this adventure and modify it to increase their skill level, or... Regardless, the 2-deep requirement has already been satisfied. The question now is a judgement of the SM whether the plan is within safety parameters for the skill level of the patrol and his leader.

Having gone around the whole continuum of stoves, they all have their special place in my personal history of adventures. And all have their plusses and minuses. I am however still partial to cooking over the open fire. Unless the land manager prohibits open fires, this is my default. In the last 5 years, I used a canister stove twice only because it was required (fire ban) in the area. I find the use of the open fire also helps facilitate many of the methods and values in scouting. Something to think about.

Your leaving might be the best thing for not just you and your boys, but for that troop as well. It might just be the catalyst for them improving.

I think the psychological effect TLS is referring is to the observer. The wearer's "comfort" is different (often irrelevant as in this case and the example below). There is a reason why IBM required its sales staff to wear a certain type of "uniform". It was not for the employee, but for the client.

When I was a scout our adult leaders were mB counselors for some if the mBs. However the troop policy was that none of them would be our counselor for a mB until we first completed one with a mB counselor whom we called to set up an appointment. I remember this being a challenge (mostly fear) but probably one of the most important skills and lessons learned in all of the mB processes.

I have interpreted "physically fit" as individualized and dynamic. Meaning, a scout (scouter) is physically fit if they demonstrate a regular fitness regimin appropriate to their personal health. I think the responses which referred to "doing ones best" is appropriate. Like most aspects of scouting, "physically fit" is not a phrase in isolation but a piece of how a scout demonstrates ethical choices over their lifetime. In this case the ethical choices would be about ones eating habits, exercise habits, etc... If one knows the better choice, and chooses the opposite (habitually regarding food/exercise), then is the person making ethical choices? These choices are witnessed by others and thus is setting either a positive or negative example.

since WB has changed to an "intro to leadership training", and is no longer the pinnacle training for those who have already demonstrated a high level of scout skills, scouter skills, etc... why does this basic leadership training have special beads, ceremonies, and other recognitions? Does this not promote the idea that WB is somehow superior to all the other trainings, or at the very least imply the participant has fulfilled a myriad of the other trainings and have significant experience to show as well. If it truly is "just another training", then it should be treated as such. I suppose that is what happens when the pre-requisites and training changed, but the name does not.

MattR's advice is great. The only thing I would add is that after you initially speak to them as a group, with an ASM also there. Then speak to them individually (with an ASM) to truly ascertain remorse etc...

Barry is spot on! The lightest piece of gear is that which isn't packed. His rec's are also why I recommend using backpacks even for car camping instead of dragging an entire trailer and a full patrol box as it provides a minimum baseline. Then a patrol can decide what one or two items they need special for the car camping trip (eg dutch oven). Making the switch from backpacking to car-camping (or canoe) is much easier than the other direction.

My dad did the same. Their "uniform" was an arm-band with the troop # and patrol emblem. His wooden frame was also a camp chair. Making gear is not difficult, but definitely a lost skill for most adults. Easier to sell popcorn and buy the gear some folks believe.

I remember when Boys Life had instructions on how to make gear. The BSA fieldbook (early ones) had some instructions too. Some of our scouts have made the "little dandy" wood stove. a neat metal working project which could be part of that mB.

I almost forgot, " The book of camp lore" by Daniel Carter Beard he also wrote "Shelters Shacks and Shanties" which is awesome.

As shortridge said, "Woodcraft" by Sears. "Camping and Woodcraft" by Horace Kephart "The Boy Scout Hike Book" and "The Boy Scout Camp Book" by Edward Cave "The Campers Handbook" by Thomas Holding "Camp and Trail Methods" by Elmer Kreps many of these can be found digitally.

The idea of going spartan with gear isn't new. The old timers of yesteryear made the same distinction as we do between car camping and backpacking. They just used different terms. The old "trampers" or "pedestrian camping" of yesteryear had different load outs than when base camping. They wrote books about them. Some were incorporated into the Scouting books. In 1884 George Washington Sears wrote: "Go light; the lighter the better so that you have the simplest material for health comfort and enjoyment". Edward Cave wrote a few books for Scouts in the 19-teens as he saw the ideas missing in the early handbooks. I have original copies of these. Much of the same ideas in all the writers of the times. So, lightweight gear loads isn't a new concept. It has just been rediscovered.

with a pack weight that high, it is no wonder you hate it. I am not talking the 70lb pack either. A 50# is way too much. A lighter pack is not about trendy new lightweight gear it is more about not taking stuff. The old timers, Beard, Nessmuk, Kephart, Cave, etc... these guys had light loads and this was over 100 years ago! The secret was knowledge and skill. They also ate well on extended voyages into the backwoods, and so do I. One does not need to forego good eatin' while backpacking and suffer through mediocre fare. The secret is the same; knowledge and skill.

Barry, thank you for your insightful and experienced post. From reading it, I now understand my "disconnect" so much more clearly.

I would add the Patrol Leaders Handbook; an edition printed prior to 1970. They are cheap on ebay, and provide concrete examples for an inexperienced PL to try.

I am not aware of one. At least not officially.

I dont think those who have issues with wB believe the scouters who have taken the course are not dedicated, or do not have the desire to be better scouters. I percieve the issue to stem from the idea that wB training is the pinnacle of all scouter training. For me, this is where the disconnect arises. wB is good training, but it in no way meets the standard that it aspires to be. This is not necessarily the wB program, but the inexperienced folks taking the course. Most just don't have the pre-requisite experience and training to fully benefit from a top level training. Hence my suggestion for training levels. If the concept of levels was too much like "rank" then ditch it. The main point is that too many scouters are basically starting and ending with wB. There needs to be significant training and experience for a scouter leading up to what is claimed to be the pinnacle of training. If not, we are putting the whipped cream and cherry on top of nothing.