DuctTape

While I disagree with the SM request to have the scout resign his position as presented, I also disagree that this is a duty to god first issue. It seems to me, and I could be (likely am) completely wrong, that it is more of another opportuinty has come up and he would rather do that instead of the activity he said he would with scouts. I also can see dad recognizes his own influence here, and it is quite possible the boy is doing what dad wants not what he wants. All that said, the preparation, communication, and leadership demonstrated by the boy to make the transition is laudable.

I am not against the idea to limit boys fun. Quite the contrary. I see it as a likely increase in adult interference when too much already exists.

Not a fan. Allow me to explain. While giant structures, arches, gates etc... are "fun" I think too often these become the focus take away from the main purpose of pioneering. Rarely are the giant towers and trebuchets the product of boys ideas and work, and for the most part are not useful. IMO the main purpose and focus of pioneering is to make camp life easier by having the ability to make gadgets, and useful (small) structures so one dorsn't have to transport everything from the trailer. I use lashings on almost every trip, even if just to make a tripod to hang the pot over the fire. I often make a quick camp chair, and sometimes a small table. I suppose when one takes the trailer and never is more than 100 yds from it the need for pioneering skills on a campout are diminished. So, I am not in favor of this proposal as I see it as encouraging the giant structures at the expense of focusing on what I see as the real purpose of pioneering when there is already a dimished focus on that purpose.

Each district is also responsible for certifying the mb counselors. If counselors are signing blue cards for any scout without completing the requirements as written, that is a concern to be brought to the attention of the district. In line with your "strengthening local standards" idea, a suggestion to the district could be for them to remind the mb counselors of their expectations and possibly require training. Our scouts recently returned from camp with signed blue cards for camping mb. one of our parents knew his son has not completed the 20 nights (he just joined), and now the question of what other requirements were just "signed off". I have suggested our SM contact the council and camp regarding this to ensure all scouts get the opportunity of scouting as promised and not just get handed mbs.

I view the SM corps as a model of the patrol method in an ideal world. The SM is the patrol leader and through his leadership is an example for the other PLs. Each ASM has a specific duty just like in a patrol. Many of us lament the lack of Patrol Method; how many have the SM and ASM modeling it at meetings, outings etc... The boys will mimic lack of leadership. As Scouters it is necessary we act, organize, communicate, lead, etc... in a manner no less than what we expect of the Scouts. Not just as individuals, but with our structure and methods. I would argue this also extends to the Troop Committee, it also should be "using the patrol method" in its format and operations. Be what we want the boys to be, Do what we want the boys to do, Say what we want the boys to say... in all areas.

I understand the frustration. One thing I have noticed is that we (all?) have troop meetings, but how many have patrols which meet weekly? Few, I would guess. Probably close to zero if the Patrol meetings are not part of the troop meeting. I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to encourage Patrol meetings IN PLACE OF (capsfor emphasis) troop meetings at least 1x/month. One problem is most of us use churches, schools, firehalls, etc as meeting places and the patrols dont really have a place of their own. The "patrol corners" is an attempt at providing the infrastructure resource, but IMO fails miserably in most applications. How cool would it be if a Patrol had a fort/treehouse/etc which they could hang out and do scouting stuff. Perhaps invite a scouter over every once in a while. Yeah, I am dreaming...

Stosh, your response that "she owed me" is similar to what I say. I agree with the rest of your sentiments.

Stosh, I love the visual created in your SM minute. With your permission, I would like to add your "act" to my repertoire.

The stated mission of the bsa is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices... IMO, The real mission in many cases has been reduced to patch and award ackowledgement. When one method (advancement) becomes the goal instead of a means or a metric, the true mission is obscured. I believe the most important requirement in advancement is the scout spirit; demonstrating they live by the scout oath and law. It used to be the First requirement, for good reason. In many cases it has been relegated to an automatically checked-off box. I remember when "being a boy scout" meant (sometimes pejoratively) as a person who did the right thing. Scourge, I apologize to you and everyone else for the behaviors of these boys. IMO, they are not scouts, they just wear the patch.

The 14th amendment extended the reach beyond just congress. Recent case law also is on point... Borreca v. Fasi, Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors are just two examples. As far as your statement that this argument would make restricting anyone from entering...a violation. No. Restrictions on speech are permissible on the basis of time, place and manner, it is not permissible based on content. Public forum doctrine analysis is necessary, and is what is done on a case by case basis by the courts. I agree with your final statement, my earlier post did acknowledge it, albeit clumsily.

Censorship, abridging free speech, or creating a chilling effect is not illegal or a constitutional violation unless done by the government. Ironically, the president himself might be in violation of abridging some ppls free speech guarantees when he blocked them on twitter. As president, an agent of the government he may not abridge individual rights by censorsing them, but an organization (even this website) can censor whatever type of speech or individuals if wants.

I am with Stosh on this. I do not care for the new change, but will follow it and the Scout Law by communicating my disagreement and working to change it.

Along those same lines, TT, the church can prohibit, censor, etc... any speech it desires. The free speech clause prohibits congress (and extended by the 14th amendment to the States) from abridging free speech. There is no constitutional free speech outside of governmental interference. Even there, it is not absolute.

I do not gauge success or failure of these membership decisions based one dollars or even membership quantity. I would be happy with a 50% reduction in both if it meant a more robust boy led patrol method outdoor adventure based organization. I agreed with the membership changes in the last few years as I saw no reason to deny a kid who wants to be a scout based on some other organization's (the COs) religious beliefs. As an aside, I wish the bsa had a different structure and did not use the whole CO business as I think that causes most of these issues. I do not think anyone elses troop should have any say in who our troop has in it. Especially when those decisions are based on the religious beliefs of that other troop. Membership should not have a morality or religious test. The pastor at my in-laws church is fond of saying that if we denied entry to the sinners and non-believers the pews would be empty. That said, I am not in favor of the bsa becoming a a "family" organization and opening membership to girls. I disagree with almost every reason others have given however as I find many of them repulsively chauvinistic. While I would like the bsa to stay boy scouts, I would not throw a temper tantrum about it if these changes came to pass.

There is also nothing stopping anyone, or group from buying a bshb and other books and just doing their own "scouting" much like the first scouts did which prompted BP to write his scouting for boys.

There are plenty of outdoorsy women out there. In my experience I have found them to be more receptive to learning and training for new adventures and techniques than the guys. This is especially true for the men with scouting experience and doubly for those from the military. The latter two are more often than not the most difficult to accept the boy-led, patrol method. I just came back from a 30 mile backpacking trip with 5 others, 3 of which were women in their 20's and 30's. The two 20-somethings was their first time. They loved it!

Thank you. I also found it in my 1965 handbook and noted the "only in emergency" clause.

The gaming would be more extreme with the new changes. One could just hold off on their eagle BOR and pump up their mbs until the last minute. Why not just do away with star and life while we are at it. Go directly from FC to eagle by eliminating the active, leadership, and other reqs. I can see this from both perspectives though. I just see there is more upside to the current structure than the soon-to-be.

My curiosity was piqued by the comment because I have always heard the comment about it being a bsa practice, but never seen it in any literature. In fact even the oldest literature is careful about using proper site selection for drainage as the requirement. I wonder if the practice was taught by military men returning from the wars and continued the military practice in scouts? It would not be the first time that military concepts have crept into scouting even if in conflict with official terms and ideals (eg Class A, B). Just some monday morning ponderings.

In essence this is what they are doing. Apparently the patch for completing the mBs is not enough, they want to give an additional award for simply finishing an arbitrary number of mbs. Why use multiples of 5? Why not use palm leaves for addional mbs earned in a more distinct sequence? Say after 1 extra, then 1 more, then 2, 3, 5, 8...

As an aside, regarding digging trenches around tents, I am not surprised this was taught in the past, but I am unaware it was in any of the fieldbooks. All of my copies going back to 1948 describe choosing tent locations with good drainage and make no mention of digging trenches. Admittedly I do not own every edition and every printing of the Fieldbook. So I am curious which edition this appeared as it must have been a short lived idea.

BOR is also a learning opportunity for the Scout. The more experience and practice they have interviewing with adults, the better prepared they will be when job seeking. The BOR should not just focus on the scout's advancement or review of program, but should also realize it can provide the boy with the types of questions he might experience in just a few short years. Thus the more BORs the better, and with a mixture of adults.

It used to work better when we were younger. Not so much anymore.

I agree with stosh. The last statement reminds me of something I said to my wife early on... If I ever say or do anything that can be interpreted in more than one way and one of those ways makes you upset, I meant it the other way.

6 trips is one every other month. 6 nights is 3 trips from Fri-Sun. A troop which puts other limits on number or type of trips may introduce additional obstacles to, but that is their choice.