qwazse

No he may not. Welcome to the forums. Now, brace yourself. FIRST CLASS FIRST YEAR IS A LIE. Taking years to advance not a problem. Son #2 took four years for no good reason. He eventually earned Eagle. His buddy took as long because the lake freaked him out, and he refused to let me test him in a swimming pool. He enjoyed the program until he was 17. He's an awesome young man. Other boys have had different reasons. The best scout I ever knew aged out at 2nd class. What made him the best? He invited me to join his troop. Fight with every fiber in your body the notion that he hast to advance now. There are 130 other things (MBs) he could do until he's ready.

... again with the "do not do's" ... I was once taught to think of it this way: There was this guy beat up and naked on the side of the road. Plenty of folks with lots of religious practice passed the guy by on the way to temple. Then along comes this other guy who may or may not have done much in terms of religion, and if he did, it was on the wrong mountain. He does first aid on the guy, covers him in his own Armani jacket, takes him to the ER, and -- not willing to trifle with figuring insurance for this John Doe -- gives the hospital his black AmEx card to cover all expenses and promising he'll be back to make sure the guy got top-noch health care. So who fulfilled their duty to God? Sometimes what people tell you about what you should do has little to do with what God says you must do.

The national venturing youth cabinet and the O/A National Chiefs have had a lot of sway on the board. Certainly for as twice as long as Back Pack has been a scout. In a sense the board has held back overtures from many of them to open BSA to coed units for decades. Not sure what they think of BSA4G. I met a couple of the National Venturing officers in April and then the precipitous decline in numbers of Venturers was an urgent concern.

And to think one year, our troop went for months as patrol 1, 2, and 3, and I would cringe and mutter, "dens have numbers, patrols have names."

My observation as well. There are different roles for men and women. This is why youth should be encouraged to study their local tribes. Sex roles should be honored, together.

Welcome, thanks for all you do for the boys!

Not exactly.Looking at other WOSM programs and ignoring the meteoric rise of scouts Pakistan presumes that co-Ed is the preferred endpoint. Looking at home and seeing some charter orgs make square wheels roll to make their girls and boys scout together, and other potential COs looking for all-in-one turn down packs and troops, presumes BSA4G is the endpoint.

@@ItsBrian, remember what I told you earlier about avoiding listing what you don't do? Focus on what you do. I will try not to be as harsh as @@perdidochas, but also go a little bit beyond the "BSA line" that NJ lays out. You do need to ask yourself if you're choice do be a nominal Christian is really how you want to reckon with your maker. Lots of scouts at this age are trying to decide if they want to commit themselves to their parent's religion. For some of those, duty to God might be to stop "going through the motions" for others it might be to attend service is out of respect for your family, but let them know they aren't sure that God is really being honored here. We try to be supportive of both types of scout, but we also want to challenge them a little. Our duty to God, ultimately, is to center ourselves where we think he is. If you think He* is more in your circle of scouts during that benediction, your duty is to figure out if that's the only place that you should be giving respect, or if you need to start a few steps on a very long spiritual journey. From a scouting perspective, it's okay to say you're trying to honor the almighty where you think due reverence is being given, and that's it. It's not okay to say you will from here on out make zero effort to know the unfathomable. I was recently on the road to camp with a muslim friend early in the morning. He asked me to pull over for sunrise prayer. So, I pulled over in a decent location, got a blanket out of the car, lined it up and knelt beside him while he did his requisite movements. I prayed in one way, he prayed another, we figured it out. It would have been simply insulting if I tried to imitate him for his sake, but it would have been foolish of me to miss an opportunity to perform my own devotions as I was taught. So, you feel like you're in an odd spot because we are in a culture that likes to sweep this stuff under the rug. This is reinforced by our system of public education. In contrast we as scouters prefer to let iron sharpen iron and talk about this stuff with one another. Later that day, my buddy and I were hiking with a scout dad who you might relate to. The guy finds God in nature. In religion, not so much. The three of us talked through each of our perspectives, and discussed how from our respective backgrounds we could relate to one another. We're scouts. This is what we do. *I use male pronouns out of convention. There are some who worry about that being politically incorrect. I'm pretty sure any deity worth their salt would be just as offended by feeble attempts to fiddle with language to delude ourselves into thinking we've risen above ancient cultural biases and now properly understand divine identity.

Needing to accept a kid because of a shortage of depth in leadership is one thing. Letting Mom, Dad, and Siblings overrun a patrol is another. In general, when in that situation, I assign the boys fairly independent challenges that won't demand my attention. Then, I set about entertaining the younger siblings with scout-craft challenges for them. Then, we go on rounds together and they can help me set up the next activity. I actually find it refreshing. I guess the wannabe cub-master comes out. But only in small doses.

This is why I discourage by-laws and handbooks (besides the BSHB). People always take what you pose and blow it out of proportion. I simply pick isolated insertion points and rugged hike plans (relative to boys' ability's). Catch us if you can. (TBH, it's usually me trying to catch up ) It's a little easier for me because my boys don't favor camporees and prefer to pitch away from crowds. This sometimes gets them in disagreements with program staff, but a conversation the ranger and he'll generally clear it.

And sports last. Having a family who sent a cousin to the pro-football, I knew what it took. And, surprisingly, year-round competing wasn't it. If you're not first in your class re-think your priorities. I learned in middle school that I could walk forever around the rolling hills of home and have a smile on my face at the end of the day. I knew the type of attitude that would make a pro athlete. Son #1 came closest. But science and campfires made him happier. A job of manual labor during the summer also helped. So two seasons of soccer were recreational leagues, not cup teams. He cross-trained on other teams as well. Finally, it's about the age where he needs to check in with social relationships. If he's dating, is his girlfriend supportive? A good couple quickly grows around each other. If he's got buddies, who are they? Are they encouraging him into good things? This is the part where parents have to ask tough questions. (Tougher than those petty promiscuity queries.) One more question for the modern age: where do the cell phones go when you all go to bed? I'm not joking.

The program name Boy Scouts regardless of who the members are. It's distinctive features are a chartered sponsor of one or more divisions of units which may persist over generations, units that span age/grade ranges within divisions of Cubs, Boys, and Venturers (or Sea Scouts/Explorers/STEM Scouts). membership extends to as many youth as can safely occupy the sponsors facilities. We can go on about aims and methods. That's not a distinctive feature. Other programs have aims and methods by some other name. awards. Other programs have those too. sex segregation or lack therof. That's not a distinctive feature. Other programs have that. mavericks who push boundaries. Again, not distinctive. Welcome to America. Those three features and the "room for more" attitude create the crucible for units that are successful with a minimum of national oversight. This seems especially true for Cubs, Boys, and Sea Scouts. (It also creates a membership who questions if National is worth the fees. ) If those features remain. It's Boy Scouts, no matter which sex participates in it. That's what these odd young ladies are looking for as opposed to the organization that supposedly socially engineered the "perfect troop" for them. So I'm calling it "Cub Scout Pack for Girls"/"Den for Girls" and "Boy Scout Troop for Girls." File it under BSA4G. (No worse than EDGE.)

Short answer: Yes! Long answer: It takes a special kind of crazy, but yes!

My bet is that the advertisers approached BSA and GS/USA for permission to use uniformed youth in the spot, and both turned them down. I'm not sure if Ford was first, but lots of manufacturers pitch their cars by showing engineers/designers perfecting models of the product. This spot turns that idea on its head a little.

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/bsa_charter_and_bylaws.pdf Feel free to familiarize yourself ...http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/bsa_charter_and_bylaws.pdf http://www.scouting.org/cebo.aspx You could also attend council board meetings. Or, invite acting or former council/area presidents to camp with your troop for a couple of nights. I'm not saying you get top job that day, but after a few years as a DE putting in 60 hour weeks, folks might begin think you're in for the pound.

Tarps? Taking away advancement opportunities? Like there's a tent-wrecking badge? Told a mom Monday night that it's not her job to track her son's advancement. That's on him. She was so relieved. In our school district, kids are sent home with so many requests for parent signatures, sometimes acknowledging every class assignment, they like having one thing that's not their responsibility.

Those who actually make their money/power "elsewhere" become board members ... and they determine compensation for the execs based on their experience with free market forces. If you'll do the job for less, send them your resume! There is no scenario where any BSA policy shift is linked directly to executive compensation. Now a policy that actually does increase membership will lead to more personnel. Get more youth? You'll get more units, more execs and smaller counsels. But, this in itself does none of that. At best it will placate litigants and actuaries. Anyone is welcome to dislike the policy. They aren't welcome to reduce motives to mere cash flow, or the number of blue moons, or some Illuminati conspiracy just because they don't like it. I'm coming up with a post framing this on Camping MB requirement 9a that could be linked to cash flow. Stay tuned.

Modest dress is not a big issue around here. Most traditional dress is long-sleeved. I suppose each lodge should take the lead from NA dance teams, which tend to be mixed. Many of the local tribes around here are matriarchal, and often host girl scouts and boy scouts to visit their pow-wows. So this is likely to be quite interesting if there is an infusion co-ed youth learning native culture together.

@@cocomax @@Jameson76, as elegant as a 99%-er's false dichotomy may sound, I would contend that, lacking proof, it remains just that. We have one group that feels that scouts are needed so that money can be raised so that there can be programs delivered to scouts. I have had personal dealings with multiple SE's, two of whom have gone on to be CSE's ... all of whom could be making more $ running for-profit businesses, or have more power in public office. I'm not blindly defending them. But attributing motivations to pure materialism and then using that as a reason to discount policy just doesn't add up. Maybe I've heard from too many Trotskyists during the Cold War years ...

If you are anything like you write, I'd never grudge the chance to go after the award. The PoR, however, would have to be ASM. Or, maybe DE. The boys might like you, but probably not enough to vote you in.

My magic number would be 50 for camping MB. But, I would strip all of the "Boy Scout Camping" or "With your Troop or Patrol" or "Long term camp" stipulations. There is nothing magic about camping under the auspices of Scouting. And, I believe there is something special when a boy helps his family, youth group, our other party enjoy the outdoors. BSA is missing the boat by giving a boy the impression that he's not really scouting in those circumstances.

@@mds3d, just as a rule of thumb: keep the press outside the gate! When we had an event (a death) that drew public attention we agreed that the Charter Organization could choose the person to whom all inquiry's would be directed. That person, answered very few questions of the press, and would not allow recording devices on the property ... nor would that person give a reporter my name (even though the affected family allowed me to speak for them). This made sure that the only people contacting me were vetted by the family. I had a prepared statement -- a profound disappointment to the one reporter who did call. But it covered how we all felt without allowing one person to be a "special source" leading to some non-existent "other side of the story." A reporter was on our committee, involved intimately with the tragedy, and he could have run with this. We would have trusted him to do right by us. He refused.

@@patbutler00, welcome to the forums. And, thanks for your encouragement of those (presumably) young Eagles. True enough Eagle scouts as a class will often get what you are looking for in terms of project-orient work. Same for girls who've earned GS\USA's gold award (or, older women who've earned GS First Class, but chances are more recent credentials will speak for them more reliably). The National Eagle Scout Association (NESA) is the alumni association for Eagles. They would love to hear your testimony. The local chapter might ask you to get involved in mentoring a youth or two. Now, I have honest concerns that NESA has oversold its brand. (E.g., most First-Class scouts make good employees too.) But, that does not diminish the fact that folks who tell me about a young person's admirable traits often don't realize (like I do) that they were scouts who earned an award of distinction or served in a demanding position of responsibility.

You missed one. The ageist policy on rank advancement that was codified in the mid 60's will be repealed.

@@Jameson76, welcome to the forums. It would be optimistic indeed if any policy change would garner 200,000+ members -- enough at $33 a pop to dramatically offset liability and credit lines. From what I've heard from (and about) Mike Surbaugh while he was our SE, he's more pragmatic than optimistic. But, let's unpack your argument. Let's say that BSA believes this move is a cash cow, and over the next few years it gets them the $ you assert that they need so desperately. That would translate into 200K+ registrations they would not otherwise get. Let's assume that that would be 10% new leaders, 60% young women, and 30% brothers of those young women. That would be 60K boys entering the program. Let's also assume that BSA's bet on net losses due to this policy shift is about 10K boys. That bet could be dead wrong, but let's just suppose that's what they're thinking. This "cash grab" then translates 50K+ boys served. So, even if BSA's motives were purely capitalistic, I could envision them believing this as a way to serve more boys than they do now. Based on the snippets that we've been fed from the market surveys, I personally don't see any of those projections as realistic ... thus I don't find the need to replenish funds as a logical motivation of BSA's shift. But, even if it were, linking income to more boys served is about as well-oiled as a capitalist economy can get.