Jump to content

Unit Fundraising

Ideas for fundraising projects and programs for your unit.

377 topics in this forum

    • 153 replies
    • 109 replies
    • 96 replies
    • 95 replies
    • 94 replies
    • 83 replies
  1. Unit Treasurer

    • 81 replies
    • 75 replies
  2. Fund Raising Question

    • 74 replies
    • 64 replies
    • 60 replies
    • 59 replies
    • 57 replies
  3. Donations and Sponsors

    • 56 replies
  4. Troop Finances

    • 55 replies

    • It's about the same era, close enough anyway.  The alternatives are tough.  It probably involves harshly punishing the perpetrators of bad deeds while not restricting the rights of innocent actors.  It's the same philosophy as the knife discussion.  Blanket policies restricting anything mostly serve to punish the innocent.  Anyway, thank you for acknowledging the YPT does affect program.
    • @Buggie, if Women's Day had good hiking tips and back-country cooking recipes, I'd be on it like white on rice! Since I was a scout, girls have been writing into "Pedro" about how much they liked the magazine (either their brother's or the library's).
    • I get why people feel that the magazine name change shouldn't have happened. Still I wonder, would you feel comfortable reading a magazine for the program if it was titled, "Girls Life"?  
    • Thank you.  Let me provide what I hope is an equally well stated rebuttal. I don't see the addition of girls to the program as adding a layer of richness, I see it as replacing a layer of richness that already exists.  A place for boys to hang with their mates around the campfire is a rich and important experience.  There's plenty of literature out there that suggests today's men don't have other male friends and it's impacting their mental health.  The Boy Scouts has always been a place for boys to learn how to make male friends, nay, brothers.  That process will be irrevocably changed with the addition of girls to the program.  Men will suffer as a result. You said that we're preparing the boys for adulthood, and since they'll have to work with women, they should work with girls now.  While I think there is truth in that argument, forcing co-ed scouts at all ages is using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.  I believe that boys certainly in the 11-14 year age range, and probably in the 5 - 14 year age range need to learn how to deal with the transition to manhood first.  We all remember what it was like to be that age.  Having mentors and leaders and peers who have been or are going through that same period in life is critical.  Yes, they need to learn how to work with women, but, I think that happens after they've learned how to be young men.  I have no problem with co-ed scouting at the high school age level, as an option.  If I honestly believe the separate troop thing was anything other than a short transition phase to fully co-ed Troops, designed to minimize losses, I might be onboard.  In a spearate thread on this forum at least one scouter was already touting their co-ed patrols.  Separate or linked troops are a fantasy. You earlier referenced Scouts UK as a model.  The wikipedia page references their 2016/2017 report and says "Girls now make up 27% of all-age participants with a total of 99,989 female participants aged between 6 and 25 and a further 69,460 women involved in volunteer roles (being more than 1 adult female for every 2 female young people), while new recruits are now 71% girls (approx. 2.5 girls for every boy)" Emphasis is mine.  If in 10 years our movement is 27% female, and we don't lose any marketshare in boys, then we'll just have made up the delta for the departures in the last few years.  More importantly (and I haven't read the entire report so I'm taking the 2.5:1 comment at face value), if the UK Scout Association is recruiting 2.5 girls for every boy that enters the program, one has to question if they are in fact serving the general population of boys.  It's not clear to me that set of numbers is a win for boys.  The Scout Association is seeing 8% year-over-year growth, so it is clearly winning, but maybe at the expense of boys. I too have seen girls bring fun and enthusiasm to activities in Cub Scouts.  But, I've also watched adult leaders, male and female, break up boys unstructured, loud, rough, and unstructured play in order to get them to attend to some boring, quiet, and structured activity.  The girls thrive in the latter, the boys in the former.  I've had more than a few conversations with leaders, male and female, to the effect of you have to let boys play.  Requirements are nice, but, not nearly as important as unstructured, rowdy, play.  Once they've blown off that steam you can probably get them to attend to whatever classroom stuff you have to offer. Finally, you said "It hasn't been a negative in school classrooms to have boys and girls working together."  I can't begin to express how strongly I disagree with this statement.  Boys are loud, squirmy, and active.  Nobody who has ever actually worked with boys was shocked when taking away the unstructured play of recess, and the jungle gyms and swings, caused problems in the classroom.  But, instead of giving boys the room to be boys, we've chosen to medicate the ones that can't act like their female counterparts.  Scouting used to be a refuge from that mentality.  I fear it will become more of the same, and worse than it is today (MBUs, Citizenship MBs at summer camp, etc.).  
    • Yes, excited.  Eagle Scout, Ordeal OA (weak lodge), Den Leader and Committee Chair at Pack
  • Who's Online (See full list)