DuctTape

Qwaze is correct. Building forts in the woods, cooking hot dogs on a stick, and staying up late with your buddies. That is the essence which attracts and retains.

Q, I do not disagree with you. I was operating under the premise a discussion with the SM has already occurred and thus knows full well what is going on. He either is supporting it, or doing nothing to stop it.Perhaps I am wrong.

I disagree with your "most pressing need". You will not get your desired result, not even close. My advice would be to go somewhere else and report your experience to the Council.

Interesting that some see the death of bsa and their own involvement so related to each other. It may be hard to believe, but there are quite a few volunteer scouters who do not have boys in the program, either at present or never did. There are some adults who give back to scouting for other boys, not just for our own kids. The future of scouting will require more of these adults, as those who are only there concurrently with their sons drop out. These scouters have always existed, and will continue to exist. I know the best SMs I have ever worked with did not have boys in the troop. Some did in the past, but no longer. Others never did, but were involved in Scouting as a youth and see their service as giving back.

The claim is that there are organisms to break down. This means in the food. If the organisms come from dirty hands, then this will happen after the your entire process is complete as well. The sanitizing is a waste, there are no organisms to kill, yet. A sterile dish touched by a contaminated hand will become contaminated regardless.

Like I said, the steps are unecessary, but change is hard. Keep doing it your way.

The viruses that are currently in the food that was just eaten? That is what we are removing in this process.

No soap, use wood ash. The ash with water will release potassium hydroxide, a form of lye which will effectively cut grease and help remove stuck food.

2 buckets instead of 3. But I dont use any buckets. Hot water is made. Put drop of soap in mess kit (If oily, soap is to cut grease) add hot water, just enough to wipe out any remaining bits of food. Rinse with a little more hot water. Wipe dry with bandana. Instead of putting dishes into buckets of water, change the paradigm and add the water to what is being cleaned. Sanitizing is a waste, there is nothing to sanitize. The entire purpose is to remove any remaining food which could grow bacteria.

The sanitizing step on a campout is unecessary. Soap kills nasties, boiling water kills nasties. But even that is overkill because the "dirty"plate was not contaminated in the first place. The point of cleaning it is to remove the medium in which bacteria will colonize if left unwashed.

I have always loved this line, "No Boy Scout has ever starved to death on a weekend camping trip."

What are those scout moms thinking showing up to a blue and gold dinner with their wives. Making a spectacle of themselves by flaunting their sexual activity in front of everyone.

Been thinking... dangerous I know. I could support MBUs if they did not end with a blue card, but instead with the name and contact info of a MBC for the Scout to contact to be tested on the material learned at the large group activity.

If the BSA is so worried about its "Brand", then why do they not put more effort into ensuring quality? The "limited recourse" does not absolve the District, Council nor National from their responsibility for quality control. Although it appears they believe it does.

"And then tear it immediately down. We have a great little forest behind our CO and I've tried doing just that. A mother hen is always there to say "alright, now leave no trace." Boys have no interest in sweating it all day, or for a few days, to immediately rip it all up and toss it to the wind, and I haven't got any interest in that, either." With permission on private land it need not be torn down. I have a few acres of woods which I allow the boys to build primitive shelters.

I think we agree more than we disagree. When I speak of mixed age, it is left up to the boys and the range is never 10-17. But usually a 3 or 4 year range max. Same age is what? 1 year range, the same as cubs? I, and I doubt others are saying that there will ever be a 7 year span which you keep alluding to. The boys wouldnt choose it. Whatever they choose is fine, but in my mind a 2-3 year span of ages IS a mixed age patrol.

Only if the focus is on training and skills instead of adventure. I see the "teaching" and advancement happening on the adventure. A patrol with a wider range of ages than just a single year can go on more than a beginner trip and on that trip use their skills and pass along their knowledge to their patrol mates who may not havecas much experience or knowledge. This moves the teaching, learning and advancement into the adventure in a real life experience instead of the classroom. I have no "preference" between age based or mixed age; to me the most important characteristic is the common type of adventure. THe Otter Patrol likes to do adventures on the water while the Moose Patrol likes to go deep into the woods. The Fir Tree patrol likes to plop camp and cook amazing things on the fire. I guess I see the slightly older patrol mates providing and passing along their expertise to their patrol mates while also growing themselves via the merit badge program. Some of the merit badge requirements can be done on these adventures too.

Stosh, My point was not that it cannot be done with same age patrols, or nsp, just that all you describe can also be done with mixed age patrols as well. In your paradigm, the troop QM is in a separate patrol with other older boys. Why must his role as troop QM be any different if he is in a patrol which happens to also have some t-fc scouts in it? It doesnt.

In a troop which may have mixed aged patrols (which does not necessarily mean the extreme age differences that some allude to), does not mean that troop leadership positions are adult led, or patch wearing only. Let's look at an example. Patrol A has a boy who is Star. Has been the patrol leader and patrol quartermaster among other things along the way. A new boy joins the patrol and he and the PL decide he would be the patrol QM, now he doesn't have much experience here as he is new. Patrol B also has a boy who has never been a patrol QM before. The older boy who used to do it for the patrol is no longer there. The Star Scout from Patrol A becomes the troop QM, he is still a member of his patrol but helps the two newer boys learn the ropes as he functions in the troop QM role. This is functionally no different than him being in a patrol with other Star Scouts and helping these two boys in their new role. I guess my point is, the Patrol method and functional POR do not require age-based patrols or mixed age patrols. It can work in both, neither require more or less adult-intervention. IMO, when an adult states his preference for mixed or fixed, his belief system will push the boys into that type. In other words, the adult interfered with the patrol process. If we stop referring to the patrols based on age mixture we can then allow the boys to truly decide who is in what patrol and how they are to operate.

So with all of that, the arguments based on fear of abuse to scouts would then be extended to heterosexual women as scout leaders. Or to heterosexual males as venturing crew leaders with mixed gender crews.

Nice B Wolf. Here is my poetic entry, with apologies to R. Service. There are strange things worn on a scouter uniform by the men who volunteer. A Scouters knots, whether worn or not can sometimes cause a jeer. The campfire flame seems to alight the blame, but the truth is there to see. It is the Scouts own Law, which shows them all the Scouters real quality.

I disagree. It states specifically to train them in scoutcraft as one of the purposes. It is not just a method. Second, the "thrust" is not as you say. All of the purposes are listed without quantifying any as more or less important. The mission of Scouting is fulfilled when it accomplishes ALL of those purposes.

The camp where the single patrol went to was the younger patrol. That camp is geared more towards the younger, while the other is a bit "rougher".

We have 3 patrols. Two go to one camp, the other goes to a different camp.

I wear one knot; my eagle award. I agree with what some others have said in regards to knowledge, experience, and helpfulness are not measured by the quantity of knots worn. IMO, there is little correlation.