shortridge

I should also point out one key difference between Scouting and other programs - sports, dance, theatre - is that kids can pretty much join & start the others that very day. Grab a pair of sweats and dance barefoot, read some lines and help move scenery, grab a ball and start dribbling. If your parent pays and fills out the form, you're in. Not so with Scouting. A typical interested Boy Scout-age kid is going to attend a meeting, which is typically indoors and boring. His parents have to fill out a form, mail it in with the check, go to a store and buy a uniform and handbook ... And then the boy has to attend several other meetings before he actually goes camping and hiking and fishing and climbing, which is probably what he was interested in in the first place. Think about how most troops spend the majority of their month - in meetings indoors, in church halls and Legion posts, planning and preparing and talking about adventure rather than being adventurous. That's not a way to gin up excitement. It conveys a very plodding, staid image. And it's boring as all get-out! Maybe we should be taking a lesson from the dance academies.

Selling the program needs to be second only to having a good program in building up membership. I'm hardly a salesman, but my understanding is that you need to offer core, very simple message, repeat it, and convince people they need what you're selling. As a national organization, we do none of those. There was recently a Scouting marketing campaign - it may be a regional one - based on "timeless values" and the points of the Scout Law. I happen to think that is an utter failure. Such efforts focus on selling the benefit to parents. When consumers are promised a benefit, they expect results, and fairly quickly (not to mention measureable). Scouting offers none of that. The process is messy, disorganized, relatively slow and difficult to measure. The need we pitch to parents is that their children will become responsible, wholesome citizens. Well, it's a pretty hard task to instantly transform your average 11-year-old hooligan into a responsible citizen. Plus there's nothing at all in that approach to attract the interest of the kids. I look at the programs my daughter is involved in - dance classes and youth theatre - and think of how they pitched themselves. Rather than selling the benefits, these programs - growing very rapidly - sell the fun. Few children in them are going to end up professional dancers or actors, and that's freely acknowledged. Yet many end up continuing from a young age into their teenage years because dancing and acting are enjoyable. Parents - and kids - are sold on the immediate fun, not on the future benefit of what dance and theatre will do to build their character. We should be selling the fun and adventure and excitement.

Several posters in the original thread mentioned talking out of turn, not keeping hands to themselves, forgetting Handbooks and namecalling. I guess that's what I was talking about.

Does your troop "give pushups" or make Scouts "run around the building" for disciplinary issues?

Is it a coincidence that people who agree on the same issue would be working to change opinions on that issue at a time when public attitudes on that topic are poised to make a sea change? Or is it more likely, as Mr. Norris suggests, that the president of the United States, in the middle of working to fix the economy, fight a war and win re-election, is also spending his valuable time organizing his friends and allies in a covert campaign pushing to tear down the Boy Scouts? I like Walker: Texas Ranger reruns as much as anyone, but take off the tinfoil hats, people.

"Same as not getting to go to Jamboree if you don't have the full uniform. Or not being on the Boys' Life cover." There's the full uniform, and then there's a specific kind of uniform, which is what the committee is requiring in this circumstance. Dictating pants over shorts, mandating a hat and requiring a certain type of footgear is ridiculous. What about the Scout whose Switchbacks are now two-tone (or who's lost the legs), whose head sweats like crazy when he wears a hat and who doesn't own a pair of black shoes or hiking boots (because he's an ultralight backpacker and wears sneakers on the trail, and tan shoes for dress-up occasions)? This committee has decided it is vitally important for their Scouts to look pretty, according to their definition of pretty, and in the process has taken over the role of the PLC. Simply silly. Eagle, I agree completely if a religious CO has a uniform requirement based on the principles of its faith. I understand members of the LDS church may have some rules for modest dress (though I find it difficult to believe that Irving would have developed Scout shorts that don't meet the requirements of such a huge chunk of their membership), and some Muslims may have certain dress codes, as well. But even those COs should apply those requirements uniformly (no pun intended), make expectations clear from the start, and turn enforcement of those standards over to the PLC.

If the CO sets the policy, and it's consistent across activities, that's one thing. But a committee should not be micromanaging the COH dress code. That tells Scouts two things: first, that they are not in control of their troop, and second, that an indoor, on-stage awards ceremony is more important to the adults than getting outdoors and camping and hiking.

Every lifeguard can carry a whistle, placing it right at their fingertips. Is every lifeguard going to carry a horn or bell? Seems like that's precious seconds lost for a guard to dash to the central bell/horn station. And sanitation? The NCS folks must not have heard of this great new invention called soap & water. Or realized whistles are relatively cheap, so everyone can get their own ... Silly.

I hate pants. I wear them only when required by my job or social conventions. I wore shorts to work night shifts when I lived in Ohio and there was half a foot of snow on the ground. I haven't owned a pair of jeans for 15+ years. If I could get by wearing shorts 365 days a year, I would. I heat up and start sweating standing still in the shade when it's 70 out, so shorts are a lifesaver. I don't do a lot of bushwhacking, so I very rarely wear pants in the outdoors. They'd be drenched through in a matter of minutes if I did, anyway. I'll take my chances with the ticks. I admit not everyone is as hirsuite and as prone to overheating as I, and know it's a regional thing, anyway. But we oughta be free to make our own choices.(This message has been edited by Shortridge)

Make the job open to those in trade or technical programs and folks just out of the armed forces, and I'm 100 percent behind that idea. Love it!

The troop committee should be silent on this issue. The PLC should be setting and policing uniform standards and how CoHs are run. And, really? Pants not shorts? I guess the troop never goes outdoors during the summer and hasn't heard of switchbacks. And micromanaging the color and type of footwear, and saying they have to wear headgear? Get off the boys' backs. Geez.(This message has been edited by Shortridge)

Just to clear up a misconception - "The SM would have to have two deep leadership to take the boy" is not correct. The SM would have to have one other person, youth or adult, along for the ride to follow the prohibition on 1-on-1 contact. That is different than two-deep leadership, which applies to outings.

Confusingly, BSA has two categories of family camping: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss03.aspx Family Camping Family camping is an outdoor experience, other than resident camping, that involves Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, or Venturing program elements in overnight settings with two or more family members, including at least one BSA member of that family. Parents are responsible for the supervision of their children, and Youth Protection guidelines apply. Recreational Family Camping Recreational family camping occurs when Scouting families camp as a family unit outside of an organized program. It is a nonstructured camping experience, but is conducted within a Scouting framework on local council-owned or -managed property. Local councils may have family camping grounds available for rent at reasonable rates. Other resources may include equipment, information, and training.

What ScoutNut said. As I said on the first page, these types of membership decisions are the CO's call, not the council's. Find a new troop for your son, and walk away yourself for at least a few years. If your emotions are as raw and painful as they come across, you may want to consider talking with a professional counselor. Write a list, too, of the good things about your Scouting journey, to help balance this negativity. I would also observe that if you try to find a troop where you can volunteer, you may have some difficulty. Youlikely now have a reputation, deserved or not, among other people in your district, as a "troublemaker," to use the SM's words you quoted him as saying. Fair or not, that's how a community works. Word gets around, and if units can bypass someone around whom drama appears to swirl, they will. As for the arm-grabbing incident, unless you took photographs of the bruise and have eyewitnesses who will support your version, that is a lost cause.

" ... so he would have to find someone else in the district to work with if I don't." This is not a bad thing. It should be fairly easy, in fact.

Moose, None of those situations you cites would be prevented by having bylaws in place. They can easily be solved/fixed by a strong program leader or COR who does their job.

Why do Scouts wait longer to earn it? I think the answer lies with the boring classroom-work MBs, the Citizenships and PersMgt and FamLife. Those are mind-numbing to your average gung-ho outdoor-oriented camper. They get put off and delayed and pushed back and procrastinated over.

No, it's not normal. In violation of BSA National Bylaw 4.01. You need to file a lawsuit immediately. Sarcasm off. What impact does this have on the Scouts? If none, drop it.

Shorter Seattle: Single moms are scary and probably Godless. Lesbian moms have solved the single problem, but are scary and Godless in a different way. America is threatened by strong women!

Eagledad, How would you go about intentionally killing a troop vs. letting it die?

A few bits of advice; 1. You're in this for your sons. Divorce your own feelings, bitterness about adult recognition, knots, etc., from all the rest of this. Figure out what your sons want and need. 2. Consider whether you'd want your son in a troop which says you are not welcome. 3. You are likely not going to get what you want. Issues such as this are generally the CO's call. 4. Use paragraph breaks and don't type in all caps. It looks like you're screaming.

What's the source of the image and data? Something popping up on Facebook does not an authoritative source make.

^ Just laughing uproariously at some of this mysoginistic fearmongering (ovaries!! lesbians!!! Run!!!!!). What balderdash. Some of the best Scouters I have worked with are women. Our boys live in a world with women in positions of authority and power, and should know how to work with them just as much as with men. Pining for the 1950s, when miserable couples stuck together for the sake of the kids - news flash, the kids know and the underlying tension and fighting affects them greatly - and when women were relegated to arts and crafts isn't going to fly today. The world has changed.

You generally use the sign of the program in which you work. When I worked on summer camp staff, we used three fingers when Boy Scouts were in session, and two when Cubs were there.

A complicated, long-term problem is not going to be solved by one big solution.