DuctTape

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.

The policy is fine. It just needs to be followed. If National HQ is worried about their "brand", they would follow their own policies which mitigate loss of quality. Instead, while they promote excellence in words, actions show they care more about volume of awards and not quality. It is the Walmart philosophy of business. It is a quality vs quantity. HQ needs to ask themselves whether they want the Eagles Scout and the BSA brand to be the Walmart or Saks. I know some will say it is important to encourage as many boys as possible to participate. I agree, but advancement and awards should be based on standards. Participation in scouting does not require one to earn MBs and handing them out as parting gifts for attending summer camp or universities devalues the brand. strange how HQ is so caught up with the religious aspect of scouting and declarations of other "values", yet consistently allows for scouts to advance by promoting the ignoring of the actual requirements (via willful non-enforcement of policy). A Scout is Trustworthy, and all adults who deal in this type of "advancement" are not being scout-like IMO.

Keep a journal for each boy. All the funny stories and memories will be useful when writing a speech to give at say his Eagle COH.

I concur with KDD. I will also add to try to not make it into a "class". Scouting isn't school.

While I can appreciate the sentiments about wanting the boys to have fun at summer camp and learn with/from their peers without the judgy adults around as well as avoid the school like classes, this is different from merit badges. The boys can and should do all of those things, however these activities are not equivalent to calling up,learning from, and being tested by an adult merit badge instructor. By all means use summer camp as a place for boys to have fun and learn from each other in a non-school setting. when they return they can call up a merit badge counselor (adult) and proceed to actually earn the merit badge. I still do not know how councils and camps get away with having boys sign merit badge cards, or the adults signing them after abdicating their responsibility to a boy. The ways camps run merit badges is one of the most untrustworthy things I have witnessed as a scouter. I feel for the boys who miss out on a quality program.

I completely disagree. I find camps are the easiest places to get merit badges, but not one of the better places to earn them. There are exceptions of course. Counselors are not supposed to "let some requirements slide". Counselors that do this should be removed. One may not add nor subtract... If the requirement was to "perform", or "demonstrate" etc... listening to someone describe it is not the same. Not only does this mean the scout did not earn the badge, but they were denied the opportunity to explore and learn. Sorry for being so blunt, but it is these types of counselors who ruin the program for the boys by denying them the real program.

I agree with much which has been said. In my mind I sum up the patrol method as "the troop is a collection of patrols" as opposed to "the troop is broken down into patrols".

The Central Park penguins are mentioned here as are other examples: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

IMO It is too bad the BSA (National, Council, district, CO, scouts,and scouters, etc...) don't simply accept "Faith in Action" as opposed to "Declaration of Faith". Actions vs words. All faiths have principles and tenets by which one is to live, There are similarities among many and certainly differences. There is no need to discuss them, argue about them, highlight the similarities and/or differences within the confines of the BSA program. There is no need to require individuals to make a declaration or sign a card, or do something required by another individual regarding faith. The Scout Oath and Law expect us to live up to the principles and tenets of our own beliefs, (not those dictated by someone else) and to respect those of others... specifically those which differ. If scouts/scouters at all levels would just live the principles and tenets of their own faith instead of worrying about others faiths or requiring others to do something we would be in a much better place. Now I am going to go outside and sit in the woods; the woods are my "church/synagogue/temple/mosque/gudwara/vihara".

I thought of another thing I would change. Thanks AZMike for reminding me. I would add pre-requisite merit badges as some of the requirements. for example, Wilderness Survival should have Camping MB as a requirement. If done right, this is an advanced merit badge and (along with my other ideas) should not be done in a group setting at summer camp with a 16 year old signing off on it. Other MB's should also have similar pre-requisites. Also in response to the response to my earlier post, while some MBs might be able to be done in groups, the vast reality is those which are done like this are far inferior. Also, while some MB's might be "good for first years", I still disagree. By allowing this, it removes the focus on the basic scouting outdoor skills enumerated in the T-1st class requirements. Based on a resurrected thread, I would also like to see the skill awards, or some version brought back. these could be used as pre-requisites for the MB's too. Obviously my gripe is the checklist mentality and the advancement as fast as possible without really knowing or applying skills. I like the original intent of the BSA (not the current values, citizen thingy)... To have boys learn to do things for themselves. If none of my ideas are good enough, scrap them and the current books and go back to the 1911 Handbook.

I know my suggestions would not be popular, but I would: Increase the rigor of the requirements for Tenderfoot through First Class. Prohibit the working on/earning of Merit Badges until the scout has earned First Class. Prohibit the use of non-adults as Merit Badge counselors at summer camp. Prohibit Large group Merit badge classes (MB universities/mills). I also agree with limiting the focus on religion. There are many other aspects of the oath and law which are just as important IMO. I do not see why we give special attention to one of them. we don't have a special declaration "to keep myself physically fit", nor do we remove scouts who are not "mentally awake", etc...

I had a similar discussion with non-scouters about what defines camping. This was while we backpacked a 30 mile loop. So we had quite a bit of time to discuss the concept. We discussed gear, sleeping, cooking, distance, activities, etc... We attempted to determine at what point did something become "camping". It became apparent that one item did not define something as camping, nor did the absence of it eliminate camping as the label. In the end, it we decided it was like Justice Stewart said about pornography, "I shall not today attempt further to define... I know it when I see it".

A pot blackened on the outside may be clean, or it may not. The same is true for a silver pot, it may be clean or not. I (we) see no need to spend the time to remove the blackening from the outside of the pot as it does not determine the cleanliness so it is a waste of time. Not to mention, the soap and soot removal is one of the messiest activities. Part of this is the soap the outside system has been used for so long by many, they think it must be the only correct way.

I never understood the soaping thing either, even as a scout. Growing up, all my cook gear was black on the bottom. In scouts we had to soap and clean the bottom of the patrol pots. I started to bring my own blackened ones. Still bring my own as a scouter and let the other adults soap and clean the bottom of theirs.