DuctTape

Yes. That is what I would preserve, and wish national and councils would advocate for instead of chasing quantity.

I think the focus on membership numbers (ie collecting dues for national) has allowed a corruption of the program. I would rather see national and the councils focus on promoting quality programs instead of quantity of units. It may be true that youth desire other activities, however there are some who still desire a quality scouting program. We should aim to provide that instead of trying to change the program to attract others. I would rather we have 10% of the current membership and units delivering a scout led, patrol method, outdoor based scouting program than increasing membership numbers ten-fold having an adult led, webelos 3, classroom based advancement day care.

The next step of the process is the scout being tested. They would go to their SM (or whomever the SM has granted authority. I prefer the PL) to be tested on the skill they practiced. The sign-off occurs when the scout successfully passes the test. The sign-off is NOT from the practice or the skill building activity, it is a personal test.

In most cases it seems to always boil down to programming at the troop level, vs programming at the patrol level. Example: Troop decides to do district camporee and half the patrols/scouts do not attend because they have done that camporee multiple times. vs Patrols decide individually their campout some choose the camporee some do a different campout. Some argue that there aren't enough adults to do separate patrol activities. This could be true, but unless the troop is using a bus or multiple 15 passenger vans, they will need 1 adult to drive (at most) 4-5 scouts which means 2 adults automatically per patrol just as drivers. There is your 2-deep.

Hit or miss. Same with boys. For those in stand-alone troops with a quality Scouter who understand the program, then yes. However what I have witnessed is these rare cases are the SM is a successful scouter and created the troop for his daughter. Now that the daughter is out, he is as well and the troop is suffering from a leadership and experience vacuum. This happens in boy troops too. The more common girls experience is a "linked on paper only" and typically joined a dysfunctional boys troop with a poor quality program and the introduction of a girls patrol made the bad situation worse. I think there is a difficulty in recruiting and more importantly training ALL adult leaders. Moms and dads are asked by the unit b/c they are there, but there is zero recruitment at a national, council, or district level to recruit Scouters who would be beneficial as SM, ASM, or TC for individual units. If the BSA was serious about Quality this is where they would start. A nationwide campaign focused at the council/district level to attract, and train unit leaders to facilitate a quality program at the unit level.

Awesome!

I was trying to be brief without getting into all the technical aspects of filtering, purifying, etc...

If there is a water source, I advocate for filtering. Only carry water for dry camps.

The concept of linked troops was good on surface and if managed well, likely quite successful at the sharing of resources. In my experience, the implementation of linked troops was not even close to the ideal. The reality I have seen is co-ed troops instead with adults using linked troop verbiage. These troops struggle with the implementation not because of the introduction of girls, but because they did not have a strong (or even basic) understanding or use of the patrol method. Basically the girls troop implementation was less than successful because they joined a boys troop which was not successful in its own right. All the problems associated with a boys troop which does not use the patrol method, and other issues were amplified with the introduction of girls into their mix. The adults for the girls troop learned from bad examples. So, the implementation area which could be improved is in defining the linked troop structure, with more guardrails, oversight and adult training from outside the established boys troop to ensure success of the girls troop (and improve the boys troop).

In our area students all take a course in HS called "Participation in Government".

Your post prompted me to go look at the date for my Songbook. Much more recent 1966.

The cooking example was just that, an example. I am not trying to dicker around about what badge(s) are more important than others. The example was illustrative that any badge can be broken down into multiple badges with a more intense focus. It is my opinion that citizenship as 4 separate badges is grossly over-represented in the mB line-up. I have no intention to argue over my opinion. You have yours, we disagree.

Even if the mB is more knowledge based, the reqs IMO should have the scouts do something with that knowledge whether it be during the acquisition of the knowledge, and/or after the fact. Almost 25% of mBs in one topic is too much IMO. I would also not like it if they had 4 mBs for Cooking. Cooking for family, Cooking on open fire, Cooking International Recipes, Cooking for a Patrol all as different badges.

Some scout activities are not for every scout. We should not force a scout to participate in activities which they do not enjoy. If the patrol want to sing, and one scout does not want to sing, the patrol could find another role, such as "hold the flashlight as a spot light on the patrol". As an aside, I have been playing with the openAI bot. Here is my latest prompt and the AI response. (This thread was the catalyst for the prompt). write a campfire song for boy scouts and include the guitar chords and music Here is a campfire song for Boy Scouts: Title: "The Scouts of Clearwater" Verse 1: G D We are the scouts of Clearwater G D Adventure is what we seek C G From hiking to campfires to swimming D We're always on the go Chorus: G D Scouts of Clearwater G D Honor and duty our call C G We'll face any challenge D And stand tall Verse 2: G D We learn skills and teamwork G D And make friends along the way C G We'll brave the wilderness D And face any foe Chorus: G D Scouts of Clearwater G D Honor and duty our call C G We'll face any challenge D And stand tall Bridge: C G We'll never give up or back down C G We'll always stand strong and true C G We're the Scouts of Clearwater D And we'll always see it through Chorus: G D Scouts of Clearwater G D Honor and duty our call C G We'll face any challenge D And stand tall.

IMO, no merit badge can/should be done via powerpoint. If it *can", then the badge is really no more than reading a condensed book. IMO not worthy of a mB which should require scouts to DO more than just "repeat". Second, the mB program is predicated on adult association as a method. A mB reduced to a ppt presentation more often than not has little/no adult association. (It is extremely rare that a mB counselor is skilled enough to use ppt and provide meaningful adult association, mostly b/c if they have the ability they would not choose to use ppt in the first place).

Well, I would not have kept every single requirement. 😬

If I were in charge, I would have used the CIS idea as the catalyst to merge all 3 (now 4) citizenship mBs into one grand Citizenship mB. This is probably not a popular opinion, so be glad I am not in charge. 😜

https://www.scouter.com/search/?&q=Citizenship in society&search_and_or=and&search_in=titles

Bear in mind I have zero experience with Lone Scouts, nor with scouts who have such significant challenges which could necessitate a need to be separate from the group. That said, IMO any part of the Scouting, including Lone Scout should be available to any scout regardless of disability.

In other non BSA organizations, etc... Resident Camp was contrasted with Day Camp, meaning you stayed for the nights.

Scout-led. 'nuff said.

I recall some events, patches were only available to "early-bird registration".

I agree Matt. I have always looked at advancement and the requirements as part and parcel of the scouting adventure. If the program is diverse, and adults do not shortchange the kids, the requirements will be accomplished by and within a quality program. You are correct there is a disconnect from advancement and program. or worse, the program is advancement. Example: Every campout the scout should be presenting themselves to their PL with proper clothing and a complete pack. This should be SOP. It is SOP when I lead trips for adults. I provide lists and help to ensure they have what is needed; allow them to borrow gear from me. But prior to me leading them into the woods, I make sure they have everything. Final check at the trailhead. If done well, a scout will rarely one&done any requirement because they are all a regular part of the adventure. If most reqs are one&done, then take a look at the program and where the scouts are being shortchanged.

I do not believe the SM clears the scout for the BOR. The SM conference is not necessarily the last requirement signed off, nor is the SM conference a check of readiness or completion of the other requirements. It is the responsibility of BOR to ensure completion of the requirements. While we may quibble over pass/fail, the BOR can just be suspended and scheduled to reconvene at a later date. Another aspect which I believe needs further discussion is the concept of not penalizing scouts for adult error. It appears that this has been taken to the extreme. What constitutes error vs outright fraud? Is a scout granted all ranks just because some adult signed all his requirements in the book? Do we just throw our hands up and say "we dont penalize the scout for adult error" and give the kid his Eagle badge? If not, then there is some discernment to be made for situation less than this ridiculous scenario. I submit that it will be extremely difficult to formulate a legalistic description as individual scenarios cany vary. I submit this is one purpose of the BOR, to make this judgement at the local level. Not a retest of requirements, but when discovered a requirement was not completed it can be rectified. The BOR should discuss with the scout how to rectify the situation, suspend the BOR and reconvene.

IMO Charting and membership (youth and adults) should be completely separate. The Charter is an agreement between Council and the COR. Membership is something else entirely. IMO, the Charter should not include any membership names of youth or adults, except the COR who attests to the current numbers of youth and registered adults delineated by troop and committee.