NJCubScouter

Beavah, I am not going to continue an extended dialogue on this issue. I find it sort of funny that in the "Board of Review" thread I am probably being seen as being "too strict" while here I am basically being accused of being "too lenient." (Although I don't think anyone has used those exact words.) I do think that what you are suggesting is adding to the requirements, and perhaps more to the point (since as I said in the other thread, I am just one committee member in one troop) I think that if Spencer's troop did not sign this Scout's application, and he asked council for a BOR anyway, he would be an Eagle Scout, either at the council level or by an appeal to national. So you can quote National's rules and regulations all you want, but I don't think they would interpret the requirements to mean that a boy must be "active" beyond what the requirements say.

I just think that before we "counsel" anyone "out of Scouting", we (hypothetically) might try to counsel the young man back "into" Scouting. We're basing a conclusion that this person (if he is an actual person) does not want to be a Scout on one statement, a few sentences long. As I suggested before, "I don't want to be a Scout" may really mean "this troop's program is boring." The hypothetical Scoutmaster here needs to find out the real meaning of the statement, and suggest ways that the Scout may become more interested, before knowing which way to "counsel." And by the way, this is coming from someone who, at the age of 12 or so, quit Scouting. That's not hypothetical. I had no desire to be a Scout any more either, and my father (who was an ASM as well as CM at the time) understood some of my reasons and did not really try to pull me back in. A year later we were living in a different town, different troop (in which my father almost immediately became an ASM, without any sons in the troop), and about six months after that my father persuaded me to come to a troop meeting "to talk with the Scoutmaster." There was no "hard sell", basically just an invitation, and I decided to join the troop. So at the age of 14, as a Second Class Scout, I rejoined Scouting, and went on to be a PL, ASPL, SPL, JASM, joined OA, went to Philmont, advanced to Life, and I could have made Eagle if I had decided to do it. And I think my youth experience (mostly gained after rejoining) has made me better able to serve my son's troop as an adult leader than I would have been able to do otherwise. It's even possible that without my youth experience, I might have become one of those parents who leave the leadership to someone else. I'm glad that didn't happen. So all I'm saying is, let's not write off a young man because of one (hypothetical) "I don't want to be a Scout any more."(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

SeattlePioneer says: I guess the idea of trusting the leaders is an obsolete concept. At the very least it has taken a beating, that's for sure. To Moosetracker: Maybe you're correct that the Guide to Advancement needs to be clearer on this point, though defining a term like "may not" brings it even closer to being a "legal code." I think the meaning is clear. If you disagree, that's fine. I am "only" a troop committee member and advancement coordinator, for one troop. I don't have the power to authoritatively interpret anything for any other unit or level. In this forum, I just give my opinions, though of course I think my opinions are correct. As for "guide" vs. "rules", let's assume that you're right, that the Guide to Advancement is not supposed to be a book of "rules." My question is this: What method is a unit, district or council supposed to use in determining which parts of the "guidance" to follow and which not to follow? As I have said before, my troop is not 100% "by the book", either on advancement or some other things. There are parts of "the book" that I wish were different. I just think it's a good idea to try to get as close to "the book" as you can.

Hypothetically, I would say there should be a follow-up conversation with this Scout to discuss with him whether there are other things he would like to do in Scouting that he does not get the opportunity to do now. As others have suggested, maybe a look at the troop's program is required. Maybe "I don't really want to go camping anymore" really means that he's bored of the same-old-same-old camping trips. Maybe he would be interested in more "high adventure" and isn't necessarily aware of what opportunities exist. Or maybe he has some interests for which there are merit badges, and he isn't even aware of them. Or maybe not. But it's worth a try to see whether there is something that might make this Scout more enthusiastic about being in the troop, and then maybe along with those activities he won't just do the "bare minimum" to make Eagle.

Moosetracker, I was actually quoting from the Troop Committee Guidebook, not the Guide to Advancement. Hopefully the current versions of both books have consistent information -- but in this case I think that what I quoted is consistent with what the Guide to Advancement says. In section 8.0.0.3 it says "Unit leaders and assistants may not serve on a board of review for a Scout in their own unit." It is clear to me that in this context, "may not" means the same as "must not" -- it isn't permitted. (Notice that in the list of definitions from the front of the book, it talks about "may", "must", "shall", etc. but it does not say anything about "may not.") The Troop Committee Guidebook says SM's/ASM's "do not" serve on BOR's. It all means the same thing. I'm not talking about what the rule should be, I'm just talking about what it is. Others have commented on the over-use of legal terminology and procedure in the Guide to Advancement. I agree. In fact we have discussed this in our troop committee, and of course everybody points a joking finger at me, as if I am personally responsible. While it's not good, to some degree it's understandable -- the BSA has seemingly taken all the issues that have come up in units, districts and councils across the country, and were not clearly resolved in previous publications, and gave those to some lawyers (or at least a group that includes lawyers) to write a document that covers all bases. So that's what we have. There will still be disputes over what it means, and then the next version will look even more like something passed by Congress.

By the way, on this issue of whether having ASM's on a BOR is a "must not", a "may not", or anything else, here is what the Troop Committee Guidebook (at least the edition that I have) says: Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters do not participate in the board of review. Now, this edition says 2000 printing, so if someone has a newer edition and this one is out of date, feel free to cite chapter and verse. The statement is on page 30. I don't see any ambiguity there. Though as I have suggested before, the fact that an ASM is sitting on a BOR does not mean the wrath of council must immediately be visited on the offending troop, accompanied by fire and brimstone raining down from on high. It's something to gently nudge back toward the "book" when you can, especially if you (like the original poster) are a commissioner and don't want the "Welcome" sign suddenly pulled from the window the next time the troop sees you parking your car.

Calico, thanks for the history lesson, I knew some of that but not all of it. I think a lot of people forget that the "second purpose" of the BOR is for the Committee to learn more about the running of the troop. I specifically ask boys in BOR's, except maybe for boys who have been in the troop less than 6 months, what they like most about the troop and what (if anything) they think could use some improvement. For the latter question I often get "Nothing, everything's perfect" (especially from the 10-12 year olds) but now and then (especially at Star and Life BOR's) a Scout comes up with a meaningful answer. If the Scout says something that can or should be acted upon (either in response to that question or at any other point in the BOR) I make it a point to work it into a later conversation with the SM/ASMs - not necessarily identifying the Scout in question, depending on what was said. Which leads to another question... as part of the early-70s changes, BOR's (which had a different name - Progress Review?) for T-2-1 were to have Scouts on the "board." If I remember correctly, it was ONLY Scouts, though that was a LONG time ago and I myself made First Class under the "old book" so I was never "reviewed" by other Scouts, so my memory of this is pretty hazy. (I guess I must have served on "boards" for younger boys, but I don't remember doing so.) So the question is, what happened to the idea of the Committee keeping an eye on what's going on in the troop through BOR's, when the boys were conducting the reviews? Were the boys supposed to be reporting to the Committee? As for other units having ASM's on BOR's... well, I guess everybody has to decide how they are going to do this Scouting thing. My attitude within my troop is that if the book says to do something a certain way, we ought to do it that way unless there is a really good reason not to. And "we've always done it that way" is not a good reason not to go by the book, although in some cases it may be a good reason not to make changes suddenly, so as not to put too many noses out of joint.

I agree, a gift from the SM is unnecessary. (As others have said, the SM "gave at the office.") Usually relatives will give the Eagle a gift, sometimes also "friends of the family" which may include parents of other Scouts. But I don't think I have ever seen a SM give the Eagle a gift. I did once see a gift go the other way around, and not just the mentor's pin. (Not something very expensive, just a small gift, I don't remember what it was but everybody thought it was a very nice thing to do.)

I think Beavah's sports analogy is even further off-target than most of the analogies I see in this forum, and that's saying something. In fact, I think it supports the opposite conclusion. In all likelihood, the rules of the high school say (something like) that to get a varsity letter, you have to show up for X percent of the games and X percent of the practices, with allowances for medical reasons. (I'm guessing those percentages are pretty high.) One would hope those rules are in writing somewhere. Maybe the rules also say that you have to be selected for the team. Whatever they say, if you MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, you should get the letter, and if you don't, you shouldn't. (Let's leave aside the situation in which the rules are not reasonable; say a failure to recognize legitimate medical reasons for missing a practice.) It's the same thing with this Scout. He MET THE REQUIREMENTS, so he gets the rank. Maybe his leaders don't feel as proud of him as they would if he camped eight times a year and served as SPL and JASM. Maybe he's not proud of himself. It doesn't matter. He met the requirements. The middle school/high school part of the analogy is especially inapplicable here. Apparently this young man made Life and fulfilled a substantial portion of the requirements for Eagle (including, apparently, both of the 6-month requirements) in another troop. But the other troop is still part of the BSA; it's not "another school." It's the same program and the same set of requirements, just in a different place. (It is a different CO, but the CO can't change the requirements.) The requirements that the Scout has satisfied in one troop are transferred to the other troop. Let's accept that the purpose of both the sport and Scouting is to develop character. But in neither activity do you get the "highest award" just for showing good character. In fact, the "good character" may be a byproduct of the effort required to get the award, and may not show itself until the boy is most of the way through the activity, or even afterwards. You make Eagle by completing the requirements. Now, if you show a clear LACK of good character before you earn the award, say by committing a serious crime (regardless of whether you are participating in a Scouting activity at the time), you may be denied the award. Similarly, I suspect the athlete who commits a serious crime may be removed from the sports team and denied the "letter." The question is why we believe scouts should demonstrate less character and commitment than would be expected of kids kickin' a ball around a field. That is what is called a "straw man" argument. Nobody believes that. It has nothing to do with the subject. What SpencerCheatham is talkin' about is not the worth of the boy, but the quality of the program. Actually, I don't think he's talking about either. He's talking about whether a boy needs to participate at a particular level in a troop's program when he has already fulfilled the "active" requirement in another troop, and fulfills the remainder of the Eagle requirements in "your" troop.

emb021 refers to Troop Leader Development as "weekend training", but that was the name of the week-long youth training program that I attended in 1973. I still have the uniform I wore back then, with the TLD patch on it. Maybe there were weekend and week-long versions? Or maybe it was done differently at different points in the 70s? I don't have any of the materials from the course; I remember that there were about a dozen "competencies" such as "knowing your resources", planning and "getting and giving information." (Names are approximate, that's just what I remember from almost 40 years ago.) When my son came home from NYLT a few years ago, I looked at his materials and I remember thinking that while the "labels" had changed, the concepts were pretty much the same.

The bottom line for me is that the Scout met the requirements, and is therefore entitled to the rank. Obviously this is not how we would want to see a young man go through Scouting. The fact that he did not go on a single camping trip or hike in four years is disturbing. But the fact that the troop leadership was not "in contact" with the Scout for at least three years is also disturbing. There were definitely failures on all sides here. Maybe with some good communication and encouragement when he was new to the troop, or when it became clear that his participation was below-par, the Scout would have become more involved with the troop. Or maybe not, but the point is, it doesn't sound like anybody really tried. And I think SpencerCheatham acknowledges that, so hopefully this situation will not happen again in his troop. As for this issue of crossing boys off the recharter roster if they don't attend a certain percentage of troop activities, I don't know how anybody else does it, but we leave a boy on the charter if he has paid his annual dues (which includes the recharter fees), unless he has expressly "dropped out." A Scout who attends an average of one troop meeting a month, even if he does nothing else (which seems to be the case here) would remain on our roster, assuming the dues have been paid. I am not sure whether there is a national rule on this or not.

I also understand SP's reluctance to tackle everything he sees being done "wrong" all at once. When I became advancement chair/coordinator of my troop, I was aware (since I had served on a number of BOR's previously) of several things that we were doing that weren't "by the book," and were instead following "troop tradition." I saw no need to antagonize everybody by playing the "new sheriff in town" and trying to change everything all at once. I gradually started steering us more and more toward the book, and doing what was necessary to accomplish that (recruiting new committee/BOR members, for one). I can't say we are all the way there yet, but we are much closer. So I am sure that UC SP will get the ASM's out of the BOR-room soon enough, just give him time and let him prioritize the issues to fit the local circumstances. I think sometimes people in this forum who come from those "perfect troops" need to remember that those of us who don't have other people to deal with in our units, and that is magnified with a UC, who is basically a visitor.

NACAP, Until now, nobody said anything about "making" a Scout go through a mock EBOR. Scoutfish only said he attended one, he didn't say it was required of the Scout (nor did he said it was not required.) You are correct that it could not be required, it could only be offered as an option. I can tell you that if my son had been offered the opportunity to have a "mock" (perhaps it would be better to call it a "practice") EBOR, I would have encouraged him to do it. (Although I am told he did fine in his real EBOR, without any formal "practice.")

I have never heard of gifts being given to boys for going into their second year of Webelos, but then again its been a few (actually more than a few) years since I have had a son in Cub Scouts, so things may have changed. If it is already a tradition in your pack, that's fine, if not, there's nothing really wrong with it but I personally wouldn't start doing it. Basementdweller, you have made a couple of statements I do not understand, one was "We bridge cross or graduate our webelos to the troop in roughly nine months" and "The webelos program can be completed in less than a year and the boy can advance into Boy Scouts once he earns the AOL". Nine months or a year from when? If you mean nine months or a year after becoming Webelos, which they do at the end of third grade, I don't see how that works. As ScoutNut said, to earn Arrow of Light they need at least six months in the den after completing fourth grade, or they need to be 10 and a half. Where I'm from, most boys are not 10 and a half when completing fourth grade, so I don't see how most boys could earn Arrow of Light if they are only in Webelos until the end of fourth grade. Scoutnut, I agree with what you say about "maturity." The fact is that some boys who cross over are "ready" to be Boy Scouts, and some really aren't, but they have have fulfilled the requirements and there they are. They will be "ready" soon enough. (In our troop the main concern is that the new Scouts get the proper equipment to go camping, first and foremost good boots and a good sleeping bag, if they don't have them already.) Maturity doesn't always go by age anyway. I do want to point out one thing, and that is about your statement: "If you look at the Webelos Leader Guide, it has a Webelos program that will get the Webelos to Boy Scouts in 12 months." As I recall, that was primarily meant for LDS packs. My understanding (mostly from this forum) is that LDS boys join a Webelos den on their 10th birthday, and leave the den (and the pack) on their 11th birthday, regardless of grade in school. So LDS WDL's need a program that will get the boys through the Webelos badge and then (after reaching their "half-birthday") the AoL, all in 12 months. A boy in a non-LDS pack who is not 10 and a half at the end of 4th grade (and most aren't) could complete all the other AoL requirements in less than a year (assuming they are becoming a Webelos at the end of 3rd grade) but they would have to wait out the time requirements before earning the rank. Am I wrong?

NACAP, You are clearly correct that a "mock EBOR" is not required, but where does it say they are "not desired?" (Which I interpret to mean that the BSA "desires" that it NOT be done.) Personally I do not see the need for one. Presumably the Eagle candidate has a general idea what a BOR is like, having been through five of them already, although I understand that the EBOR is generally longer and more of a "big deal." I believe that our SM covers "what to expect in the Eagle BOR" in the SM Conference for Eagle. But if a troop wants to take it a step beyond that and actually have a mock BOR, I see nothing wrong with it. (By the way, since you are fairly new around here, I guess I should mention that my account-name is somewhat out-of-date, I have been a Troop Committee member for a number of years and am currently a troop advancement coordinator. I acknowledge that I don't yet know everything, though. )

John, the original poster (SpencerCheatham) did tell us the outcome, in his second post in this thread: We advanced him to his Eagle BOR despite our concerns because he did meet the requirements. That terminology ("advanced him to his Eagle BOR") is not really familiar to me, but I assume it means that the SM signed his handbook for his Eagle SM conference and that his SM and CC signed his Eagle Application.

I am among those who wonder what was going on in the three years after the young man joined the troop, before the "final year" in which the Scoutmaster started talking to him about his participation -- and trying to add to the Eagle requirements by giving the Scout additional things to do. Did the SM sit down with him for a talk after it became clear that the boy was not attending outings? Or did he wait until the fourth year? There has been a lot of talk here about the "active" requirement and some mention of the POR requirement, but if we are to take the original post literally, he seems to have fulfilled those requirements with his previous troop. Those are both six-month requirements after the Life BOR. The original post said "As a Life scout with his previous troop he completed all of the necessary Eagle rank requirements except for 4 merit badges and his service project." As for those who wonder why the Scout was rechartered... well, he didn't just disappear. He was attending meeting, though less than 30 percent, so let's assume he showed up to a weekly meeting once a month on average. Presumably he or his parents made whatever payments are necessary to stay on the charter. (In our troop it is annual dues, due in the fall, which the unit uses to pay the recharter fee in the spring; no dues, no recharter.) Plus he did manage to a project in there somewhere. That requires substantial effort. BadenP says: "The BSA has altered the Eagle requirements to the point most any scout can receive the rank with minimal effort." I think that is a ridiculous statement. You still have to get 21 merit badges, and the requirements for a number of those (particularly some of the Eagle-required badges) are more rigorous than they used to be. The project takes a lot of planning and effort (in some councils/districts it takes more than national intends.) National HAS redefined the "active" and POR requirements in a way that is less stringent than in the past, but overall much more than a "minimal effort" is required. Now, that assumes the requirements are being followed on the local level. But if they aren't, you can't blame "the BSA" for that, and you can't blame the requirements. Beavah gives his interpretation of the active requirement, but it is not the interpretation that appears on page 21 of the "Guide to Advancement" (2011) published by the BSA, which moosetracker has quoted. I am not going to repeat the entire quotation, just the part where it says that it is "acceptable to consider and 'count' poisitve activities outside Scouting when they, too, contribute to his growth in character, citizenship, or personal fitness." That does NOT limit the "outside activities" to just caring for your sick mother. And as I said, based on the original post the Scout may very well have met the 6-month "active" requirement before he even got to his current troop. Finally, I find it interesting that the original poster says the leaders of the troop came to the conclusion that this particular Scout met the requirements for the rank, but several posters here don't seem to want to believe it.

Do you mean, what is the most important to fill with a "good person"? (Or high-quality person, or a person who is going to do the job well, or however you wish to phrase it.) If you literally just meant "filling", that wouldn't be much of a question because (for a troop) you have to have an SM, CC, 2 committee members and a COR just to keep your charter. (The last I knew, for a pack you have to have the corresponding positions PLUS DL's for every grade/age group where you have boys registered.) So all those positions would be "most important" because without them, you literally don't have a unit. Interpreting the question to mean "filled well" and not just "filled", I would go with what is probably the traditional answer and say SM. (For Cubs it is probably the CM, but you can still have den leaders providing a good program to their boys even if the pack as a whole is a little weak.) Obviously the SM needs support from the committee, and some assistants are always nice, but if the SM is not really doing the job it becomes very difficult to have a good troop. I've seen a situation where an SM had to miss a number of meetings and was unable to really focus due to personal issues, and as much as others try to pick up the slack, it is really awkward and difficult to do so, and the result is that the boys really don't get the kind of program they are supposed to get.

I noticed this in the last paragraph of the article that RememberSchiff linked to: But the organization continues to face criticism over its exclusion of gay people. Mr. Perry said in an interview that the charity would not revisit that policy. (Mr. Perry being the incoming president of the BSA.) I am not surprised. I really did not expect the arrival of a new CSE to have anything to do with that issue, regardless of what his own personal religious beliefs may be. It's going to take a lot more than a new CSE and I'm pretty certain it's going to take more than four years. Another interesting point in the article is when Mr. Brock is discussing recruitment efforts and mentions (in the words of the writer, not Mr. Brock) "awarding merit badges for 21st-century skills, like robotics." I think having MB's for robotics, computers, and other "modern technology" is a good thing, but I hope they are not expecting it to be much of a draw for recruitment or retention of Scouts. I know a little about this because when my son was in high school, he was active on his school's robotics team, and I was also active as a parent volunteer. I got to see the substantial overlap between the robotics team and several troops in the area (including ours, consisting of my son and two other Scouts, and there also are usually two or three Scouts in the troop who are on robotics teams at other schools.) A number of these Scouts earned the Computers MB, and now that there is a Robotics MB I imagine that they will start going for that. But that is not where the Scouts come from, nor is it why they stay. At least in our troop, they almost all come from Cub Scouts (with I would estimate one exception every two years or so), when they are younger Scouts they stay because they like to go camping, and when they are older Scouts they stay because of some combination of that they still like to go camping and/or high adventure activities, they realize it's "good for them" in other ways, and/or they decide they want to continue and earn Eagle. The fact that there happens to be a merit badge for computers or robotics (or some other area of their interest) is nice, and it may actually increase their interest in those areas, but it's not why they are there.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

The BSA's guidance on this is published at http://www.scouting.org/filestore/membership/pdf/522-500_web.pdf This is the Cub Scout version of the document, which at a glance appears to be similar to the Boy Scout version that I have seen before. The process differs a little if you are starting a new pack as opposed to filling vacancies in an existing pack. For an existing pack, I find the document a little unclear, in ways that are too complicated to type out right now. But briefly, it seems that in an existing pack, the pack committee would be the "selection committee" and "leadership selection team" referred to in the rest of the document, but it could be read to say that the "leadership selection team" should be chaired by the IH (Executive Officer) or COR. I think most packs would have the CC chair the meetings, as usual. But the final decision is up to the COR, as others have stated. The pack committee can take a "vote" (though voting is not mentioned in this document, nor is it mentioned in other BSA publications regarding the functioning of a unit committee), but the "vote" would really just be a recommendation. But it would be a vote (or consensus) of the "selection committee"/"pack committee", not a vote of the "parents". Unless your pack normally makes decisions by a vote of all the parents (which isn't supported by any BSA literature that I know of, nor have I ever known of a pack that did so), the leadership selection and recommendation to the COR would just be handled by the pack committee.

I will probably be ridiculed for saying this, but why do people have to say that things that are "bad", such as those that make the Scouting experience less valuable for some, are "like cancer"? To me, something that's like cancer is something that actually kills a person, slowly and cruelly. (Sorry for the twinge of emotion here, but this hits a little close to home.) Something that wastes money, time, denies or delays opportunities, and things of that short, can be analogized to other non-deadly things, but I don't think they should be analogized to "cancer." If a bad volunteer spoiled your Scouting experience, that's a bad thing, and it should be prevented and/or repaired, but you're still alive and your loved ones still have you around. So I'm not trying to minimize issues like this, just suggesting it would be better to leave "cancer" out of it.

This stuff is interesting -- certainly more interesting than the actual race between President Obama and Mitt Romney that has now started. I notice that the statements of Newark Mayor Cory Booker about the candidates, and the clarifications thereof, seem to have gotten a lot of attention the past couple days. Always nice to see anyone paying attention to my state, and even more so to the city of my birth, though most of the time it seems to be for the wrong things.

To answer your question briefly, YES it is his job to make sure the BSA is still around for another 100 years rather than watch it continue to degrade and continue to diminish as it has been for the last two decades plus. Another 100 years? For "sure"? Pretty demanding job description for a guy who, based on the tenure of his last few predecessors, is likely to be in the job for about five to seven years. Seriously though, if the "degrade"ing and "diminish"ing you are talking about is the reduction in membership numbers, what do you really expect him to do? Maybe he could suggest some optional tailoring of the program to meet the needs of a rapidly growing segment of our society, especially in some regions (like mine.) Oops, his predecessor (the one who's there now) suggested something like that (and as I interpret it didn't really suggest a change in the program for everybody else but just wanted some more options to be made available) and everybody went crazy accusing him of trying to dismantle the whole program. I do get the impression that some people think the "outing" in Scouting needs to be re-emphasized, but other than a public relations campaign (anyone else remember "Follow the Rugged Road?") I am not sure how that would look, as opposed to what I see now -- and admittedly, what I see now in person (as opposed to what I read about on this forum) consists of one troop. I attend a troop meeting every week with a bunch of older Scouts who are bursting with excitement about their trip to Philmont in about two months, and they've already got the younger Scouts looking forward to a hoped-for trip in 2014. I've been conducting BOR's almost every week with boys (both younger and older) who seem excited and enthusiastic about getting out into the outdoors and doing fun stuff and learning stuff. Now, admittedly, in an area of our size there should be (and when I was 11, would have been) at least twice as many boys in the troop. So where are the others? What's the problem? I really don't think it's the program, because if our little troop can run a good program (and certainly we have room for improvement ourselves), so can anybody else. Is it just other activities competing for time and attention? Especially those that parents think will allow them a carefree retirement when their son becomes a professional athlete, so why waste time with Boy Scouts? Is it a failure in communications? I don't know; who hasn't heard of the Boy Scouts? Is it an "image" problem, that Scouting isn't considered "cool"? That's probably part of it, but I see very little chance that any new CSE is going to be able to come in and wave a magic wand and solve that problem. Is it the "membership controversies"? I happen not to think that those really affect membership very much, either way, though I have nothing to prove it. So what to do? I guess we should all start by joining together to wish Mr. Brock good luck in his new job. Should I add, he's going to need it?

Well, given that most of these guys come up through the BSA bureaucracy, I don't know why we would expect any of them to suddenly be able to "breathe new life" into the BSA, or provide inspirational leadership, or anything like that. It looks like this guy Brock has specialized in getting all the different "gears" to mesh in the most efficient possible way. Not to criticize him, since I don't know him or anything about him other than what I have read in a press release or just saw in a 3-minute video, what capacity does he have to "breathe new life" into anything? Is that even his job? Or is it just to keep the gears turning and try to reduce administrative costs while not reducing the service to the "field"? And if the BSA is suffering from a lack of "life", that is probably as much a function of society and what people expect from a youth organization. My guess is that if life is going to be breathed into the BSA, it is going to have to come from the local level, and not from a guy who -- as good as he may be at what he does -- seems (just from this one video) to be caught up in management jargon and making sure people know who to call with a problem. In fact, if he can improve the accessibility of people at national to those of us "out here", that would be an improvement right there. But it is not going to "breathe new life" into the BSA. It is just going to keep the ship running. And as I said, how much more than that can we really expect? Especially in light of the fact that when the BSA HAS made major changes to try to "keep up" with society, people spend the next 40 years complaining about them? Rather than open up any more cans of worms than I just did, I will leave it at that.

So what we have learned in this thread so far is that a number of young women and girls are getting the opportunity to learn gun safety and participate in shooting sports and other outdoors activities. Some are doing it through the Girl Scouts (in association with certain shooting-sports organizations) and some are doing it through the American Heritage Girls (in association with other shooting-sports organizations.) Sounds great, all around. What I do not understand is why the article linked from the original post (which looks like it is really a press release from the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance) mentions the BSA. The reference to the BSA, in its entirety, is: "The relationship that led to the MOU was cultivated at the Boy Scouts of America Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico." (Bolding in original.) What does that even mean? It doesn't look like the BSA has anything to do with this, except that someone spoke to someone else on BSA property. Why associate the BSA with something that it apparently is not associated with? In bold letters, no less? Any members of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (which I have never heard of before) out there who can answer this question?