DuctTape

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.

I think the issue some have while using the term paper eagle and the like is a reference to the belief that the scouts did not indeed earn the award, but instead other non-trustworthy adults checked off the boxes instead of providing a good program to allow the scouts to actually earn the award. Of course scouts are not to blame for the failure of the adults, but this does not mean they earned the award either. I see the term used to describe the failure of adults and unfortunately the BSA itself not only allows it, but apparently perpetuates it. JoeBob is correct that the term would not be used if the BSA took care of maintaining the integrity of its own brand. When Scouters recognize the the loss of integrity of the award (look no further than the threads about summer camp merit badge mills and "universities".) this will eventually bleed into the general public. It is too bad for those scouts who earned the award that their accomplishment may be questioned because of those who didn't and were just handed the award by untrustworthy adults.

Considering that "Scout accounts" arent supposed ti exist at least as far as any money raised by fundraising going to a specific scout. Thus the $ raised by such scout who participated in a Council sale would go to the council. The scout doesnt get any of it, prizes excepted.

Science, tech and math are and have always been part of scouting, but within the framework of the scouting methods. Camping, merit badges, etc... The onset of scouting was not to replicate school, nor was it to even provide additional school opportunities. It was to provide something uniquely different from the classroom. while I support the concept of STEM, and associated groups focusing on it, I do not think think it belongs as a subset of the BSA any more than it already exists within the merit badge programs or the use of the STEM in scouting. Scouting is not school. Recently there has been much discussion about the "numbers" of kids involved in scouting. I personally feel it is because we have tried to hard in the last few decades to compete with other options instead of being the BSA. I am not talking about the religion and gay controversies, I am talking about trying to provide the same activities for BSA as they get at other places instead of focusing on what makes the BSA program unique. Tough to find pre-teen and teenage boys who do not enjoy building forts, lighting fires, using knives and axes. Maybe that makes my 44 year old self an old curmudgeon wanting to go back to the good ol days, but I think of it more as maintaining what makes BSA unique and not trying to compete. If KFC tries to compete with taco bell by offering tacos, eventually they cease to be a chicken place and become just another taco stand. That doesn't mean the BSA shouldn't evolve with the times, but it should stay true to its core, and the BSA is not school.

Instead of putting together a resource for the troop, why not involve the scouts in its creation? Ask them if they would like it, and then let them loose coming up with recipes they already use, researching others. Testing them on campouts, etc...

Why use charcoal at all? As a kid, then a scout, adult, scouter I have made countless meals over the open fires, including foil dinners. A bag of charcoal is not necessary. The problem with the example is the real lesson learned is that of a giant troop cooking pit run by adults for the purpose of feeding boys. Missed the whole point of the patrol method. Yes, that is the lesson that was learned. Giant troop cooking pits run by adults.

Depends on the boys. As a scout, I did what Stosh suggests (although it was candy). Sold a ton!

Sure public land is always an option. However will lay out a few reasons why a council owned wilderness camp might be desirable. Often public campsites in the wilderness areas are a first come first served system, which is great. If a council was to promote the idea of the wildnerness summer camp and be successful, this would significantly increase the usage in the public areas and it would be difficult for scout patrols and private citizens to find campsites as they could be overloaded. If the council owned a large tract of "wilderness" and created designated patrol sites scattered throughout, they could manage who is where via a reservation system. A current reality of BSA's use of public lands is of mixed reviews by the public at large. We all know boys can be loud and boisterous at times. They are also learning the ways of the woods and make errors in judgement. Because of these normal, natural attributes of a patrol of boys, when they are encountered by the general public the outcome is not always positive. I have heard many complain about Scouts who use public lands because of these natural behaviors. This is often magnified when there are many such patrols in an area. An increase of scouts using the public lands because of either the closing of BSA wilderness bases and/or via encouragement of BSA to promote more wilderness activities may amplify the public displeasure with scouts and BSA. Lastly, when the council has only a resort style camp it will be all they promote which is what we are seeing in the councils that do not have a wilderness base. The promotion of this style of summer camp at the exclusion of the more primitive does not provide scouts with a continuum of opportunities within the BSA. Yes, they can use public lands but as I already identified, this is a less than optimum solution. Thus the best solution would be for councils who own camps to set aside, and promote wilderness style camping opportunities as much as possible. The biggest issue I see is the lack of promotion by the BSA of this type of scouting adventure to begin with.

GM, et al I can appreciate the needs for some accommodations. I don't think anyone is advocating for the complete removal of all scouting situations where cars, electricity, indoor plumbing, etc... are available. I can only speak for myself, my issue is the apparent lack of any of the wilderness type opportunities for the boys. This needs not be an either/or proposition. Instead I advocate for both. Yes, I lean more towards the wilderness mountain man/boy type, and I press for it. But that is only because I see the program is so far out of balance and little/no opportunities exist for the boys to experience the out of doors away from all of the comforts of home or the trailer. The program itself seems to shun it as well. I am all for a continuum of scouting adventures, but that means that some activities won't be available nor desirable to all scouts or scouters. I think that is what Stosh was alluding to in his LCD comment and i agree with it. A wilderness trail ceases to be a wilderness trail when it becomes a paved road, thus paving the trail doesn't give people access to the trail it eliminates it for all.

It is ironic so many council are finding the need to shut down camps due to financial reasons when the most expensive part of a camp is the infrastructure. eliminate the dining hall and the extra resort style accomodations and activity areas and make the camp a "high adventure" wilderness type area. I wonder if there is any council in the US which operates a camp as a "wilderness area" with designated campsites only accessible by foot and/or canoe. Zero amenities except a fire ring and a thunderbox at the well dispersed campsites. The only expensive infrastructure would be a "ranger cabin" at the parking area for check-in, etc...A camp like this would encourage the patrol method as the campsites would be small and unable to accommodate in excess of 10 people. I know some camps in NY use portions of their property for this type of activity, but they seem to be used less and less as the adults do not want to venture too far away from the mess hall and their evening cracker barrels with other adults. Just thinking out loud here.

A also do not think it is the panacea either. I don't think there is one. However of all the things you listed, how many of them are boy-led issues. Is the group of boys who happen to be scouts going to go decorate the headstones without the push and prompt by an adult with an agenda? If the problem is the "brand", is that the boys issue or the adults worried about the BSA from a business perspective? Publicizing the actions of boys' good turns or using them as fronts for any agenda are adult decisions for the purpose of the "organization", not for the boys in it.

The value scouting brings to the table hasn't changed. A boys sense of adventure, playing in the woods, exploring, building "forts", being with buddies, cooking hotdogs over an open fire they built, etc... The adults are getting in the way. I agree the BSA needs to market itself better. Not by trying to be something which it is not, but by going back to what it was. The BSA isn't leadership development, it is not character development, it isn't religious training, it is embracing the boys sense of adventure and letting the boys do those things boys like to do in the out of doors.

Scoutcraft and Woodcraft were the standard operating procedure for the trips. Scout skills weren't just demonstration activities to watch while camping next to the troop trailer with all the stuff from home, The scout skills which are delineated in the advancement requirements were actually used on a regular basis. Use lashings to make a useful camp gadget wasn't a one-and-done requirement. It was done on every trip because it was truly a useful gadget and the scout only needed to carry a small amount of twine/rope. Once the boys start camping away from the cars and carrying less stuff, they begin to see the need for the woodcraft skills. Another eg: no more two burner coleman stoves, now they learn to cook on an open fire. (Unfortunately some places this cannot be done due to regulations/fire bans.) The old timers didn't carry a lot of weight even with the canvas and wooden pack boards, they carried little else besides their basic gear. I think I carried more weight in the 70s and 80's with the lighter nylons because we thought we needed the full sized tents and too much other stuff.