EmberMike

There's a lot of time for that, and even when they become Boy Scouts, they'll still have lots of time to learn Boy Scouting things. I understand the desire to prepare boys for Troop life, but emphasizing it this early I think could actually have a detrimental effect on their interest in Scouting long-term. If a scout joins as a Tiger and sticks with it to earn Eagle, they'll have been in Scouting for nearly a decade in many cases, sometimes longer. If Tigers learn absolutely nothing about camping, cooking, woods skills, etc., in their Tiger year, I think that's of absolutely zero consequence. On the other hand, I think a Tiger (or even a Wolf or Bear in some cases) being asked to sit through skills lessons that are more appropriate for Webelos or Boy Scouts could negatively impact their willingness to stay with the program. Scouting is a long road. Don't burn them out early. The Tiger year should be 100% fun above all else.

I was under the impression we'd get some info sooner. From the BSA factsheet: "Using the same curriculum as the Boy Scouts program, the organization will also deliver a program for older girls, which will be announced in 2018 and projected to be available in 2019..."

That's kind of what I've always thought, but I've failed to offer up a good alternative option to Native American culture and regalia. What is it about OA that is so intriguing, especially to AoL scouts? I always thought the mystery of it was the coolest part, not knowing exactly what it was about, the "secret society" aspect, the brotherhood, etc. All of which can (in theory) be achieved outside of NA-specific themes. So what does that look like without NA symbols and ceremonies? I'm not totally sure. But it could be done. My point is we could move away from NA themes and not lose OA. It's just a matter of whether anyone wants to make the effort.

Distasteful, yes. But whether it's a good or bad business move, that is yet to be seen. If the company believes that there is more money to be made in cultivating a new generation of fans rather than trying to appeal to the older generation, that's the way they're going to go. It's always about the money, and always will be. If they can make even $1 more on "new" Star Wars vs. old, they'll go with the new. Personally, no matter which type of Star Wars they go with, I don't think the merchandise demand will ever be like it was with the original films. Maybe in sales volume, but not in how fans sought after things from the films. It was a different time. People don't collect stuff like they used to, and merchandise back then was how you kept in touch with the film world between movie releases. Now we have movies on demand, the Internet, DVDs, etc., and merch isn't as valuable to the casual fan anymore.

But that's the same family camping that has been in the G2SS since before the discussion of "Family Scouting" even began, right? So what's changing? Family camping has always been an option for any unit. But at their own discression. That doesn't appear to be changing at the Troop and Venture level. A Troop can certainly organize a family camping trip if they want to, same as they always could. Am I missing something that says that Troops must now accomodate family camping on all trips? Where is this coming from?

I've never gotten the impression that this would be allowed. Is there anything you've seen in the materials and discussions released by the BSA that would suggest this would be happening? My impression (and granted we're all forced to make a lot of assumptions about this so far) is that the "family" element of the program ends at Cubs, it does not follow into the Troop. So there would be no need to worry about activities being reduced to appropriate levels for kids 10 and under. Nor would it allow for a 4-year-old to tag along on Troop trips with mom and dad. I'm curious if I'm alone in that assumption, though, or if anyone else has come to the same conclusion.

How was this on anyone's priority list of "important things to do in order to roll out a girls' program"? This also kind of hurts the argument I and others have made that girls want the same program, unchanged, and then the first thing we get is a changed uniform for girls.

The new family-oriented scouting effort that we know as "Family Scouting" has not been defined for use above age 10. Have you seen or heard anything that says otherwise? The documents I referenced back this up, that the family component (getting everyone in the family involved) does not extend to the Troop or Venture level, and those programs are not the focus of the effort to bring the whole family into the program. However if you can point me to something that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. You mentioned backpacking, whitewater, and climbing earlier, with the concern that this new emphasis on the "family" part of the program would limit the availability of those activities due to pressure from parents to provide more family-friendly activities for all ages. In the GTSS those activities are already limited to age 11 and above. Family Souting doesn't apply to them, there is no cross-over between Family Scouting and troop-age activities that families could potentially pressure units to provide for a broader range of ages.

You're reading something in what I've said that isn't there. I mentioned Family Scouting in the context of addressing your concern about parental influence in activity choices, parents possibly wanting all-ages family-friendly activities, making it harder to do the kinds of trips you mentioned, backpacking, whitewater, climbing, etc. I mentioned Family Scouting and the documents I referenced to point out that Family Scouting caps at age 10 and so would have no bearing on Troops doing more adventerous activities.

I didn't reference any documents that outline "family camping".

In the link I posted, see under Program and Membership, click the Factsheet. It shows the Family Scouting program being at the Cub level only, ages 6-10.

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/family-scouting/

Fake? Real? Tough to say. Why would someone fake this? It's not exactly favorably worded towards the new girls programs, so one would have to assume if this is a fake email that it originated from someone who wants us to believe there is confusion and chaos around crafting the girls programs. It that's the case, why not just go all the way with it and word it to suggest that Surbaugh thinks this was all a mistake? That would have been more effective, I think. That said, there is a lot in there to suggest this may be an authentic email. During the fall announcement, myself and others suggested that this all seemed rushed and poorly thought-out. As much as I was (and still am) in favor of increased inclusion of girls in the BSA, it was disappointing that there was not much thought given to mapping out how this would all work. This email makes it sound like those concerns were valid, and that the problems around this could be very real. It also sounds like Surbaugh is trying to come out of this without anyone disliking him. That's impossible. He needs to decide what's important and make bold decisions to get there. If that's co-ed scouting, then do it. If he maybe does think this was a mistake and wants to back off of it, then do that. He eneds to stop with the "let's make everyone happy" idea, though. And please, please, please, Mike, don't invoke POTUS and talk about "winning".

I might be wrong about this, but the stuff I've read about Family Scouting has it capped at 10 years of age. Unless that changed since the BSA release their literature on the subject. I was under the impression that the family program was not for the older programs. So if a parent is showing up with their 15-year-old asking for Family Scouting, I'd just refer them to the various documents the BSA has put out outlining what the Family Scouting program actually is. Hypothetically, even if Family Scouting extends to the trop level, we don't know that incoming "families" (why the quotes?) will want all-ages activities exclusively, any more-so than previous families did. And as long as leaders set expectations for parents the same as they do now for families with two or more boys in a troop, with the undertanding that the older boys may do things the younger boys can't, then it shouldn't be any worse of a problem than it already is.

Why does "inclusive" mean less backpacking?

Since I believe it was my downvote that started the debate, let me just share my viewpoint of what those arrows mean. In my opinion, Upvote = Agree, Downvote = Disagree. Maybe that's wrong, but it isn't entirely clear what exactly an upvote or downvote is intended to be, if not those things. I don't use downvotes often, and if I do, you can be sure it's for something that I find exceptionally disagreeable. I'm not sure why this turned into a big debate. If the voting features aren't supposed to be used, or if some folks find the use of them to be "un-scoutlike", then why do we have them?

I would imagine making him repeat his Tiger year could possibly sour him on scouting altogether. The Tiger year is kind of low-key to begin with, intro to scouting, basic "backyard jungle" type of stuff, etc. He might be bored doing it all again, with the worst-case scenario being he gets so bored that he doesn't want to do it anymore. There have been some opinions around this forum that cub scouts is already too long of a program, a sentiment that I agree with. 2nd grade is probably more ideal for starting scouting anyway, and would likely lead to greater long-term retention. So making a kid go through an extra year of the Tiger program would, I think, probably do more harm than good in this regard as well.

So all of the stuff a kid did from ages 11-15 should be easily repeatable at 16? How many kids in your unit do you think could do that?

I've sent my letters in support of Sydney and I stand by my statments here and in those letters. Based on this thread I can say that I'm infinitely more supportive of the Irelands than I am of some of the sentiments expressed here, and certainly the jabs at the family because of their financial status or various other personal or professional aspects of their lives, not to mention the ripping apart of Sydney's motivations to earn Eagle, something I doubt very many boys are ever subjected to. Occasionally this forum strikes me as one of the most un-scout-like environments a person could encounter. This thread is certainly a case study in that phenomenon.

It's on his professional website. You've never written a resume or filled in a LinkedIn profile I take it?

The difference is that some requirements are almost identical from one scouting organization to another. Tie these knots. Demonstrate this first-aid skill. And in an environment that is very similar to the BSA in many cases. Especially Scouts Canada. The BSA, as far as I understand the rule, does not allow credit from things done outside of scouting. So that YMCA lifeguard cert wouldn't count. But requirements for the Scouts Canada Swimming Challenge Badge, for example, some of which happen to be nearly identical to the BSA swimming badge requirements (the differernce being meters vs. yards for demonstrating specific strokes) can and should transfer over. In both cases the requirements would have been completed in similar settings, in the course of scouting-related activities, and demonstrating the same specific abilities.

It's not the kind of thing that is documented and specific. Transfer requirements/ranks have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis by a council rep. By the very nature of the rule, credit for experience in another scouting organization is open to interpretation. We're never going to have a document that says "Scouts Canada Rank X Requirement 1a is suitable for credit towards BSA Rank X Requirement 3b," or something like that. But that doesn't mean that giving such credit breaks any rule.

Welp, I give up on getting my facts straight today.

I stand corrected, she has been awarded unofficial rank. I thought I read somewhere that she doesn't actually get merit badges, but I'm not certain about that. The rest of my previous post I stand by.