All Activity

And let's not forget that as late as 1990 about 18% of boys in the target population age were in a BSA program and that percentage was still about 15% in 2000. I believe it slid down from there to about 9% by 2017 when Surbaugh and the higher ups decided there were two paths forward. One was to juice the flywheel with laser focus. But, Surbaugh and others thought that meant becoming a "very small, boutique organization serving what's probably a legacy clientele" (quote from article referenced below). So they decided to transform into something else--a saving grace of bigger is better because after all the target market would more than double. Shortly after that choice and other choices and outside factors (COVID, BSA supports BLM, bankruptcy, LDS split, spotlight on sexual abuse, drastic price increases, etc.) the numbers collapsed. Twice the target market and half the membership. Hard to imagine. I wonder what % of boys today are in a BSA program? 5-6% if we're lucky?  Boy Scouts Are Just Scouts Now, and That’s Making Girl Scouts Mad | by Bloomberg Businessweek | Bloomberg Businessweek | Medium  

Fascinating graph. It explains a lot. The rise in scouts was tied to the baby boom a lot more than I realized. I joined in 1971, which was both about the peak and near the end of the baby boom. I don't know what happened in 86 but there was a big bump in cub scouts but no change boy scouts. The other thing I noticed is the connection to the family savings rate and this graph. Nobody even measured it before 1950 because it was so low, but then there was a huge surge in the 60's and a drop off mid to late 70's that has been going down since. Maybe I'm seeing what I want but the lesson to me is make scouting cheaper and simpler. It has nothing to do with membership rules nearly as much as it does with the economic health of the middle class.

So..if there are folks who were at the Annual meeting, what else was put out as solutions to the decreasing membership numbers.  Did any in attendance stand up and scream "how can we fix this before we go out of business" or just death by powerpoint?   Name Change....personally don't see hundreds of thousands of youth flocking the council offices to sign up Coed Troops...is the official position that this too will increase membership?  Seems like existing co-located units MIGHT merge into one but that isn't assured.    CO still have the say. Slides on how many girls are in the program but was there any discussion on how to help the other 85% of the membership? another biggie...change the name of Rifle ranges...huge! Reducing costs?   Registration, reduce the number of Councils through forced mergers, Loss of property, right-size the organization to match the membership?   Just curious...most of this blog's chatter is on name and coed.        

In the first three decades of our troop it was an NRA club as well.  The SM owned a ranch and it had an arroyo.  He built a range in the arroyo where the scouts trained.  We still have remnants of that in historical items, including an interesting journal of names and scores, along with ammunition used.  Sam also ran the local camp range for years, and then someone else from the troop took it over.  During WWII, all the members that went in the service were marksmen or experts.   Below is an interesting target that apparently was used during the War years.  I have no idea where it came from, other than it was in a file.  

Sadly, that would truly not surprise me in the least.  So many of our challenges relate directly to people being too self-centered or simply completely clueless.  That, of course brings us back to why Scouting IS still important, if we could just work the basic programs with arm distant adult mentoring.  Oh, and lock the lawyers up unless they have a valid reason to be let out.  If our society would simply "live the twelve" and see that foundation for what it still is, and was with a few sad exceptions, we would maybe be better off.  But blinders seem to have taken over the role of glasses and sunglasses.