EmberMike

Kids losing interest in activities is always an issue, in all activities. But somehow Scouting seems to take a harder hit than most other things, especially as kids get older. Typically the older scouts lose interest and want to leave in favor of other activities. And honestly I can't really blame them. When you can go play sports or sit at a desk studying for a citizenship badge, it's pretty obvious which one wins more often. We want to believe that Scouting is camping, hiking, high-adventure, wilderness, etc., but in reality that's only half of it, maybe less. Time spent in meetings, doing procedural stuff, training, skills development, etc., it's all very academic. National seems to respond with adding in activities that they think will appeal to kids at the event level. Skateboarding at jambo, climbing, biking, more sporty types of activities. I think they're on the right track with some of it, but I think the bigger problem is the core program itself. The older the kids get, the less appealing it is. Moving to another troop was mentioned earlier. I think that's just a temporary fix. It's a change of scene, but the program is still the same. Interest will still wane eventually. Unfortunately I think unless the BSA changes the program, there's very little else anyone can do at the local level to maintain interest as kids age. This might be an unpopular opinion, but here goes... I think the BSA should drop things from the program that overlap with school activities. Disconnect the program from things that kids already learn in school and focus more on the outdoor adventure component. If Scouting is going to endure as an elective activity that's supposed to be fun compared to school, the program needs to change to truly be that kind of an activity. It really can't be a surprise that so many kids lose interest when the program includes so much academic stuff and repeats of things they are taught in history and social studies classes at school.

You certainly can oppose it, but I think we could all agree that going back on a change in what is more of a social policy is much harder than going back on a procedural policy. Especially these policies that, if reversed, would effectively kick people out of scouting. It's a much harder sell to ask National to do something that results in families being forcibly removed from the program. If I sound like I think these membership policies changes are permanent, it's because I think they are. But I certainly wouldn't say that it's impossible to reverse them. Just that the odds are much more against rolling them back than they were in changing them in the first place.

Same things were said a few years ago when we were debating the gay membership issue. And here we are again, with more doom and gloom predictions. Scouting will be fine. For as little impact as allowing gay members has had on the organization, allowing trans kids to join will have even less impact. As TAHAWk mentions, program is and has been the problem. One thing I think we can all appreciate this time around is that this didn't drag on for years. The decision was quick, like it or not it's done and we move on. All we can decide is if we're moving on within the BSA or moving on away from it.

All of the virtues mentioned in your quote (do things for themselves and other, scoutcraft, patriotism, courage, self-reliance, etc), they aren't the exclusive domain of boys. Just bolding the word boys doesn't make them things that can only be taught to boys in an all-male setting. If you changed the word to "girls", the rest of it would read just as logically and realistically as it does for boys. Yes the BSA has been a boys' organization. But the core of the program has never been dependent on gender. If someone were to hypothetically sneak through the program as a boy when in reality they were female, all of the gains they made in going through it would still benefit them the same as if they were male. The same character-building, self-reliance, bravery, all of it. I stand by my previous statement. BSA is about character-building. Always has been, always will be regardless of gender and membership policies.

The mission isn't to create "men", it's to build character, something that is not exclusive to one gender. If the military can be co-ed and still be a symbol of character, strength, even masculinity, then why not scouts? I'm really happy with this policy change. It's one that years ago I never would have thought we'd see. Lifting the ban on gay members and on transgender kids? I'm still kind of surprised it all happened. But I'm glad it did. And much like lifting the ban on gay members didn't destroy units or spell the end of the BSA, this too shall pass and everything will be just fine.

I'm really happy with this decision. I had already started to move on from the BSA in light of the membership policy against gay scouts and leaders. I was a paying member of the BPSA and actively involved in that organization, but now I'm pretty comfortable returning to the BSA and enrolling my son when he's of age. I get that people will leave because of this. I left because of it as well, although because I was opposed to the policy restricting gay members. So I understand that sometimes policy can push you away. I've said it before, that I couldn't be happy with myself if I brought my family into the BSA while the anti-gay policies still stood. But that's my personal belief, and I get that others have an equally strong personal belief that will now prevent them from participating. It's a bitter-sweet thing to see this final step in changing the policy.

The BSA has pursued some groups using the word "scout" in their name. The Baden Powell Service Association became thusly named after the BSA went after them for using the name Baden Powell Scout Association. But it is in name only that the BPSA cannot use the word "scout". They can refer to themselves as scouts and call it "scouting", use "scout" in documentation, oath, law, etc. As far as I understand it, the protection on the word "scout" is restricted to names of organizations. But the BSA doesn't own the practice of scouting. As for the Congressional charter, I think they'd survive fine without it. What does it do beyond giving them a little extra muscle on trademark protection? It already doesn't allow them to prevent other scout groups from forming. It just might mean they have less legal recourse to enforce ownership of some common words in group names.

For some reason I can't add another comment to one of my replies above, so... @SSScout Batoning wood involves using a fixed-blade knife and a "baton" (usually another piece of wood) to drive the knife blade into a log or stock and split it. You can see a demo here: It's preferable to hatchet splitting because at no point do you need to put your fingers in harms way. Done right, you're never swinging anything towards yourself, never putting your fingers in front of the cutting edge of a blade, and you move the blade by hitting it with another object, so all of the motion is done in a far safer manner. For kids especially, I think this is the ideal method to teach. Other non-BSA groups, especially overseas, have taught this method for a long time to kids who are cub scout age. It's that much safer than using hatchets/axes that it can be safely taught to and used by younger kids.

You mean they ban carrying them, right? Surely possessing a sheath knife isn't banned anywhere in the US, is it? Like I mentioned above, there is a difference between carrying a knife and just having one in your tool kit. I don't think there is any law or BSA policy that would forbid a troop from having some fixed blade knives in the troop tool kit alongside axes, hatchets, saws, etc.

#2 is spot on the money. It is pure insanity to me that the BSA prefers to bring technology into the program instead of emphasizing the real thing, not the technological attempt at adventure. Instead of the gaming merit badge, where was the marketing push to say, "Like adventure video games? We've got REAL adventure." You're right, what's left of the adventure component of the BSA is so watered down it's barely a reflection of what once was.

Good lord... first the irrational fear of fixed blade knives (despite the fact that they're the safest option for some camp tasks), now the irrational fear of folding knives taken to epic new extremes. Enough already. Use real knives or don't bother at all.

The key word here to me has always been "carry". There are a lot of things kids can't/shouldn't carry, and yet we still let them use them. Axes and hatchets for example. Should the BSA ban axes and hatchets because kids could hurt themselves with them? I personally think a hatchet is more dangerous than a fixed blade knife, but even still I wouldn't advocate banning hatchets. I'm all for learning how to use tools safely, including fixed blade knives, hatchets, etc. Here's how I'd approach it. Start with introducing fixed blades as a camp tool, not as a carry item. If you jump in hoping to put a sheath on every kid's belt, you'll get a lot more resistance. Suggest putting a couple of fixed blade knives in the troop tool kit with axes and hatchets, and teach kids how to baton kindling with a knife. Which, you can explain to the kids and other adults, is FAR safer than chopping up kindling with a hatchet. You can't cut wood down to kindling with a hatchet without putting your hands at risk. Well, you can, but it's a little tricky. Far more tricky than batoning. But no one can argue with batoning being safer than hatchet chopping kindling. It's safer, much safer I think, than having to hold the wood with your hand and tapping a hatchet into it. Even worse when you have a kid try taking a swing at a piece of wood while they're holding it up with their hand.

As easy as it would be to blame the CO for this troop dissolving, in cases like this where you've got almost 90% of the kids not even willing to give another troop a shot there are clearly other issues going on. So it'll get blamed on the policy, or maybe the CO, even though 16 out of 18 kids didn't really want to be there even before the vote. And the majority of the parents also seemingly didn't want to bother. I have to wonder if anyone even took half an hour to make some phone calls and see if it would even be possible to secure a new CO. That troop quit on those kids. Probably years ago.

The wheel is already showing some flat sides. But maybe we're finally starting to look in the right direction. I view the end of the belt loops in cub scouting as a positive step in that direction. Some of those belt loops were so ridiculous, so far outside of the scope of scouting. I'd suggest that some culling of the merit badge list wouldn't be a bad idea either. Do we really need 130+ badges available? I don't think so, not when they're for things that have nothing to do with the intent and purpose of scouting. The BSA seems to feel like they're missing out when they don't offer things related to what kids are doing outside of scouting. So we see Game Design merit badge, Multi Media merit badge, Digital Technology merit badge, Advanced Computing merit badge. Kids don't go to scouting for that stuff. Scouting is supposed to be different compared to what they're exposed to at home and at school. But lately, it seems like just more of the same. Indoor meetings, less camping, more badges and activities that are focused on science and tech. And parents don't want their kids going to scouting for that stuff either. What's the number 1 reason parents look to scouting for their kids? I suspect it would be something to do with getting their kids outside more, introducing them to camping, getting them away from those video games, etc.

The BSA has always had adventure to offer kids, they just package it terribly and deliver it equally poorly. They've always tried too hard to seem "cool", bringing skateboards and BMX into jambos and designing marketing materials to try and look modern and hip. But kids know when they're being sold something fake. And they're really turned off when they show up at jambo looking for adventure and have to wait in line all day to do anything. Back-to-basics works. Offer kids simple outdoor adventures and they'll give it a try. It doesn't have to include the action sport of the moment or slick marketing hype, just authentic adventure and outdoor activities, preferably stuff in the woods.

Good point. The more people move to TL, the less resistance there will be to finishing the job and letting gay parents be leaders in their kids' pack/troop. Maybe TL is making things easier for everyone. It's worth mentioning also that a lot of people did leave the BSA when invited to do so and form a new group that allowed gay scouts and leaders. That group is the Baden-Powell Service Association.

This is ridiculous. 4% drops for years and now we see a 6% drop and suddenly that's the number everyone is focusing on. Assuming we would have seen another 4% drop this year regardless of policy changes, really it's only fair to attribute maybe 2% to the policy, and even that is just a guess. What I'll be anxious to see is what happens next year or over the next 2-3 years. We knew the policy change would result in some loss. That was a given. But after the exodus (if you can call it that when it really only resulted in a 2% loss), it will be interesting to see how things go as membership trends normalize around the existing policies. In other words, what will the numbers look like during a year where no membership policy change took place? Back to 4% losses? Less? I suspect so. I wonder what folks will be saying a year or two from now if we see membership numbers increase.

Some troops bend over backwards to entice Webelos to join. I saw one such Troop just a few weeks ago put on an amazing overnighter that, despite some bad weather, the kids loved. My nephew was among the Webelos there and he said he doesn't even need to see another Troop, he wants this one. I think you're right to view this as evidence of possible faults with the Troop. If they can't even get things right when it really matters, at a time when they have an opportunity to grow their ranks, it is probably an indication of other problems and likely indicative of standard operating procedures with the Troop. I say "likely" because it probably is a little harsh to judge based on one experience, so maybe a second visit is warranted. But generally, what you see the first time around is what you get in the long term. You should definitely see another Troop for comparison. And maybe give the other Troop another chance to show what they're about. Ideally I think it would be good to see them outside of the CO, if at all possible. Personally I suspect a 2nd visit will probably just confirm what your son feels about the Troop already. But you never know, sometimes they can surprise you. Maybe it was just an off night for them and ordinarily they're more engaging and fun. It's probably worth giving them another chance and finding out for sure.

moosetracker I have to disagree. Had the BSA kept this as a local decision to make, the same thing still would have happened eventually. This thing was always a powder keg. All it would take to set it off was that one district with a "no gays" policy and one kid getting kicked out and taking it to the press. That was going to happen eventually, no matter if the policy was locally or nationally set.

I think the whole thing is kind of silly when you really think about how much storage is really needed. A large closet would do in some cases, if you get a little creative with stacking boxes and building shelves. But apparently even that is too much to ask sometimes.

I don't think their oath is that similar. But even if it was, it's not like the BSA can claim that for their own. The original oath and law were written by Baden-Powell in his 1908 Scouting for Boys books, before the BSA formed. Much of the BSA program came from BP's original scouting movement over in the UK. Other scouting groups besides the BSA also use similarly worded oaths and laws. No one really owns them.

For an organization that just formed in the last few months, I find TL's growth rather impressive. They're highly organized, have a pretty complete looking program, handbooks, uniforms, units, leadership, members, they're hitting the ground running. It may seem like basic stuff to us, but think about how much time and effort it takes to start something like this, write the program, get all of the materials made, get the organizational and business stuff sorted out, etc. Based on how far they've come in just a few months, I'd regard TL as a major threat to the BSA in some areas.

TLUSA had all the pieces in place to get started long before the vote on gay scouts was cast. So yes, they used it as an excuse. They would have gone ahead with this either way, most likely. If the vote failed, they then probably would have had some other reason for breaking away.

Belief in God in terms of BSA rules is a pretty loose term, so you're right, not believing in God isn't automatically a deal-breaker. But it's not because no duty is being breached, at least not in my opinion. I think it has more to do with the fact that you can fulfill the religious/spiritual requirements of BSA membership without believing in any particular God or any god at all. Buddhism, for example, doesn't recognize a god per se (Buddha is known as and regarded as being a mortal man, not at all a god-like being) but is an acceptable belief system as far as the BSA is concerned. Duty to God is really just a duty to a belief in something greater than ourselves, and can be interpreted in many ways. That greater thing can take the form of God, man, nature, etc.

Ryan has said that he believes in God. Where is the confusion over his religious beliefs? He stated his belief, he fulfilled the requirement in as far as the BSA rules are concerned.