qwazse

@@Hawkwin, true, if one is dismissive of evidence, one cannot draw conclusions. Regarding 1. In my experience, it is sheer folly to dismiss leaders who abandon your organization. The vacuum left when it comes time to rally the troops in the following years is palpable. Meanwhile, some of them are fully capable of bolstering whatever non-BSA youth program they desire. Lose leaders, lose boys. Take decades to recover. Period. Pilot programs? Like Scouts UK? Venturing? Suppose there is noteworthy recruitment of boys on a pilot program. Why wouldn't the "it's not the girls, its the {insert excuse here}" logic apply as well? More credible market research would involve national polling of parents whose boys have not joined BSA and seeing how many would sign them up if they could enroll their daughters as well. It also involve polling parents who have a relationship with BSA. And parents of girls with no relationship to the BSA. BSA says there's a market out there, but they haven't described how they know its there or what size they think it is. Regarding 2. Membership growth = registration fees, more donations, publicity, etc ... which means professional staff stop getting fired (or asked to take on absurd workloads) ... which means better service to volunteers. On the other hand, membership decline = less $$, fewer professional staff, fewer camps, more burden on volunteers to get "busy work done", etc ... which means these girls we propose to enroll have a far worse program on their hands that probably will take them and their children to restore. It's kind of like ignoring the small polarized states in a presidential election ... very efficient, until your opponent sees the potential in electoral votes from places with more land than people.

You haven't read what these scouters have written, or talked to a wide range of scouters in your community. They say if BSA sanctions inclusion of girls in its packs and troops anywhere in the US, they will leave the BSA. I take them at their word. There was a rather insightful user, Back Pack, who abandoned this forum last month explicitly because of this issue. So you concede that including young did nothing to help Venturing's decade-long decline? By logical extension: including girls is unlikely to help reverse the trend for BSA's other units. You have not had to deal with parents of young teen boys upset that you were "bringing girls into scouting." You have not talked to parents of your son's friends who told you "my daughter is not camping with boys." You have had good scouters infuriated because your female youth might be sharing a 64 square-mile wilderness recreation area with their boys. Nor have you had to reconcile with leaders envious that your leadership wasn't fully devoted to their unisex program. A few posts back, you mention "regression analysis". A nice tool. I make my living off of people who can't do it. But, you are mistaken thinking that it is necessary to interpret data. It can sometimes help identify among somewhat independent causes how much variation each cause would explain. But, it can't -- in itself -- follow a causal chain. For human factors, that requires focus groups and qualitative interview. Talk to scouters, a lot of them. Then come back and tell me you don't have a one of them who would part ways over this. Then maybe you will have a data point to counter mine. For BSA to accept girls into packs and troops, it just doesn't need a majority of scouters to acquiesce, it needs existing and future scouters to enthusiastically endorse it. I see no evidence that we are there yet.

That award doesn't have a lick of value compared to her track record of public statement. She'll benefit more from being denied Eagle. I'd probably hire the kid if her resume came across my desk.

Well, that, and scouters like @@Stosh and @@Ankylus to be okay with it. As important as our daughters are, seasoned scouters of large and small units across the nation are equally, if not more, relevant to the success of the BSA. If they don't buy in in overwhelming numbers, we must go for decades without the human resources BSA needs for success. That's why venturing is floundering. Potential leaders, in spite of BSA's pitches, in spite of a cadre well trained young-adult females, do not see it worth their well to set aside life in unisex troops/packs to make outdoor programs for coed older youth flourish.

The male mystique! Here's an oldy-but-goody (except for the mispelled topic): http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/9491-the-male-mystic/

Tech questions! It's worse than that. The uniform isn't worn by the scout. All he'd need is a bar-code tattooed someplace obvious. Although with facial recognition coming along, maybe not even that. Everyone else would have to wear special glasses. (Or, according to my futurist prediction, have a wireless reciever implanted in their cortex.) Those glasses would recognize the scout, and project the appropriate uniform to the wearer. (Kind of like how sports broadcasters project scrimmage lines on football fields these days.) This would solve the issue of Uniforming in he acquatics area. Current estimates have the MCO never crashing. It either bounced off the atmosphere, much like a rock skipped on flat water, literally being lost in deep space ... or it inserted at such high velocity that it disintegrated. Any parts hitting the surface would hardly stir up dust, much less make a crater. The use of English measures of thrust per say weren't inherently problematic, but the ensuing lack of communication of units was (https://mars.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco991110.html).

@@Stayseen, every scouter has a set of bad experiences that drive their tendency to over-caution. It's hard to judge them from this side of the Internet. Enjoy your time with your son. My father-in-law and his son wound up on a competitive circuit for a while as a result of being introduced to the sport while the boy was a scout. If you have time, join a sportsmans club and become a range safety officer. That way you can spread the fun to other boys and girls.

Two deep is intended for overnight activities. No none-one contact applies to meetings and other "waking hours." Patrol meetings need no adults present. Obviously, if the patrol is meeting in the deep end of an aquatics area, all specifications for qualified supervision and discipline must be met.

The USMC recognizes several awards, I forget which ones. I know two Gold awardees who enlisted, but I forgot to ask if that influenced their standing. Hopefully some recent recruits (or a current recruiter) will sound off.The thinking is that recruits with particular skill sets and proven discipline are better prepared to handle more responsibility sooner in their military career.

Please somebody put a plus in front of that one. Mash, work for smiles, buddy. Even when others won't.

Laughing out loud: Son #1 was learning to shoot skeet the winter of his crossover year. I had a blast "pulling" for him and the other first years! On one pull he got both the high- and low- clays in one shot! Bless the couple of ASMs who went through the trouble of becoming RSOs!

@@HelpfulTracks, regarding your 1st point, I do believe that many families and scouters have a misplaced elevation of Eagle rank. Your distinction is not subtle at all, IMHO. Eagle recognizes boys who decide to develop leadership and acquire skills above and beyond the majority of boys in he BSA. I've heard from veterans, especially those who entered military service with no experience, that this distinction is manifest at boot camp and continues for some time into a soldiers or sailors career. But I've also heard from other fields that it's a brand they trust. Regarding your second point, one does not "find" a GS troop so much as is assigned a troop. I've experienced that personally as my wife was told point blank that my daughter could not join one of the troops that hiked and camped regularly. She even had friends in one of the other troops. The troop she was allowed to join had a mom who swore to never camp far from an outlet for a curling iron. That lasted for nigh two months, then she quit. Needless to say, this explicit and encouraged policy prevents any possible way to determine if one method of girl scouting is more attractive than the other. On the other hand, most of us in BSA know that advancement and outdoors are the most sought after methods from scouts and their families (so much so that this blog exists thanks to scouters trying to bring other methods into balance). I suppose if my daughter started scouting first, I might have been able to help Mrs. Q tilt at windmills, but Son #1 was full-on in sports and cub scouts, and my camping gear (down to the plaid oil cloth for picnic tables) was very welcome there. Regarding your third point, the skills and leadership delivered via the Venturing are in no way comparable to those delivered in Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. There are no adults in my crew who are dedicated to teaching my venturers first class skills. That entirely is dependent on the first class scouts being willing to teach those skills. (Mine had, but is the distinct minority of crews in my council.) Match that with many a scouter's disapproval of venturing scheduling conflicts, etc ... And I'm not surprised that a trip to Canada is the preferred option. I'd like to think Miss Ireland's idealism would not allow her to accept some waiver (which would be historic, if offered). Why would a scout accept an award that other scouts cannot receive by virtue of demographic? Oh, wait. No-wait Eagle Palms. Nevermind.

You do realize that all of the stipulations about which program one had to be registered in came about after some female explores were chosen as candidates? Or, do you really think a first class scout who transferred to a crew is de-facto not worthy of scouting's honor society?

Although I disagree with CR's -1, I have seen how hard that is for girls to do.I think the scouters who have gone rogue forming their coed troops have done so out of weariness trying to make the GS/USA work for the girls in thier community (who are like Miss Ireland but too far from a Canadian border to get bling for their enthusiasm). It doesn't make sense why the organization is so intransigent. Except perhaps these outdoor obsessed, patrol method focused girls are seen as intimidating to the majority of girls (or moms?) in the GS/USA.

Yep. Every now and then we're the first to know that a kid's going "off the rails." And we're the first to believe he (or she) can get back on track. I'll know this, if you have a good committee, they'll stick by you and keep the irate parent at bay. In fact, it boils down to a choice between an irate parent or an irate committee. I'll take the parent (with a little help from the CC).

Keep the BS out of the BSA, Mash!

Yeah, about O/A, I'd rather they drop the rhetoric, open it to male venturers, but plainly say "no girls allowed."#tiredofdoublespeak

I suppose you have to work with the style of adults who you have. When son #1 crossed over, I came into troop as a self-starter. Me and another dad were all about backpacking. We did not waste time being asked. We told whoever came near us about whatever good camping place we knew. We did our minimal impact routine in front of the boys. Except in sideways rain, tent flaps were always up. If I went fishing, I laid my tackle box and two extra poles against a tree and announced that I didn't mind where they wandered, but expected to see them back with lines untangled but hooks straightened by big fish. Another couple of dads were all about their Taj Mahal tent style and camp gadgets. They eventually hunted up a trailer. None of this was asked for by the scoutmaster. I got assigned to the committee. It didn't matter. I just did my thing. Eventually an older SM asked why I'm not wearing an ASM patch. I said I didn't care, but if someone filled out the paperwork, I'll sign for the position. (The SM's wife did.) The SM was largely inconsequential to what we did. He focused on fitness and first aid. But, SPLs and PLs caught on pretty quick that if they wanted something else, they could come ask at the camp site with the espresso pot were the adults were likely to be cooking shrimp scampi with fettuccini Alfredo served on a bed of lettuce. Eventually the SM learned to ask us anything, and we'd bend over backwards to make it happen. This sounds a whole lot like adult led. And, truly, we never were great with patrols that held together long term. But, the boys caught on quick that if you want stuff, do what it takes to get it. If you don't know what that is, ask one of the ASMs. Eventually they became their own wood-choppers, hike planners, deep fry gourmets, tarpologists, sharpshooters, etc ... You could have that, just takes one bunch of dads crossing over who don't mind camping with the boys and forgoing alcohol ... but be careful what you wish for. Self starters can also be divisive my-way-or-the-highway types. That may be why your SM keeps them at a distance. He's bound to have seen something of the sort in 25 years. So I guess the real goal is balance. If your people need a little prodding, and your SM isn't confident about that, figure out a way to do that efficiently so as to manage your time. Don't sweat the ASM-MC boundary all that much. If your SPL is up to it, give him the names and numbers of the adults who can guide his boys. One of the first steps in increasing youth leadership is acting like the youth are leaders.

Congratulations on avoiding going all momma bear on your troop's prodigal. I'm pretty firm on my venturers to be in the troop or out - not in between. If Eagle's a big deal for them, but they don't want to be in a troop, they can advance in my crew. None of them have taken me up on it. I think they have a sense that my SMCs will be more challenging, and thier service project would sink or swim on their own. Frankly, the boy's registration should have been dropped for lack of attendance.

What do we do? Try. Fail. Try again.Do they like it? No. Do they need it? Yes. It sounds like you're wondering *what* they should try. But that's as varied as the interests of the scouts. Good COPE instructors have a deep war chest of one hour, one weekend, and week long activities. But the same principle can be applied to gourmet cooking, field sports, acquatics, scout craft, and service projects. Venturing's broad categories are currently: Adventure, Leadership (yes sometimes there is no other way to learn than to do), Personal growth, and Service. I kind of like the specialty awards: Ranger (outdoor expertice), Trust (religious understanding), and Quest (sports and athletics). The idea is to cast a vision that appeals to more than one scout, and break it down into goals that get them there. Really and truly, any merit badge topic can be used as a theme around which team- and leadership-building activities can be based. The challenge: any such activity requires more time than guys who join scouts understand how to give. That's where we come in as coaches ... Reminding youth that they will get out more than they put in, but they will only know how much once they start to put in the effort ... And figuring out the appropriate safe boundaries for any given set of youth.

"... I wanted to learn wilderness survival skills: how to ... throw a tomahawk ...." Gotta say, there's nothing as viscerally hair-raising the back of a guy's neck like seeing a couple venturing females land square on the log in the axe-throwing yard.

Ohhh, I know! Instead of a sash ... a small flat screen that scrolls through all the scouts awards! Add touch capabilities ... so a lad can let the ladies can come up and ask to swipe left or right to scan the entire collection. Tap to bring up pictures of the scout doing activities related to the badge. (True story: when I wore my uni in high school. Girls would come up and ask what each patch was about. That was a better motivator than the free ice-cream on scout day.)

Shiff's favoritism toward anthro-centric multiples of 5 and 2 (as opposed to more harmonic multiples of 3 and 2) is duly noted. A swear jar should be adjacent to any public figure who address the audience.

'Skip, I'm not denying that there were other factors, and that opening to girls was part of a larger necessary transformation in Scouts UK. But, I'd argue that it opening your program, as it was, to girls did not solve your membership issues ... as some had proposed it would with BSA. Those no-doubt-phenomenal ASL's were a two-decade work in progress (starting when they were hardly even twinkles in their parent's eyes). That says something for British resolve! Americans are not always so generous with their time. Venturing is the case in point. To date, not enough time is put in or returned to that program to make it grow. The only place I see American adults committing large amounts of time toward teen programs is in Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and unisex sports. I just down see there being enough adults with a commitment to co-ed scouting for some 30 year transition.