Eagledad

We tried to not put repellent on the skin if possible, only our clothing. But if it were applied to skin, we generally only did that in the morning and it wore off by evening where the human smell was stronger. We generally were in our tents before dark in areas of heavy mosquitoes like the Boundary Waters before they became a problem. It was never a problem in mountains where bears might be a concern. Barry

Yes, I haven't been in bear county in a few years, so there may be some new odorless products I haven't seen. But some things just have a smell, so sometimes not attracting critters is more about using a strategy of what odors and when. For example, the clothes we wear during the day with mosquito repellent and other odors we keep in the bear bag at night. Same goes with clothing that has spilled food on them. Just about every attack of a scout at Philmont was a result of food, food wrappers, or food on clothing in the tent. Bears in general don't like the smell of humans, so it's the other smells that overpower their repulsion of man. Good question, I'll be interested in the other comments. Barry

Pragmatically, the line of acceptance of a role model is when the actions or reputation of the role model are considered safe for a scout to imitate in his own behavior as a result of his observations or respect of the role model. Barry

Pragmatism. The goal of the program is to develop boys into making ethical and moral decisions. Race has little or no influence to do with that goal. Girls dilutes the program quality because boys of this age are biologically distracted during the activities intended to develop their decision making maturity. And homosexuality is an issue of moral role modeling. If one is capable of leaving their emotions and biases out, the membership structure makes sense to achieve the best performing program for the vision. Barry

This isn't like ebonics, the education elites are pushing this model across the county. Oklahoma City is dealing with it right now. There is a middle school where most of the teachers are threatening to leave. My son who teaches at an at risk high school get many of those students and he is concerned enough with the this trend and how much politics is influencing basic education that he is considering a new line of work. Many say that the BSA is a white mans program. If this education model becomes popular in minority communities, scouting will be even more politically incorrect and more controversial. Barry

I have two kids who are teachers and the Oklahoma City school district is going through this issue right now with a new adminstrator who is following this approach to change the culture. A lot of teachers are very concerned. But notice what the training is trying to discourage. ""The manual defines this “white culture†with a list of values, such as “promoting independence, self expression, personal choice, individual thinking and achievement,†because apparently those are strictly “white†concepts and not emphasized in black communities. Read the whole article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/oregon-white-privilege-100K Barry

Makes sense. I would say half of our troops SMs were not registered members in their pack. But, they didn't come forward for a troop job either. They were recruited (heels dragging) to be ASMs and eventually found the passion to be very good Scoutmasters. And, I can think of three pack leaders (Eagles/SPL/OA during youth) who planned to be SM's when they joined the BSA in Tigers, but declined the SM gig a few years later because they had burned out. However, it wasn't do to a lack of warning by me. I actually insisted two of these guys not get involved at the pack level, and they still did. You just can fight passion and enthusiasm. They would have been great Scoutmasters. Barry

This is not what I mean. I don't have a problem with female leaders per say, I am being more pragmatic to how the introduction of female leaders has changed the program. And really, it not so much about females, admitting females was the defining moment when the majority of adult leaders didn't have experience with scouting or camping. Even men who have never camped or experienced scouts from a youth perspective have a completely different vision of boy scouting. Just the simple task of starting a fire is a huge undertaking for these adults. Can they really appreciate the reward of watching a boy mature from the decisions made from being responsible for some tasks. The last thing on my mind of a Scout taking on a POR is that he can use it to advance in rank. I think of it as maturing in making decisions based on thinking for others. I think in terms of character, but folks who never experience personal growth in the scouting seem to think in terms of rank. When a scout takes on a new MB, I am more concerned how well he performed the responsibilties of communicating the counselor and filling out the paperwork than I am of him completing the badge. Lacking enough experienced adult leaders is what I mean by the changes as a result of admitting women. Barry

Yeah, and Bad Wolfs baby boomers explanation makes sense as well. There was a lot of program dynamics going on in the 90s. I was right in the middle of it trying run a program that looked something like what I experienced in the 60s/70s. It was a challenging time. We had the video game challenges of the time, but I missed the social media thing the scouts have today. Barry

Must be a local thing. I've attended hundreds of crossovers and there was always someone (usually SPL and SM at least) receiving them. But the packs set the time and place of their crossovers, so it can be difficult to have troop representatives at every crossover. I remember our troop had to visit three crossover one night. We had half our PLC and ASMs covering them. Probably why I like the District crossover so much. Our troop was trying to help packs by letting us do the crossover, but folks would be surprised to learn the most Webelos families choose their troop within one day of their crossover. That made it impossible for our PLC to plan. If I were to get back on district, I would try to change the tradtition from the packs being responsible for crossovers to the troops. Then see what happens. Barry

Flash in the Pan? Go ask the Girl Scouts, Campfire Girls and Canadian Scouts how flash in the pan accepting gay scouts was to their program. It is the direct cause of the single largest loss of scouts in the history of all three of those programs. It completely change the face of Canadian Scouts to what is seen more now as kind of a YMCA style of program. We have yet to see how flash in the pan it will be to the BSA numbers, but it sure won't be anything to cheer about. As for the parent not having camping experience, that happened the year they accepted women. The organization is still today realigning its traditional program structure to adjust for that one policy change. You think the water gun restriction would have come up in a room full of men? There are a lot of causes to the changes in the program or membership decline, but you can make light of the impact the gay issue acceptance of women have on the program.

If I remember right, the BSA made big membership gains in the early 90's where they had the most scouts ever. I can't remember the details, the 90s were a huge boon for membership. Theory is the Gulf war inspired a lot of patriotism. The big decline really started after 2000. I do not believe the gay issue is smoke and mirrors because it was even a topic of several discussions here at work with folks who didn't have boys or kids. Everyone knew about it. In fact my fear was many parents stayed away from the BSA more to just not get in discussions with friends who were judging. And history supports it as well because every youth scouting organization that made the gay membership change took big hits. Only the Scouts in England have recovered as far as I know. Now a lot of folks think allowing women leaders was a big boost to the program. I don't know how that can be measured, but I will say that most of the changes we have seen in training in the last 20 years are a result of the huge influx of inexperienced adult leaders. Does that make a difference? Well many here believe the number one reason the BSA doesn't have a good image today is because it is getting away from the out doors. It certainly isn't promoting it as much. It is fair to say that almost 3/4 or new adult leaders today have never camped in their life before joining the BSA. They don't have any memories of camping or scouting as a youth. They only have training. Before the women leaders policy change, it went without saying that most leaders had at least camped in their youth and likely had some boy scout experience. You don't think that has something to do with those who have some control of image? So, trying to figure this out is a lot more complicated than comparing membership numbers 50 years apart. National has made A LOT of major policy and program changes that have had a "Huge" "Huge" effect on the program. Most folks here know that I am no fan of the Tiger program. I believe it is a major contributor to adult burnout which has led to less than 50 percent of Webelos not making it to the Troop program. Maybe what we are really dealing with here is that the present image of the BSA is a casualty of the natural evolution of progress and we shouldn't fight it. Some of the old timers here are mocking traditional scouting anyway, so maybe it is time to accept a paradigm shift. That is what the Girl Scouts have been doing. Barry

A lot of packs, including ours, has the same tradition of the 2nd year Webs doing B&G. We fixed our long B&G by doing the Crossover at the Pack Meeting before or after the B&G. Actually the parents (everyone) liked that change because it made the B&G much easier to plan, and a lot shorter in length. Barry

That is pretty cool. Barry

Yes, I did it when I was SM of 90 scouts and the present SM is doing it now with about 60. It just has to be an expected part of the program so the process develops in that direction. Barry

Thanks Barry

Bad Wolf, I can only say that your troop's goals are different than ours. Our scouts can manage the elections and leadership responsibilities without the adults. Like Twocub, we don't use leadership for advancement. If scouts need a POR to advance, they figure something out. But our PLC works very hard, so you don't see scouts looking for a POR there just to knock of a rank requirement. And SM special projects are rare and usually only for a handicap scout. Barry

I'm still not sure what the point of this discussion, or if there really ever was one. Why the sudden latest decline, it is a guess without all the numbers that the gay issue hit the BSA hard, but it is a pretty safe guess. Personally I think the BSA is fairing better than I thought. The same left turn move hit the Girls Scouts and Campfire kids pretty hard and almost took the Canadian Scouts down completely. In fact compared to what the Canadian Scouts were in the mid 90s before their progressive policy changes, the Canadian Scouts ARE dead. But, all that being said, the BSA has internal program policies that are killing numbers as well. Tigers and Webelos both loose almost 50% of their scouts. That is a huge problem. But I'm not sure that the OP is even talking about that. So what is this discussion really about? How to build elite units? What is that? Barry

It doesn't really matter Bad Wolf what system a troop uses as long as the scouts manage it themselves and use it to provide leadership growth. I have seen dozens of different styles of election processes that work. I know of a troop with about 50 scouts that uses Stosh's style. It's harder for the adults in bigger troop to keep up with, but that is generally the case for troops with a lot of patrol independence. I find many election styles work fine so long as the scouts feel they aren't being held back by the process. Barry

This takes a little time because it works best when the scouts hold each other accountable. And while they are talking a big story now, they will find that holding their best friend accountable isn't always as easy as that sounds. I was just saying another thread that one reason scouting units struggle at the adult level is because adults don't hold each other accountable. They don't want to be a that confrontational bad guy. So encourage all the scouts to hold everyone accountable. For example, I remember a scout who cut his foot pretty bad because he ran through camp barefooted, which is against troop policy. This happened right in front of the SPL, but when I asked who else saw him run through camp and didn't say anything, half the troop raise their hand. So I held all those scouts accountable and gave them a harsher SM conference because they didn't stop their fellow scout from breaking policy and having to go to the emergency room as a result. I worked with every PLC to support each other and work as a team as they worked with the scouts. If a senior leader is having difficulty with an unruly scout, another scout nearby should quietly walk over to help the first scout instead of waiting until the situation escalates to yelling. I wanted the PLC to set an example of everyone taking responsibility for each others behavior and not be afraid to say something. And it works, in a couple years the troop will have very few misbehaviors because the scouts have learned how to nip them in the bud. They don't even realize they are doing it. "Hey Bob, quit running and get some shoes on before you get hurt". As an adult, you will find that boys this age actually hate chaos and lazyness of others, but they don't feel they have permission to hold those scouts accountable. Up to this point in their lives, they have been taught to hand these matters to adults. Now you have to give those scouts permission to act adult and hold their fellow scouts up to the expectations of the patrol or troop. They want that responsibility, they just need to be shown that they have permission. As our troop got bigger, we had less misbehavior and accountability issues because the scouts just got better at doing it themselves. Once you start seeing it come together, you find yourself loving this scouting stuff. It really works. Barry

Yes, well sort a. As you said, there many variables and they change. But the main objective is for the scouts to have fun. For that to happen, the adults have to enjoy what they are doing. So we build around making the program as fun for the adults as it is for the scouts. The Den leaders are only asked to plan and run three den meetings a month. That's it. The Pack plans one pack activity each month like a swimming party, campfire, roller skate night, pinewood derby, blue and Gold and so forth. Typically non registered parents plan all those activities. The pack does its annual planning every July so the CC can start recruiting as soon as possible. Also to help lessen the risk of burn out, just about every volunteer has an assistant that could take over if ever needed. That worked well for us during my first three years in Cub Scouts because we had three good committee chairmen transfer out of the state. Each time the assistant stepped in without missing a beat. We are pretty good at recruiting, so that helps us a lot. But some packs struggle getting volunteers leaving the adults to start taking on multiple duties. We teach pack leaders to instead scale down their program to save themselves from burnout. We encourage packs to focus first on high quality fun den meetings. Less than 50% of Webelos nationally crossover to troops. Boring den meetings were found to be the main reason that at least 70% of those scouts didn't continue on to the troops. The other pack activities are nice, but it is the den meetings that makes a fun rewarding program. So instead of a mediocre yearly agenda full of activities that wears out the adults. Focus "First" on quality Den programs, and then as the pack finds more resources, add the other activities. But don't take away from good quality den meetings. Fun den meetings start with enthusiastic adults planning and running those meetings. Do what it takes to keep the den leaders happy and enthusiastic with their responsibilities. As I said, to run a Pack program the way National presents it is way too hard for the average parent, so scale it down to make it workable and FUN for the adults. If the adults are enjoying the program, they will bring their kids. And isn't that really the point. Barry

You are asking a very good and very complex question. For one thing, many folks, including me, like to compare management for volunteer organizations the same as businesses. But over the years I learned the two are apples and orange from each other. A business has the time and money to train and groom its employees for long future expectations. Cub Scouts has five years “At Best†for training, grooming and leading, and then then they are gone. Businesses will eventually shutdown if they don’t create profit. But I have watched Scouting units doing the same wrong things over and over, without ever having to shut down only because they are fed new families every year which don’t know a good program from a bad one. Since there is little visible measurable profit to represent success in a pack, there is also little visible measurable failure. So the same old issues like burnout repeat themselves over and over. Businesses can sort out bad employees by asking them to move on. Asking bad volunteers to find another unit is very very rare because most folks would rather put up with bad volunteers than to be a confrontational bad guy. There is little incentive to be confrontational and demand better service in a volunteer organization. Despite some opinions on this forum, the BSA does provide pretty good training to manage a scouting unit. The problem is how closely a person chooses to use the training guidelines over their own instinctive approach. Some people are just terrible at scouting but love being the person everyone looks up to. There are very few mechanisms in the system to change that situation. I over the years have come to agree with you that burnout is the leading problem with struggling units, especially Cub packs. Cub Scouts is too long and too complicated for the average volunteer to manage. I say it again with capitals for emphasis: CUB SCOUTS IS WAY TOO COMPLICATED AND WAY TOO LONG FOR THE AVEAGE VOLUNTEER TO MANAGE. I learned in school that the average person is only motivated to give about 20 months of volunteer time to a volunteer organization. THAT IS LESS THAN TWO YEARS, and we expect adults to give us five years of enthusiastic service in the Cub program? Three is too much, but at least there is light at the end of the tunnel in the 3rd year. Five years is just a long dark cave with no end in sight. I advise adults to develop a program where adults are expected a maximum of three years of service. Use a retired Bear Leader to lead and run the Tiger program. Don’t recruit Tiger parents at all for anything and instead encourage them to observe and enjoy the program. Pick a Wolf Parent to assist the Cub Master for taking over the responsibility during their sons Bear year. Don’t encourage “any volunteer†to take on more responsibilities than the responsibilities they were specifically trained. I have seen so many Pack pile on their Den Leaders. Den Leaders should lead the Den and no more. CC should recruit none registered parents to plan and lead activities like Pinewood Derbies and Blue and Golds. If a pack can develop their program so that a volunteer joins knowing they are only expected to give NO MORE than three years of their time, then we find that the program not only become more manageable, it becomes more enjoyable for everyone. And when the adults are having fun, the boys will certainly have more fun. I did the research and found that packs where the adults had fun and weren’t burning out had a 90% crossover rate of Webelos. The reason is burned out adults don’t provide a fun program for the boys. The boys naturally have the same expectation for their future in scouting as the present. So if they aren’t having fun now, they don’t expect it to get any better next year. On the opposite side, happy adults who enjoy their volunteer work carry that into a fun program for the boys, which translate into boys looking forward to the next year’s adventure, including in the troops. And it all works. We created programs to help packs get to that point and the crossover numbers reflected the changes. Sadly I think National is working against us in the area of Cub Leader burnout because they keep adding responsibilities on the adults. But if the adults understand just how much they can do without getting burned out, then they can develop the program within those limits. Our pack worked pretty hard on that concept and our Tigers and Webelos crossover numbers were well above 90%. But the day I really appreciated how well our pack worked was when I attended the Eagle Court of Honor for one of my past Webelos. He said that while he had a lot of fun in the troop, Webelos in our pack was the most memorable time of his scouting career. That really says a lot more about the pack as a whole than my Webelos Den because the den was a result of a lot of work of the whole pack program. Hope this helps toward your question. Barry

Yes, troops usually see about a five year lag of membership change trends. I remember our membership committe predicting a negative trend in the troops as a result of Cub membership changes in 2000.

While I agree that marketing the BSA at the unit level is terrible, I would never put any of the blame of declining numbers on them. First of all, program marketing at the unit level today hasn't change much from the days when numbers were increasing. Second, units only provide the program that is given to them by National. They can't be blamed, negatively or positively, for changes that effect the program performance and public image. If the BSA desires to change its image, it will have to come from the top. Barry