Pack18Alex

Stand Your Ground only made two major changes: 1. The obligation to retreat was removed 2. The option for a Stand Your Ground Hearing Obligation to Retreat: The problem with the obligation to retreat is it is evaluated in slow motion depending on how aggressive the prosecutor is and how bad the defense council is. I mean, if you're pinned down, irrelevant, if someone is charging you with a knife and you shoot them, you then have to defend in open court how long it takes them to run at you vs. the time for you to get to the door and run... Basically, the standard is warped because you make a decision in split seconds that gets second guessed in hours. Florida's case law was horrendous on this, which is what let to codifying castle doctrine and stand your ground in legislation. Stand Your Ground Hearing: At a trial, the defendant merely has to establish reasonable doubt, i.e. > 5% chance... At a Stand Your Ground Hearing, the defendant has to establish a preponderance of the evidence (51%) that it was self defense. So, in a tough case like this one, it's better to ignore the SYG Hearing and fight the trial with the lower threshold for you. The difference is, that an innocent person can get bullied into a plea... We're going after you for Murder 2, Life in Prison, but you can plea self defense... However, instead we'll play aggravated assault and 5 years... With a Stand Your Ground Hearing, the defendant can attempt to establish their freedom for MUCH less money (a big defense bill can be $1 Million or more), and not get railroaded into a plea deal that they have to accept because they can't afford to go to trial. On television, Self Defense vs. SYG seems like a license to kill, the biggest change is NOT allowing prosecutors to railroad people, since there is almost always a theoretical means of retreat, even if you couldn't really see it at night but only at day time with a camera to show it.... Seminole County Florida is a rural/suburban mixed area outside Orlando. Of course they knew Stand Your Ground Laws in a colloquial sense. All of the jurors probably knew someone with a concealed weapon permit. The media, including the Orlando Sentinel went ape shit when these laws were passed, explaining that we were turning into the wild west. Yet honest citizens have less to fear from crime now, so they are popular.

Yes and no... There are definitely abuses of the law, but most of the abuses don't really concern the government. Sure plenty of gang fights get claims under stand your ground, but the powers that be are generally okay with them killing each other anyway. Prior to the Castle Doctrine being codified, Florida had a mess of crime and lawsuits in the 1980s. Burglars falling through skylights and suing homeowners, tripping on pools, fences, etc., during break-ins and suing. Homeowners getting caught up in urban violence spreading, etc., so the legislature codified the castle doctrine (which evolved from common law, but shut down the civil avenue)... Prior to this, there was a dispute between the castle doctrine to defend your home and the duty to retreat. With castle doctrine codified as carrying the day, this issue went away. With the success there, it was expanded out to a general removal of the duty to retreat. The media has played it out as a license to kill, but that's not quite right, you need to have "reasonably feared for your life." This does have the quirky side effect of a dangerous fight escalating to the right to kill in self defense, but only if the fight is reasonably seen as lethal. There is an exception if you broke the law in creating the situation, BTW, it didn't apply in this case because while getting out of the car and pursuing might have seemed dumb, it didn't break a law, so it wasn't allowed into the jury instructions. Prior to this, self defense was VERY hard to use because you had to defend yourself in a split second decision, then the prosecutor could craft all sorts of "what-if" scenarios to suggest that you failed to retreat and therefore were guilty. If you think that this prior state of affairs was good for minorities, ask yourself who was more likely to have a public defender and who was more likely to bring in expert testimony about the likelihood of retreat. George Zimmerman did not claim Stand Your Ground, since his claim was that he was on the ground, there was no option to retreat, so it was not relevant to the situation (but will be used in a potential civil suit for dismissal). The media drummed it up because they hate Stand Your Ground. The codification of Castle Doctrine was to protect home owners. It has had tragic consequences at times, but it has made home owners feel more secure in their home and our crime rates have fallen. A few freaky stories have come out of Stand Your Ground, but crime rates are falling and the law is generally popular here, especially as budget cuts have resulted in dangerously long response times from local police. One thing to keep in mind is that we are a bilingual "border" state (albeit with a naval border) with a large undocumented population, a massive criminal underground (Miami Vice was a dramatization of a real problem), and a ton of problems related to rapid growth. We have unique problems here, but in general, few of our gun deaths or violent crimes are attributed to concealed weapon permit holders OR legal gun owners in general. Not none, but few, most of our problems are with illegal guns in lawless areas. Concealed Permits, Castle Doctrine, and Stand Your Ground are extremely popular outside of liberal enclaves because there are seen as protecting the legal citizens from the criminal element. The media wants to paint race as this big issue in Florida, but when you get away from the nonsense, race isn't so straight-forward here. Our Latinos aren't some oppressed minority, former Governor Bush was married to a Latina, Miami's Cuban population is extremely powerful (and conservative), etc. Our urban poor in metropolitan areas are similar to urban poor elsewhere, but we have a TON of people that are classified on the census as black but aren't culturally "African American," they are first/second generation immigrants from the Caribbean Islands, and their culture (and cuisine) is totally different from the rest of the black population. We might seem like a freaky state by the news media, and we have plenty of oddities, but we're a unique state with it's own unique problem. Every state with a large undocumented population is struggling with the criminal element. Most immigrants are hard working contributors to society (documented or not), but citizen criminals have a paper trail to catch and something to lose, undocumented immigrants don't legally exist and therefore are nearly impossible to catch. That's why self defense becomes such a critical issue in states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida. It's easy to point fingers at the "redneck racist southerners" but the situation is considerably more complicated that it is elsewhere, including non-border southern states. Don't believe the media caricature, Trayvon Martin was failed by the disaster that is Miami Dade Public Schools long before the petty crimes he got involved with got him suspended and on an ill-fated trip to Sanford, FL. You saw it in his 19 year old friend that is a senior in high school and can't read cursive writing at all, and these were people with hard working parents involved in their children's lives. However, the lesson from these cases is: if your life is really in jeopardy, shoot to kill, and sort out the proof in court, you have a very fair chance at defending yourself in court. If your life is NOT in jeopardy, do NOT pull a gun at all, you will spend 20 years in prison. In theory, this makes perfect sense, in practice, it probably pays to be able to afford a good attorney.

"Now put Travon with the gun and Zimmerman with the skittles and ice tea.. Ask if Trayvon would have gotten off with reasonable doubt." Probably never goes to trial. The police and prosecutors haven't liked bringing ambiguous shoot out issues to trial since Stand Your Ground, too hard to prove. Hence the initial decision not to prosecute the latino man in Seminole County Florida for shooting the unknown black teenager. Remember, this was a SMALL gated community, nobody thought to ask the neighbors if the deceased lived there because they knew all the residents and he wasn't one. As far as the police were concerned at the time, George Zimmerman found one of the burglars, caught up with him, and shot him in self defense. When Al Sharpton got hold of the story and the German/Jewish sounding name, he got a national outcry and thought he had ideally a fresh pogrom against the Jews at best, and a chance to stoke racial flames at worst. The media held out to the nonsensical "white Hispanic" idea to cover for the fact that they were told they had a white man shoots black teenager story in the deep south, when they had a fight turned lethal between a troubled black teenager from Miami and a local latino neighborhood watchman who was well loved by many of his neighbors for trying to help. Until this became a news story, the police saw an injured guy with a gun and the teenager dead, investigated, talked to witnesses, and concluded self defense. The idea that latinos are given some sort of racial privilege in Seminole County Florida is absolutely farcical.

The woman going to 20 years for firing a warning shot isn't going to jail for being black, it's for firing warning shots. You may not use a gun in Florida to "scare someone." You may only use a firearm to kill someone. If you reasonbly fear your life is in danger, you may fire, otherwise, you may not fire or brandish a weapon. Using a firearm to "scare" someone is a serious violation of Florida gun laws, regardless of skin color.

Council rule perhaps? I was informed by my wife from training that if I go with them on a Camp Out, I can't share a tent with my wife. So the girls all Share a Tent, my wife needs to tent with another female leader, and I should be in another tent? And unclear if my son is even permitted to be there... Much easier to do our Family Campouts as BSA Camps, and someone in your family needs to be affiliated with our unit... it can be your son in the Pack, or a parent on the committee, but someone needs to affiliate with us so we can follow our guidelines. Or my wife was told incorrect policies by someone that doesn't know them, who knows.

BD, Very new and in over my head... but having fun and Doing My Best!

On paper, two 18 year old college freshman can sign up as girl scout leaders, recruit 8 five-year old pre-K girls, sign them up as a Daisy Troop, and go camping... In practice, nobody really takes the Daisy Troops camping... and several of my wife's Daisy's have been family camping with the Cubs for 1-3 years. However, since GSUSA doesn't permit family camping, it means realistically no camping when they are little. In BSA, Tigers/Cubs, soon to be Lions-Cubs, family Camp. Once they hit Webelos in 4th grade, they can do a Den Overnighter. I believe that the parents are supposed to be there, but not camping with their boys, and not with the whole family in tow, just parents to make sure everything goes well. So in practice SOME 3rd grade Brownies start camping, mostly any camping component kicks in in 4th grade via Juniors, which is when BSA lets you do Den Overnighters (instead of Family Camping). In theory, GSUSA lets you leader/scout camp earlier. In practice, BSA/GSUSA lets you leader/scout camp at around the same time (4th grade BSA, 3rd grade GSUSA), while BSA lets you family camp younger. For us, taking the family camping has been great fun and involves all the family. Taking their young children away from them for the weekend is kind of a big deal in our circle, but we're a religious based Pack, so taking ones children away from the family for the Sabbath is a big deal.

perdidochas, So why were you burnt out? Was it the Den Leader work or was it other work? I actually really enjoy the Den Leader side. When we started our Dens late this past year and ran every week, it was a bit of a burn out. When we got formal Pack Meetings going and it became every other week, I enjoyed it much more. If the Cubmaster was distinct from the Den Leader, you had Den Chiefs at all levels, the the Committee handled the responsibilities correctly, I think that Den Leaders would be way less of a burn out. Also, I'm not sure that Den Leaders are necessarily what you want in Troop Leadership. It's a VERY specialized role that has no counterpart in the Troop/Crew programs... also, Tiger, Cub, and Webelos level are very different (part of why I'm bummed they got rid of the three Den Leader Knots that recognized this). I mean, Cubmaster - done right - is decent training for Scoutmaster, only you drop your MC role and become about training the boys to MC. But Den Leader? As a Den Leader I am purchasing supplies, planning the schedule, teaching the boys, and then letting them do their project. None of that trains me to be an ASM assigned to a patrol (the closest analog). I'm okay with burning our Cub Scout Den leaders if it results in boys ready to join troops. Also, if Pack/Troop shared a Committee and the Committee was mostly Troop parents, there might be less pressure on the Cub Scout Packs to act like Boy Scout Troops. When I was a Cub, we didn't camp. The Webelos, if you could find a leader to keep the program alive, might camp once or twice. My Pack did 3 Campouts last year, which was light, have five planned for next year (plus a Webelos one), and in the past did four. That's somewhat typical in our area. If you want boys to spend more time in the Troop (or Troop/Crew) than in the Pack, the solution isn't to cut the Pack time, but to revisit the program so that Cubs is less standalone and more training for Boy Scouts... I think unifying their management would do that... when Cubbing started, it was a Den Chief (Boy Scout) with a Den Mother assisting (supplies, etc) getting younger boys ready for Scouting. Now it's this giant top heavy parent run monstrosity that isn't getting boys ready for the Troop, because we expect them to go from vacationers on Campouts to Patrol members in one year... Separating Webelos might help dramatically.... perhaps even ditching the Belt Loops/Pins from them... down here at least, Loops/Pins have moved from "supplemental" material to the CORE material. I see boys running around with tons of Belt Loops on their uniform, I rarely see an Arrowhead on the uniform (which were coveted when I was a boy).

For those of you following the proper approach... Packs and Troops are distinct, my proposal doesn't really solve them directly... What I would say in your Case: The Elementary School's CO Charters a Cub Pack and Webelos Patrol. The Webelos Patrol does their Pack stuff with the Cub Pack. Since you don't have a Joint Webelos Patrol / Scout Troop under the CO, the GTSS should provide guidelines for visiting Webelos Patrols, which should be different from a unified Scouting setup. I think that with Lions you need some separation for Webelos. I believe a big part of why I have dropoff problems is that we get a ton of Tigers and they interact with the Webelos too much. They should be "older mature Cubs" to look up to. My point was NOT that a CO needs to run all the units, but that all the units under a CO share a committee (unless they choose to form different committees). Interestingly, a Boy Scout Troop is the sum of its patrols. According to my training, a Cub Scout Pack consists of all the Dens at a CO. So if one CO were running Dens at 3 schools, that CO can't have 3 Packs, they are one pack. Agreed on the Pinewood Derby/Crafts... On paper, the Webelos have more autonomy than the Cubs. In practice, at least here, they are Cub Scouts wearing Boy Scout Uniforms. When I was a lad, the Webelos emblem went where the Tiger one does now... and apparently where the Lion Badge once went... But ideally, the Webelos are either off doing activity pins, or visiting a Troop as a Patrol or showing leadership when the visit the Pack as a Patrol. Ideally, Webelos have 2 Patrol meetings + 1 Troop Meeting + 1 Pack Meeting each month.

That may be the direction we take this in... One committee, conceivably with identical positions. The Units will have their own leader (SM/CM), and Patrol/Den Leadership (ASM/DL), and take it from there. My concern is that right now the Pack is bigger than the Troop, and if the Troop runs as an adjunct to the Pack, the boys will lose interest. OTOH, if the Webelos become more integrated with the Troop... well, that would be ideal, I'm just not sure how to arrange that. If you are running things jointly, I could arrange more joint responsibilities. How do you handle finances if you run it jointly? How do you handle gear?

But I love the Cub Scout program, and wear 10 hats with it. When the Troop level comes, I do NOT want this level of involvement. It doesn't interest me. I think that the program will be great for my son, but I do not want to run the Troop the way I've been rnning the Pack. Other people that did not do front line leadership in Cubs can take that over, and maybe I'll find an interest in Troop leadership. Is it possible for me to want my son to be a Boy Scout without my wanting to be Scoutmaster? After 5 years of Cub level leadership, including getting my Den ready to cross over, why can't my Cub leadership (and handling our Troop a ready made new Scout Patrol) be seen as contributing to the Troop instead of taking away from it? The Troop leaders think we are burning out... that burning out is where your fresh blood comes from. See your Cub Den Leaders as your recruiting/training process, instead of burnt out people that really should be managing Camp Card sales.

Okay, down here, our Cub Scouting is camping intensive, and in a short window when the weather is great. And they increasingly want us to set up the Boy Scout style Camp Sites, but with a single patrol model for cooking. And cub aged boys can't really cook without a ton of supervision (and certainly not for 40 people). It's a fun awesome program, but it's nothing like being a Troop level leader. So are we tired and burnt out of Cub Scouts, sure, but it's a ton of fun and we're (for the most part), enjoying it. It's just that after doing that for a few years, we're not ready to jump right in to the troop. That's why I feel a unified committee structure would be absolutely terrific... Those that want front line work with the boys can be Den Leaders, those that was to Scoutmaster can Scoutmaster, larger groups could have a Troop age parent that didn't find Troop responsibilities that they liked to be Cubmaster, etc. The way it is structured now, while a Troop family could volunteer with the Pack and vice-versa, it isn't the norm, or even encouraged. If Unit #X was divided into Pack/Troop/Crew, and parents were encouraged to volunteer where ever they were interested, you'd have less resentment of the Cub Scout program from the Troop leaders. The leaders that love Cubs aren't necessarily interested in Troops, and the dedicated Troop leaders may put in decades of work with the Troop, and resent the Cub Program that they have little to do with.

Because the Boy Scout Leaders are upset that we aren't showing up in 5th grade after marching our boys through 4.5 years of Scouting (while doing the Scout work ourselves because Cubs are too young) ready and raring to come and take a thankless committee job. Huge difference in the mentality of volunteering to do activities with my 6 year old and boys his age and taking a back seat to let the boys run everything. It's a different program. GSUSA Troops are defacto single rank, though they let you do whatever you want. You can run the patrol method on your older girls, treat the younger ones like dens, and do the program just fine... it just isn't the norm.

Sasha, it's a trade off. BSA has a ton of red tape and process, but it's a standardized process that works relatively fine for all involved. If you are a Cub Scout Pack in rural Nebraska or Suburban New York, you get a roughly similar program as long as your Den Leaders are trained and follow the program. While "every Pack is different," we all follow the same trail, have the same meeting guides to start from, and the same general framework. Now, if you're a really good BSA leader, the paperwork is a headache (including the fact that I need three committees if I want to run Ages 6-20 and/or co-ed, two committees if I'm 6-18 male only), the Unit Infrastructure is painful, and the process hard, but it does make the program relatively easy to duplicate. GSUSA groups are all over the place. I'm pretty sure the BSA oriented GSUSA leaders really enjoy the flexibility and not needing to set anything up. OTOH, I can watch BSA flash videos for a few hours and see how to do EVERYTHING. I can download an Excel Template of a Budget, and an Excel Template of an annual plan. On the GSUSA side they say "do whatever you want." Most GSUSA troops are single level, do journies in meetings, and dump the rest of the responsibility on the service unit for their "big stuff." So if you have a great GSUSA leader (probably one that learned from the BSA), they can apply the BSA program on a small unit and get great results without headaches. OTOH, if you take a GSUSA leader with no BSA experience... expect some crafting, service projects, mall campouts. The GSUSA service unit trainer here isn't camping certified and has never taken her (single age) troop camping, has no interest in it, and says that its fine either way. I'm sure it is possible to do BSA without ever really camping, I assume the boys can do their required camping at summer camp, but it's certainly integral to the program in a way it is NOT integral to GSUSA.

Not what I've been told... been told "you can dual register" but the committees are supposed to be separate. I also think if we're adding Kindergarteners, we gotta get the 4th/5th graders far away from them.

Agreed, I find it bizarre that they are attacking a program that is 2/3s elementary school kids about sexual orientation. I'd get out of the entire structure. We have values, an oath, etc. We leave it to our Councils, Districts, and Charter Organization to define the details. Don't want gay leaders, don't charter units to churches that recognize them. Use the chartering process to control the values, and get the government back able to endorse. We do not require a religious belief for membership. But if the boy doesn't complete his religious achievements, he doesn't earn his ranks that require it. We don't discriminate, and get back into the schools.

Integrate K-12... you can solve this. I have problems with GSUSA's program, but their structure is informative: My wife is a Girl Scout Troop leader, in their program, they have two general "options." Option 1: Single Level Troop, you take your daughter and her friends, and year after year you bridge to the next level, think a Cub Scout Tiger Den walking through Eagle generally with the same leaders. These Troops don't acquire gear or any permanence, but they have fun, and they use Council/Service Unit gear/events. Their service unit offers a "Mall Campout" and a "Movie Theatre Lock In" and other stuff... all the things we arrange at the Pack level for Cubs is done via the Service Unit, since most Troops are glorified Dens. The two leaders run their program, not Pack leadership exhaustion. All you need is the few meeting leaders, and you're off and running. Option 2: Multi-level Troop: whatever levels you want, you register. The girls work on their appropriate level achievements (hopefully with leaders for each). This gives you some permanence, because you're recruiting new Kindergarten Daisies each year. You can meet your levels separately or together, whatever you want, total flexibility. In my District, nearly every active Pack we have has a related Troop through the CO (there might be a few Elementary School PTA affiliated ones, but I think even they have a troop that meets at the Elementary school as well). We nod at Round Table about letting the boys explore different troops, and there is SOME people switching, but as a rule, the Boys migrate from Pack to Troop. The well run Troops have their grizzled experienced leaders help out in the Pack and make sure it's feeding good Scouts in. I'm generalizing, apologize if it appears sexist, occaisionally the genders flip, but this seems the general trend: Pack Leadership is one to two dads with a few boys running campouts. Den Leadership is the moms running the den activities. The Pack Leadership moves on to the troop when their boys cross over, the Den leadership is tired and burnt out. This isn't how my pack functions, BTW, just my observation from Round Table. Our Pack Committees are all a joke, our Troop Committees might be better, not sure, mostly because people spend more time there. Once their oldest son hits Troop, parent moves their attention there (why worry about the pack when your younger sons will be in the troop soon anyway), so the Troops have way more volunteers. I'd replace our named Unit Level Committees with a Charter Org: Scouting Committee (obviously you could run two or three committees if you want). The Committee Chair would be responsible for Scouting, K-20. I'd allow flexibility in finances, the Committee can set policies for how to allocate funds between Scout Accounts, Den Budgets, Pack Budgets, Patrol Budgets, Troop Budgets. Create positions for Pack Subcommittee Chair, Webelos Subcommittee Chair, Troop Subcommittee Chair, Venture Subcommittee Chair that Units can use if they want. Basically, unify the paperwork. I'd Split: Cub Pack: Lions, Tigers, Wolves, Bears: Create a special badge you wear on the Webelos/Boy Scout Uniform that shows you Cub Ranks earned like we do for Arrow of Light, replace the Tiger "Elective Beads" with Arrow heads, make Lions a SIMPLE program, they just get a bead every week, no 10 Electives = bead nonsense, too advanced for young kids. Webelos Patrols: Autonomous, with a Patrol Master, transitioning between them. Get rid of Bobcat from Webelos, start learning the stuff you need for your Scout Rank. You can wear the Cub Belt Loops, because why not. For Webelos, I would create a GTSS that explains when they do things with the Pack (leadership at Pack Meetings), when they do things with the Troop (Den Campouts), but start moving them towards Troop, but an Adult Led Patrol. Maybe Webelos is one year only, but I think rising 5th graders might be young for Boy Scout Camp... Maybe a junior Scout Webelos Camp where they start working on Scout Skills in a more age appropriate manner. Not sure here. Troop/Patrols: more or less as is, but focus on it as a three to four year core program. This should be a boys to manhood program that we acknowledge they age out of. Down here, most Eagles were active in middle school, in high school they get involved in other things and go to an occasional camp out, and maybe Scout Camp to wrap up their merit badges, then come back for their Eagle project at 16 or 17. Instead of the senior scout real leadership, use makeshift leadership to give middle schoolers a taste of it. Venturers/Sea Scouts: integrate more. Troops should evolve into them. High Schoolers don't want to hang out with Middle Schoolers, let along fifth graders. Make this a more appropriate program for high school scouts who aren't going to make time for Scout craft but can hone leadership and really grow. Sorry, I wrote a book, but in summary: One Committee: let the parents unify efforts, let me run one set of books for all programs even if the levels have bank accounts, let that be our choice. Simply the administrative paperwork. Cub Scouts: Lower Elementary School, K to 3 Webelos Patrol: Upper Elementary School (4-5) Scout Troop: Middle School (6-8) Venturer Crew: High School (9-12) For reference, GSUSA Levels: Daisy (K-1) Brownies (2-3) Juniors (4-5) Cadettes (6-8) Seniors (9-10) Ambassadors (11-12) While Seniors/Ambassadors have different activities, as far as we can tell, in my wife's service unit, they are all either single grade units so they just swap books/uniforms, or a multi-age Troop that is Seniors/Ambassadors, but that might be because the weird Ambassador level is only 5 years old. I think this is an effort by GSUSA to sell more stuff, since girls won't outgrow uniforms like boys and can use the same one from 6 to 12, so first they switch the levels, then the switch the vest/sash, but we'll see. Either way, they let you organize how you wish (a K-12 multi-age Troop could have a single Bank Account, Treasurer, Budget, etc), and set your own Camping Rules (could do a Family Camp for Brownies/Juniors, and a Patrol Camp for Cadettes/Seniors/Ambassadors if you want). They don't really do "ranks" like we do anymore, but are totally flexible and have age based stuff to do. But I think that Cubs is burning out your leaders because Den Leader is really intense, and almost none of us, on the ground, have separate Pack Committees from Den Leadership. Letting us join forces with the Troop would let us focus on our Dens, and would let the Troop parents focus on making sure we're feeding them good Scouts. In Practice here, since most Webelos->Troop Transitions are in the CO (my SE told me to focus on relationship with our Troop since that's where we want the boys to go), having us run two or three parent committees simply requires more adult leadership than we can muster. Added Benefit, Cub Parents would SEE what is going on at the Troop more if they were encouraged to interact more, and they'd understand that once their boys leave Cubs for Webelos, their involvement lessons, and after that to Troop, the boys are on their own.

You're right, COR can't be CM, I think maybe not CC either, but not sure. The BSA wants three people in charge. You're right about IH not being listed, but in the spirit of things... having a separate IH and COR when the IH is actually a member of the Pack is a little not in the spirit of the rules... My read on it is that the IH is the person authorized to sign, but since we don't assume they are involved, they can designate someone else as the COR. In the spirit of things, I think if the IH is involved in the Unit, the IH should double as the COR, as they don't need an intermediary. But technically, IH isn't a Unit member, so doesn't preclude another role.

Since your Ex is the troop leader, I highly second the suggestion of lots of loud safety equipment... Perhaps lots of lanterns that put out a lot of light would be good...

Now, probably not for this boy, but I had a boy in a Webelos Den go from no Scouting Experience to Arrow of Light from late September to March. Like I said, if he gets a bug up his ass and decides to earn it, good for him. It is totally doable to decide that you're going to earn this award in 6 months... It's almost tragic that nothing you do in your first 3 years of Scouting goes on the Boy Scout Award, and whether you do 6 months in 4th/5th grade and earn AoL or be a dedicated Scout since 1st Grade, no difference, but oh well, that's the program. However, if he's been there for two years without interest in rank advancement, I'd make it available to him, but I wouldn't worry about it. When we needed to recruit in the December/January time frame to get some fresh blood in there, I asked what to do about boys signing up, did we need a new Den to march through the requirements, how to do it. They told me at Round Table that if you get people midyear, make sure that they have fun, there is no obligation to rank advance every year. And if they choose to do the work and earn it, great. But yeah, the AoL requirements seem like you can do it focused in a few months.

May I congratulate you on all your field promotions... Whenever I get asked at Round Table why we do things a certain way, I have to respond that I was that Tiger Den leader 9 months ago... the Assistant Cub Master (now Committee Chair) badge throws them off... I tell them I've been promoted... Smarter to grab control of the CO, that gives you control of the program, but you can't be CM...

Locally, we are seeing the same with Cubs. I think we would be better off to get rid of Tiger Cubs. I think we get too much burnout of kids and volunteers with 4 1/2 yrs of Cubs. I know I barely survived my tenure of 4 1/2 yrs as a Tiger Cub through Webelos den leader (along with another year as a Cub parent). Our troop is busting out at the seams at this point. The Cub pack, which had over 100 scouts when I was involved, is down to less than 30. Cub Scouting IS Scouting. 65% of BSA Youth Members are cubs. 95% of Boy Scouts had "some prior Cub Scouting experience" -- they might not have transitioned, but they tried Scouting. When I go to Round Table, there are 20 of us at the Cub Breakout, there are 150+ Troop level leaders. When the Council leaders are talking, it's always about the Troop level. Some things are now open to Cubs, but with the Adults doing a ton of work and the Cubs just having fun. Then the Cubs transition, have to do all the work, and lose interest. I'm loving our Cub level camping, I never camped as a Cub Scout (and the adult leaders my age or older remember the same thing, projects with Mom for 2 years, then Dad came for a year or so as you camped as a Webelos and got ready, then off to Boy Scouts with you). I now having a Cub Pack with 5 Campouts on our calendar for next year (plus a Webelos one for that age)... that's a pretty serious commitment for Family Camping. So I tell my skeptical parents that Camping is an optional part of Cub Scouting, they do need to plan on one in 4th/5th grade, it's a blast, but if you won't camp, your son can get a lot out of the program. But for a family that isn't an outdoors program, it's a LOT of family camping. So our core families LOVE camping, and the rest are marginally involved. But when the involved leaders plan stuff, we all plan camping trips...

Here is a thought, scouting isn't more prissy, it's selection bias. The guys that are here talking about "when I was a scout" aren't a random selection of scouts, they are the scouts that thought this was an important enough program to introduce their sons to AND serve as a volunteer. I have a few adults that, like me, were cub scouts as a kid, just got our first former boy scout to join as a leader - excited for that. I found cub scouting a valuable part of my childhood and wanted it for my son. I remember civic virtues and citizenship as the core of the program, and doing arts and crafts. The other former cub scouts kind of laughed about their experience, they didn't sign up as a leader. So are my experiences representative of it? Who knows, they weren't representative of the other cubs, but I'm the leader that posts on this forum, they'll show up for activities -- maybe. But all of you that were "non prissy" Scouts as a kid aren't a random selection of Scouts, you're the ones who found scouting the adventure of their childhood, and are their recreating it. All the guys that were scouts when you were that aren't registering their son as a cub scout? Those guys were just as prissy as today's prissy scouts.

All members of the reserve forces enlist for a period of time, just as every Scout and Scouter registers for a period of time, namely until the next rechartering. The Navy Reserve, like BSA, has membership requirements, though the Navy's requirements are more stringent. In particular, participation is a major requirement in the reserves. We take muster at the start of each and every drill (the period of time that constitutes one unit of attendance and service). We require a particular percentage drill attendance for each anniversary year (a 12-month period which starts based on the member's initial or last enlistment). If the member does not meet that particular participation requirement (95%, as I recall, but as a retiree my memory is admittedly fading), then he is subject to administrative separation (AKA "being ADSEP'd"). Additionally, each member's monthly pay depends directly on his having participated in scheduled or re-scheduled or equivalent drills. The point I am making here is that there is of necessity a system set up in the military reserve to track and document each individual member's participation in the reserve program. It is not just that there is a system in place to ADSEP a member for unsatisfactory participation, but rather that there is even a system in place for tracking individual members' participation. BSA doesn't have anything like that, because it has no requirements for tracking individual participation. My question here is to ask how reasonable it is to implement one. Here is what one of our DEs had described to me -- mind you, this was circa 1990 when we still rechartered on BSA's birthday in Februrary. The biggest registration numbers were in Cub Scouting, which always occurred in September, at the start of the new school year. Even though a large number of those original registrants dropped out within a month or two, they continued to be carried on the books until the rechartering in February. My DE showed me the graph of membership. It hit a low in February, after which it climbed steadily (with no way to track those who had dropped out, how else could it climb?) until September when it took a very steep climb, continued to climb steadily until February, when it plummetted and then started to steadly climb again. My point is that that is all that BSA has to work with. They can track new registrations, but they cannot track any members who drop out until time for rechartering comes around. The only way I can see for BSA to properly track active membership on a month-by-month basis would be for it to adopt a similar administrative model as the military reserve forces, but that would require monthly/daily reports of attendence and participation from all units in the field. Personally, I don't see that happening the BSA. Yes, in the meantime BSA districts and councils will continue to take advantage of the system in place. But I personally don't see much of any alternative. I'd like a drop form, like I have a registration add form. Sure at Re-charter I can fix, but why can't I remove a Youth that told me they dropped out. Instead of hitting my membership account all at once, hit it monthly, so I'd have a reason to drop people as they drop. I had one family come to two few meetings, be interested, dropped off a form at my house, never paid dues, and inadvertently their form went in with a bunch of other forms when I dropped stuff off at Council, about a month after re-chartering, by the way. Net-Net, I have a Scout that's never paid a dime registered, we paid for him for the year, and my Journey To Excellence Numbers are all knocked down by his presence. Another Scout dropped out a month after re-charter, 14/15 Tiger Beads done as well. Same story. For better or for worse, we run our program year Sept - Aug, and collect dues in September for the year. As a result, a Scout that shows up in September and drops out in February/March will be registered for 16 months. If they drop out in December, just 4 months. But the ones that don't come back after winter break may just never respond. It's a broken system, oh well.

All youth activities have dropped off for the less serious. My daughters do dance class, and after the very young levels (through 3rd/4th grade), it becomes serious real fast. The dance school still offers various classes in different schools, but the girls either drop out or take all of them. The middle school has some recreational girls, but the high schools are chasing a scholarship or drop out. Casual little league in my town gives way to travel baseball real fast. There isn't room for kids that aren't serious. You're chasing a scholarship or you drop out. The kids in karate not shooting for black belt drop out before middle school. So if you aren't interested in pursuing Eagle, there isn't much room for you in BSA. There are other areas in life to get nebulous "leadership experience" that don't require a time commitment on par with the army reserves. I've talked to one family about Cubs (their sons are tight with my son), but they are seriously committed to a particular youth sport, and can't/won't make the time for something else.