shortridge

Brent, You brought up your examples as reflective of "national trends." Now, when proven wrong (the national trend is going in the opposite direction), you're reduced to saying that the policy reflects the values of the major COs. If you really want to bring that topic into the debate, let's look at those big COs that everyone cites. Except for the LDS Church, they are on the decline. From 2000 to 2010, the Catholics lost five percent and "mainline Protestant churches" lost 12.8 percent on average. (Full details at http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/r/u/rcms2010_99_us_adh_2010.asp) A case could be made, just as strong a case as you make, that people are walking away from these faiths in part because their beliefs are antiquated on a variety of issues.

*agrees with Seattle* *falls to ground, stunned*

"If she didn't volunteer the information, knowing what the BSA's policy is, then she is at fault." How does she - or do we - know what the BSA's policy is? As established in a previous thread - http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=327100&p=1 - there is no rule or guidance in any official publication, Handbook, training material, leader's guide or what-have-you. If we pay attention to the news, then we know through a secondary source. But there's no direction about this policy to the volunteer leadership responsible for enforcing it.

Thirty states does not mean the population of 30 states. It means the legislatures of the 30 states. Again, you cherry-pick by refusing to look at national public opinion. Your examples of churches suffering schisms are hardly indicative of what could happen to the BSA. Scouting is not a religious organization, nor is it even religiously based. It is a religiously pluralistic organization that has at its core a general belief in a higher power. Many members do not count religion as a driving force in their Scouting experience. So comparing what is fundamentally a secular organization to religious denominations with very fierce doctrinal wars is a faulty examination at best.

Brent, cherry-picking instances of opposition isn't support for your point. It is far more instructive to look at broad public opinion on similar issues. Reports the New York Times' polling expert: "Support for same-sex marriage has been increasing, and opposition to it has been decreasing, at a relatively steady rate of perhaps two or three percentage points a year since 2004." It's now at about 50 percent, with opposition at 45 percent and the remainder undecided. So if we extrapolate, it'll hit 60 percent by about 2017, and 70 percent by 2022. Would that be enough of a majority for you? # # # Just because openly gay members are not applying to join doesn't mean that's the only membership factor involved. I know many, many heterosexual parents of young children who don't even consider BSA as an option for their sons because they see the organization as bigoted and intolerant. I know one couple - the dad's a surgeon, the mother's an attorney, both would be excellent Scouting leaders [and likely FOS donors] - who refuse to let their son join Cubs in large part because they have a very close family friend who is a lesbian. Their kids call her aunt. How can these families join a group that says their family and friends are not morally straight? How can they explain that inconsistency to their children? Once the ban is lifted or a local option allowed, those families will begin to join. But it will take a significant amount of time for that to happen, and it's too late for almost an entire generation of young people whose parents also feel this way. We have shot ourselves in both feet in bowing to religious institutions which in 50 more years will admit their own mistakes and join the modern era. Change is coming, but will it happen fast enough for Scouting to survive? # # # Yes, Brewmeister, you're right. You caught me. I want BSA to change in order to destroy the organization that made me who I am today, to raze my council camp where I learned to rely on myself, and to deny outdoor adventure and opportunities to tens of thousands of other young people. Liberal conspiracy exposed! I couldn't possibly believe that Scouting will become stronger by changing to become a more tolerant, accepting organization that actually lives up to its espoused values and is governed not by narrow religious doctrine but by the broader principles of brotherhood.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

"I'd think that would be a non starter for many. It cuts down on the number of meetings per year, too. I'd expect that you don't meet on weekend you camp." Why would it be a problem to have fewer meetings?

Why in the world would a Boy Scout troop intentionally encourage and facilitate plop camping? The whole idea is to get the boys outdoors. With a giant heavy tent, you limit how far you can go. If they really want to bunk together, they can go on a wilderness survival trek and build a patrol lean-to.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. "Well, my goodness, if we allow blacks to be free, soon they'll be votin'! And buyin' land! And marryin' our womenfolk! And then, societal chaos! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together!" Y'all are smarter than the antebellum racists. Come up with a better line.

"They get 45 minutes in a breakout session to plan their patrol tasks, and they spend the 1st 20 minutes planning the 1st breakfast for Saturday morning! " The great thing about patrols is they exist outside of troop meetings. If the PL realizes there's an issue, he can call individual boys or just call a patrol meeting, without waiting until the next troop night. If a patrol needs more time to plan, it can hold an extra midweek or weekend meeting. Problem solved, independence enhanced.

No, it's one of the BSA's methods of communicating with its membership. For realz. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=344753&p=1 As for the content of bnelon's post, I would agree. But there's a difference between holding a mock BOR and the PL, SPL or SM giving some friendly advice to a soon-to-be Tenderfoot who's really nervous about these committee people he's never met. I do wonder, though, how answers to questions can reveal personal fitness ...

funscout: Was the fact that there were 18 Scouts a function of the interest, or that there were only six instructors? From what you said, there was plenty of interest, so I think you just proved my point. More instructors = more Scouts. Running it as a small program, like COPE, may attract interest, but it's still a self-limiting program that requires far more staff than any other program area in camp. I just don't see how it's practical or worth a camp's investment. PS Moderators don't pull threads back on track. We routinely go all over the place, just like a real campfire discussion. It's part of the fun.

fundscout - Still, color me skeptical. To run this on a range with 10 stations, you need 10 instructors. I just don't see many camps able to get those staff numbers consistently to make this part of a regular program. There are only so many qualified retires able and eager to spend six or seven weeks in a row on a hot firing range. If they exist, I expect camps would have found them already. Is there really a huge call for pistol shooting among Scouts?

I know it's worth a separate thread ... and has been debated here before ... but the hats-in-hall order has become incredibly tiresome. Adults or staffers who insist, however politely, that hats be removed reveal a fundamental ignorance about Scouting and the world in general. To wit: Not everyone shows respect by doffing their caps. Some faiths and cultures, in fact, show respect for their higher power by WEARING headgear. By requiring no hats indoors, you place a demand on observant Jews, just to name one group, that they violate their beliefs. That is intolerant and unScoutlike, even though it is done because of ignorance. Also intolerant is the standard request to "bow your head and pray" at the grace. Not everyone bows their heads! Far better to simply say "Prepare yourselves for prayer." Thus endeth the rant.

One instructor per shooter? Dang ... That's not going to happen on a widespread basis anytime soon

As Eagle732 said: Patrol tents. Each under the control of the QM. If you know that you or your buddies will - not may - get a holey or mildewey tent next time, you're going to take pretty good care of it. If something happens - mildew, torn by a stick, zipper messed up, pole cracked in half - it's the patrol's responsibility to repair or replace.

Sounds like at least one camp so far this summer experienced a flu-like outbreak. Can anyone shed some light on what happened, the source, how your troop dealt with it, how the camp dealt with it? Could be valuable information to other units.

How difficult is it to make a 30 second phone call? "Hi Mrs XYZ, this is Mr ABC over at Camp BSA. Everything is fine, we just wanted to let you know Johnnie got a stomach bug, nothing serious, he's drinking fluids and we are taking very good care of him, and doc says he'll be back on his feet in a day. Kaythanksbye! Multiply that by 300 boys on the two outgoing phone lines at camp, consider that not every call will take 30 seconds, and you have a series of courtesy calls that takes up several hours. Your unit isn't the only one in camp. Bottom line, if you don't trust your leaders, your son should not be going to camp.

It's true that there are different kinds of spirit, and different preferences for mealtime. I often enjoy reading a book quietly while eating alone. But I realize that when I am effectively a guest, their home customs and traditions apply. If your camp's dining hall custom disturbs the boys in your unit, suggest they take up patrol cooking and begin their own traditions in their campsite. If this is something that bothers only an adult leader, I wonder how he or she copes with the raucous behavior of Scouts on the whole, which I've observed to be far more pchallenging and disruptive than a silly camp song. I would encourage that leader to lighten up, Francis, and join in the conviviality. There are far more weighty matters to concern oneself with.

Oh, I know a LOT of Scouts who want to be pros. But because their interest is real Scouting, not sales and marketing and finance, they look to the tiny handful of camp director, program director and ranger jobs out there - the ones even harder to come by than a DE's slot. On every camp staff of 50 people, there are 49 of them who dream about being a CD. (The other one person already has the job.) But the odds are not in their favor. My council doesn't even post those jobs on the rare occasions they open up. It's all about who you know. And there's no career track for a camp pro Scouter, unlike for a DE. If the outdoors was the emphasis of career Scouting, like with NOLS or Outward bound, we'd have young men knocking down council doors seeking full-time employment. But who wants to get burnt out worrying about COs and FOS when they could be at a freakin' camp???? I think the same could be said of volunteering after turning 18/21. You're probably not going to be trusted as an SM of your own troop, so you can sign on as an ASM and be treated awkwardly by boys, parents and fellow leaders. You could volunteer at the district or council level, but most of that is boring paperwork tasky stuff. There are few opportunities for young adults to involve themselves on the types of things they're interested in. An alternative could be to develop a volunteer Instructor Corps, available to run programs at camp on weekends and at camporees. Some Canpmaster Corps do some of that.

You might get one boy out of 100. Sorry, Seattle, but I just don't see the interest there except perhaps among camp staff members, senior Venturers involved with the VOA or COD, and OA leaders who already rub shoulders with a wider group of leaders and advisers. The lack of younger adult leaders is a problem, sure. But this isn't an effective solution. If the existing adult leaders don't know and don't care about the behind-the-scenes roles at district and council, is it realistic to expect youth to, all for the promise of another patch?

So we complained for years that the ODL shirt was too indoor-dressy. We got a new shirt supposedly designed for more active experiences. And we then complain it's too gussied up. If I were in Irving, I'd be pulling my hair out now. What do we want?

Scouts should ideally learn lots about the volunteer and pro opportunities in Scouting by chatting with their SM and ASMs, their lodge and chapter advisers, their CD and PD and camp staff. I sure did - just naturally. Making it a badge of any sort will suck all the fun and interest right out of it. I agree with Lisabob. We don't see more of a transition from Scouts to volunteers because of many factors, including the grey-area-Scouter phenom that Eagle 92 has remarked upon here; college; marriage; military service; starting careers; etc. There's a lot going on at that age, people are moving around the country, and volunteering with a youth program is not first on the priority list of most people of that age range.

Looks like E61 has left the building.

Go to the Chartered Organization Representative if you want the SM removed. I'd suggest just letting him do his thing and get as far away as you can. What's your role in the troop and relationship to the boy?

If the project sponsor (the benefiting organization?) pulled support, how was the project done?