5 hours ago, qwazse said:

That’s some serious wishful thinking! Those “two hours in public view” are just the tip of the iceberg! From there, while noble coaches are trying to guide kids into a lifetime enjoyment of athletic pass time, the neighborhood predator, on the field or in the stands, is getting acquainted with hundreds of kids and ranking them by vulnerability. Sports and band camps are notorious for providing first exposures to pornography and worse. Some of the kids who are routinely assaulted at home:work their way up in the structure to where they can propagate assault.  USA Gymnastics learned the hard way that large numbers of their athletes were extremely vulnerable because of inordinate trust in professional positions.

The types of assaults that I became aware of as my kids advanced through varsity sports made me (and their coaches) nauseous. Moreover, because there is no national oversight of leadership in youth sports, we have no idea of the risks to participants.

With what I’ve learned now, would I still allow my kids to participate fully in athletics? Yes. Do I believe that structures like Sandusky laws have helped mitigate risk to some degree? Yes. Do I believe we’ve had a net effect of protecting our nation’s youth from CSA? Jury’s still out, my hope is that one day overall risks to youth will be as low as BSA’s rate, but we have quite a way to go.

I am curious at the comment of the BSA rate and a comparison.  That suggests that BSA or Scouts America has one of the lower stats compared to others in the comparative fields.  Is that something that might be important to share more directly?  I am asking, as a number of times when I have noted percenage comparisons I have been shouted down and called names.  So, a verifiable link or notation would be useful, if nothing else.  Thanks.

And there is a place that makes summer camp badges difficult at times.  Going through dozens of signed blue cards from camp, how many of us will have a serious talk with each scout about what he learned or did?  Hard to selectively judge unless something rings an alarm, like hearing from the counselor that the youth was not going, or not participating.  Of course then, the card also should never be signed as completed if that were the case.  We want to trust the youth, and hopefully will find few times to seriously challenge some things.  Fine lines and balance much of the time.  I am reminded of the great book by Cochraan, Be Prepared.  The SM in the story has taken over a troubled troop where much has been let slide.  He has two youth that are Eagles, and he has concerns about them based on observations of their skills and so on.  So, when he suspects they may not really be swimmers due to indictions they avoid the water and make excuses, he takes them in a row boat to the middle of the lake.  It is only a few hundred yards from shore which for someone with the swimming and life saving badges should not be an issue to swim back.  So, he tells them he wants them to swim back to shore and they refuse and admit they are pretty much unable to swim.  He challenges them as to how then they could be Eagles.  More discussion and he finally rows them all back.  He informs them that he is distressed by their obvious issues, especially as he needs them as leaders.  So, he suggests that they give him back their Eagles untilcan validate they deserve them.  I know, not allowed or realistic, but it is a story.  The book is really fun and also encouraging.  Ultimately, one boy's father challenges the issue and threatens the SM, while the other youth's parent acknowledges an issue.  And one boy does prove himself and is again given his Eagle.  The other drops out and has other issues as well.  Idealistic, but also makes us think.

26 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Sadly, it is more common than one might think at summer camps. And some camps are significantly worse than others. Part of the problem is the "counselors" are other scouts, albeit a few years older. This should not be allowed. Even if if was an adult who officially signed the card. The adult is supposed to have tested each scout on the requirements, not rely on a 15 year old CIT who "led a class". The merita badge mill summer camps are a stain on the entire process. Sadly BSA doesn't just turn a blind eye, it appears they actively encourage it. 

And, while most such weak or fudged things are not dangerous, in the case of swimming it can be.  I had a real wake up on that.  I had a boy do swimming for a week at camp and he received his approval and card.  A month later, we went to the local Naval Base and used their pool.  The Navy guy running the pool told them all to swim the length of the pool,thenfloat,  so he could judge their skill levels.  The boy I noted could not do it.  Now if you completed the badge just a month prior you should have verified minimal skill in four strokes at least, plus float.  When I confronted the boy he admitted he somehow managed to fool the staff.  Needless to say, I was not happy.  I reported it to the council and they did not hire that swimming counselor or her staff for the next year.  I am just glad the Navy guy was on top of it.  

30 minutes ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

While there are a few delusional folks out there, I think the vast majority of parents sign their kids up for club teams simply because their kids enjoy playing sports. Parents don't mind the added expense and time commitment as long as their child is having fun, making friends, and getting exercise.

In many large suburban school districts, kids need to play their primary sport during the club season in order to make their high school varsity team. This is most common with soccer, basketball, and baseball / softball. A kid's skill level is unlikely to keep up with peers if they sit out the club season. That's an extra 2-3 months of practice for the club participants (compounded over 10 years). Usually, the high school coach doesn't require club participation. Rather, when it's time to make the varsity roster, it's obvious who has been putting in the work and who hasn't.

I love Scouting. It was the best experience of my youth; however, I can tell my son prefers basketball. I will try to thread the needle as long as we can. However, if you're looking for legitimate reasons why families might prefer travel sports to Scouting, I've got a few:

1. Civic Pride - Today, there is more pride associated with high school sports teams than Scouting. Two years ago, our local high school won a state championship in basketball. The town threw a parade and we still have signage up marking the achievement. My son wants to have an Eagle Court of Honor like his dad, but I think he'd really prefer to ride a fire truck through downtown.
2. Socialization - Youth sports have effectively replaced a lot of bowing and softball leagues for adults. Parents make friends while traveling for youth sports. Unlike Scouting, you can pack a cooler to most events. A colleague of mine did the youth hockey grind for many years, but now that his son is in the Navy, he misses it.
3. Exclusivity - I applaud Scouting for its inclusivity; however, I can tell my son is getting frustrated by the behavior issues of a few Packmates (so much so that it's souring his experience). Club sports try and serve as many youth as possible, but they won't hesitate to cut the trouble-makers loose.
4. Competition - My son is frustrated that everyone gets the badges in Cub Scouts, even though some kids only show up to half the events and others are poorly behaved. Sports force kids out of their comfort zones. We can joke about kids being soft, but I watch my son guard peers who are better than him and it both humbles him and strengthens his resolve. Some competition is good, even at a young age.
5. No Fundraising - Sometimes it's nice just to be able to write a check.
6. Few YP Concerns - Self explanatory.

You make a number of valid, or at least seemingly valid, points.  But, I have heard indirectly of many issues with poorly disciplined or overbearing kids on teams, and if  a child is NOT good enough, they will be gone by middle school age for the most part.  More importantly, IF you feel youth sports have few YP issues, you are not paying attention.  Only recently have many states stepped in to begin a better oversight of these teams.  In California, and I believe many other states now, there are state madated certifications for adults involved in these teams.  It remains to be seen if those mandates will be properl policed, just as BSA YP continues to have that challenge.  But, BSA is mostly working to assure these State mandates are met.    Sadly, just as in BSA, some groups are more attentive than others I suspect.  And for me, the mention of travel teams can pack their coolers is a bit scary, as that suggests that they may turn a blind eye to alcholol issues in some cases.  The two types of youth offerings are not the same, and both have their own unique challenges.  IF sportsmanship, as I learned it anyway, was assured in these leagues I would be more inclined to understand; but we all have read or seen the lack of sportsmanship in youth situations, both little league types, high school programs, and travel.  And Professional sports also too often set a very poor example, both in regard to respect of other players, but also looking the other way in regard to the actual rules.  

    None of it is easy, nor are they free of serious concerns.  But the basic tenets of Scouting still stand up to one of the best guides for real citizenship and a character filled life.  

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

No longer the case in California, and I believe a few other states.  Coaches fall under the updated State requirement to be accredited by the State in YP and reporting.  That includes fingerprinting.  Now whether anyone is policing that, I have no idea.  But it is a part of our council level requirements.  

 

 

Online training and Live Scan background checks required by law for all volunteers.

A new law has taken effect in California, effective January 1, 2022 and will further support our mission to protect youth in our program from neglect and abuse. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 18975 (formally referred to as AB 506 of 2021), volunteers, employees, and administrators are now required to take an additional training and complete a Live Scan background check.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONS: 

1. Complete Mandated Reporter Training from the state of California
2. Upload certificate of completion for training to SVMBC council portal on www.californiascouting.org
3. Get a Live Scan Fingerprint & Background check
   1. Download and print the Request for Live Scan Form (unique to our council)
   2. Find the Live Scan site near you, bring the completed form to the service provider. Each individual must pay a fingerprint rolling fee ($20-$40) and FBI background check fee ($15) to the Live Scan provider.
      • Live Scan Location: Verify Group Inc. located at 262 E Hamilton Ave Suite A, Campbell, CA 95008. Click on https://verifygroup.youcanbook.me/ and select “Live Scan Fingerprinting” to schedule.
      • Any Live Scan Location is allowed. 

We are offering Live Scan Background checks at many upcoming council events.

Visit www.californiascouting.org for full details and resources.

11 minutes ago, DannyG said:

Scouting charges fees to its volunteers to register. I don't know any sports coaches that have to pay a registration fee. The training can be extensive for a scout leader. Sports volunteers might get a rules document to sign, then they just show up. But I also have some stories of terrible youth coaches.

No longer the case in California, and I believe a few other states.  Coaches fall under the updated State requirement to be accredited by the State in YP and reporting.  That includes fingerprinting.  Now whether anyone is policing that, I have no idea.  But it is a part of our council level requirements.  

It took a while, but I stopped letting overly demanding sports programs, and over the top coaches, get to me.  I tried to make the youth understand that there are myriad choices in life, and making them is part of the "growing up" process.  Ultimately, they need to choose, hopefully with focus and balance.  Too many chose the overly demanding sports road, but with luck may have carried a small piece of the tenets of Scouting with them.  A few, returned and refocused on Scouting.  We never know.  One of the good things about contact with the troop family over decades is that on occasion I see the result in the now adult.  

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

I thought range and target sports better includes archery. I don’t see archery as a shooting sport. 

There are a lot of possible "shooting" sports, some not so sporty, some just humor.  Shooting marbles, shooting pool, shooting baskets, and maybe even shooting mouths.  They all still have rules of sorts, though too often ignored in the broader world.  I suppose I just shot myself in the foot, as I am going too far afield.  😇

33 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I just did a crossover with our primary feeder pack.  The pack has 90 scouts.  Roughly 20 Lions, 20 Tigers, 20 Wolves, 15 Bears, 10 Webelos and 5 AOL.  Of the 5 AOL only 1 wants to continue in Scouts.  That 1 only joined Cub Scouts this year....

I talked with the other 4 parents. 

- They are looking to reduce activities after 5th grade

- All are planning to increase their kids involvement in travel sports.... So no time left for scouts

What am I missing with the "travel sports" thing?  It seems far more time stealing and financially draining to me.  And few of the kids ever will go beyond to make a living, though perhaps it will help some gets scholarships.  Again though, I missed most of those options as a youth due to the time period of the late fifties.  Local sports groups often were very selective, or developed on civic lines.  In my case, while I wanted to do Little League, I could not, as we lived in an L.A. County area surrounded by the city of Azusa, and my address did not allow me to join.  Of course, that was before the onset of so many other sports and parental fanaticism.  

5 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Lot of good comments

Summary is the BSA (SA??) has not fully defined what it is and what they do.  When I joined way back when it was a game with a purpose, we had adventures, learned things, sampled many different hobbies and interests, and most importantly learned to work in groups and take care of ourselves.  As we matured we went from follower to leader.

Over the years the BSA strayed from that to want to become the swiss army knife of youth groups.  We do everything.  Also more focus on advancement and formal learning and less emphasis on experiential learning.  1/2 the required Eagle MBs are basically classwork.  Even the action merit badges focus way more on instruction and less on doing. 

Many leaders (parents) do not see the big picture.  Anecdotal but the pages of discussion on getting 20 nights camping for camping MB is case in point.  Folks spend way more time figuring our how to game the system than, well, I don't know, going camping.

BSA (SA??) needs to get a clear message out of what they are DOING, action stuff.  Move away from family stuff for cubs, that is killing that group and makes Scouts harder to recruit due to that is the expectation.  Middle schoolers DO NOT want a family organization, they want adventures with their peers.

We are not STEM (many groups do that better), Kids do not want more schools, and are actually not a formal leadership academy.  You know what youth soccer is successful, they focus on soccer.

BSA needs to focus on a core group of things we can do well, and sell that.

Quick note on social media, the BSA (SA??) National and Council feeds are horrendous.  They are really more message boards and advertisements.  Post stories of what Scouts are DOING!!  Focus on adventure to entice and dare I say tempt youth to go join.

" Folks spend way more time figuring our how to game the system than, well, I don't know, going camping."    Triple plus star for this.  And that applies to most of the more popular and consistent parts of the program.  

14 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I find it interesting - and I don't mean strange or wrong, but literally interesting - that you ask a woman for examples of how traditional gender role expectations hurt men even though another man just gave a whole list with a lot of passion. Because I'm not one, all my examples are going to be second-hand, parroting back what I've heard or seen men say about their own lives. My personal contribution can only be checking that what they're saying is consistent with what I see from the outside. Why ask me, not @Eagle94-A1, when he's the one arguing that I underestimate the problem? I did find a short rundown that seems to summarize a lot of what I've heard, although I notice that it lacks the 'losing everything' type problems that Eagle94-A1 brought up: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/202303/the-state-of-todays-male-psyche

I'll note that while the male gender role makes it harder to connect with others, it's also not really the case that all women are totally fluent with recognizing their own emotions and talking to others about them, either. Brené Brown's legendary (at least among agilists) TED talk on the importance of vulnerability for connection includes her personal struggle with being vulnerable, for example. But our gender role doesn't make whatever personal hurdle we have taller and steeper.

I do agree that two-parent households work better than one-parent households just based on adult-to-child ratio. I don't have a lot of opinions about any lack of masculinity in part because I don't know what you mean by masculinity exactly. It's one of those words used by a lot of people to mean a lot of things. I suspect you and I have pretty similar ideas of what a 'real man' is like, at least compared to the people who take toxic masculinity way too seriously. I routinely hear men who I find quite masculine called not masculine by others and rarely with a kind spirit, so... Without some kind of working definition of masculinity I don't really want to wade into that.

Now, I think I should say something about what is not a problem in addition to what is, namely natural and authentic overlap between one individual's way of being and interests and traditional gender roles. While gender roles are made up (i e socially constructed), they do connect to patterns of behavior. The key issue for me is freedom to choose how to live your life.

I suppose, strictly speaking, that the problem isn't the abstract existence of gender roles but that some (actually a lot of) people use them as a hammer to force people to live a certain way. The toxic masculinity and femininity problems are the folks who hide their insecurities behind a gender role wall. ("You can't criticize me because I'm the perfect man/woman!") But there's also a more subtle (but also much more common) level of basically pleasant but somewhat (or even very) unhappy people who don't feel like they can openly be who they are on all the points that don't live up their gender role 100%. And let's face it, that's most of us! Few people totally embody stereotypical maleness or femaleness, and that's ok. The male and female gender roles hammer people differently, but the basic problem is being hammered in the first place. 

I've been called a lesbian (I'm straight) and/or masculine for liking STEM. Good effort hammering there, but since I'm cishet and traditionally feminine presenting it's pretty obvious that the people trying to hammer are the ones with the problem, not me, especially because us girls and women in STEM seem to have no problems whatsoever finding partners. There are plenty of men who want a smart woman with high earning potential.

Like you and your wife, my husband and I conform to traditional gender roles in some ways but not others, and, well... Doesn't every couple? Like you say, every couple is different and should be allowed to make things work however the two of them (or the n of them, whatever, same principle) please. If that confirms to traditional gender roles, fine. If it doesn't, also fine. The question that matters is "does this work in practice?"

I had to go looking to make sure I understood the terminology used.  Admittedly, I was not cognizant of the definintion of cisnet and its related terms.  Perhaps they are more precise in the current atmosphere, but I am not sure that they may also play into the greater confusion so many seem to have.  Most of the confusions and conflict appears, to me anyway, to simply be that emotions that once were sublimated are now often expected to be shared, even when the person with them is still confused and not sure about it.  Are we as a society, here in the U.S. at least, too conflicted within to allow others to deal on their own terms?  Are we threatened somehow?  E.G.; I have never understood why some push the issue in religion versus atheism.  It is a play on words to me, as the definition of atheism contradicts itself in my view.  Still, much of the legal wrangling on that front relates to someone "feeling oppressed" by simply having to on occasion see a cross or other religious symbol, and so insists that their right to not be conflicted by a symbol overrides that of those who use or represent that symbol.  I always wonder why they are threatened, as they simply can not look, or ignore it.  Again though, what we once called "common sense" is a vague, almost non existent thing now.  

     Even more sadly, we seem to add to the confusion with too many young people just because we are roiled ourselves emotionally.  

Bruce Russell; a prize winning political cartoonist of the WWII era.  So, likely copied from a newspaper of the time.  

32 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Did the addition of girls actually improve numbers?  The chart doesn't indicate that.  The various changes (and I wouldn't call BLM support and the LDS departure an "outside change") haven't brought in the numbers that we were told they would.  The numbers in the Boy Scout program didn't change all that much from 1979 to 2019.  Even with COVID, if the changes were to have had the desired effect, I would expect the bars for Boy Scouts to have remained the same, not 75% of the previous numbers.  COVID has been over for more than a year and the numbers have dropped even more.  Tells me that inclusivity isn't the problem.  

"Tells me that inclusivity isn't the problem. "   There lies the problem.  For whatever reason, the wider media has chosen to stigmatize BSA, and really other positive (with the known aberrations) groups such as traditional service organizations for adults, and too often our own civil servants.  This has metastasized in the modern era of overly available media output with little control for the larger good.  And this problem is rampant in our political machines, socalled entertainment industry, and our educational entities.  I have no answer, other than to try and put the positive images forward the best I can, and to not dwell on things over which I have little control.  Time for a nap. 

2 hours ago, ToKindle96 said:

And let's not forget that as late as 1990 about 18% of boys in the target population age were in a BSA program and that percentage was still about 15% in 2000. I believe it slid down from there to about 9% by 2017 when Surbaugh and the higher ups decided there were two paths forward. One was to juice the flywheel with laser focus. But, Surbaugh and others thought that meant becoming a "very small, boutique organization serving what's probably a legacy clientele" (quote from article referenced below). So they decided to transform into something else--a saving grace of bigger is better because after all the target market would more than double. Shortly after that choice and other choices and outside factors (COVID, BSA supports BLM, bankruptcy, LDS split, spotlight on sexual abuse, drastic price increases, etc.) the numbers collapsed. Twice the target market and half the membership. Hard to imagine. I wonder what % of boys today are in a BSA program? 5-6% if we're lucky? 

Boy Scouts Are Just Scouts Now, and That’s Making Girl Scouts Mad | by Bloomberg Businessweek | Bloomberg Businessweek | Medium

 

Interesting article, but it is five years old.  On the other hand it reinforces what I have said from the start; that allowing girls is a good thing, and the issues the so called experts raise are pretty much non starters for most of the youth.  As always, the adults cause the most waves.  The likelihood of coed is almost a reality, and it will in time be just the norm, though a few specific troops likely will still remain.  

In the first three decades of our troop it was an NRA club as well.  The SM owned a ranch and it had an arroyo.  He built a range in the arroyo where the scouts trained.  We still have remnants of that in historical items, including an interesting journal of names and scores, along with ammunition used.  Sam also ran the local camp range for years, and then someone else from the troop took it over.  During WWII, all the members that went in the service were marksmen or experts.  

Below is an interesting target that apparently was used during the War years.  I have no idea where it came from, other than it was in a file.  

Sadly, that would truly not surprise me in the least.  So many of our challenges relate directly to people being too self-centered or simply completely clueless.  That, of course brings us back to why Scouting IS still important, if we could just work the basic programs with arm distant adult mentoring.  Oh, and lock the lawyers up unless they have a valid reason to be let out.  If our society would simply "live the twelve" and see that foundation for what it still is, and was with a few sad exceptions, we would maybe be better off.  But blinders seem to have taken over the role of glasses and sunglasses.  

Probably trace this directly to Hawaii I think.  No changes noted for archery.  

23 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Your mention of a lack of adults wanting to be in the outdoors reminded me of a post I saw on an OA FB page.  A guy went through Ordeal and described it as the toughest thing he had ever done.  I was rather shocked.  He looks to be about mid-30s.  I went through Ordeal at 17 and found it to be easier than a day at Philmont.  Frankly, the Ordeal these days is easier than the Lodge induction at my old Catholic camp in southern Illinois.  I think it was based on the OA when the camp opened in the 60s and was never really updated.  

We really old guys likely chuckle, or get annoyed by the complaints about that type of thing.  I was 15 and a Life Scout when I was sitting on a log at campfire at old Camp Arataba and guys in nice regalia were moving about in the crowd.  All of a sudden a very loud yell in my ear found me being jerked to my feet and pushed to the front of the area where I was "tapped out", and I mean TAPPED OUT.  All of us were then taken to get sleeping bags and went off to the woods.  Of course that was when most tap outs were done heavily and you might hear the shoulder tap a long way away.  We all wore the wooden arrow and if you were judged to violating the instructions you could get a notch in the arrow.  Three in theory washed you out.  Ten minutes before the end the next day, a friend of mine walked up and asked me something, and I answered.  Still someplace is that arrow with one notch.  He laughed at me a bit, but that was how it was then.  The suspense and solemnity of the ceremonies loomed large, and most looked forward to "maybe" being judged worthy.  There were restrictions on how many could be voted in based on troop size and number eligible.  We all know how it is now.  Still, the program has many high spots still, though harder to get to with all the fear of legal stuff and frankly, pampered kids.  

2 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

TBH when Scouting America announced that they would allow girls to join, but hastened to add gender -separated still to preserve the benefits of that, my immediate thought was "what benefits?" They never even explained what they were meant to be, and until encountering this anxiety about girls in Scouting America I had never heard of all these problems with doing things together with the opposite gender at any and all ages, not just in scouting but anywhere.

Well, I take that back - I have heard about it from refugees. But from my Swedish POV their complaints sound like optional problems to have, since nobody else is having them, not even all refugees. I hear what they're saying, but it doesn't 'click' with my own experiences and the fact that the ones with issues with people doing things with the opposite gender are also from countries with little respect for women doesn't help endear me to their angst. My own experiences with men from those countries easily top my personal 'most sexist experiences' list. I mention this so that you know that this "genders need to be separated" idea is in my mind strongly associated with sexism with the intent to disenfranchise women, take away our freedom to do as we please, and treat us like sex objects. I'm not saying that everyone talking about the need for gender separation in any circumstance ever, but because the association is so strong you should be aware that it's there. The subject triggers it.

It's like that for me also with this boys need their own space line of thinking I hear people express here. It doesn't seem to be 'boys' as much as 'some boys', and I'm not entirely sure what the problem is exactly. My best guess is social anxiety based on what I've read. It's not a problem everyone is having. People allude to it but rarely get specific enough to problem-solve, and the correlation between more sexism and more gender separation is the elephant in the room.

I'm assuming that your sincere personal intent is not to be sexist? Would you be willing to explain what was happening for you that made you want to retreat from girls?

Even if they're 2-3 m tall? I thought saplings were much smaller.

And here again we see reality in the U.S.   Somehow, not sure we can pinpoint the change, our cultural viewpoints relating to interactions of youth at "those critical years" got skewed to paranoia, rather than growth and learning to deal.  Maybe like the concept of the glass half full or half empty?  Something less than positive happens somewhere and it is hyped by media and people with skewed reasoning and becomes an issue where it really is not the norm, nor usually a problem.  Then the fear mongers grab it and make it worse.  Then somebody does a "study", one preordained in most cases, and it escalates to that paranoiac state.  Or so it may be from my eight decades of watching and listening and experiencing.  

12 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

“Boy” Scouting has been a program of ethical and moral growth without the distraction of normal that compromises the growth that eventually contributes to the greater good of normal.

Ethical and moral growth are a worthy sacrifice in today’s self centered search for importance. 
 

Barry

Agreed; but that does not have to be lost with Coed or even with changes in views of normal human interactions.  We are only one of the players, and the family should be the number one, with schools and maybe churches  involved as well as families allow.

29 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Maybe the kids today lack the hormones we had in the 90s.  I can tell you that back then if there was a girl around, a lot of the guys reverted to being inside the high school halls.  Everyone was trying to impress the girl at the expense of the other boys if necessary.  Going to be some sleepless nights for adults who have to maintain a vigil all night to keep the two groups separated.  Going to be interesting when the first Scouts BSA girl in a troop gets pregnant.  Going to make this name change thing look like a molehill.

It does not appear to have been any real issue in the larger World Scouting.  Adolescent youth are just that, and a coed unit is no more a real problem than simply having classes together or even going to Sunday school.  It is normal life for youth, and the coed part is NOT the problem, if there is one.  It is poor supervision and lack of parental involvement to teach right and wrong.  JMHO of course.

37 minutes ago, nolesrule said:

I don't have a problem with it per se, but I feel like it's going to ultimately kill off all but the strongest girl units in an area. I'm ASM in a girl troop and we struggle with resources, have barely enough scouts to maintain 2 patrols. If the boy troop we share facilities with were to start accepting girls (as unlikely as that seems based on the attitude of their committee toward us), that annual barbeque fundraiser they do that knocks off $500+ from the cost of high adventure trips is going to look awfully attractive compared to a smaller troop with limited resources.

Losing units won't look good for the DE metrics either.

Doing what is a best decision based on realities is what should be the focus.  That reality is that allowing Coed will allow units that have recruiting issues more leeway and ultimately likely simply become the norm.  One gender units can still function and carry on as their youth choose.  The program is NOT for adults directly, only as mentors and advisors.  Ultimately it is how well the basic program is allowed, using the patrol method and letting the youth do it with oversight for safety and adherence to YP.  

Nothing new, only that maybe they are finally listening.  But trial is not really needed in my view, as it is obviously the best option for small units already, allowing them to officially do it.  We all are aware it is already a silent choice for many.  

As I noted earlier, the old tour permit specifically noted no convoying or caravaning.   It was on the permit someplace and had to be noted and signed.  But, basically, as noted here everyone should know where they are going in case they get lost.  Meet up places for head count is a good idea.  Most importantly have some sort of connection other than vision to the others.  

While I seldom drive any distance now, and try to stay off the freeway too, when I do, I am often considered an annoyance, or worse by others.  I obey speed limits and when I am on the freeway, I try to not hinder others, but do adhere to that speed.  If I am on cruise at the max limit and in the center, for the most part, I will not move over just so someone else can speed, especially when moving would then interfere with my safety.  The right lane is the most difficult because it is the entry and exit lane most of the time.  I will move to it when light traffic and not dangerous.  And I also have finally accepted the fact that if, safe for me, I can move and let the scofflaws go, then return.   My father impressed defensive driving and common sense, and I can truthfully claim no moving violations in almost 65 years of driving.  Safety, courtesy, and obey the laws.