Eagle94-A1

He did talk to 2 other parents, and they were OK with it. But they are also Scouters who camp with the troop. Now his mother, who is a committee member said heck no her granddaughter will not be in a coed troop, so it's going ot be interesting. As for me, I'm with my sons. Both of them are against the BSA going coed. I don't know if they will quit, join the troop that will go all male, or go to Trail's Life. But they do not like the idea of girls in the troop.

Hawkwin, Not only was i told by Scouters in my district that they would create "paper girl troops" and fully integrate them into the existing Boy Scout troop, when I mentioned this at the council meeting, several others agreed with me that this would indeed happen. Further, the Council President, Commissioner, and Scout Executive essentially acknowledged that paper girl units would indeed happen, and that Boy Scout troops would essentially be integrated. They did not seem tpo be bothered by this. And 12 of the 18 Scouters present didn't seem to care if it happen either. heck several agreed with me and said they would do that. If we follow the UK's model, then eventually ALL units will go coed. This hill especially happen when the LDS leave the Boy Scouts IMHO.

No you were not the only one.In fact I commented on how it was not really an appropriate article for Scouting magazine since it focused on family camping instead of patrol camping for the 11-16 years initially mentioned, and that BALOO covers a lot of the materials for Packs to go back and teach to their new families. Another reason why I'm worried about "family Scouting."

Sadly, the way the BSA has handled the town hall meetings, it is a major charley foxtrot. At the meeting I attended, about 15 people were there because it was very last minute. Most were Venturing leaders, and only 3 of us opposed Boy Scouts going coed attended. And all my arguments on why their proposal won't work were ignored, or had a look of 'Yeah, we know what's going to actually happen and we don't care." But I know there are many opposed. I had a Scouter tell me 'Hell no I won't allow my granddaughter to join the troop,'" yet her son is 110% for BSA going fully coed. heck he was the one saying he doesn't care what the actual format is, he's going coed. And I was told that one of the oldest troops in my council, it actually predates the council, will dissolve if they have to take females into the troop, as what happened in the UK.

When I commented how a 'separate but equal" program will not work because you would have two sets of meetings, camp outs, summer camps, etc and that I have been told by Scouters that they will integrate girls into the troop if they have "separate but equal" the feeling I got at the council's meeting was one of 'yes, we know that's going to happen and we don't care."

Why not swimming? You do know that BSA made Uniform swim trunks at one time! Seriously though, BSA at one time made OD swim trunks that could be used as uniform trunk. An aquatics director I know had connections with national supply, and got them to make them. rationale is that aquatics staffs sometimes cannot make it to dinner on time and needed something they could just put a shirt on with. Plus it promoted uniformity of the aquatics staff. Didn't go far with that one. Here's a link to a pair on sale on ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/391703233196?chn=ps&dispItem=1

Please tell me you are joking. The issue is that under current GTSS policies, pioneering projects are extremely limited. Note: Pioneering projects, such as monkey bridges, have a maximum height of 6 feet. Close supervision should be followed when Scouts are building or using pioneering projects. Unless NCAP has been changed, the only way to go higher than 6 feet is at a council summer camp program with the council's risk management's approval. What's going to happen when we host the WSJ in 2019? will we ban structures over 6 feet? Or will Summit staff go around and approve everything? let's face it, pioneering is a traditional Scoutcraft, and some countries think the BSA is silly for the restrictions. Gone are the days where Boy Scouts in the US could build cool stuff like towers, Bosun Chair Rides, Ferris Wheels ad nauseum. I remember when my troop growing up use to build 2 towers 15-20 feet and 25-30 tall, connect steel rope between them, and connect a Bosun's Chair so that folks could ride between the two towers. We use to have a 30 minute wait to have people on the ride. When national put those height limits in effect, my troop stopped going to Scout Shows because they were BORING. We went to only 1 after the ban, and that was because William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt was there. As for pioneering being a MB targeted to 12 year olds, Then how do you explain these: http://www.scoutresources.org.uk/SR/pioneering/index.html https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8c/8a/51/8c8a514796cb2cd6d70de72f1307415b.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/7f/78/21/7f7821be92984d0c66513dbfb2fb2a1f.jpg http://the.earth.li/~db/photos/World%20Scout%20Jamboree/World%20Scout%20Jamboree%20-%20photo054.html https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/1f/11/81/1f118151ffdafe8facd28d6696d4830e.jpg

My advice: llegitimi non carborundum.

Variety of reasons why a camp will put age restrictions. One reason is the popularity of the class. Age limits are used to restrict the number in the class to a manageable level. Another reason might be to have incentives for the older Scouts to come back to that camp. But the #1 reason may be local laws. Some jurisdiction do have restrictions on shooting sports. One guy I met told me that the camp he worked at straddled a state line. Shooting Sports areas was a distance from the bulk of the camp because the state that the areas was in allowed folks to use firearms at 16, and the state the bulk of the camp was in would not allow any shooting sports save archery.

Back when I was a COPE Director, we could certify pioneering structures. So I see the usefulness of a pioneering certification. But who would it be for Scouts or adults? If only for adults, why not for Scouts? And if for Scouts, will we put in stupid age restrictions?

Apparently they are not allowing commentary on the article. I Asked why are posting articles on family camping with 11-16 year olds, what that is Scout aged youth and should be doing Patrol camping. I also stated that the article is in the wrong journal since all the information is basic BALOO level info, and most packs I know of do an intro to camping for their new families. EDITED: This really concerns me because it appears that BSA IS trying to promote family camping now. I have seen, and am unfortunatley seeing now, what family camping does to troops and patrols.

May I try again When the powers that be looked at the stats for membership retention back in the day, they noticed 2 trends. First was that Scouts who got First Class in a year tended to stay in Scouting and eventually earn Eagle. That lead to the creation of "OPERATION FIRST CLASS!" (sic) Over the years that has morphed into First Class Emphasis; First Class, First Year and whatever else they have called it over the years. The second trend they noticed was that the majority of First Class Scouts who earned it within a year of joining were in patrols that were comprised of only 11 year olds. Remember, LDS units put all their 11 year olds into their own patrol(s) with an ASM over them. i do not know the percentage of LDS troops during the study period, but today it's approx. 33% From my own observations and talking to LDS Scouters, the goal is to get their 11 year olds to First Class before they turn 12. I don't have the actual numbers in front of me regarding First Class, but extrapolating from Eagle data showing LDS units have a higher number of Eagles than non-LDS units, it is a safe assumption LDS units have a higher First Class Scout rate than non-LDS units. If 33% of the units are producing a high percentage of First Class Scouts, then why don't implement their patrol model? Hence the birth of the NSP.

Yes I remember the days of less paperwork. And I miss them. But I admit to mix emotions on the topic, at least how it's done in my neck of the woods at the district level. I like how it's done and am comfortable with the expectations. In my part of the woods, there are two meeting, one optional. Every year the District Advancement Chairman (DAC) has a meeting for all SMs, Eagle advisers and Life Scouts. The purpose of the meeting is to talk over the entire Life to Eagle process, expectations, etc. It's not mandatory, and the recommendation is that at least 1 representative form each unit goes in order to bring back info. This year it was done at Roundtable. Yes he has a high expectation. He wants the proposal as detailed as possible so that A) potential problems can be avoided (one eagle project was so screwed up that the organization no longer allows Eagle projects, and this is after being beneficiary for over 11 year) and B) if something was to happen to the Life Scout, someone could pick up where he left off to complete the project (apparently this happened once when the DAC was a Scout). District approval meeting takes no more that 60 minutes, at least that is what is alloted. The Life Scout discusses his project in addition to handing over the preliminary work for the committee to review. Questions are asked, advice and recommendations given, and a sample book is shown to show the expectations. If needed, the DAC rehashes the group meeting. If not, the meeting is over and done with. I sat in on 2 project approvals. 1 was less that 10 minutes as that Scout's SM attended the meeting and prepared the Scout. The 2nd approval took a little longer since the Scout did not have anyone working with him. He was in and out in 25-30 minutes. Part of the expectation is why. The rationale for details is again to prevent problems from occurring with prior planning. Also so that if something happens, someone can pick up and complete the project. Another reason is for the Life to get a taste of the real world. The Eagle project is a good learning experience for doing projects as adults. Final reason is to create a project book that the Scouts can look at and be proud of in the years to come. I'll be honest, While I was extremely proud of my project, compared to some of the projects these Scouts are undertaking today, I am a bit embarrassed. Heck even from 15-20 years ago, the projects are much better. One of the things the Advancement Committee use to do was published the Eagle projects in a year book. Some of these projects are a book unto themselves.

Oldest completed the 2 Eagle required MBs and SMC he needed for Life yesterday. At the SMC discovered he taught the wrong first aid skills, but he is working on that. So it looks like he will be up for his Life BOR on the 28th. Also, some of you may have remembered the challenges my troop was having 12-18 months ago. It was bad. The camp out this past weekend was AWESOME! SPL and PLs did their job, and it went very smoothly. With the exception of new parents interfering some, it was flawless in execution. Even with the bad weather we had,back up plans were made by the SPL, and he improvised some when we couldn't do exactly what was planned, but also didn't need to go full blown back up as predicted. Over all a great weekend

3rd Edition SM handbook is EXCELLENT!!!!! I also highlyrecommend it. Just don't lend ithem out. I did to a new SM starting a new troop. Troop folded and I never got my books back.

They also got a bunch of tools used for maintenence as well. The Old Ranger's House (OHR and in one article called a house) was converted into a workshop/storage area. Sadly that's the camp I grew up at, Salmen Scout Reservation's Camp V-Bar.

That is becaus up to1989, there was no such thing as a NSP. From 1972 to 1989 you had mixed aged patrols, aka traditional patrols, and the Leadership Corps of older Scouts. I know that at one time BSA had Explorers in troops for the older guys, but do not know the time frame. So mixed aged patrols are the traditional patrol recommended by National from 1910 to 1989, and many units continue to use traditional patrols after national started recommending NSPs because the traditional patrol works. It's not a matter of ignoring what nationals tells us to do, it is a matter continueing to use an approved patrol type, after all National still allows folks to use mixed aged patrols, in a manner consistent with the Patrol Method. Do you want adults treating a patrol like Cub Scouts stil? I do not. That is why I am a proponent of traditional patrols.

Agree 110%. When I was the "Troop Guide" (I was doing this in 1986 and it was called Patrol Leader at that time) It was extremely challenging trying to get the new Scouts up to speed. Instead of increasing morale, allowing us to focus on their advancement, getting htem better in tune with Scouting etc, there were arguments, no one wanting to listen, and not enough help from older Scouts on the camp outs b/c they were with their patrols. And our SM only interfered once, and that was when I was at my breaking point and the SPL took over my patrol while the SM had a chat with me. I say it was acceptable and needed interference at that point. We did it for a year because we had to, then went back to mix aged patrols. But in that year we lost Scouts due to frustration with the NSP. When I was a NSP ASM, I tried to mentor and advise the TG and PL, and after the fact. But the same exact problems I saw when I was a "TG" were recurring. Everyone brainstormed on how to solve this issue. The only way was going to traditional patrols. And it is working. That statement is what many of us who do not want to go coed fear: National will change the program to accommodate them. And they will. I remember being in school and hearing comments about how schools are focused more for boys than girls. Over time, curriculum have changed to accommodate girls. But it seems that it is overcompensating. Recess, or more specifically unstructured play time is gone in most places. I thought I was reading an Onion article when I read a story about school districts hiring recess organizers to organize a game for everyone to play. In my day organized games was PE. And there are other examples.

The reason Is stated the use of statistics on First Class Scouts for the creation of NSPs is because that is what national used to justify creating the NSP model. The more I think about it, more I realize LDS units must have influenced its creation since their stats would skew traditional patrols since the y keep all the 11 years olds separate. In fact if you think about it, they are aged based, i.e. 11 years olds separate from the rest of the troop; 12-13 in the troop; 14-18 Varsity et Not just where you live. In the three states I've seen it used, the only way it was "successful" was if it was a Webelos 3 program. That's not what Boy Scouts is about.

My understanding was that the NSP concept was based upon research that showed Scouts who earned First Class in a year stay with the program. My argument against this was this: what does the data show about how active the troop is? I asked it in 1989 and continue to ask it, but get no response. However the more I read and hear about the LDS program and their 11 Year Old Boy Scout program, and how it is identical to the NSP concept, It is a logical assumption that LDS Scouts influenced the data back in the 1980s and National used their model for the NSP concept. The issue therefore with the data supporting First Class First Year and the NSP concept is flawed. One reason it's flawed is that LDS requires their youth to be Scouts. Another reason for the flaw is that LDS units have set plan that they repeat over and over with an adult in charge. Essentially Webelos 3 IMHO. As to the concept of the venture crew, now called venture patrol, the problem of how to keep older Scouts involved has been around since at least 1929 when Scouting Magazine published an article on this topic. And it's probably earlier. BSA over the years have tried a variety of things to keep them involved; Sea Scouts, Explorers, Air Explorers, Leadership Corps, Venture Crew/Patrol, and Venturing. My troop growing up used the Leadership Corps and operated the venture crew in the same matter. It was only 1999 when the confusion between Venture Crew/patrol and Venturing was explained to the troop ( this was after several of the guys attempted to receive their Bronze Awards) that the venture patrol turned into a Venturing crew. Sorry for the rant on NSPs, but they are a pet peeve of mine. I am assuming my troop was one of the "pilot troops" that experimented with the NSP concept in a traditional, boy-led troop back in 1986. It didn't work then, and has not worked in every troop that I've been in that tried it. Unless the patrol turned into Webelos 3. My current troop was initially a NSP since it was restarted. Unfortunately the SM and ASM at the time did a lot more for them that they should have IMHO. They are not use to being responsible and taking charge. And now we have new Scouters in the troop that are placing adult expectation on Boy Scouts who have just gotten rid of the yoke of adult control. And I am constantly arguing for the continuation of the current, mixed aged patrols. We have one Scouter, yes Gunship for those in the know, who is constantly telling the adults in the troop that we are doing it wrong since the book says we need to have 3 types of patrols. I keep reminding him that A) that concept has only been around since 1989 B) It has not worked in any troop that I've been in including ours C) In order for NSPs to work, we need to treat them like Cub Scouts still, which hurts them in the long run, and D) issues we have had when we did the 3 different types of patrols are no longer happening and adults are not getting involved, except the helicopter parents we are trying to break in.

1) As I stated, the caps are for emphasis, not shouting. I guess I could Bold or underline or even italicize for emphasis, but I admit I'm lazy and caps works easiest. 2) You may studies are all over the place, and yes they are. But look at the methodologies used. Some of the research uses methods that leave out factors. Heck even some of the pro single gender ones have questionable methodologies. But if you look at the studies for single gender as a whole, there are fewer problems with them overall than with coed studies. 3) If you want, I'll not only pull up my research from back in the day, but see what current studies show. 4) Considering both Surbaugh and the GSUSA both state that single gender environments are better, I would tend to believe them. Too bad Surbaugh is trying to do away with it. 5) Someone mentioned female SMs. I 'd say it goes back to Exploring going coed in the 1970s. At the meeting I was at on this topic, most of the ones there were Venturing folks, and were pro coed. Heck some of them even acknowledges that a partnership or parallel program would not work. 6) Those Same Venturers also admitted that while girls were in the minority, they were the majority in leadership.

GOODS NEW: Son is suppose to be contacting his SM to finish the last 2 MBs needed and his SM conference for Life. BOR is scheduled for the 28th. BAD NEWS: Why do I feel old ? (sorry couldn't resist)

We've have similar issues with my troop. At first it was not a problem. Now it is because it seems as if everyone is bringing their kids. At least when my youngest went camping in June, he was a Webelos. If it wasn't't for that fact, he would not have went. The parents I mentioned earlier brought their Tiger with them and let him lose. Yes he was all over, thankfully not in a canoe. Sad thing is that these parents are volunteers, and do not see what the problem is or how they are hurting their sons.

I am against allowing girls in Boy Scout troops for a variety of reasons, but in a nutshell BOYS LEARN BETTER IN AN ALL MALE ENVIRONMENT JUST AS GIRLS LEARN BETTER IN AN ALL GIRL ENVIRONMENT! (caps for emphasis). Heck Surbaugh evens mentions that in the jambo video thatis online. If it hurts the boys I'm against it. I am also againt partnering with or creating a parallel program because PEOPLE WILL IGNORE THE SEGREGATION AND GO COED ANYWAY. ( emphasis again) IF IT HURTS THE BOYS, I AM AGAINST IT! ( This time I'm shouting, mostly at the national folks who are shoving this down our throats.) I wish the GSUSA wold listen to their Total Available Youth and create a program that appeals to them.