DuctTape

As long as it is applied in a manner no different than the SM giving authority to the PL to sign off on the other requirements, I see no problem with it. If a boy is not signed off for tying a square knot by his PL, he can still go to the SM, but the boy will need to demonstrate the skill to the SM. If the boy leaders do not sign off on shows scout spirit, the boy can still go to the SM, but will need to demonstrate he has fulfilled the req. Personally, I find the shows scout spirit to be the most important requirement and sadly it is usually just an automatic sign-off. I think giving this to the boys is a great idea. For sure it has potential for abuse, but with a committee of boy leaders this is reduced, and as I said going to the SM if the boy feels he has shown scout spirit. The disconnect provides an opportunity for growth for all boys involved regardless of the outcome.

I do not think they are adding to the requirements. I appears, and I could be wrong, the SM is empowering the OA scouts to have the sign-off authority for the requirement, "show scout spirit". Looks no different than empowering PL's to sign off on the other skill requirements.

I would argue that the "incorporating the obligation into the program" ends at providing time within the schedule. This is also true for youth. "A scouts own" should be theirs, to do as they believe to be in accordance with their faith. The complaints previously mentioned regarding "a scouts own" are valid and as such demonstrate the (usually adult) defined service was NOT "a scouts own", but instead a group quasi-religious church service which caters to none in an attempt to cater to all.

For hand sewing, do not attempt to push through the entire patch. Instead "catch" a bit of the border only. Imagine sewing "from behind", and as the needle pushes through the shirt fabric, loop it under and through a few threads on the backside of the patch border. this also has the benefit of completely hiding the stiching behind the patch. I guess my method has a real name. Thanks HT.

Encouraging scouts to plan and experience more adventure will help develop not just outdoor ethics, but also outdoor safety. The more we encourage scouts to push to the next level the better. We do a disservice if we hold them back and only allow plop camping and disallow exploration and adventure. While boys are naturally curious and adventuresome, they also have innate fears which help them take small steps instead of too big, but only if it is they who do the planning and execution. IMO, the worst thing bsa has done in the last 20 years is not gays or girls it is the requirement of adults on all campouts and activities.

mine was held together with tape.

While it is technically ok for a scout to "complete all the requirements" before even meeting with the mB counselor, this denies the scout an opportunity to learn from, and grow from an expert in the field and minimizes the benefit gained from the adult association method. I do not condone the SM actions, it appears the SM and TC could use some help in transitioning the scouts to a less advancement is the goal troop. IMO.

I agree that the recourse is for exceptional circumstances. However I disagree that exceptional is synonymous with rare in this usage. I think it meant as "deviating from the norm" or "outside of accepted practices". It should be rare, but if the circumstances move beyond rare it could be an indication that the council is not doing its due diligence in vetting and/or assuring quality of the mB counselors.

In the summer years ago I worked at a camp, and noticed the canopy of a large tree in the woods. It was uniquely "elm" like. It took me a few hours to locate it, and I had the camp director make a call and a rep from the state forestry service stopped by a few weeks later. Samples were collected and it was an American Elm. Spared from the dutch elm disease. Turned out to be in the top 5 largest American Elms in the state.

Get a copy of a 1950s Patrol Leaders Handbook. There are a ton of games and patrol activities. And much better info re: Patrol Method too.

Paying your own way is only one part of being thrifty and I would argue the smallest part. More importantly being thrifty is not needing as much $ in the first place. My first uniform was a hand-me down from the assistant senior patrol leader. Boy's Life used to be chock full of "make your own gear", the older scout books gave instructions how to modify common items to be useful camp gear. Scout camp was a lot cheaper because it was not more than a piece of property with little/no improvements on which the scouts used their scoutcraft, and campcraft skills to "make camp". There are 3 commodities at play here, Time, Talent, and Treasure. The more of one that a scout has, or uses the less of the others. It takes time and talent to do things for oneself which minimizes cost (treasure). The higher the skill (talent) the less time it takes. Currently our culture is focused on buying everything (treasure) immediately with zero effort. One of the original goals of scouting was for boys to learn to do things for themselves and others. Thus I would argue that just buying gear takes away an opportunity for the scout. DIY gear and campcraft skills, etc... are a means to help the scout be able to do for himself and others. If $ is needed, the patrol deciding and executing a fundraiser would be a worthy exercise for the scouts. Imagine how much they would learn organizing a car wash. Just having scouts "work a table" to sell something completely organized by adults takes away opportunities.

I think MattR is on point here. I was at breakfast this morning with my wife, and we overheard (they were very loud) discussing youth soccer. These were coaches (possibly parent-coaches) .It was plainly obvious they were coaching kids like they are collegiate or pros without realizing the benefit of less structure, and playing the game. They were complaining about kids "not being committed to the sport" because they had other interests; athletic and otherwise. They fail to understand the benefit of the off-season, other sports, etc...

My only suggestion is to NOT email anyone. Instead call them, or better speak face to face. Electronic communication appears efficient, and is, to disseminate information. It is wholly inadequate for discussion and conversations. Do call, and either set up appountments to discuss in person or on the phone. Otherwise you run a serious risk of being misunderstood at worst, and at best taking longer to get the answers you seek.

Perhaps. But the actual tone of voice if the author said it aloud would be more compelling. We, as readers, project a lot into the tone and meaning of the written word. Without asking the author to clarify, we can only speculate.

There is a body of research that suggests "tone" is often shifted negatively by the reader. A neutral tone is interpreted as generally negatively; a generally positive tone is interpreted as neutrail, etc... I believe this is due in part to lack of other cues such as body language and the actual tone of voice of a speaker. This is even more common in digital communication, email, online forums, etc... Understanding this phenomenon, I give deference to the writer.

I disagree. Nothing in the LNT statements, nor the author of that article state no one else can visit. Both suggest being mindful of how geo-tagging and posting specific locations especially with gps coordinates can (and have) led to a negative impact on the area. This ethic is common for fisherman who recommend not posting on social media specific locations. Again, it isn't saying you can't go there or not tell anyone about it, only recognize how posting certain information on social media will lead to the destruction of what made that spot special to begin with. Be mindful, and make ethical decisions.

The biggest issue for most people with LNT, is they try to codify the principles into hard-fast rules. LNT, is not about don't do this, the principles and guidelines are for understanding how one's decisions and actions impact the environment and may affect others safety and enjoyment of the area. The principles are not rules, but a guide to help us make decisions while in tbe backcountry. For example, to lessen impact while hiking, single file on established trails is better but spread out very wide while on an off-trail bushwhack is better. The conditions and circumstances matter. I think the principles embodied in LNT are a perfect application of the BSA mission as it is a practical application of making ethical decisions.

Thanks OldScout. I think I got a piece of dirt in my eyes reading that.

Cost is extremely variable as choices can significantly increase basic costs. At one time being thrifty was significantly more important than it is now. Gear was made, not bought. Monthly camping was low impact on some piece of property with zero amenities. Gear was carried on the scouts back, not in trailers. Summer camp was extended versions of weekend trips. Times have changed and our culture is more buy it not build it, pay for it not do it yourself. Scouting has been infiltrated by some of it, but we have opportunities to still be thrifty if we want. It just takes more effort and time. Fast, Easy, Cheap... you can only choose 2.

For many many troops the change you lament has been here for decades. The loss of patrol method adventure was replaced with a trailer and plop camping for a long time in most troops. The new g2ss sadly codifies it as the new normal for everyone.

I have tried it too. I found it more trouble than it was worth. Baking is much easier with a fire. Setting the same pot into hot ashes with the same foil ring (or a few stones) with no water allows for temps in excess of boiling and real baking. But if only a stove is avail then you are stuck with steam baking. I think the fuel consumption "outweighs" the benefit when LD backpacking though. ymmv. It is a cool trick, just not practical imo.

"Thousand points of light..." and we are off!

Cliff Jacobson is the real deal. He is a well known outdoorsman, focusing on paddling mostly in the BWCA. He is a published author as well. Regardless, if the BSA was to go this direction (I highly doubt they will), the person would not just be a name to endorse the brand. To be effective they would need to go all in making videos, etc... showcasing the scouting adventures with and alongside the personality. I would recommend they have multiple personalities. Get "famous" personalities from different regions and with different areas of expertise. Full out media blitz.

Individual units have always had the freedom to restrict membership for both scouts and scouters.

My troop growing up was chartered by " A group of citizens". Parents, etc... are community members. So a service project which benefits the greater community should suffice. For example, Is there a local park, or playground that tbe parents often use? Schedule a clean-up the park project.