Jump to content

Tampa Turtle

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Tampa Turtle

  1. I feel ya. I have mentioned this at the Troop level; so we have a correct, courteous, and kind response one way of another. Most of the current leadership just does not want to deal with it.

    But then a couple of us were shot down trying to do a non-binding 5 year plan so we could save up for a new Troop van; no one wanted to think ahead.

    While (as some folks may know from previous comments) I was not in favor of the change in policy in principle but now that it has been decided do not think the implementation is that big of a deal. 

    • Like 1
  2. 1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

    <but he reads from a copy of the 1911 version, the boys find some of the original sections very humorous>

    They would especially enjoy the paragraph on "Continence" in Chapter 19.


    I loved my Dad's 1940's handbook that said it was OK to take a bath more than once a week. :) I can see using both to make a point.

  3. 34 minutes ago, qwazse said:

    In that environment, any change would fail in a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of way.

    I would guide the 4 girls to find a 5th and form a different troop refer them to the 1/4 "strong yes" for their pool of leaders. Have the CO determine if they can handle this "linked" unit, or if it would be better off to have an independent sponsor.

    We had a minority strongly opposed to whatever I was doing with Venturing and blowing smoke in the CoR's face about it. It took a while to figure out that they were actually a very small minority. (Some parents switched to being in favor of the thing after discussion with their boys. Or, being impressed by the behavior of our girls.) But, if the reverse were true, relocating the crew to a different CO would have been a no-brainer.

    Yes, I agree. Some of the moms very very strong about it and ex or current GSUSA leaders-I'd leave it up to them. I am sure the CO would be OK with it though the current Committee would do the heavy lifting. More critical issue is the older boys bailing out fast. Some said they were upset with the girl issue but it is mostly a program thing and watered down for new scouts. Same old story.

  4. 6 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

    On what basis? BSA can now legally completely exclude girls. We are both legally separate and legally unequal. Allowing girls to join and have their own program doesn't open us to any more liability on that issue than we have today (which is none). If girls have their own program and can be in OA (or a female version of such) as well as obtain Eagle, then what do you think is not equal about that? I don't see any court trying to tell BSA that they "have to be completely coed" and I also don't see BSA simply rolling over on their back at the first sign that someone wants otherwise. BSA has too many religious COs that simply would not be onboard with such forced inclusion.

    Legally yes. The Court of Public Opinion no. BSA will fold on the Linked Troop concept at the first mumble of law suit. Somebody will complain that having to start a completely new unit when their is a perfectly functional unit at the same CO is an unreasonable standard. It does not have to be right. As long as YPT is covered National won't stand the negative PR. 

    My CO wanted to stay all boy but fears the PR as well so will wait and see. 

    But we do not have to argue. It will be resolved in less than 18 months. Surely I am not the only one who sees this?

    • Upvote 1
  5. I spend too much time on this Forum and forget that there are many other Scouters who just do not follow these things so closely. Recently I was helping out at my church with a stalwart Scouter who has for years spent many hours every week supporting the Troop as an ASM. He is pretty liberal though he was opposed to going co-ed but moved on once the decision was made. I mentioned the coming date for Girls in Boy Scouts, how some rogue troops probably already probably have started, and the whole 'Linked Troop' thing. His reaction:

    He laughed incredulously at how much of a botch up this is going to be. He just assumed when BSA made the announcement Girls could just start joining then. And the linked Troop think was just going to add chaos and confusion on who is responsible for what scout when the typical foul-up at Council on the way to Eagle progresses. He had no idea that National had a 'Separate but Equal' policy that will crumble shortly at the 1st legal challenge because of the bad publicity. He said on the basis of the bad planning he might ease out of his Troop role next year and he was one of the ones we were counting on staying.

    • Upvote 1
  6. I see this as a non-issue. There are women adults who are in OA (at least in my lodge and section) and now that females will become Boy Scouts I do not see how they can "bar" them. So many OA "old hands" are District and Council officials and ex-officials I do not see then bucking National. The rest (adult oversight, sleeping and bathroom accommodations) is just YPT logistics. 

    • Upvote 2
  7. 58 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

    I believe there is also waterboarding involved to fully drive home the error of their ways, though I may have misread that part

    That is why I prefer just cutting the corner, to spare the scout the indignity of the march up to the Scoutmaster in front of the Troop, the long drum roll, and the slapping of the cheeks three times with the confiscated card. 

    Don't get me started on the traditional OA punishments for flaming arrow abuse.

    • Haha 1
  8. 15 hours ago, Gwaihir said:

    I said "under the table".  If you're making packs co-ed and awarding badges under the table, it's not enrolling unqualified members, but you're circumventing the rules.  As I said, National spox stated "this was already happening" as a boon, not a bane, for their initiative. 

    "under the table" is a defacto "yes" as BSA policy is (now) to not too punish the youth for the idiocy of the adults. Therefore, my regrets to you fellow rule followers who lament your daughter will age out before 18 and meeting the Eagle requirements because somewhere, somehow some other girl will get it early--despite what National tells us--by units circumventing the rule. I suspect we will see a national media story to that affect before an official BSA announcement.

    • Upvote 1
  9. 16 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

    Are you sure they were saying Cub Scouts should not carry their own water and not that Cub Scouts should not do water skits at a campfire?  Maybe they just got that confused.

    Calico you hit on it.

    If Cubs carry their own water then they will use it to fill verboten water pistols! 

    Only leader approved water provided. Surprised National hasn't prohibited plastic bottled water since they keep finding microbeads of plastic in most of them I heard.

  10. 1 hour ago, Gwaihir said:

    The idea presented wasn't that the boys shouldn't drink water, but that they must not carry their own water.  

    That is silly. Maybe not ALL their water but are they thinking something magical happens when they crossover to Scouting? Maybe they should see Tents but not sleep in them.

    Even the young ones need to start getting trained. We have all read of a lost cub scout or webelo who has had to make it overnight or two. I got a problem with the reasoning behind this one. Lucky we got some smart girls coming down the line to point this out. 

  • Create New...