EmberMike

There are tons of posts about it throughout social media. I just thought it was interesting to note that in looking at BSA official social media accounts, it was as if the President wasn't even there at all.

I follow BSA on Instagram and they've been posting to their "stories" recapping events at Jambo. They post multiple times per day, highlighting guests, activities, etc. But not one post about Trump's visit or speech. Nothing on Twitter, either. They're pretty clearly downplaying the President's visit, at least on social media. With as much as they post on Instagram, surely the President visiting Jambo would have been worthy of a post. Guess they're as disappointed with the visit as many of us are.

Not much else that anyone can or should do. If the BSA says any more than they've already said, they do more harm than good. If they speak out against the content of the speech, they're seen as anti-right. If they endorse the speech, they're seen as anti-left. Neither situation fits today's narrative of what the BSA is trying to be. Which is exactly what they said in their statement, non-partisan. And pretty even-keeled as far as political issues go. It's an organization that embraces ideologies on both sides of the political spectrum. Left on some things, right on others. Like most t

It's an answer, but not to the question National has been asking. They don't care really about serving the demand for a BSA-like program for girls. The video outlines their desire to better serve families overall, and specifically make scouting easier to participate in by not excluding girls and splitting up the family. Hypothetically, if GSUSA fixed their program and fulfilled the need for a more outdoorsy BSA-like program, I suspect National would still be making this move. Because it has nothing to do with available programs. It's a membership drive, with the aim of making scouting mor

Even via video Obama was more Presidential than Trump was in-person.

The best Jambo guest speakers are the ones who can be motivational, inspirational, and relatable. Trump was none of those things tonight. He just used this as yet another tour stop to brag about his win in November. Obama never attended, but I think it would have been better for everyone if Trump hadn't showed up, either. He certainly didn't have anything positive to add.

Fair point. I think the difference is that kids are more drawn to sports that scouting, especially as they get into their teens. Unfortunately scouting may always have to try a lot harder than sports teams to be enticing to the kids and convenient to the parents.

The viability of girl-only units will depend on if there are enough girls to make a unit. This is going to be a tough thing to pull off for many groups. Even with the pack being a feeder into these new girl-only troops, it will likely take years to get enough girls involved to build a successful unit. Separation keeps the anti-coed folks a little happier but it gives these new girl troops an uphill battle to get established, recruit, and grow their own troop. Not to mention getting enough new leaders involved.

This was my original (and still is my current) motivation in wanting to see co-ed scouting happen. The constant demand for girls to have a bigger place in the BSA seems to indicate a lack of this kind of program elsewhere. I would love to see the BSA become the place that fulfills that demand. After watching the video, however, I don't get the feeling that providing a place for girls is really a high priority for National. Their motivations seems to be largely fixated on alleviating the difficulties and strains faced by adults being pulled in too many directions by the hectic demands of m

Interesting video. I watched it after my previous reply, so it did kind of fill in a few answers for me. 1. This isn't a fast-tracked decision to go co-ed. They've been working on this, Surbaugh said hundreds of people have been involved and/or given input. They've been looking at this option for a while now. 2. They're not calling it "co-ed", it will be Cub Scouting for Boys and Cub Scouting for Girls. Separate gender dens or separate gender packs entirely. 3. Local option, no packs will be required to accept girls if they (or the charter) choose not to. 4. Sounds like they don't re

Or providing the illusion of welcoming comment on the matter. Sure you can comment all you want, but it's already happening anyway. Even if this does indeed lead to co-ed scouting, and although I'm in favor of BSA going co-ed, I'm not a fan of how this is playing out. Although I've taken issue with some of the concerns others have about co-ed scouting, I've also acknowledged that there will be challenges to adding girls to the pack, and that there are certainly many valid concerns. I've got plenty of my own as well. And with those concerns in mind, the potential of seeing co-ed get fast-tr

My apologies, I read that statement to be your words, not the words of moms in your group.

She certainly was if the consensus around here is that only men lead a group of kids into the woods.

I know plenty of moms who would do far better in the woods than a lot of dads. It's sad that anyone would say that anything is "men's work" in this day and age, where women prove over and over again that they are just as capable as men. I suppose we should tell all of the women in the desert that war is "men's work", or the women firefighters who prove they can do the job as well as their male co-workers that they should had up their turnouts.

Keep in mind this "Family Scouting" initiative is likely aimed at the Cub level, where leadership training is not much of a consideration. My guess would be that at the Boy Scout level it wouldn't be called "Family Scouting". I don't know this for a fact, but it's a strong suspicion. I'm in favor of co-ed, generally speaking. But I would be concerned about something called "Family Scouting" at the Boy Scout level and I agree it could subvert leadership development.

What's the parent motivation for pushing for palms? I understand why some parents push for Eagle, to some it's a nice resume/college application item. But why palms? Most people outside of scouting don't even know what palms are, they don't have the name recognition that Eagle does.

That's not really the kind of business the BSA is in. Their business model when it comes to growth has historically (last 20-30 years) been to extend their reach to more youth who don't yet even know they want to be members. Or to communities that had little (or no) scouting program. I'm not sure why they don't do more to encourage greater participation from within already well-established scout groups and families. Maybe they view those groups as already at peak membership potential, so not worth the time. In any case, it just seems like they aren't all that interested in doing anything

You have "a ton" of coed BSA-like programs closer to home? Or just a ton of coed programs? Because the distinction matters greatly, I think.

The letter from the Program Director was a bit dissapointing. Even taking the same stance that they did, denying any wrongdoing, they certainly could have worded it better. Implying that you were having this covered by insurance yet still seeking reimbursement was inappropriate. Surely the director knows as well as anyone else that quite likely your deductible would prohibit an insurance claim on $300. If it were me, and if I really did believe that the range setup wasn't at fault for the window, I still would have taken a different approach in responding.

I've never in my life heard an Eagle Scout refered to as "Boy Scout Eagle". I think you're injecting gender into the title unnecessarily.

No, I'm not saying that. I acknowledged in that post that going co-ed might not be a good idea. All I was suggesting is that I can see why National might consider doing it because of declining membership. Do you really think BSA is a "successful business model" today? I'm not sure I'd call these kinds of drops in membership year after year for more than a decade "successful".

I said that I think they will spend millions revamping the logo and literature. I don't think they need to change anything, but they will. Or the change could be gradual. I think it has to be, actually. But knowing how National operates, I think they'll want to fairly quickly roll out a name change and at least a text update to the logo if they go co-ed. If they're going to go co-ed, they'll want the benefits that come along with it, including a (hopeful) membership boost from girls signing up. They'll try to capitalize on that PR with some sort of announcement about the change an

I think you have the only scouts in the country who shower not just daily, but twice daily. I'm sure it's an issue for some camps and councils. Likewise, for others it's not an issue. Ever camp in my local council currently has the ability to accommodate male and female scouts and scouters. For every story of camps like yours where bathrooms and showers are inadequate even for the existing male memnbership, there are just as many stories not being told about camps that would have no problem if we went co-ed tomorrow. Maybe even more so. Horror stories about the less-then-stellar facilitie

Does it matter? They had an option to not have girls in their troop at all. They didn't choose that option. I think that's the answer right there to how they feel about girls in BSA anyway.

I realize you said, "don't use the argument of increasing the declining membership...", so I hate to say it, but... At least in terms of addressing the question of why anyone is willing to change the program, declining membership is a fair place to point to for an answer. And you could apply that answer to any apect of the program, and any type of change, from program to policy and beyond. When the generation of kids entering scouting today could quite possibly be the last generation of boy scouts in America, I think that's a good reason to want to change something. Anything, really.