ParkMan

1 hour ago, fred johnson said:

The issue is less about the trademark and more about marketing to both genders.  

Sorta.  I see the GSUSA point.  They have been recognized as the Scouting organization that provides services to girls for 100 years and are claiming that they are the only organization allowed to use the term "Scouts" in association with programs for girls.  I am nor versed in the legal rules here, but it seems clear to me that they own the term "Girl Scouts" (upper case).  It's not clear to me that they own the term "scouts" or "girl scouts" (lower case).  So, in the context of programs for boys, it's fine for the BSA to say "Scouts".  In the context of programs for girls, their claim is that it is not OK.

Again, I don't hear the argue that the BSA cannot provide these programs - just that they cannot provide the programs for girls and then call them Scouts, scouts, or girl scouts.

I'm trying to think of a similar analogy

11 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Adults set the tone for how they want scouts to behave. You don’t want them to wear hats, most will abide in your influence.

Ok, we all do it one way or another, But don’t blame the scouts for the tone you are setting.

Barry

So true!

Whenever someone brings up neckerchiefs or hats in our troop, the Scoutmaster looks at them and says "if you want to.  hey, let's talk about going camping." 

There's no neckerchiefs or hats.

24 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Program existence requires recruiting at the early (earliest) ages. The Tiger program was created to complete against Campfiress new program change to recruit first graders. The new BSA (or whatever) membership policy is threatening the existence of GSUSA. 

Barry

Gotcha.  But competition in itself isn't a problem.  Unless the GSUSA could somehow argue that the BSA was infringing on the GSUSA's constitutional mandate and it was therefore requesting an injunction on the basis that the BSA simply isn't allowed to offer Scouting programs to girls.  I didn't see that argument though.

2 hours ago, FireStone said:

The "Scouts BSA" name isn't the problem. Or, in my opinion, I don't think the courts will rule that it's a problem. There's a long precedent of the BSA using the term "Scouts" in isolation, and GSUSA doing the same. I don't think GSUSA can win the argument that the BSA shouldn't be allowed to use the term "Scouts" in marketing directed at girls. That just seems like a majorly flawed position.

What they do have a leg to stand on, though, is the local confusion in terminology, poorly-worded flyers and marketing materials, etc. Which is why we're now seeing that helpful infographic being circulated explaining how and how not to refer to BSA programs, to not refer to GSUSA, etc. That's probably something the BSA should have gotten ahead of sooner, one of the many problems that cropped up in pushing out these program changes so quickly without sharing enough information with local units well-ahead of those changes.

What will be interesting to me is related to my earlier comment about whether or not the BSA would be held liable for what local units were doing, erroneously putting out flyers that read "girl scouts" or "girl scout troops".

I just read through the GS/USA brief.  What seems like a valid question here is whether the BSA & GSUSA had previously agreed on the usage of Scouts & Scouting by the respective organizations.  

Some of the other things like asserting that the BSA only provided programs to boys seems a stretch.  The BSA has been providing co-ed programming since 1971.  Much of that time it's been to girls and boys.  When it was exploring or venturing they didn't object.  But, now that it's the Cub Scouts & Boy Scouts they do?  I'd think a jury would take that into account.

It's been moderately important in our troop.  We've had a few opportunities to interact with Scouts internationally - but not a lot.  We encourage the World Jamboree and in past years used to do attend jamborees in other countries.  

Given the geographic isolation and size of the United States, I'm afraid that it's more of a concept than a reality for most scouts.  

35 minutes ago, LeCastor said:

I do this, too. So, I'm pretty sure the future of experiential training is, in essence, using the syllabus as a jumping off point and then making the experience unique to the presenters and learners. In my final Scoutmaster's minute on Gilwell Field I expressed to the Troop that our Wood Badge course will never happen again because the course was unique. Each staffer and each learner shaped our course and made it our own. @desertrat77 is absolutely correct that the presenters can make or break the training experience, so District Training Chairs must take this into account and make wise decisions.

I think this is the key.  The training syllabus is simply the starting point.  I've come to understand the best courses are those where the trainer takes the material and then adds their experience.  

It's all about quality in my mind.  An instructor needs to add value over taking it online or not at all.  The online courses add something over not taking it at all.  A live instructor has the potential to add much more - but it only happens when the instructor really invests them self in building a great course.

I remember one evening with some of the "senior staff" on one of our Wood Badge courses.  They were telling some stories about their earliest courses.  In those stories I realized that they, at one point in time, had really invested themselves in making our Wood Badge courses outstanding.  The energy, enthusiasm, and preparation they embodied was inspiring as a newer staff member.  I came back to one of our district courses and realized that this same desire to make it the "best course ever" was not present.  That's not a critique of our district courses - we've got good instructors.  It's just that this group of Wood Badge staff really strived to make it the best they could.  Participants - whether they liked the syllabus or not - knew that they staff was prepared.  They saw that every presentation had been prepared by hand, reviewed, and rehearsed multiple times.  As a staff it was more work - sure.  But it was fun too.  I'm not sure how to encourage this at the district level with basic training - but my sense is that this would help.  

2 hours ago, cocomax said:

Scouters can be trained to toe the line when it comes to political correct language. . .

But the boys, girls, moms and dads are going to be much harder to control, I can set an example, but I am going to be a very poor language policeman. 

I can see scouters referring to BSA girl troops as girl troops to be political correct, but the boys, girls, moms and dads will mostly refer to them as girl scouts.

The massive bolder BSA national has started rolling down the hill will not be slowed down much by a single power point slide.

 

I've gotta wonder though.  How my accountability does the BSA really have for individual Scouters & units.  They could remove us I suppose like they do for YPT violations - but that seems pretty extreme because I make a recruiting flier and mis-use the term "Girl Scouts".

10 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I'm going to go slightly off topic but since this is on Page 8, what the heck! 

In our area, our Boy Scout Troop would often rent sites at Girl Scout camps.  But since the BSA has allowed girl membership, the Girl Scout camps do not want the BSA around.  That probably makes sense, except, they are losing the rental money!  It's a little bit too bad because all camps need money to keep running. 

That's a bummer!

Our Cub Scout pack did the same thing.  The local Girl Scout camps are here are awesome.  Great size for a pack camping trip too.

@Eagle94-A1 - I'm glad to hear your sons like the new troop.  That's fantastic.

I fully agree - rushing the boys through too quickly is a big mistake.  Scouts BSA is just another section of the Scouting trail - it's not a destination.

I would also agree - these last spring crossovers are too late.  Boys get into the troop and almost immediately have to decide about Summer Camp. I'd rather see a Dec-March crossover too.

5 hours ago, DuctTape said:

I am with Barry on this. I would rather the webelos program be the best webelos program it can be and not attempt to be Boy Scout prep. 

What I see has more to do with activity level in Scouting than it does Boy Scout prep.  For example:

- Pack A camps twice a year - camping trips are usually two nights and often at a BSA camp.  The Webelos had a camping trip of their own.  The met weekly.  The leaders put more responsibilty for advancement on the Scouts.

- Pack B is much more laid back.  The pack would have a local overnighter.  Webelos dens met once or twice a month.  Fewer activities, no Webelos camping.  Boys earned all awards together.

I see very different engagement levels from the respective new Scouts.  Scouts from Pack A are there weekly.  The boys jump in, earn Scout and then Tenderfoot quickly.  They go to Summer Camp.  Scouts from Pack B are casual Scouts.  They are more likely to miss meeting, take a year to earn Tenderfoot, and skip Summer Camp.

Both Packs think they are doing the right thing.  Pack A has higher expectations and encourages more involvement.  Pack B is the "laid back" pack - they respect families time.

Interesting to hear that this is more of a national trend. 

It would seem that packs and troops focusing on the outdoor program might indeed be a very good way to recruit both girls & boys.  i.e. join Scouts BSA for an active, outdoor program.

15 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think some of the issue is local leaders and councils being “innovative”.  See below for an image used in the lawsuit.... clearly not from Nationals as their online forms crash too quickly to take screenshots.

 

 

I'm guessing that stuff like this will be hard for the BSA to police.  DIdn't they already write a letter saying not to use the term "girl scouts? of the images of the GSUSA?

I think @Eagledad describes it well.

I'd only add that in our council, we did ask participants to pick a primary position.  It's your choice what that position is.

When you write the ticket, part of the point is to establish a big picture goal that you'd like to accomplish for your time in that position.  Your ticket is a series of smaller projects that help you accomplish that goal.  A goal for an ASM is probably different than a goal for a MB counselor.  So that's why you'll probably see them nudge you to pick one of the two positions to focus on.  But, if both of those roles are important to your vision for the troop, then I imagine you can find a way to work them both in.

As an example.  When I took the course I was an Asst. Cubmaster.  My goal was to see us develop into a more energetic pack with lots of participation.  Some of my goals were things like: start a summertime program, increase participation on camping trips, foster a sense of den spirit by introducing den names, cheers, & flags.

49 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I feel the same with the Cub program, but not the Troop program. My feel is the success of going coed depends on the success of bringing girls through the cub program, just like the BSA has done with boys in the cub program. I think enough moms will step up to camping because they have been doing it for a long time. I just don' believe moms, or even inexperienced dads, will adapt and reinforce patrol method to it's full advantage because that is what I have observed from them so far.

Barry

That would fit with what I see here.  We have plenty of outdoor oriented moms and female leaders.  I get the sense that around here, there was a shift a few generations back where women started doing all the same kinds of outdoor things as men.  So, today we have many women who camp, hike, bike, fish, etc...  This could be regional and could be part of what is going on in the Southern region.  It is a part of the country where outdoor activities are fairly prevalent.

From a marketing perspective, this is where I think focusing on the outdoor aspect of the BSA makes sense.  Encouraging those girls who want outdoor adventure to join the BSA makes a lot of sense in my region.

Living in the south myself, I suspect that conservative folks are most concerned about the values taught in the program. 

I don't think that they are all that concerned whether their kid's scout group is boys only, girls only, or co-ed.  Most church youth groups are co-ed, so if it's fine for youth group, it's fine for a scout troop.  We Scouters may have a perspective because we're invested in the program.  But, if you're a parent making the choice for the first time - I think that's a very different scenario.

I'd just welcome a place to talk Scouting where many threads didn't end in a negative criticism of something.  Girls in Scouting, patrol method and YPT, Wood Badge, etc.  It wears me out to just keep being so negative.  I'd love for a thread on a recruiting video to be about great ways to make that happen - not about the the masculinity of girls or the death of patrol method.

I respect the energy and passion you all have for Scouting.  I understand how many are very frustrated about the changes in Scouting.  I just feel like we get so negative so quickly.  I simply thought that maybe we could find a way to let and encourage people to vent but still have a place for discussion about program mechanics.

3 hours ago, shortridge said:

@The Latin Scot, I disagree with you 1,000 percent. However, all that aside, this isn’t I&P, and this thread isn’t for debating the merits of girls in Scouts BSA. I&P is the appropriate forum for sharing your feelings about masculinity. This is the open program forum.

Do you have specific thoughts on the marketing video separate from your overall opinions about the new Scouts BSA?

Thanks!

I would very much welcome a policy decision by this moderators of this forum that posts continuing to debate the merits of girls in the BSA get moved to I&P.

I'm perfectly fine that you all continue to debate it.  I just would like to have a place focus on the mechanics and best practices of the Scouting program itself.

I've got a 9 year old daughter and a 14 year old daughter.  They are both active Girl Scouts.  This video captures exactly the things that they like about Girl Scouts now.  Hiking, canoeing, archery, climbing, roasting marshmallows, camping. 

If anyone thinks this is too masculine for girls, then you've not met my daughters, their friends, or their Girl Scouts troops.

A very good video.

5 hours ago, WisconsinMomma said:

I think it takes a lot of patience with new parents, and figure that new parents just don't know what they don't know.

I had a very frustrating first year or so in my own family when my oldest was starting Scouts.  It went something like this.  I'd ask a question -- I have lots of questions, and my husband, an ASM, would get mad at me for asking the question.  This is exactly what it felt like from my point of view.  From his point of view, he was trying to tell me that Boy Scouts was different, but he came across as the grouchiest person on earth, where I couldn't even talk about Boy Scouts!!  It was terrible!   In my own house!!  I learned a lot more here than I did talking to my spouse, but he is not a guy who has much patience for explaining stuff. 

Somehow we got through it, but it takes a patient person to stop and tell an inexperienced new parent how things work.  And I was not asking things maliciously, I just wanted to know what the deal was with Boy Scouts.  It takes awhile for new parents to understand the system. 

 

I fondly use the phrase "Cruise Director".  I've always felt that 50% of my job as a Scouter is to explain things to parents.  Part of providing the programming for a youth activity is to help the parents understand why we do what we do and how to best reinforce it.  I see working with new parents and leaders as a big part of that.  Their scout is going to have a less fulfilling time in Scouting if the parents don't really understand why we're doing things the way we do. 

Having a bunch of parents running around doing the wrong things creates chaos too.  That's where a key part of running a youth activity to getting the parents properly aligned to support it.

I think that's why we have fewer problems with helicopter parents than some troops.  Since we've been explaining why for so long many people now internalize it and it's generally part of our culture.  So, more and more parents can help with explaining why to others.  In fact, we've gone further with the concept and now one of our Committee Members have been holding parent info sessions at meetings to explain things to newer parents.  It's working out really, really well.

8 hours ago, perdidochas said:

On a campout, if its directly related to the Scouts, the SPL.  Otherwise, the SM.  My view is the SPL is the top of the organization chart. 

I'd kinda disagree here.  If a parent wanted to do something at a troop meeting, camping trip, whatever, then I'd have the parent start by talking with the SM.  The SM could then say something like "ok, gotchca, that's probably not what you want to do - here's why." Or, perhaps he could say "hey, that makes sense.  You should check with the SPL to see if he can fit it into his plans."  

The SM, as an adult, is in a good position to act as a coach to the parent and filter for the SPL.

3 hours ago, ParkMan said:

This is all rather easy in our troop.  We have only the occasional problems with helicopter parents, but they sort themselves out very quickly.

We always have one or two new scout program ASMs.  They are always experienced troop ASMs and take control of the program for Scouts for the first year or two.  To simplify their job, we recruit new scout parents to help them as ASMs assisting with the new scout program.

It's very clear to all which adult has the overall responsibility for new scouts trips - either the SM, ASM New Scouts, or his designee.

We don't have rules about what parents can do and cannot.  The adults all tend to camp togther on trips which is great.   We also do try to limit new adults.  There are no rules about being a committee member for a year or whatever.  If a new parent wants to be an ASM - that's great.  They just take direction from the New Scouts ASM.

 

Just so there is no confusion, that should have been: "We also do not try to limit new adults".  I had that backwards.

I know that it is a common thing to ask first year parents to be committee members or to ask them to wait a year to volunteer.  We don't do that.  Really what we tend to do is just guide new parents.  If a new parent starts doing too much for the scouts, the New Scout ASM simply pulls them aside and mentors them.   That tends to be all we need to do.

This is all rather easy in our troop.  We have only the occasional problems with helicopter parents, but they sort themselves out very quickly.

We always have one or two new scout program ASMs.  They are always experienced troop ASMs and take control of the program for Scouts for the first year or two.  To simplify their job, we recruit new scout parents to help them as ASMs assisting with the new scout program.

It's very clear to all which adult has the overall responsibility for new scouts trips - either the SM, ASM New Scouts, or his designee.

We don't have rules about what parents can do and cannot.  The adults all tend to camp togther on trips which is great.   We also do try to limit new adults.  There are no rules about being a committee member for a year or whatever.  If a new parent wants to be an ASM - that's great.  They just take direction from the New Scouts ASM.

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I talked about working with Webelos with the SM for several reasons. One was the high attrition rate. The Webelos that join are not staying. Last year, only 33% of those crossing over are here today. Year before that is a little better, 55%, but that is the group with parents wanting their sons to earn Eagle and have a continuation of Cub Scouts. No matter how many times you talk to them, no matter what training they have taken, they are doing their own thing.  In the pack I am a DL for, I've found the Webelos  are still being treated like Cub Scouts, and then the Scouts and parents move up and are totally unprepared for the changes.I wanted to begin the transition process NOW in an attempt to lower attrition. Another reason was that I wanted to train these Webelos so that they would be able to jump right in and do anything needed within their patrols. Folks here know I am not a fan of NSPs as I had issues with them over the years. Only once did I see a possibility of a Webelos den crossing over intact as a NSP and being able to meet the challenges. Sadly, that patrol split and joined 2 different troops. Those Scouts, and their parents, are causing no problems with either troop. I was hoping to recreate that den.

I've seen similar things happen with Webelos scouts that graduates Scouts into our troop.  Some dens are great and have good retention, others do not.  

My sense is that much of it is about how the Webelos den and pack operates.  I'm not sure if it's because some dens are better are preparing Scouts or because some dens do a better job of retaining those Scouts who are likely to be active Boy Scouts.  Probably a little of both.

I wonder if a well organized Webelos Den Leader training taught be former Webelos Den Leaders who have successfully made the troop transition would help.  Get the Webelos den leaders thinking a different way than Cub Scouts.  Also, get them thinking about the important things to start doing that are likely to get the Scouts successfully started in a troop.

Troop recruiting is a funny business.

Back when I was Cubmaster, we had a very active recruiting program.  It was a lot of work, but one that I enjoyed immensely.  One of my great joys was getting to know prospective families and helping them decide is Cub Scouts was for their son, and if so, whether our pack was a good fit.  It would not be a stretch to say they I'd average 2-3 hours per new Cub Scout.

When I moved over to the troop, it was a very different world.  Our recruiting focused so much more on simply providing a good program.  It was like the line from the movie Field of Dreams - "build it and they will come."  But, in neither case did we ever assume that "Scouts were ours".  In fact, we always saw other troops recruiting into the packs that feed us as encouragement.  If a troop comes in and starts recruiting better than us, or makes their program sound stronger, then it's a sign to us that we need to work a bit harder.

I mean this in the nicest way @Eagle94-A1, but if a DL decides to take his boys to a different troop - then shame on my troop. It would be unfair of my troop to blame the DL.

4 minutes ago, shortridge said:

Yet some troops, especially those with packs at the same CO, regard Webelos dens as “theirs” and any attempts to poach their property leads to smackdowns. It’s completely ridiculous, but that’s how people can get.

Don't most den leaders initiate the visits?  I assume you just call who you want to call.

1 hour ago, Oldscout448 said:

 A quick question if I may.

I admit it's been about 20 years since I worked with Webelos, but I didn't promote any troop over another.  We visited 3 or 4 local troops and it was up to the cubs and their parents to pick out the troop that best fit their needs.    Have things changed ?

Around here the Webelos dens still visit multiple troops as well.