DuctTape

And since then, how many scouts are able to build and light a fire? Technology has its place, but just like how the motto of be prepared has devolved into bringing gear instead of knowing skills and being prepared to act, technology solutions should not replace basic scoutcraft. I would argue in many cases it has. The building and lighting a fire is but one example. How prepared is the scout when he doesn't have the latest gadget or it breaks, etc...

"High Adventure" doesn't require paying someone to plan, organize and guide. If the scouts (patrols or crews) have been doing scouting adventure by planning and organizing, then doing so for the next level of high adventure is the next logical step. It saddens me that scouting has moved from scouts making their own gear, finding places to camp, and organizing their own adventures to needing to raise money to pay for expensive hi-tech stuff, and extra gadgets and paying for expensive camps and guides. Sad when an eagle scout doesn't know how to plan and organize a basic camping trip without paying someone to do it for them. A Scout is thrifty.

I think the best motivator to move beyond the car camp, is the destination. At the next car-camp, schedule a hike to a location where is would be way cool to camp. when there, make the comment about how cool it would be to spend the night here. It doesn't even have to be very far from the original camp. Then do it for the next time. Each time, explore farther and farther away from the car and find a cool place to camp. Eventually use a map to find the cool places to suggest. The gear changes follow as no one want to carry the heavy gear. People will sacrific the dutch oven to camp near a waterfall as one can still cook well.

I agree with our responsibility to keep scouting alive and well. It is too bad the handbook has gone downhill over the years. One could argue that this is the cause of the lack of skills etc... If it isn;'t in the book, then how will a scout know about it especially if the adults don't know either. If the BSA wants to keep a flashy handbook, then at least have the real substance in the fieldbook. The FB can be brought on outings and the boys can use it as a resource to things. I really like how my 1952 fieldbook is layed out. Each "Chapter" is a pow-wow and the adventure grows from one to the next. A patrol could do great things just by doing the pow-wows in order. Some would be patrol meetings, some day hikes, other campouts. How each one leads the boys to the next level of adventure and instills the patrol method is so elegant. edit: the 1952 fieldbook was written by James West and GBB

My older copies of the Scout Handbook and Patrols Leaders Handbook have all sorts of games. They are broken down by type of "skill" like tracking and stealth or scoutcraft, etc...

Stosh, I understand what you meant. My point was how important the language we use is. Our word choice illuminates our biases and pre-conceived notions. More importantly, it influences our other words and deeds. These in turn affect others (the scouts) decisions. As I mentioned, many scouts will choose to be with similar ages, but often that is a result of their entire life being force-separated from other aged kids. You were careful to say most 16-17 y/o etc... and not all. This acknowledges that some (albeit few) might enjoy a patrol with different ages. My entire point can be condensed down to not calling patrols age-based or mixed-age or anything which even refers to their age. When we do, we influence our own decisions by focusing on the ages and not the other attributes of the scouts who make up the patrol. Since you acknowledge that some scouts may choose to be in patrols regardless of age, then what purpose does it serve to say "age-based patrols" why not just say "patrols" or "friend-based patrols" or "interest-based patrols"? The way we describe our system, does influence it. Just something to think about.

One must remember that same age is not equivalent to friends. The (old) literature refers to similar age, interests etc..., as mentioned earlier. In most areas of life adults separate kids into age-based groups. When left to their own devices, this is not always the case. Unfortunately due to so many adult controlled environments, kids never interact with other ages so even in scouts when allowed the option since they have little experience, nor friendships with any other ages they still gravitate to same age. This was not always the case, similar age is close in age but not same. A few years difference is not really noticeable. Also, often forgotten in all this is the need for these guys to be friends with similar interests. Just because they are the same age doesn't mean they want to do the same thing, nor like hanging out with each other. Thus IMO, we should not refer to patrols age same-age, or mixed age, but just patrols in whatever form they happen to be. Language matters, and when we categorize, it shows not only what we perceive, but also our preference of the controlling variable(s). So, I do not like "new scout patrols", or "same age patrols", or "mixed-age patrols" or any term which focuses on the age of the scout. It should be the "otter patrol" because those boys like to hang out in the water. The should name their patrol based on their interest and the makeup should be based on that interest and the fact they like to do those types of activities together. and we should focus on the boys' friendships and their interest regardless of the ages of the boys in the patrols.

Was flipping through one of the many scout books I have in my collection today. It happened to be the 1952 printing of the Scout Fieldbook. I never noticed it before since I used the fieldbook mostly for scoutcraft and campcraft, but in the description of the scout law, specifically reverent the author (West and Hillcourt) wrote "A scout is Reverent. it is important that you show your reverence in your deeds. As a matter of fact, keeping the Twelfth Scout Law, is simply keeping the other eleven. By following the Scout Law, you follow the Law of God also." I thought that writing was interesting in context of this discussion.

I will accept the general premise of Beaveh's post. What needs to be considered then is why so many troops with trained leaders whether it be WB, SM specific, etc... seem to not function using the patrol method? A majority of the troops I have been involved with, had trained leaders, and the majority are not boy-led, nor using the patrol method. I don't think it is just my own perception as I have many parents (via my job) ask me about how things should be done in their kids' troops and it is obvious a few adults are running the show and not the boys.

As a volunteer, I plan my training or activity regardless. The fact that 2 people attended or twenty doesn''t change the amount of time I prepared nor does it affect how long it took me to drive. In the specific scenario described by the OP, I would be more annoyed at the trainers who don't plan and prepare for the session until the last minute. That might be the reason people do not attend, the sessions are not well planned.

While I personally do not recommend down for scouts, this is due to cost and boys' tendencies caring for their gear. Condensing moisture in insulation happens even with all synthetic fibers. Wet synthetics suck too. For a few nights, the amount of moisture is not a concern. There is a reason down is still the insulation of choice for even the most extreme mountaineers.

Up here, if one can dig a hole, it ain't that cold. The concept is great survival technique if one ever is found to be in a situation without proper gear. Many ideas are thrown around of this type, survival techniques. But they should be used as last resort, not due to poor planning. Carry some closed cell foam, much lighter than a shovel to dig the hole.

Fabric properties vary considerably and one's choices will optimize those properties. While cotton is not recommended, it isn't because it has no use in sub-zero conditions. On the contrary, it is the fabric of choice for certain applications. However, as a general rule and especially for scouts it is best to just say no cotton. I would add to Stosh;s list for balanced nutrition in winter to include FAT, and lots of it. Fat and sugar are the best fuels for ones body to generate heat. As Stosh said, ask an eskimo. I can verify that a candle (we used tea lights) can bring the ambient temp in an igloo to in the 40's. A good cold sink in the floor and between the room and door is necessary. BTW, the air temp outside the igloo was in the negative teens. We did make igloos, not snow caves nor quinzees.

Our den meetings were on different days, and locations as all the others in the pack. We only got together as an entire pack for the big events. I think this helped instill the idea of the patrol method early on.

Hardest part about cold weather camping is not being cold, but getting too warm. As has been mentioned, it is moisture which is the enemy. Too warm=sweat=moisture=cold. Dry sleeping clothes. Also agree about 40 deg being the worst time. I'll take subzero with snow any day before 40 deg and rain; that is true hypothermia conditions.

In winter the furnace is one's body. It is futile to try to warm the environment, thus one uses insulation to reduce heat loss and then fuels the internal furnace with good food. Inside the tent, the most common issue with temp is not the sleeping bag, but what one has underneath them. The closed cell foam pads are excellent insulators from the ground. note: keep the snow on the ground as it also is an insulator. But in regards to your question, my recommendation to parents is obvious. btw, we do sub-zero trips quite regularly.

I get what NJCS is saying. Unless the BSA has asked for documentation to prove the legal parental relationship before, there is no expectation to provide it now for non-traditional marriages. I think Stosh is concerned over the policy change that it would make the confusion worse (please correct me if I misunderstood). I see no problem with the policies nor a contradiction, nor confusion. If a parent brings their child to a campout then the BSA has always assumed the parent to be the legal parent. The marriage situation has no bearing on this assumption. If the issue is liability, the unit would open itself up to more risk if it attempted to discern the parental relationship due to a possible error (or they missed one). By ultimately placing the responsibility for the "tent sharing with a parent only" on the parent this would limit the unit's liability. Now, I am no legal scholar, so don't take my analysis as legal advice. My opinion is that I think an attempt to use the tent sharing with a parent policy as a reason to dissuade or argue against non-traditional marriages is a red herring.

I do not know the answer, but I can describe a problem which WB should address. Many of the "tickets" I have seen WB participants bring forth and implement were adult led initiatives which pushed the troop away from boy-led and the patrol method. I think the issue stems from the idea the tickets were to "help the troop", but without any parameters as to how they would impact boys leading via the patrol method. I think any tickets, if they continue with the practice should be assessed not by what the adult did, but by how the ticket increased the boy-led patrol method within the troop. Far too often these tickets did the opposite. The most troop method, adult led scouter I know is a woodbadge graduate (and commissioner). Attending woodbadge had the opposite effect on training this person to help with a boy-led patrol method scouting experience.

I disagree. It isn't the badges, nor the requirements which make the methodology duplicate the classroom, it is the the large group of scouts with a single counselor which force the classroom mindset.

I recall as a scout our patrol was packing up all our gear to head out for a camping trip. the food was all bought and was sitting next to the tents, cooksets, etc... when we got to camp, we setup our tents (in the dark) and started a small fire to make cocoa and eat hot dogs. The cocoa and dogs were nowhere to be found. We ate some gorp which we all packed anyway. the next AM, the breakfast foods were also missing, as was lunch, dinner, etc... We ate our gorp. when we got back home, the bags of food were sitting right where we left them in the church basement. Years later, my SM told me one of the dads saw the food and was going to put it into his car. The SM told the dad to leave it, as it was our responsibility and we might be hungry but we wouldn't die of starvation. Plus we would learn something. He was right. This only happened once, and we told the story all the time. Others learned from our mistake.

Neither. Enjoy the darkness which is the outdoors, or the campfire (if allowed). If a temporary light is needed, the smallest should be used such as a flashlight or headlamp. We go to the outdoors to enjoy and experience what it has to offer, the more we invade it with indoor things, the less we get to experience it.

I agree with this. My issue was and continues to be BSA's need to focus on "duty to God" and "Reverent" as though these are more important than the other parts of the oath and law. We do not have a "Declaration of Physical Fitness" for example whereby we declare ourselves to be promoters of fitness and kick out those who do not live by or share this virtue. If we focus scouting on the Outings and let boys be boys and learn to do things for themselves, both BSA and the Boys will be better off. Sometimes the adults just need to get out of the way of Scouting and stop interrupting the boys in scouting.

I have the complete opposite opinion. Packs should not be part of the troop. The name feeder pack, is the problem, not the solution. When troops believe that the packs belong to them, their is a preconceived notion that the boys must go to that troop regardless if the troop provides a program aligned with the boys interests. In general packs are neighborhood based, kids from the same school etc... this works well for the cub program. But the BSA has troops which may be more high adventure based, or council summer camp types, or more individual patrol activities or district camporees, etc... Troop prgrams have far too much variation due to the multitude of opportunities. To force a boy into a troop which doesn't fit isn't the answer. packs do not exist to supply troops with boys, in fact the boys do not exist to keep a troop alive. The troop exists to provide opportunities for the boys, not the other way around. I would even go a step further and advocate for eliminating the entire "chartering organization" paradigm. When a CO has both a pack and a troop is promotes the idea the troop owns the pack. It also removes the BSA from being accountable to the boys for which the BSA program is designed. The fact the CO "owns" the troop or pack removes any oversight or accountability to come from the BSA. I believe this is why we are in the situation we are in . The claim of BSA is a misnomer, it is really each individual CO version of what they think BSA is. IMO it cheapens the brand by abdicating the responsibility to maintain the brand's integrity to a different organization.