qwazse

No, if BSA really wants a seamless transition, then inculcate an expectation that Boy Scouts and Venturers will be den leaders, not den chiefs. We would have to operate something like this ... Any troop/crew who does not field at least one leader for every 10 cub youth would be considered a failed troop (seriously: net zero on the JTE matrix). The summer camp focus of the troop is one week to themselves (half the patrols before the cubs' week of camp, the other half after) and one week running camp for cubs. In this context we can begin to have a co-ed emphasis. A male and female den leader would team up to operate the den. Segregating and integrating as necessary according to the cultural norms put down by the the SM in conjunction with the CO. The SM covers the entire unit. (So, yes, @@NJCubScouter, they most likely will be a unit, but it won't be because they have the same number on their sleeve. It will because the troop is defined by it training youth to run the cub program.) In practical terms, Cubmasters and Crew Advisiors would report to the SM (I know half the audience his hovering over the down-vote if they haven't started to do so already.) Involved moms and dads could call themselves den hosts. But their responsibilities would be mainly providing space and, possibly, driving kids. That's right, get mom out of the room from the minute they call the kid a lion. Don't like it? Then toss it and quit pining for seamless transitions because that's what parents have been asking not to have for 8 decades. Why change now? BTW, even with a seamless transition, I don't think we'd avoid that lost of 1st year scouts. Even if we're providing a continuum for the youth, life in this US is throwing down discreet changes. I figure you'd get the same loss, just spread evenly over a couple of years.

@@SSScout, mine is the Seneca district in Laurel Highland's Council ... A little more outside the beltway!

So, there were these young-adult scouts who were sent out to determine the suitability of a permanent site for an up-and-coming program. (Let's call it the dirty dozen patrol.) They took their good old time, looked into available land, water quality, food service, and were generally discrete about the whole process. Basically the usual planning and preparation, and a true First-Class adventure. When the dirty dozen returned to their unit, they gave a a thorough report. The land was awesome! Plenty of sites to choose from. Good water. Great food ripe for picking. (They even had samples to prove it.) Everything was up to spec. However, the majority report was pessimistic. Staking claim would require constant wrangling with existing owners, and they had some big guns on their side. Two scouts in the minority report said, basically, "Come on guys, we can take them! The time is right. You know we can do this! It's exactly what you've been wanting!" Well the unit as a whole was in no mood for a fight, in spite of their current digs not being anything near National Camp School standards, so they went with the majority report. Nobody remembers the names of the ten scouts who succeeded in swaying their unit to keep the status quo. But the scouts with the minority report, Joshua and Caleb, grudgingly went along in their crappy camp selection .... They did however commit their time to teaching first-years how to take on Giants. So, that in due time they had a unit full of patrols who were ripe to occupy new territory and out maneuver the bigguns. (As a side note, one of the patrols formed a band with a crazy good horn section ... "The Shofars" I think they were called ... their gigs had a reputation for bringing down the house.) So CP, you may indeed be stupid. But, you could still be right. Let us know what you desire to do about it.

emphasis on necessary.If you have an organization of members whose objective is self-reliance, resourcefulness, and adventure beyond the range of digital media, is it not necessary to communicate with members in ways that deploy tools that cater to those traits? My CO does not give us access to their internet. So when council information is strictly in the cloud, it is not available. (Neither is this forum. Which is okay with me. Although I do miss you all for maybe a second when I'm out in the wild lands around a real campfire. ) What I used to spend in ink goes to registration fees. So, if the district hasn't printed the flyers for me, they aren't going back to my unit. To (the great) Seneca district's credit, they do maintain an E-mail list and forward along the most pertinent one or two items under relevant subject heads. But, my advice to all, if you're digitizing announcements, please, just the facts ma'am. Your anchor page listing pertinent announcements should - drop all logos and graphics. - plain text, ASCII or default html. - entries in outline format: - include only date/times, title, abstract, location, cost, contact, link to details If whatever software you propose to use cannot produce that page of data about everything in your calendar, drop it. That page of one or two sheets should be printed for every scouter who wants it. Trust me, a sheer of paper like that will find its way into your lead scouter's backpack, and he/she will pull it out at Cracker Barrel for youth and adult leader to peruse and prioritize

FYI, I have not known less about council and district activities, since they went paperless. More on this later.

Col., rule #1, don't ask for a rule.

Yeah, in 1910, you couldn't hijack a military satellite system and use it for personal treasure hunts. Nobody was launching rockets in their backyard. The foreign food festivals were few and far between. Bungees? Ziplines? But, that's also part of the problem. Adventure has become more managed and complex. Meanwhile, personal reflection (e.g., the First Class journey) has been supplanted by social media.

Not supposed to discuss it in scouting? I just can't get those Venturing Personal Safety Awareness videos out of my head. Part of our problem: folks have this delusion that we can sway the moral strictures of another unit. So unit X includes some category of scout/scouter that unit Y finds anathema. Unit Y expects BSA to do something about it. Then unit Z finds out about how exclusive unit Y is, and expects BSA to do something about it. Finally, BSA says, "were standing by our units". Y doesn't like that means we put up with X, Z doesn't like that means we put up with Y, X just wants their scout/scouter back. Someone starts writing sob stories about how scout couldn't fit in at Y and has to go all the way to Z. And everyone is bludgeoned to the point that nobody looks good. People have phones, and make those angry calls easily. This, my friends, is why local option is never an option.

I've only experienced one parent (while a cub scout) who would not sign the photo release form. There was a valid reason. No problem. We did not post pictures of the unit anywhere except on prints for the B&G banquet. Camp didn't take any pictures. (I'm not sure if it was of our site, or just none for that session.) The old troop would post links to photo albums. But, I think by the time he crossed over the one boy's issues were resolved. Still, nobody was tagged. The older boys certainly did tag one another on FB during their camp shenanigans. When one of our scouts died tragically, the parents asked that all of us to tag him on FB photos so that attention could be drawn to a scholarship set up in his name. With the crew, I am pretty loose. It's the youth's to run. We use a private E-mail list for communications. We do have a website, and I try to at least get youths' consent to share photos on it. We don't post full names. Still, I steer them toward hard-copy presentations. Nowadays, they are so rare, that we actually get a lot of attention from those sorts of things. Same rules apply: i.e., get the youth's permission before using their picture in a poster.

How about scouts who brag about still being virgins? (Well, boys may not use that word with a straight face, but the girls in my crew never had such qualms.) Time after time growing up, I saw examples of older scouts who fessed up that they *weren't* being promiscuous. Their talk, changed my "locker room" talk. And, it was clear that there was no moral equivalence between permissive and restrictive camps, the latter being more certain to prevent more disease, increase the dignity of one's fellows, and provide our future with citizens capable of building and defending this great land. Are you saying that I should now castigate the scout/venturer who extols celibacy until call to lifetime heterosexual monogamy?

Don't. Buy less. Charge more. Go over the list of stuff the unit pays for. Ask what should be cut. If you have a committee member that's skilled in rallying a sales force, suggest the boys ask him/her to coach them. Otherwise: file under "not my problem."

Being surrounded by Venturers, I don't have a good answer for you. I've always made it the older scouts' problem to solve. (They're the one's glued to the hand-held devices anyway.) But, I'll ask the SM/ASM if they do anything in particular for this with the first-years. As an advisor, I should take it a bit more seriously. We've lost some fine young boys in our community to suicide, and social media played a role ... either by allowing them to erode their emotional self-control, or allowing them to drive a guilt train on their family as their last act.

Oh, I remember now! LORD, printed in all caps, in English Bible translations signified when the Hebrew YHWH was used. For being a label, @@Stosh, it sure came with severe penalties for misuse ... as if someone important would take it personal. @@MattR, thanks for the background. I knew about the rope around the high priest. Didn't know it was associated with uttering YHWH out loud. It would have been nice to know what knot they used!

To curb the heckles of confused Cub scouters ... there are ranks in Cub Scouts and there is an advancement method. But the scope of any rank is about one year to earn commensurate with grade level. Never more. In other words, your chances for AoL are not diminished if you never bothered to earn Wolf or Bear ranks. It's just a warm-up to Boy Scouts' seven year challenge. I'm wondering if some girls out there just don't see GS/USA's recognition program as a similar marathon? Do any of them see the MB program as more concrete, and that makes it more appealing?

It's like my kids have an evil quadruplet! (Although their sport is soccer, and grandkids haven't arrived, yet.) I think scouting gives a person the ability to focus on obtuse goals and think outside the box. (That includes taking weekends at a time time to build deep friendships.) I think sports gives the person the ability to focus on narrowly defined goals and think within parameters of time, space, and regulations. (That includes commitment to work lock-step with complete strangers -- either on the same or opposite team -- on a weekly basis.) I'd say the same for band or theater. We need both.

Sounds like fun. Go for it!

The reason for the plummet in numbers are several. However, the one thing we know could offset it: about a million boys who could ask to join or start a co-ed crew at any time. One thing that did not happen: millions of boys over the past two decades remained in their unisex program. Lowering the age to 11? They lowered it to 13, numbers are still declining. When I have a chance to meet a regional or national officer, I'll ask his/her opinion of lowering the age from 13 to 11, although I bet I know what the answer will. Besides, there are plenty of scouters out there who feel that helping venturing only hurts their troops. And ultimately, activists won't be satisfied because venturing doesn't allow girls to earn Eagle and reap the "benefits" of all of those trappings.

1. Depends on the culture of your den. If you're all about everyone getting every piece of bling possible, yes. If you're all about boys diving in an having fun where they can, no. 2. It's the scout's responsibility to catch himself up. He can get help from his parents, if they are available. A den chief, if one is available. The DL if they are available. 3. If the remainder of the requirements cover all the requirements for Bear, yes. If not, no. 4. It really depends on how much you all still practice Bobcat skills, and if that will help the boy feel at home in your den. I think that it's fair to tell the boy and his parents that it would take a lot of work to get the Bear award, but don't worry. The whole den next year will start on Webelos, even if they never earned Bear.

This chart is as good as any http://www.scouting.org/Home/CubScouts/Leaders/About/ThePack.aspx.

Rabbinical scholars, please advise. My understanding was YWH (that is, the word using the equivalent Hebrew consonants, Semites often didn't waste ink on vowels) was never left blank in Biblical scrolls. At a certain point in Jewish history priests wouldn't dare say it out loud when reading it. In any case, @@Rick_in_CA, I have always taken the DRP to apply a very broad definition of the word and use that to make clear that Hindu and Muslim scouts were welcomed among us. That is how I still see scouters use it. Of course, much of our problem is that a scouter in one part of the country picks this stuff up and uses it as a cudgel on someone trying be a decent scouter in another part of the country.

Um, no, they can't. It is a reference whose origin is lost in the primitive cultures of northern Europe. Missionaries and practitioners imbued it with particular meaning because that was the closest available word for the construct in vulgar speech. Christians and Jews do not accept it, neither do they own it. No one gets baptized into any church or synagogue with even the slightest orthodoxy by saying "I believe in God. Full stop." It's simply an inadequate specification of the creed of Abrahamic faiths. There are many theists who vociferously argue God is not a person. Their use of the word in such context is correct. Christians may argue that such folks are mistaken. But they can't say that folks have no business capitalizing it in a non-Christian context.

More obvious than a medal, a knot, a necker, a slide, and a (gasp) shoulder patch? How about piercing ... a silver tattoo ... maybe a drone-suspended halo? If they could earn them while serving as adult leaders, I wouldn't mind them wearing them. But, I'd rather be on the same "clean slate" as my SM.

Your examples show us that co-ed programs can be fun. But the majority of Americans don't look to the rest of the world for role models. In that sense we are a much different animal. Asked and answered with our venturing program. After a steep incline in from its inception in 1998 with ~180K members to 2005, when it had 300K members on its roles. It's membership has declined to 148K. That's right. The BSA's premier coed program has 20% fewer youth now than when it started two decades ago. That's not a bump in the road, that's a sinkhole! Had the exponential growth (which, I believe was somewhat artificial for a number of reasons) been maintained and brought us to 800K active youth members today, the discussion would be much different. But we are observing the opposite: when given the choice, American boys and girls will not join a co-ed scouting program in large enough numbers to indicate that such a program is nationally desirable. A lot can change in a decade, and if my crew quadruples in venturers, and my district quintuples in crews, I might become more optimistic. But right now, as much fun as I get from watching young men and women work together in the outdoors, I have to admit that mine is just a niche program with pretty green shirts.

It would be a good idea if there weren't, for every one of her, hundreds, if not thousands, of boys who want a single-sex experience. All we see here is a youth who is officially a member of BSA, who qualifies to earn BSA-issued awards that are known to be as, if-not-more, challenging than Eagle, with a petition of no-cost signatures. Elsewhere we see the occasional cluster of girls mastering First Class skills and earning merit badges. In my district, there are hundreds of Girl Scouts in their late teens. Currently, there are four female venturers. There is no proof that there are any more girls who would be committed to the BSA at the Cub or Boy Scout level. We do know that there are boys and their leaders who will abandon cubs and troops at the slightest membership change. Add a girl, lose a hundred boys. How is that fair? We yanks are all kind of like Missouri, the "show me" state. Talk is cheap. Let's see an escrow account of 10,000 girls' dues and registration fees held in earnest for when they may sign on as members. Let's see troops and troops of GS/USA partnering with BSA troops for weekly meetings and hiking and camping together. There are one or two examples out there, show me 1000. Let's see thousands of scouters having fun cobbling together co-ed programs within the bounds set for them. Let's see the meteoric rise of independent scouting organizations whose policies are inclusive.

The most striking American experiment we have is venturing, the singular co-ed program that has had the most rapid membership decline of all of BSA's programs. Even the Brit's are just now coming around to serve as many boys as they had before going co-ed. More discussion here: http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/28648-how-has-the-addition-of-girls-affected-scouting-in-other-countries/ All evidence points to BSA's membership decline accelerating by going fully co-ed at least in the near term.