NJCubScouter

When I was a kid, there were tv commercials for the BSA, showing Scouts doing all kinds of Scoutlike things. Or, just being a Scout: The only one I remember specifically has two people walking down an alley between two buildings in an obviously urban area, and they see walking behind them (or maybe coming toward them), a person who is in silhouette because there is no light in that area. Otherwise there is nobody in the alley. The couple is kind of nervous because the shadowy figure could be a mugger. Then the shadowy figure walks into a lighted area and they (and the viewer) see that the person is an older-teenager wearing a Boy Scout uniform. The couple is of course relieved, because the Boy Scout uniform is a symbol of helpful-friendly etc., not of robbery. I am sure there were others but apparently none of them stuck with me as that one did. I am going to guess that the last time I saw a BSA commercial on tv was in the late 70's, maybe before that. Some people have said in this forum, in the past, that there are BSA commercials available for councils to run on their local tv stations, and maybe some council somewhere does that, but apparently not here. Added note: I could not find the one I described above on YouTube, but I found this one, which says it is from 1970, which seems consistent with the uniforms the Scouts are wearing in the second half of the ad. Why the two adults are wearing Explorer uniforms (or at least that's what they look like to me) is not clear. (And the very brief glimpse of the young men who they are standing with seems to show some of them in the dark Explorer shirts as well. But whatever.) There is a definite focus on Scouting-gets-the-city-boys-out-into-the-country. Added added note: I was trying to get that to be just a link, not the actual frame that appears on YouTube. There is a frame from a cartoon there because the ad was taken from the actual cartoon show in which it appeared, and there is a bit of the cartoon shown after the ad. (In case anyone got confused by that.)

Happy Halloween to you too.

In reading this forum over the past few weeks, it seems to me that what people are most concerned with about "family camping" or "family scouting" is not necessarily the presence of girls, but the presence of PARENTS. (That is, in Boy-Scout-age programs; there is already "family camping" in Cub Scouts, and when my son was in Cub Scouts, ALL of the camping was family camping.) I think most people realize that "coed" camping (i.e. male youth and female youth; we already have "coed camping" for leaders) is probably inevitable in units that choose to do so - and it already takes place at the Venturing level.

Anything is possible, but I see no movement on the "third G", except in the opposite direction. They have now enshrined Duty to God in the requirements for every rank. I also don't really hear a lot of clamoring to change that particular membership policy. I also think there are a number of "secret" atheist and agnostic Scouts, which the BSA seems to fine with as long as they don't come out of the closet. So to speak.

Did it look like any of these? http://weirdnj.com/stories/jersey-devil/ I like the one that looks like kind of a cross between a dragon and a camel. I have never lived in the Pinelands so I have never seen him in person.

Not that I have much connection with OA these days anyway, but I think that's probably the answer, assuming that the Native American theme is to be retained anyway (which is a separate issue from admitting girls.) In 21st-century-speak I guess that would be called a "wardrobe malfunction."

Welcome SM_Eric!

Don't get me started. One of these days I am going to start a new thread in the Uniforms section to talk about the joys and sorrows of my very recent uniform-buying experience. The price of the shirt and pants actually were about what I thought they would be. Where I think they really get you is on the patches and the belt. (Which is partly my fault because I could have decided to rip the patches off my old shirt and put them on the new one, but I decided to leave the old shirt intact.)

I don't think anyone here is saying it's ok to add requirements on our own. But we can talk about changes in the requirements that we'd like to see, or at least be considered.

Well, I think the articles left it unclear whether he was removed from the pack. Where did you see that he ended up in a different den in the same pack? If that is the case it isn't worthy of much attention.

It's not Scouts. It's every student in every school in the state of Florida. It still seems kind of pricey, considering that the cost is for materials, lesson plans and training, but the teaching itself is done by the school district faculty, or at least that is my understanding. And the focus areas of their in-school program, from their web site, www.learningforlife.org, are:

Boys, yes. ONLY boys? Well, there have been girls in one of BSA's "traditional programs" since 1972 - 45 years ago. (Actually that's when I always thought Exploring became coed, but in one of his videos I think the CSE said 1971. I'm sticking with 1972, and it doesn't change the point anyways.) Added note: I am not saying this justifies the change. But if we're talking about marketing (which is part of what the BSA is talking about), it is at least a relevant point to mention.

We register every committee member, regardless of whether they have a specific role or not, along with anybody who wants to be an ASM. When I have suggested in the past that we be a bit more selective in who we register, it was not met with enthusiasm, but I was talking mostly about people who were virtually inactive. I would still register every committee member who actually attends meetings and ev

I know of a high school ice hockey team where all the parents were required to attend what one of them called "anger management" training. I am sure it was officially called something else (like "sportsmanship" maybe?) I think in that case it was more about the hostility that the parents were unleashing on the OTHER team, and their parents and coaches, rather than complaints to their own team's coach. When it comes to parents complaining about their child not playing enough, or not getting the lead in the school play, or not being elected SPL, etc. etc. I am not sure parents are much different than they were "back in the day" (whatever day that was for each of us.) There have always been some parents who were complainers. I remember when I was SPL, the SM (my father) once told me that one of the troop committee members had complained to him because I had not appointed her son to the Leadership Corps rather than keeping him as a patrol leader. (If I recall correctly the SM did not request that I change my decision, just that I think about it.) This would have been about 43 years ago.

I have been wondering about this, especially because the one young lady who has gotten the most publicity for wanting to make Eagle is now 16. Regardless of when in the year her birthday is, if they make the all-girl troops effective in 2019 (in let's say either June or September), and she has to start at Scout and work through the ranks with the same requirements (including time requirements) that currently exist, there is no way she will be able to make Eagle. I predict they will not change the requirements and they will find a diplomatic way to say "tough luck" to females who were "born too early" to make Eagle.

I have doubt. A year ago they made the requirements for some of the lower ranks somewhat MORE difficult (in my opinion), and if our friend Eagle94-A1 is correct, they started planning for "coed" before that. I also think National knows that if they make the requirements easier or less unit-centered at the same time that girls are being admitted, that would be the "last straw" for a lot of people. As for the uniform, I sure hope you are wrong, because I just bought a new one. Seriously though, I doubt they will de-emphasize the uniform, it is an important part of the "brand" they are trying to "protect."

Are you referring to the current Scouters who will leave because of the inclusion of girls? If so, I don't think it is fair to say they "were not fully dedicated to the Oath and the Law or the ideals of the Boy Scouts." I have no intention of leaving myself. I am concerned about impact of coed Cub Scouts and am more concerned if the next step turns out to be coed Boy Scout troops. But if there should someday be girls/young women in the troop I serve as Advancement Chair, I will welcome the opportunity to encourage their advancement and review their progress, and to be their merit badge counselor, just as I will continue to do with the boys/young men. As a Committee Member, I will encourage their mothers to get trained, become ASM's and go on camping trips. On the other hand, if someone else chooses to leave, I can understand that. A few people in this forum have said they have already decided to leave. Personally I think they should wait until the whole thing is in place before making a decision, but that's their choice. People leave Scouting for all kinds of reasons. It does not mean they "were not fully dedicated to the Oath and the Law or the ideals of the Boy Scouts." This is a major change, and inevitably it will be too much of a change for some people.

Listed where? I am looking at the list that RS posted the link to in post #3 in this thread. I see Learning for Life but I do not see Exploring or Explorer (or Post).

Oh, I'm sure it exists, down to the penny, but the distribution list is very short, and you’re not on it.

So make it 75 instead. That way it takes four years with a 75% attendance rate. Of course "we" can choose any number we want, because I don't see any possibility that it is going to be increased from 20.

I don't know about "anger" and "animosity" but I can tell you that the average college or university administrator is probably at least as "fed up" with "helicopter parents" as some Scout leaders are.

Hmm. I don't know whether our council has that or not, but when I see the word "free" my alarm bells go off. What it sounds like is that they are charging everybody for use of the council camps whether you are using them or not.

My recollection is that it started out some years ago as an "insurance fee" and was something like $2 or 3. Now that it is $9 for adults and something like $30 for Scouts (unless part of that goes somewhere else), I assume that is not all for insurance but I don't know what else it goes to pay for. I am guessing that the huge increase in the council fee for youth (which I only learned about last year) is something that happened after my son aged out (which happened about 8 years ago) because I think I would have known about it if I was paying it, even indirectly through troop dues.

In this case, it is a character education program which the State of Florida was paying the BSA (or technically, LFL, if that is a separate entity) to provide in the public schools in your state. Presumably it is used in other states and/or localities as well. I can't try to convince you of its value one way or the other, because to my knowledge I have never actually "seen" it. I do vaguely recall that my children did have some sort of character education program in school but I do not know whether it was the LFL program. I do remember seeing some materials that sounded somewhat Scout-like but I don't recall whether I inquired further.

Yes, in NJ we have a Council on Local Mandates, which I am sure has a staff. It does seem to partly defeat the purpose of the whole thing. And I believe that all of the council members themselves are appointed either by the governor or the legislative leaders (of both parties) so I question whether the local property-tax payer gets an even break, although there have been a few notable decisions against the state.