A tail of two units

[mk9750]

Neil,

 

Based on having been in a similiar circumstance with our Troop to what you say was Pack A's demise, I agree with you.

 

As delicately as I can put this, over the period of two or three years our program went from being average or maybe a little below average to being the undisputed best in our area (sorry that sounds so conceited, but it really is true). Other Troops in the area that were used to drawing 3 - 10 boys a year started losing crossovers. One Troop in particular went from 10 to 4 to zero boys crossing to their Troop, and we know all the boys who normally would have crossed to their Troop crossed to ours.

 

One Troop in particular decided that they needed to combat the loss of boys crossing, and with the help of a very unScoutlike new Committee Chair, proceeded to do a number of things to rip our Troop and make theirs look better. Not much in the way of a better program (then), but things like "it'll only take your son 4 months to make 1st class and 3 years to make Eagle", and other such comments. The CC specifically called our SM a child abuser. It was ugly.

 

I want to be fair: Since that CC has left Scouting, their Troop has stopped using such tactics, and their program has improved greatly. But the two years during his "reign of terror" were hard on us, and it's been hard to recover.

 

My point is, it's not jus the program that determines a unit's success or failure, as measured by enrollment. Many other things factor in, and not all of them are under the control of the unit. In Future's scenerio, making an agreement that was Scoutlike at the time backfired when someone exploited it.

 

My hope is that those boys who have lost the opportunity to be involved with a quality program find a way to get into a better one, somehow.

 

Mark

[NeilLup]

BW, thank you for the information. I would like to read that myself, if you don't mind, to be sure that I understand it correctly, so is there a place you can refer me.

 

I went through something like the Pack A/Pack B situation in my first adult Scouting job. I was a new lieutenant on an AF Base. There had been one Troop and one Pack, each about 150-200 boys. About 3-4 years earlier, they had decided to split each into 4 Troops and 4 Packs. There also was a formal assignment of feeder Packs where Pack A would feed Troop C, Pack B would feed Troop D, etc. A boy could choose to go to another Troop, but this was the expected alternative.

 

About a year earlier, the Pack which fed my Troop went out of business. I knew none of this history when I agreed to serve.

 

I tried talking to some of the other SMs about rethinking the feeder Pack arrangement and the response reminded me of the old joke with the punch line "We had twins, mind died." There were plenty of Cub Scouts to go around, but they, needless to say, liked the arrangement and tough noogies for us. One Troop, in particular, was the strongest Troop and was fed by the strongest Pack. They were going to do everything they could to keep it that way.

 

It took a lot of pulling on the oar to turn matters around and get our Troop to stable situation. We had to do a great deal of marketing and recruiting since we really didn't have Webelos Scouts available. When I left, our Troop wasn't the best, but we were the second best and all of the Troops were very good. We did get an occasional Webelos Scout but not too many.

 

At one time, Scouting was strong enough that we could pick at each other. Now, Scouting is in a challenged situation so that we don't have the luxury of picking. The competition (or enemy if you will) is not each other, it is other youth activities, the tube, pro sports, etc.

[Bob White]

I believe in was in his Aids to Scoutmastership. If you enter the phrase in a search engine yo will find several references to the quote.

 

BW

[NeilLup]

Here is what I found in the 1920 issue of the Chief Scout Speaks:

 

"APRIL 24, 1920

 

THE ELEVENTH SCOUT LAW

 

How many laws are there in the Scout Law? Ten.

 

Well, if there were an eleventh law it would be this:

 

"A Scout is not a fool. He thinks a thing out for himself, sees both sides, and has the pluck to stick up for what he knows to be the right."

 

A fellow who is a backwoodsman is never a fool, because he has to look out for himself on all occasions; while a chap who lives in a town gets everything done for him. If he wants water he goes to the tap instead of having to notice where a valley runs down between hills and brings you to a stream.

 

If the town boy wants light he switches on the gas or electric light, which is made for him by someone else, instead of having to cut for himself a slither of pinewood or a roll or birch bark to make a torch.

 

A woodsman does not trip over the tent ropes every time he goes near a tent, he does not nick his toe with his axe when chopping wood, he does not capsize a canoe in getting into it-he is not a fool; he does things neatly and well, and he uses his wits. That is the Scouts way.

 

"It is a disgrace to a Scout if anybody sees a thing before he does." That we know from our book, "Scouting for Boys."

 

It is dangerous for us to try to overanalyze something written 84 years ago. However, I am very comfortable with "He thinks things out for himself, he sees both sides and has the pluck to stand up for what he knows to be right."

 

That is certainly consistent with what BW wrote. I don't think, however, that it is inconsistent with my interpretation.

[Bob White]

WHAT?

 

BP said he didn't include the 11th law because if you follow the other ten in your life then the 11th is not needed.

 

You said it meant not to follow the 10 laws rigidly.

 

How is that even close?

[evmori]

Sounds like "Be Prepared" and "A Scout is not a fool" are the same thing.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[dsteele]

I recall reading a box in my 1972 Boy Scout Handbook about BP thinking about putting "A Scout is not a fool" into the Scout Law and then deciding against it. It was interesting reading the little box, but then I moved on and, although I remember the phrase, the reason he did not include it is no longer important to me.

 

However, I sense that we're about to see a debate and can only hope that it remains backed up by data.

 

Ed, you didn't provide any data, but I can see your point and think it provides interesting insight. However, I do ask that you don't go poking anything

 

Like I said, I'm not sure why BP didn't include "A Scout is not a fool" in the law, but I'm glad he didn't. Everything else is written as what a Scout IS -- not what he is NOT. I'm not putting words in BP's mouth -- just a personal observation.

 

DS