NJCubScouter

Ok, I dug out my father's handbook collection (I guess I'll always call it that, though technically it is now my handbook collection.) As has been stated previously, the Eighth Edition, First Printing (June 1972) does not have Camping skill award required for any rank. The only required skill award is Citizenship, for Tenderfoot. We know from Brent that the Second Printing (1973) also does not have Camping as a required skill award. The next one I have is the Fifth Printing (December 1977). In that book, Hiking and First Aid skill awards have been added as required for Second Class, and Camping and Cooking skill awards for First Class. Interestingly, on the inside of the front cover is box saying "This handbook includes the revised progress award requirements that became mandatory January 1, 1978." Which prompted me to look and see if Camping was on the Eagle-required list in this printing, and it is. So why Brent has a sheet that seems to add Camping to the Eagle required list effective February 8, 1979, when I have a book that seems to add it back effective January 1, 1978, is kind of a mystery. But what I think we've established here is that the removal of camping as a rank requirement lasted for no more than six years, and possibly less. Anybody have the Eighth Edition, Third or Fourth Printing?

But I don't think yeh can claim that demographics or social issues resulted in the precipitous decline in da 1970s, particularly since by 1972 we had moved through most of da social upheaval of the 60s. I'm not sure I can't claim that, or at least part of that. But before I claim anything, does anyone know where I can find year-by-year membership statistics for the BSA, broken down by program? I have seen these statistics on the web before, but I couldn't find them when I looked for them just now. I did find the history of births in the U.S. though, and I'd like to match them up and see what happens. I think boys like adventure and challenge. They're wired for it. When we dilute the challenge, or water down the adventure, we lose their interest. But can someone prove to me that the challenge has been diluted, or the adventure watered down? And I'm talking on the actual troop level. I don't mean what's written or not written in the handbook, or taught or not taught in Wood Badge or other training courses. I mean what kids actually do. I was a Boy Scout before 1972, and I am a Scouter now, and I honestly don't see the diluting or watering down in terms of what Scouts actually do in Scouting. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see it. What I do see is that adults usually tend to see the conditions facing their children as being less challenging than "when I was a boy." You know, these kids today get to ride the bus to school, but when I was a boy, we had to walk five miles to school, in the snow, uphill, both ways! (Copyright Bill Cosby, and of course that was my parents' generation, picking on my generation, just as we tend to do to our children's generation.)

Sherm, I think the numbers of youth joining (and staying in) Scouting have been much more affected by demographics, the vastly increased availability of other activities, perhaps somewhat by controversies over membership policies, and other factors, rather than by the content of the handbook or of adult training courses.

Sherm, just to make clear, I have been responding mainly to your comments about what happened in the 70s. As to your comments about more recent events, I will have to let others address those. You refer to training, and I can't really respond as the positions I have been trained for are Cub Scout Den Leader, Cubmaster and Boy Scout Troop Committee (not counting some Fast Starts for other things.) None of these really involve the Boy Scout outdoor program except to tell you (in the case of Troop Committee challenge) that there needs to be a committee member in charge of arrangements for camping and other activities. I did take "This is Scouting" which does deal with the outdoor program fleetingly (as with everything else). So all I can tell you is that my troop does a lot of camping and some high adventure, the troops around us do a lot of camping and more high adventure, our affiliated crew does a lot of high adventure, and for the leaders in this units, the outdoor program is still the focus as the vehicle for delivering the aims of the program. If National is not trying to help in this effort, this seems to go unnoticed on the local level, at least where I am.

Eagle92, as I have stated in the past, having been a Scout at the time of the 1972 changes, I don't think the "outing" was ever really taken out of "Scouting" -- especially from the viewpoint of actual Scouts and unit-level Scouters. And I think I can speak to more than just my own troop because I participated in camporees, summer camps, a couple of district-wide SPL meetings and was part of a Philmont contingent during that same period. I also attended some roundtables as an 18-year-old ASM. The program focus of Scouting was always on the outdoors. Despite what the conventional wisdom may be today, I just don't think Scouting as actually experienced "on the ground" actually became less outdoor-oriented. What National's intention was, I don't know. I think it was actually to provide a wider range of options, rather than removing the outdoor elements from the program.

I did some Google searching and found two sites that say Camping Skill Award was required for First Class, but they don't say when that requirement took effect. My recollection is that when the 1972 handbook came out, that requirement was not in there. I think I have a couple of different printings (including the first) of the 1972 handbook at home and I will check it out tonight.

Thanks for correcting the point about Camping becoming a "required Skill Award", Eagle92. I was not involved in Scouting in 1979. It makes sense that at the same time the BSA restored Camping MB to the Eagle-required list, it made the Camping Skill Award required for one of the lower ranks. I'm glad they did that. I guess I could have asked my younger brother, most of his time as a Scout was during the no-camping-required era, and he made Eagle in the early 80's. And I know for sure that he went camping.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about this issue with the camping requirements. Sherm and Bando are talking about the 1970's, not today, and they are correct. In 1972 Camping MB was removed from the Eagle-required list. I have seen different dates for when it was put back (1978, 79 or 80.) (Cooking MB was also taken off the list in 1972 and though there have been discussions about putting it back on, it still hasn't been. I still have my silver-bordered Cooking and Camping MB's, though I didn't make Eagle.) Also in 1972, the requirements for T-2-1 were rearranged so that a certain number of Skill Awards were required for each rank. One of the Skill Awards was Camping, and as far as I know it was never specifically required for any rank. So, for about six to eight years, it was theoretically possible to make Eagle without going camping. Since it is my understanding that Skill Awards were not replaced by a more "traditional" requirements structure (such as exists today) until 1989, it seems that for about 17 years, it was theoretically possible to go from Scout to Life (but not Eagle) without going camping. I just doubt that many (if any) Scouts actually did this.

Ed, were you responding to someone or something in particular there?

For someone to prove that someone else's sexual orientation inherently harms me or my family, or other people in general. (If anyone is confused, I don't think homosexuality is "wrong", I think whether it's "natural" or "normal" or not is irrelevant, and I think Boy Scout units should be permitted to choose a leader who is openly gay. I don't think a gay person is causing me any harm just by existing, or marrying a person of their own gender -- so to change my mind, someone would have to prove that such harm does exist. Good luck.)

Sherminator (or anyone else): Do you actually know of anyone who made Eagle without going camping? I understand that it was possible. As I have mentioned before, I was a Scout in 1972. I did not notice any kids saying, hey, I can make Eagle without going camping, so I'm not going to go. We ''wanted'' to go camping, backpacking, hiking, etc. And I don't think it really affected us that somewhere, in some faraway unit, some other Scout might be taking a no-camping route to Eagle. I guess we were too busy going to Philmont to worry that, in theory, someone could make Eagle without going camping. But did anyone, really? And today, nearly four decades later, what is the focus of the program, and the requirements for lower ranks? Camping, cooking, first aid, map and compass, swimming, some citizenship, etc. Sounds pretty familiar. Sure, there's no more tracking (or did they still call it stalking in the late-60's handbook?) or signaling -- but in my opinion, the similarities far outweigh the differences. In the "troop I serve" (technically I can't say "my son's troop" anymore), what do the kids want to do? They want to go camping! So if some people think the BSA has been taking the emphasis off camping for almost four decades, it sure is taking the kids a long time to get the message. So now I guess a Cub Scout can win a pin or a belt loop for playing video games? My reaction is, so what. The pins and belt loops aren't really part of the advancement program. They're just extras. It isn't hurting anything. So I don't see all the doom and gloom. The BSA does have opportunities to improve itself, however, like changing one or two bad membership policies...(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Can you imagine holding a troop meeting or a campout online where the boys can't interact? No, but I don't see anyone proposing that for Scouting, either. (Although the phrase "Lone Scouts" is ringing a bell, I'm not sure if there are any of those left. But that's a special case of a program to fill a special need.) As I said, I am commenting on the Scouting aspect of this, not the religious aspect. Brent seemed to be saying that Scouting is going down the same road as the churches that the article-writer is finding fault with. I don't see it.

So this really just comes down to name-calling: "Deviant", "bizarre", "not natural." I thought that we as adult Scouters are supposed to be setting a better example than that.

What does "cool" mean, in this context? Fun? Appealing? An enjoyable activity that people want to be involved in? Doesn't that describe Scouting? Of course there are messages behind the fun, but the fun is what makes boys want to join. An 11-year-old is not thinking of all the life lessons he will learn along the way. He wants to go camping, hiking, swimming, etc. You want to put on your recruiting flyers, "Join Scouting and be instilled with moral values", good luck. I'm not going to comment on the religious aspect of your post or the cited article, except to say that, taking the article at face value, I don't see any useful analogy to Scouting here.

Dan: Inconceivable!

Just to make things more complicated, between my wife and I, we have a Ford and a Toyota. So if anyone does measure patriotism by what car you drive, I'm not sure whether my cup is half-full or half-empty.

It may be the same subject after seven years, but at least the discussion does not have the same nastiness that it did seven years ago. At least in this thread.

Eagledad says: Its all there in the bible. I'll have to take your word on what your Bible says or means on the subject of homosexuality, though there are people who disagree with you. We have mainstream Protestant churches in our town that have a gay deacon, in one case, and enough of a "welcoming" attitude in another case that the Scout troop they CO for almost had to find another CO after the Dale decision. And then there is my Bible, which you call the Old Testament. There is one passage in there which has been interpreted by some to condemn homosexuality. Orthodox Jews certainly interpret it that way. Reform Jews don't, and some Reform congregations have gay rabbis and cantors, and perform gay union ceremonies. Presumably they don't think it's a "sin". So when you say it's in the bible, maybe it is for you, but not for everybody. And if we're talking about BSA policy (which I am not sure if we really are in this thread, but this being a Scouting forum, I thought I'd throw it in), the Bible (whichever one you prefer) is not the controlling document -- or at least it isn't supposed to be. The BSA claims to be nonsectarian in matters of religion, and most of the time it is. On the issue of gay leaders, however, it doesn't follow its own principles. I just want the BSA to obey its own values, and allow units to decide who their leaders will be.

I do not think it is "unpatriotic" to buy a foreign car if that is the best car at the best price at the time you are shopping for a car. I do think it is a little disappointing for the BSA, an organization that is supposed to personify America and has long touted its buy-American policy, to quietly drop that idea and expect nobody to notice. Not surprising, but disappointing. Sherminator, one interesting thing about the Citizens United decision was that corporations have the "rights" of citizens, but where are the "obligations" of citizens that are supposed to go with them? As any First Class scout knows, the rights and obligations of of citizenship are supposed to go hand in hand, but I don't see that in this Supreme Court decision. Talk about "entitlements."

correct stereotypes and neutralize anti-gay prejudice Wait... is that supposed to be a ''bad'' thing? To me, that sounds like a good thing.

My experience from years of reading forum posts, articles etc. regarding equal rights for gay people is that for many opponents of equal rights, religious doctrine is the main factor. In fact I would say that it is the main factor overall. Just read back over the years of discussion in this very forum and you will see many attempts to justify discrimination against gay people based on quotations from the Bible, what God must have intended, etc. etc. And I've actually seen bumper stickers saying God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. On the other side, I would say most people who favor equality for gay people base their views on the general idea that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong, without necessarily having a religious basis for that view. The legislatures of many states have placed sexual orientation in the same category as race, religion, etc. as prohibited bases for decisions regarding employment, public accommodations, etc. However, there are some religions that have taken a stand against discrimination against gay people; Reform Judaism and Unitarianism come to mind. Then there are other religions that are split on the issue, but with significant numbers of members favoring equal rights; this includes the Episcopalian Church and I believe it also includes Methodists and Presbyterians. So there are certainly people on both sides of this issue with at least a partial religious basis for their views, but this is much more strongly present on the pro-discrimination side.

I guess the answer to my implied question, "Can't we stop with the 'socialist' accusations" is "No, we can't." I found an interesting article which deals partly with the use of that word in current American politics. For politics fans, it's an interesting article in general: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/bob-inglis-tea-party-casualty . (And yes, I am aware that Mother Jones magazine is a leftish publication, but the article seems pretty solid, it is based mainly on an interview with a conservative Republican Congressman who lost his primary to a tea-partier.)

I think I'm gonna hurl... FScouter, I find that drinking some Coca Cola usually helps with that.

NJ, my title was designed in part as a tease, eh? Which part? Eh? And just remember, on the Internet, nobody can see the look on your face as you type. I have taken to writing things like "The following post is a joke" when I don't want people to misunderstand attempts at humor as statements of real fact or opinion. So often folks who use that word to describe da health care legislation and bailouts are supporters of the programs that give them entitlements and that are truly closer to communist/socialist programs. If you mean that hypocrisy is rampant, I'd have to agree. Parents in da former Soviet Union had more options and choice for education than parents in the U.S. do. Do you have any cites for that statement? I really know nothing about the Soviet educational system so I have know way of knowing whether it is true or not. It isn't consistent with what I have "always known" about the Soviet Union, but what I have "always known" was not really based on personal study. Call it what yeh will, though, da question is whether free government-run schooling teaches kids and their parents an "entitlement" mentality? Love to hear your thoughts as a community representative to da government schools. I find that most people who call public schools "government schools" have some sort of irrational dislike for public education or government in general. I think it's irrational, anyway. In real-life conversations, I don't think I have ever heard anyone use the phrase -- in fact, the majority of the times I have ever read it is probably in this forum, though I once participated in a forum that was mostly about libertarianism (pro and con) so I saw it there too. As for your actual question... well before I get to that, I think your question is partly (which part?) based on a false premise, and that is that the public schools are actually "free". The community pays for them, through taxes. Of course, you pay whether you have children in the public schools or not. (I recently graduated to "not". I suppose I should change my user name one of these days, as I have not been a ''Cub'' Scouter for a long time.) Virtually all parents are taxpayers (renters pay taxes indirectly, so I count them as well.) So, it's not really "free". We as a community pay for it. Some of us become actively involved to try to make sure the kids get a good education and make sure the parents and taxpayers get their money's worth -- and since school board members in NJ do not get paid, you might say I was paying twice, and still do, since I have remained active since leaving the board. Also relevant to "free" is the endless fundraising that parents find themselves roped into, both in spending time and in buying various things we don't really need. You can say no, of course, but the social pressure imposed by PTO-types is a tough thing to resist. (That was sort of a joke: I've been known to recruit other people into some fund-raising myself, and not just in Scouts.) As for the kids, I don't think it matters to them whether its "free." I know of many children who are in private schools (and we have some very good ones in NJ) and I do not know a single one who pays their own tuition. (I am talking through 12th grade now, not college.) Nor do I know of any students who help in any significant way with their parents' property taxes. So for the students, it's pretty much "free" whether it's private or public, so that's really a non-issue. As for public schools, some students (and parents) take it seriously and some don't. It's like many other things, what you put into it determines what you get out of it. Some public school students (and their parents) put in a lot of effort, have some idea what they want to do with their lives, and obtain results accordingly. Of course, some have different abilities, but I have seen students with diagnosed learning disabilities become A students and go on to good colleges, all through hard work. And yes, in the ''public'' schools. The community I live in takes education seriously. I can't really speak for other places. So, is there anything left of your basic question that I haven't answered? Does public schooling teach parents (I already dealt with students) an entitlement mentality? Compared with private schools? Maybe some. Not for most, I don't think.

School sports are free for the lad... In an increasing number of school districts, that would merely mean that the parents are paying the fees themselves and not requiring their students to help out. In my state at least, there is a growing trend in public school districts to charge some fee (usually not the full cost of the activity) for sports and sometimes other extracurricular activities as well. So (as with dues and other fees for Scouting), a parent has the choice of paying the whole thing out of their pocket, or require their children to contribute.