Gwaihir

16 hours ago, Ernest_Stevens said:

My council recently split where the north half merged and created a new council and the south half, my half, got "absorbed" into another council. This meant that most of my friends went to a new council/lodge. The lodge that we were absorbed into is not ran well, whereas the new one up north is doing quite well. Is there anyway that I could join their lodge without leaving my current troop? Maybe charter with a crew in the new council?

I would look at it as an opportunity to take your knowledge and skills and change how the southern lodge is run so it's running as well as the north lodge. 

I always call into question the tut tut'ing about adults wearing recognition on their uniform, especially when it's someone like SSScout who's reputation online here is one of dedicated service to youth.  

“Show me a poorly uniformed troop and I’ll show you a poorly uniformed leader.”

Wearing your uniform properly leads by example to the boys, it shows them how to properly wear their uniform and how to put insignia in it's proper place.  Keeping your uniform neat and in proper order is a microcosm of keeping your bedroom neat and in proper order, and more importantly, keeping your life neat and in proper order. 

45 minutes ago, Cambridgeskip said:

Not among the scout fratternity because the laws that govern this didn't just come out the blue. There had been increasing restrictions on the use and ownership of knives over many years so it was a bit of a salami slice effect. Besides for the most part it's common sense. In the same way I don't carry my torch or my first aid kit or mess tins around with me all the time I don't have my knife about me all the time on camp and neither would I expect the scouts to. It's a case of you get it when you need it.

 

The Daily Mail though.... when it found this out when into an editorial hissy fit. But as Ian mentioned, that's what the Daily Mail does. Think Fox News on steroids.

That's crazy to me.  I carry my pocket knife around with me literally every day and feel naked without it, figuratively speaking. I carry it to work, to church, around the house, in the yard, to the super market, everywhere.  It's a multi tool and I've used at least of it's implements at least once a day, if not multiple times a day and have come to the aid of people all the time because I had my pocket knife on me.  I've also gotten comments thereafter about how "well, you are a boy scout"  To modify the old proverb about prophylactics... A knife is like an umbrella, it's better to have one when you don't need it, than to not have one when you do. 

This however is why comparing the US to the UK is a futile effort, something as simple as carrying a knife around has so markedly a different perspective.  Comparing our Scouting programs is completely out of scope. We're different cultures from soup to nuts. 

Just now, qwazse said:

Rephrase: groups of teens do these on their own ... without the guidance of an organization priding itself on training leaders and being prepared.

 

yes, that was what I meant.  thanks. 

5 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

Actually up to circa 2012, Patrols could camp on their own WITHOUT (emphasis) adults. I am going to assume that is what Mike Rowe meant.

 

Still in there.  Page 92 has this

Note: Pioneering projects, such as monkey bridges, have a maximum height of 6 feet. Close supervision should be followed when Scouts are building or using pioneering projects.

both of these are utterly absurd.  a group of teens already do just about anything on their own without the guidance of the BSA... but under the guise of an organization priding itself on training leaders and being prepared... they are barred from doing so. absurdity to the max. 

I wonder when we'll take our safe space hysterics to the point where London is, where the mayor is stating publicly no one ever has a need to carry a knife and people get arrested for carrying scissors and screw drivers around in public... 

48 minutes ago, Saltface said:

Does anyone actually wear the field uniform in the field? Between the cost of the uniforms and superiority of other fabrics when it comes to outdoor performance, I see no reason to encourage wearing something that will make you feel miserable or be expensive to replace if damaged.

Every camping trip, service project, field trip, round table, and event. 

9 hours ago, FireStone said:

I've thought that, quite often lately. Or we might be more like other scout organizations where the uniform is more akin to formal attire, and for general purposes it isn't required or even encouraged. 

Just look at all of the stock photos in the BSA Brand Center. Few of them show scouts in uniform anymore.

It's not all bad, though. I would actually welcome a middle-ground option, less Class A uniform wear but instead encourage more Class B with a neckerchief. I really like how most other groups do that, with a good size neckerchief and a loose knot tied at the bottom, worn over a t-shirt or sweatshirt. 

 

Nothing advertises Scouting to the public and keeps Scouts in the community's eye more than scouts in uniform.  Otherwise it's just another group of kids.   Doing away with the uniform , heck even Going to middle ground with "class b" just makes us like any other youth group.  No thanks. 

"The uniform makes for brotherhood, since when universally adopted it covers up all differences of class and country." - BP

"Show me a poorly uniformed troop and I'll show you a poorly uniformed leader" - BP

It's an essential part of the game of scouting and quite frankly, the other countries are doing it wrong. 

1 hour ago, numbersnerd said:

Will preface this by saying I think the current styling of BSA uniforms is about the schlumpiest mess you'll see on a collection of youth and adults. I don't think there is anything more depressing than seeing a bunch of adults willing to devote their time and efforts in service and then making them don what poses as uniforms. It's the saddest sack of ---- collection of OD wrapped lumps when they get together. I think it   actively sucks out a measure of enthusiasm from anyone wearing them. I refuse to buy official pants and shorts because they fit so bad and if you happen to find a pair that fits, it's an anomaly. I sincerely wonder if each individual pair is made by a different manufacturer.

That said, this appears to be a turn for the worse. Even more non descript  wrappings with ill conceived "features". And designed to be untucked? So much for pride in the uniform and personal appearance. But then, if forced to wear those, that ship may have already sailed. 

Too bad they can't get Eddie Bauer or Columbia designers to help with design and Johnny Morris to help with marketing.

 

especially if this is a widely endorsed and celebrated change... you'd think getting a major outfitter involved would be easy and you could angle the historic nature to negotiate a fair cost. 

Need more clarity... are these uniforms for boys and girls, or just girls? 

18 hours ago, swilliams said:

I have a background in fashion design and patternmaking.  Can I tell you....  there is nothing more aggravating than BSA uniforms - particularly the fit of the pants.  Is this my opportunity to rant a little? 

First, though, I hate that new shirt.  It's odd-looking and a side opening on a pocket is not a great idea.  I don't like the placket over the buttons.  It may look 'cleaner', but it makes fastening and unfastening the buttons harder.  The pocket on the pants looks too high, and I'd miss having the depth that the current cargo pockets have.  Unlike with other pants, I actually carry things in these pockets - cell phone, knife, wallet, sometimes a piece of trash picked up on the trail; all kind of things. Really not liking the roll-up part of the pants, either.  All that does is create a handy spot for dirt and pine needles to collect, and add bulk that could start chafing if you're on a long hike.

The Cub Scout pants are cut way too wide for any but the chubbiest of scouts, and at that young an age, most kids are not yet significantly overweight.  I've been working in a scout shop for the last three months, and we've only sold two pair of those pants.  It hardly seems worth the trouble to produce them. 

 

 

 

I feel like the entire uniform product line is cut for America's obesity.   I got a pair of youth 8 pants for my son, he looked like he was wearing pants cut for an adult.  they were gigantic. 

17 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

From FB link:

Each of these uniform item samples has different specific features the survey asks about. It is not a simple 'Pick A, B, C, or D' survey, but rather 2 pages (front and back) of specific questions.  The survey forms will be sent to National Supply for review and the next step of designing.

Here are a few clarifications for these uniforms based on questions received:  
-Skorts:  These will be the same color as our current Scout Pants.  They will be the same length as Scout Shorts.   The skorts also have dry fit/athletic style shorts built in to them.  
-Shirts:  The shirts are a more fitted style and the curved bottom would be worn untucked.  There is also a different vent in the back, just at the arms - rather than across entire back. The sleeves will also be a few inches longer. 
-Capris/Pants:  These are the number one style sold by other outdoor retailers.  In store, there are two pocket styles that you'll be asked about on the survey.
-Womens Fitting:   BSA has been working with an Expert Fitter to help redesign the uniform fit.   They will also be focusing on Plus Size fit, youth fitting, and overall design.

where is the actual survey to take? thanks. 

On 5/12/2018 at 4:43 PM, cgail said:

That was my wife’s comment...sewing patches onto a pocket is a massive PITA...

it's really not that hard. I've done about 15 shirts now.  

Where does the OA pocket flap go? 

Untucked shirts? bleh.   Why do I have a feeling BSA isn't going to be a uniformed organization in 5 years. 

those shirts are TERRIBLE!!! Why not keep the existing shirts?? 

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Part of me thinks commissioners and executives should work with units to help coordinate this more.  For example, in my town my Pack and Troop are adding girls. That means the other three Packs and Two Troops shouldn’t have any pressure to go coed if they don’t want to.  Let all of the girls interested join the one Pack and Troop.  I think it will help those units build up critical mass of girls while allowing other units remain Boy only without the negative comments.  Over time, if there are a lot of girls those units may decide to go coed as well... but that may be years down the road (if ever).  The other benefit is that any scouts in my Pack or Troop who want a boy only unit would have access to one.

*I know it’s  not coed but I hate the term Family Pack.

 

exactly this, I had mentioned this to @WisconsinMomma earlier,  there needs to be added effort put into facilitating the creation of both co-ed and single gender units from unit volunteers as well as commissioners and executives, and helping families find the unit that's right for them.  

17 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

After a decade of being closed Treasure Island Scout Reservation may actually have a future for Scouts again.

It is not exactly the same, as it has been sold to a private developer who plans to open it as a commercial campground, but the deal will allow Boy Scouts to camp there for free.

For those that do not know, Treasure Island is where the Order of the Arrow was born. After a couple of floods, it fell into disrepair and was closed. It has been for sale for some time and most previous potential buyers were looking to develop it for something other than camping.

The original OA circle has been moved in whole to the Summit, but it is nice to see a piece of Scouting history may still have some Scouting life left.

https://patch.com/pennsylvania/newhope-lambertville/former-boy-scout-island-delaware-river-reopen-campground

That's great news,  I remember camping at Treasure Island as a Boy Scout.  Those were some great memories.  Was always interesting that the rifle range was on the second island which was on the Pennsylvania side of the border because New Jersey has overly strict gun control laws. 

6 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

Agreed.  And the unit that stays single gender now (and, as much, the leaders involved that made that decision) will be open to accusations of being discriminatory for "segregation".  It's already the discussion that I have seen in motion- do we want to be known for that? or have the legacy of Troop XX be that they were once part of that?

A scout is brave. 

3 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

Title IX does not apply to the membership practices of the Boy Scouts of America.  That's actually in the regulations.

It will apply ONLY to those parts of the program that received federal financial aid.  For instance, Title IX would apply to the Soccer and Scouting program in those Councils that received HUD grants for the program.  When it comes to the Cub Scout, Boy Scout or Venturing program, I do not believe that National, Councils or any local units receive any federal funding to support it so Title IX would not apply.

You miss the point.  quazse is using title ix as an example to present to families when the concerns of keeping an all boy pack and an all girl pack.  it's to show successful precedence and how it can be applied here.  I don't believe he was saying wield title ix like a legal cudgel against people. 

and reading a little further down, that's what he said.  carry on. 

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

Questions pertaining to joint/coed den activities vs single den (single gender) den activities.

Should extracurricular activities be gender-based. I.e. Pinewood derby - should there be a girl winner and a boy winner or just a pack winner? How about best in show awards for the best looking cars, gender or pack based?

If you're going to have gender based awards and winners, you're on the path of having a boy pack and a girl pack, may as well see it through.  I thought the idea of co-ed was so that everyone feels the same and is part of the same group.  wouldn't having one Pack winner meet that need of inclusivity more? 

On 5/7/2018 at 4:40 PM, Hawkwin said:

I don't think there will a single first but many many firsts all on the same day - such is the nature of Eagle BORs.

from my understanding, this is the plan, to have all the first batch of girl eagles to get a special national court of honor.  seems like treating everyone the same to me. 

7 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

What I noticed in our last Pack committee discussion is a sense of fear of treating the girls "unequally", and it seems that some think that co-ed will reduce risk of being accused of being unfair.  I think that some folks on our committee (in cubs) are afraid of looking bad, and that they think that separation is inherently wrong. I would like to find ways to encourage the girls and boys to have their own space but I'm not sure it will fly at all with people who are concerned about political correctness and perceived injustice, real or imagined.  It will be interesting to see how it plays out over time. 

Speak eloquently, respectfully, bravely and passionately about your stance.  Lay out the benefits and offer your expertise to guide the girl units (whether in your CO or another) so they can get up and running as a strong pack.  Putting a personal stake in it will be beneficial and others will be assuaged knowing there's someone willing to field questions.   Those who want to keep things separate need to step up and help craft strong girl units.  Saying "we're staying all boy" and then shutting the door is going to create a problem when there doesn't necessarily need to be one. (vigilante activist trolls not withstanding)

5 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

My thought is not so much the discrimination standpoint, as honestly the majority of CO's primary provision of material support is in the way of meeting space, access to the grounds, etc.  Not too many of them (though some do) write a check each year.  If they do that is easily balanced.  Your point on equipment is more easily handled / explained as troops with longer tenure will have more stuff accumulated

The point of contention will likely be (as you note) the opportunity available in Old School Boy Scout troop with it's 13 outings per year, 50 Boy Scouts, institutional knowledge, 30+ year traditions, and actual field knowledge VERSUS the newly formed Girls troop with 6 members and trying to figure out how to organize a trip and more importantly.. (wait for it) how to HAVE FUN on a weekend outing.  The girls will want to join (be enabled that opportunity) but the Boy Scout troop will be able to indicate, not an option.  The girls will then likely file suit against BSA for equal access and National will update and allow a coed option

Challenge and real rub will come when National allows the coed option but it is not mandated.  Girls want to join Old School troop for all the opportunities they offer, but the troop desires to stay single gender.  That will trigger the discrimination claims and then hilarity will ensue and most likely in the not to distant future coed will not be an option but will be part of the program.  Units will have to deal with it, also the families that will come with it.

Right or wrong, love it or hate it, want it or not...in 3 to 5 years the program of the Boy Scouts of America for 11 -17 year old boys formerly known as the Boy Scouts of America will be greatly altered in appearance and operation.  Yes the mission and goals will hopefully remain, but it will have much different vibe.

There will be a survey.....

 

I wonder if we see an increase in Lone Scouts 😛 . 

34 minutes ago, SouthScout said:

I received a forwarded email this morning from our Assistant Scout Executive. Our local council does a fund drive every year. They ask for donations of $250.00 and up from wealthy donors to attend a luncheon with a guest speaker. The email I received was from a fellow scouter who donated $800.00 last year and declined to donate this year due to the recent decisions by national. The email also stated the fund drive was well below the $750,000.00 annual donations from years past at this same time.

I was also informed that the LDS scouts reserve our entire camp exclusively for themselves for 2 weeks every summer. Not anymore. Our scout camp is on its last leg already.

Many scouters in my area are no longer supporting the fund drives, council sponsored events or actions that benefit the council. Everything is solely for their units.

From my understanding FOS is hurting in many districts and councils as well. 

6 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

Our faith in another deity, no all of us are Christian

Indeed, I didn't say everyone was, but the first part of your post was directly commenting on Christians and I was replying to that statement.  The second part of my statement was directly commenting on atheists in scouting. 

12 hours ago, mashmaster said:

The problem is that this requirement is a slippery slope.  Atheism is probably the only thing that distinctly  differs from the law.  Unless BSA were to say you must be religion A and fulfill requirements 1,2, and 3 what does this requirement really mean?  We all know many Christians that either never go to church, or go twice a year, or even worse go often and the minute they leave church they don't follow the golden rules.

So in my mind, someone that is honest and declares being Atheist carries more weight than Christian (or others) that are completely fake.

The fundamental requirement to being a Christian is faith in Christ as the savior. Not "going to church", not following golden rules... those things flow from a faith in Christ,  and faith without works is dead as James said, but they are not what makes a Christian a Christian.  There may be a reason they can't make it to church, but they remember the sabbath day and keep it holy far better than the pious that attend church every Sunday.  A scout is trustworthy and taken at their word. It's hard to call someone fake, Christian or otherwise, without knowing the fullness of their life.   

A scout is reverent stems directly from Lord Baden Powell himself... do we divorce this thing call Scouting from the father of scouting once and for all, and just claim it as some thing modernity created out of whole cloth? 

"Development of outlook naturally begins with a respect for God... Reverence to God and reverence for one's neighbor and reverence for oneself as a servant of God." - BP