iPods and the "Real" Patrol Method

[Eagle732]

The comment I made was in reference to your statement about "Real Scouts" (individuals), not real patrols.

When you make the statement that only scouts who participate at a certain level are "Real Scouts" the you infer that the rest are not "Real" scouts.

 

I've got two scouts in my troop right now that have never been backpacking or canoeing. They are real scouts, in fact they are more scout like than any other scout I've ever met.

 

Sad thing is no one here will say a thing to support the boys who are not, in your opinion "Real Scouts".

 

 

[Kudu]

 

Eagle732 writes:

 

"The comment I made was in reference to your statement about "Real Scouts" (individuals), not real patrols. When you make the statement that only scouts who participate at a certain level are "Real Scouts" the you infer that the rest are not "Real" scouts. I've got two scouts in my troop right now that have never been backpacking or canoeing. "

 

So you are OK with Green Bar Bill's statement that only Patrols that walk into the woods once a month without adult association are "Real" Patrols, but you draw the line at Baden-Powell's class system that defines a Scout's "Class" by the distance he has navigated through the backwoods with a backpack or canoe?

 

http://inquiry.net/advancement/traditional/journey_requirements.htm

 

After all, his First Class "Journey" requirements "infer" that an Eagle who has never walked into the woods with a pack on his back is a "Second Class" Eagle

 

To rephrase the question posed by this thread:

 

Do ANY hardcore backpacking + iPod Troops observe (out on the trail) the same unScout-like behavior of the indoor Scouts reported above?

 

Not that there is anything WRONG with indoor Scouts!

 

[Scoutfish]

While I am not gonna argue that scouts who do hike in the woods all the time are great scouts or better scouts or not...

 

 

declaring a real patrol by their being seperated from adults and other patrils is not even close to determining wether a scout is real or not.

 

Patrols are groups of scouts. Thus if all teh scouts in a troop always hang out in one big group, or all vote on menues, duty rosters, etc...then they indeed not being patrols. They are being a battalion.

 

But you are comparing a patrol to a group. A patrol is a size or grouping.

 

Wether scouts are real or not is different.

 

Suppose you have a troop of 20 boys who hike every 2 weeks. They only carry what they can carry on their4 back and hike 20 miles a day. Camp in hammocks, and only eat what nature provides( berries, nuts, catch fish, snare rabbits, etc...)

 

But they do it as one big group. And the SM ,and ASM(s) much make all the plans and decisions.Any scout who has an issue or problem goes straight to the SM or ASM(s).

 

Are they real scouts since they ignored the fundamentals of patrols and using the patrol methood? Are they real scouts since the adults are running the show?

 

 

Then take a urban troop. Not welfare boys, but boys who are bottom middle class or even upper lower class incomes. You know- just able to afford to be in scouting.....but barely.

 

They can't afford to travel 100 miles or 3 or 4 hours away to a rural or wilderness setting. The only option they really have is a city/county park.

 

They seperate into distinct and seperate patrols. Each patrol will do their own thing and be seperate of each other while camping out in the park. They really can't use water from the creek or pond as the water filtration kits can't come close to handling the impurities and city polution. So they use tap water provided by water fountains at shelters. The city has a coide against fire rings,, fire pits or plain old open fires on the ground...so each patrol uses those pole mounted steel charcoal grills that are scattered around the park. But each patrol plans and cooks it's own meal. Troop leadership is also seperate and cooks their own meals too.

 

After dinner, the PLC meets amongst themselves and then after that, meets with the adult leaders.

 

 

Each patrol does their own thing and scouts are doing and learning by direction of their individula patrol leaders.

 

So, which scouts are "REAL scouts" ?

 

 

And does "where" they do ther scouting really matter as much as how they do their scouting?

 

And in both cases, would either one be less real to youth who just stay home and play video games and never become a scout at all ?

[Eagle732]

"The only "Real" Boy Scouts are those whose great Scouting passion is to camp out of a backpack or canoe."

 

Do you have boys in your unit that can't or won't backpack?

Do you tell them they are not "Real Scouts"?

 

I'm not arguing your point that scouts should be outdoors doing traditional scouting activities. I agree with that. I don't agree with labeling scouts as "Real" only if they do certain activities.

 

I have a link to your website on my troop's website with a note saying that it's my favorite site for scout skills. You do a disservice to you message by making comments like the one I quoted above.

 

[Eagle732]

Scoutfish said it better than I could have ever done.

 

It's not what they do but how they do it.

 

My two scouts that don't backpack or canoe. One is legally blind and deaf, the other can not leave his parents alone overnight because at 14 he is their caretaker, they both have severe medical condition (MS and cancer). Both boys are real scouts.

[Stosh]

With Sesame Street Kids of today who's focus is often short lived, paying attention is quite difficult. When nature can not flash at one in 5 second bursts, they quickly get bored. Thus to fill in the blanks, the continual entertainment of iPods and other electronics is often employed. However, the randomness of nature often comes when least expected and I would say that a lot of the experience in the woods or on the trail is missed because the focus has been altered with electronics. I know that simply picking up the pace of a hike will focus one's attention on the feet and trail instead of the wildlife that they pass by quickly. Couple that with shutting out all noise with ear buds, and one might as well have stayed at home.

 

I'm not even going to try and regulate the useage of such devices. But if all one has to do is stand in the woods listening to music intead of at home listening to music, just to get a credit check in the Handbook, there's something seriously wrong about the attitude of the boy towards Scouts.

 

I've hunted, fished, camped, hiked and been out-of-doors for most of my life. I have never had need of any electronics during those times. For me, getting out of my work cube or off my sofa into nature is an excuse to get away from all those electonic devices in the first place.

 

Even while driving in a car, the radio is off and I and my passengers are identifying ditch flowers and enjoying the scenery. I prefer the really back roads when traveling. Even then much of nature flies by rather quickly.

 

Stop and smell the roses used to be the big mantra for those in the great American Rat Race. I would suggest wild roses as better. And remember even if you win the Rat Race, you're still a rat.

 

It's Saturday a.m. and my kayak is calling. I don't even like the noise of powered watercraft. I hope the river isn't running too fast today, I wouldn't want to get done too soon.

 

Stosh

[Scoutfish]

Stosh,

If you stop and smell the roses, you will get in trouble for trampling the3 flauna and flora, and you might go into Anaphylactic shock !

 

 

I myself don't listen to the radio much at all. Usually whenI drive, I listen to the music of the tires on te road, with the window down and the breeze blowing in my face.

 

Same while in the woods: I like to hear the birds flitting around the bushes and underbrush. Love to hear the squirrels fuss at whatever they are fussing at. Listen enough, and you can hear dragonflys hover.

 

But sometimes while I am cooking or resting, having a radio on - but just is loud enough to hear - hits the spot.

[qwazse]

Y'all ought a know at subterfuge gets your point across better with more fun. Every 15 minutes or so you stop and say/motion "listen!"

 

Kid takes ear buds off, asks "what?"

 

"Sorry, you missed it."

 

Continue walking.

 

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

 

Those of you who consider that to be hazing may actually respond to real sounds of interest. If you do so on a hike with your PLC, they will soon repeat the process with their boys. For program, bring in an expert on wildlife calls the meeting before a hike. Have them play some recordings or make some calls. Explain to boys that sound counts for identifying those 10 animals.

 

You can talk about how important it is to listen to the sounds of the wilderness, but if you don't give your boys some practical reference, they'll never learn how.

[TAHAWK]

Hard to pay attention to what's going on around you if you are locked into some artificial electronic world. Interferes with learning about nature and not safe. And even more unsafe in the city.

 

Tests for UK Rank Advancement Through the Years

 

http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/tests.htm

 

http://www.boy-scout.net/en/page1/page35/page35.html

 

[Kudu]

 

"The only "Real" Boy Scouts are those whose great Scouting passion is to camp out of a backpack or canoe."

 

Eagle732 writes:

 

"When you make the statement that only scouts who participate at a certain level are "Real Scouts" then you infer that the rest are not "Real" scouts. "

 

If only every adult Eagle could be so offended by the praise of Traditional First Class Scouts.

 

I used Hillcourt's term "Real" because the activities of a "Real Patrol" and a "Real Scout" are exactly the same:

 

A "Real Patrol" practices the same backpacking Journeys that its Second Class Scouts would have do alone or with one Second Class buddy to be called by B-P a "First Class Scout."

 

So when he makes the statement that only Scouts who "participate at a certain level" are "First Class Scouts" then we must infer that the rest are SECOND BEST (the meaning of "Second Class")!

 

Sad thing is no one here will say a thing to support the "parlour" boys who are not, in B-P's opinion, "First Class Scouts."

 

Where is the outrage? Well, to be more fair to boys who hate camping, we replaced Baden-Powell's backpack or canoe test at every rank with the YMCA's adult-run Scoutmaster Conference and Board of Review.

 

So instead of using the absolute joy to an outdoor boy of testing his skills at each rank with Baden-Powell's adult-free backpack or canoe Journeys, we drag him indoors to be tested by a bunch of parents to determine if he is "scout-like."

 

Maybe you could suggest a more politically correct term than "Real Scout" for boys who meet Baden-Powell's definition of a "First Class Scout"?

 

I was thinking along the lines of "High Adventure," but that would "infer" that Scouts who do not participate at a certain level are "lower."

 

I certainly don't want to damage the self-esteem of "scout-like" boys who hate camping!

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

[Kudu]

 

Scoutfish writes:

 

"Then take a urban troop. Not welfare boys, but boys who are bottom middle class or even upper lower class incomes. You know- just able to afford to be in scouting.....but barely. They can't afford to travel 100 miles or 3 or 4 hours away to a rural or wilderness setting. The only option they really have is a city/county park...So, which scouts are "REAL scouts"?"

 

Why do so many Americans see "inclusiveness" as an opportunity to dumb down Scouting?

 

If you want to read about Real Scouts in urban Troops, see my article in the winter 1997 issue of Scouter Magazine. The only time we ever camped in city/county parks was when we attended Camporees, but our Scouts did not like that kind of camping. It was precisely these city park BSA Council events that inspired Baden-Powell coin the term "Parlour Scouting."

 

It took constant fund-raising, but we always managed to get to camps once a month where the Patrols could set up 300 feet apart, with occasional backpacking trips to the Allegheny National Forest, or the Adirondack Mountains.

 

As for "Real Patrol" Camping, the twelve (12) year-old Patrol Leader from our Troop interviewed by Terry Howerton and "Big Ed" Henderson, hiked or biked his Patrol out of the neighborhood through old railroad right-of-ways.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

[Eagle732]

I'll ask again;

Do you have boys in your unit that can't or won't backpack?

Do you tell them they are not "Real Scouts"?

[Stosh]

Hillcourt may have referenced real scouts as those really doing scouting activities. While I have never said to a scout he is not real because I believe eventually ever scout has a chance to eventually become real. Some make it, some do not.

 

On the other hand I have often made (and called scouts) Parlor Scouts a reference to a pre-Hillcourt era. I think it is far less offensive, but far more descriptive of non-nature scouts throughout the years. I think it would be comparable to maybe a Hollywood cowboy as compared to one who actually works with cattle. They look good, they talk the jargon, maybe even have the skills, but would be totally out of their element once the screen door slammed shut behind them.

 

Stosh

[Kudu]

Eagle732 writes:

 

"I'll ask again; Do you have boys in your unit that can't or won't backpack?"

 

Yes.

 

Eagle732 writes:

 

"Do you tell them they are not 'Real Scouts'?"

 

What kind of question is that?

 

Eagle732 writes:

 

"My two scouts that don't backpack or canoe. One is legally blind and deaf, the other can not leave his parents alone overnight because at 14 he is their caretaker, they both have severe medical condition (MS and cancer). Both boys are real scouts."

 

I'll ask again: Why do so many Americans see "inclusiveness" as an opportunity to dumb down Scouting?

 

If by "Real Scouts" you mean B-P's standard for a First Class Scout: Then if the blind kid has a deep longing for adventure, I would put a paddle in his hands. Most of B-P's rank requirements had a water Journey option. No reason why a blind outdoor enthusiast can't help his buddy paddle a canoe 14 miles.

 

For the fourteen-year-old who can't leave his parents untended, some communities have programs where volunteers will come in to relieve elder-care-givers. If this child can not take a break to go camping once a month, then nobody is looking out for him.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[SR540Beaver]

"The only "Real" Boy Scouts are those whose great Scouting passion is to camp out of a backpack or canoe."

 

We call those kind of scouts "sissies" around here. We don't consider them "REAL boy scouts" unless they wander off into the wilderness alone and shoeless when it is below freezing. We don't give them Webelos III luxuries like a compass or water bottle. We give them a flint and steel, a knife and a piece of bubble gum. Those that fail, but survive are ridiculed by the REAL boy scouts who thrive.