numbersnerd

It sounds like the Pack has some bylaws regarding a relationship and shared resources with the Troop that are sponsored by the same organization. I agree, these types of things need to be transparent and fully explained if families are expected to fund these arrangements. *IF* I were to guess, it would likely be something like borrowing and use of Troop gear for the Pack camping events, or something similar (storage unit shared by both.) I've seen that happen, but couldn't understand why simply loaning out gear if not otherwise in use wouldn't be acceptable unless it was damaged or destroyed.

10 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

The problem lies in the execution of the program. The 11-13 LDS units were totally focused on trail to FC and nothing else. Kids made FC, maybe Star, and then moved up to the 14+ unit. Since locally many of the leaders stay with one unit or the other, they get entrenched in their own littler Scouting universe.

Could they learn? Of course. But it seems few local units are willing to learn the Eagle process. Our unit has taken in 5 LDS kids so far as a result. They know we have a good mentoring program and that their boys will learn how to get to Eagle.

Is it a turf war of some type preventing leaders from the older age units going to the troop level and leveraging the experience and talents there? I mean, same things at play, just a uniforming difference. Just surprising to hear, especially if the same  CO is sponsoring both.

We got our uniforms at the local independent department store. In the men's department, not children's (good marketing psychology?!) Gear was in sporting goods. This was the same town as council headquarters, but no Scout shop.

When I was in the market for a dutch oven, did I go to the Scout shop? No! BassPro. Where I was surprised to discover Lodge brand, BSA logo'ed ovens and skillets. Too bad BSA didn't ask Johnny Morris for some more advice. Who knows where it would have gotten them.

I think you're right about the emphasis on branding over experience. They probably concluded it was more 'cost effective' and 'consistent' to pump the brand themselves. I quoted those only because both goals have failed.

1 hour ago, WisconsinMomma said:

My objection is to this hanging Bobcats upside down for pinning their patch nonsense.  I understand it was done long ago, but I'm glad it's gone.  It was interesting that someone mentioned it, I had never heard of it before.   Given that the BSA has discouraged the practice and it hasn't been around for more than 20 years, it's not really a problem.  As far as being a new person to Scouting, yes, it's not the 1990's anymore.   That's where I was going with the touching -- the holding kids upside down -- that's no good.   Don't approve, BSA got it right. 

You've never said WHAT your objection to the practice is. Because it's no good? What is the definition of that? What's the reasoning behind that conclusion? Because it's no good for your kid? OK, but does that mean it's no good for all kids?

Here's the thing: Everything in Scouts is voluntary. Nothing is mandatory. But when you take options away, you lessen the experience.

There are other fun things in Scouting that not everyone enjoys. Should we get rid of those, too? Some kids are terrified of the water. Is anyone making them swim at Scout functions? Should swimming be eliminated in Scouting? Camping? There are many things in Scouting that people that don't care for. But remember you are not compelled to do them. Nothing. And just because someone doesn't like it or don't want to participate, why does that mean nobody should?

I've said before that the practice isn't a necessity and the ban isn't a death blow, but why was its elimination needed? For those who chose it, it was fun. Why is it necessary to take away the option of making a choice? Especially a fun one.

14 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

Had anyone asked the Cubs what they wanted?  I know all the Cubs, and a lot of the parents, were ticked off when this ban was announced. To my knowledge no one from national asked anyone about  it before they banned it.

Thankfully someone got wind of the proposed marshmallow ban before it went into affect.

Maybe I'm old school, and think Scouting is for the youth. I think we need to listen to them and give them credit, especially at the Scout age and above.

 

 

New Age leadership doesn't really care about what the boys want. What seems to be more important is finding new witches to burn and congratulating themselves on making things 'safer'. While it may indeed be 'safer', it is also less fun. And less fun translates into fewer Scouts. Rinse and repeat.

18 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

 I would dispute the idea that "it isn't the weapon that's the problem, it's the person holding it."  Sometimes it's both, but not in this particular case.  There was a reason for the Scout to have the plastic fork in his hand while eating breakfast.  There are other items that would not be appropriate to have in the dining hall.

I'm fairly sure that a fair majority of those eating in the dining hall had a fork as well and didn't use it that way. So yes, it IS the person, not the object.

1 minute ago, NJCubScouter said:

That's ridiculous.

Don't kids still use plastic knives to eat lunch in the cafeteria?  Is that a weapon too?

Then you probably haven't seen a school lunch recently! Most of it doesn't need it. It's either hand held or so soft cutting is needless. I'm amazed at the lack of table manners and utensil ability I see on display by kids (say, 8 and up) and this discussion made me realize the food trends we have gravitated to are probably a big reason why kids are dumbfounded when confronted with 'traditional' eating scenarios. 

3 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

As I recall our pack had 150 boys so the annual campouts could get pretty huge. The reality was many folks showed up and never camped. Probably 60-80 tents in a very small council camp. Sometimes we had other units there that weekend and is was basically 'tent ghettos'.

We divided our area into cub ranks and then dens and might tape them off based on who signed up. A few folks came early to claim a good spot, first come first served. Tigers, Wolves always ended up close to the rest rooms and the Webelos furtherest away. The Cubmaster working with the Webelos 2 showed arriving families where to go and helped them set up tents if needed. We had to work to keep activity areas and travel lanes clear of tents and tent lines.

In short, Cub Scout camping is exhausting on many levels.

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

I don't know. A good meal involves a lot of leadership, responsibility, and values.

I rember 13-year-old me staring down my last can of franks and beans, saying "Never again." My patrol began to live large (like I saw my SPL and his leadership corps doing) after that.

I don't think it came up on my boards of review. But, getting my buddies to cook well for ourselves (and still having time to fly the army surplus box kite the SM loaned out) was as good a marker of leadership development as any.

Agreed. My oldest provided feedback in his Tenderfoot BOR about hamburger fatigue. Now there are Dutch oven cooking contests incorporated into the camping schedule and a some interesting culinary forays as a result. Not everything is successful, but they're learning. And I heard that cleanup is now easier as a result!

1 hour ago, David CO said:

That is a very good point, and I think it deserves more discussion.

 

Please discuss then. Who said leaders HAD to put their hands on Scouts for this?

58 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

How about those who prefer leaders keep their hands off the kids?  Given the number of kids with sensory issues, and the number of kids who aren't participating with two parents, etc.   I don't see any value in the custom. 

If that's a deal-breaker, then maybe Scouting, and many other things as well, can be summed up by the phrase: "It isn't for everyone".  What is regrettable is that changes made to mollify a few incessant hand wringers results in a detriment to many others seeking fun with their boys. 

Now I'm not saying that the upside-down Bobcat tradition was necessary and its demise was the death-knell of the program, but by eliminating it, a little bit of fun and joy in a specific situation is no longer an option for a far greater number.

Traditions don't have to be codified to be important. S'mores certainly aren't in the book but I'd challenge you to find a Cub Scout camping without them. You could argue the lack of nutritional value and the proximity to open flame as a reason to eliminate them and a few would sigh with relief that little Johnny won't complain about being denied a sugar rush just prior to lights out and the avoidance of the Cub Scout Comet (the panicked flinging of a flaming marshmallow) as a safety precaution. But does the the benefit outweigh the lost experience?

3 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

Stosh, what decade was that? 

I found an article on Bobwhite Blather:
https://bobwhiteblather.com/stop-flipping-them/

I'm glad that packs aren't doing it anymore.  

 

I remember it as one of the most fun parts of getting the badge. And a good intro into Scouting. Pride AND fun at the same time when getting recognized?

This was in the 70's. As with most things fun, it's in how you approach and present it.

We loved it. Dads would hold us upside down, Moms would pin it on quickly, everybody giggling. Bonus: when we looked down at our pocket, we could see it from the regular perspective, oriented to us.

Those who consider it hazing or abuse obviously aren't doing it or presenting it right. Those who consider it "adding to the requirements" are wrong, it was awarded without anything extra being required, it was just the manner it which it was presented. If it was 'mandated' by leaders, they had the wrong mindset. If a kid didn't want it, no biggie, it wasn't done. I can only remember once when someone didn't want to be upside down. No biggie, Mom tried to be as upside down as possible while pinning it on, which was even more entertaining. Bet you can't guess who wanted to be upside down after that.

Another example of an innocuous item being transformed into something verboten. Much hulabaloo over nothing, IMO.

18 hours ago, Back Pack said:

The tennis ball trick works best with six balls or two cans. My bag went from flat to puff ball on tumble with no heat. You must put the bag through several spin cycles to get all the water out though. 

This is how I used to do my surplus Army down bags as well.

Would wash on gentle cycle, can't remember the soap we used, but NO SOFTENER. Then let it spin. Hung on a rack until dry, maybe a couple of days. Only then would I put in the dryer on no-heat tumble with tennis balls. Fluffed right up.

The fact that you are here asking question indicates you know how important Scouting is to them and that you appreciate what they do. So a note to that effect in addition to whatever you get is always appreciated. If all else fails, a gift card to Cabelas, REI, or other quality outfitter with a note saying you wanted to help them continue serving Scouts, but knowing how personal 'gear' can be, you wanted to give them the option of getting exactly what they want/need. Sounds like the easy way out, but with the right note attached it really changes the tone and reception.

1 hour ago, Col. Flagg said:

FYI, Alice is WB trained.

For me, this was the funniest part!

As an at-home CPAP user, I have to agree that providing the ability to use the devices at summer camp is ill advised.

• If you TRULY feel that your health would be compromised by not using the machine for the duration of your stay at camp, don't go. Many leaders don't subject themselves to potentially dangerous situations for a variety of limitations and health reasons, you can be in that group. No shame in that.
• If you are so acclimated to its presence that you cannot sleep comfortably without it, that's on you. You don't bring the adjustable frame Tempurpedic either, do you?
• If you want to have it to reduce snoring for the benefit of others, the issue of snoring at summer camp has been around as long as Scouts. If anything, it provides a relief valve by giving everyone the opportunity to give the snorer a good-natured hard time. If comfort is a goal, let's solve mosquitoes and sand in your shorts before electrically powered snoring relief.

Life is about choices. What example is being set by this accommodation? 

First lost neckerchief slide

I am quoting the charter for the purpose of pointing out that it expressly charters a program for boys.  "boys" "them" =boys

 

The consequences of ignoring the express terms of the charter deserve some thought by some competent person.  Arguably, BSA loses its chartered status when it ignores so fundamental a term of its charter.  It could be argued that the current policy to a gender-neutral program shift is ultra virus - beyond the power of the corporation's leadership to validly do as a federally-chartered organizatuion.  Indeed, that argument has already been made, by B.S.A., om 2016:

 

""The Boy Scouts of America told CBS2 via email that allowing girls to join the organization would go against the group’s original charter, created in 1916.

 

'The Boy Scouts of America was chartered by Congress in 1916 to serve boys and young men across the nation through the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts programs,' the organization said in a statement.

 

The organization says to change the standard Boy Scout program would 'go outside the bounds' of their charter."

 

So BSA needs to turn in it's federal charter.

I brought this up on Day 1 and it was summarily dismissed.

WisconsinMomma, you amare saying all the right things in defense of women in scouts. But your words don’t hold in any weight because there isn’t a defense for boys needing male role models as bad as girls need female role models. We know that girls are coming and more moms will follow as leaders . So that doesn’t add to the discussion either.

 

As some of us more experienced scouters see it, adding girls to the troop program takes away from the boys and offers more to the girls. To us, we are only questioning if adding girls is worth sacrificing the best possible growth for the boys? That’s our struggle. If you want to contribute something meaningful to that discussion, great. But, as you form your thoughts, have respect for the many on this list with dozens of years building character in young men. We have a lot of experience observing the advantages of the patrol method program and know what is gained and lost by adding girls.

 

Instead of defending the membership changes with patronizing doublespeak pointed at good-oh-boy old timers too stubborn to move with the times, respect the words and visions from experts in the field who have the experience you don’t have.

 

Is moving the program toward mediocrity worth the loss of possibilities for our sons? Seems the world says yes. And maybe so. But don’t discount the losses and don’t disrespect those who morn the losses.

 

Barry

Having a different perspective is not disrespectful.  I am a mother of three boys who will be in the program over next 10 years and I care about them very much.   I disagree with the assumption that adding females makes the program mediocre.

 

 I am making the case for girls in Scouting (I have neutral feelings toward it and will go with the changes as they happen). You are entitled to sharing your point of view, but not entitled to shutting down mine. 

 

As for working with youth, I have some experience too!  We all have different things to bring to the table.

In summary, one person's opinion is justifiable and not disrespectful. A subsequent opposing opinion is construed as stifling.

With this example, do we really need to ask the question again about anxiety surrounding females having a greater composition in BSA membership?

I find this hilariously stereotyped exchange a prime example of one of many landmines that many Scouters and Scouts are loathe to encounter in the future.

Where does humility fit into the Oath and Law?

The intersection of Courteous, Kind, and Reverent.

We are truly in trouble if question marks are interpreted as hostility.

If the stewards of the program cannot weather some questions without such accusations, then there really isn't much fortitude on display or in practice.

Isn't there another thread regarding modeling behavior? Or is that too brusque?

District wanted to do a Cub Scout overnighter in the new jail facility once (BEFORE it was put into actual use!) Didn't think that promoting a night in jail was the best message to send.

Maybe the CO has said, do NOT talk about this. For whatever reason, if the CO doesn't want this discussed, it won't be discussed. At least not without the potential for consequences.

Also, privacy issues are not about the public figure, but rather for the citizen attendees. Personally, if I went to something like this and them my kid or I was on the news because she wanted to "get this out there", I'd be PO'ed.

The fact that the mother purposely posted the video and made a big stink about it says more about her and her family than it does about the unit.

I am amazed at how anyone can take my position of Boy scouting being only for boys and twist it to being only for white boys. I think I said we couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle. That reference was about all the recent changes.

 

By the way bringing segregation in to your response to Flagg’s last reply is a text book staw man argument. I’m speechless at how argumentative you guys are. Hard to believe you’re Scout leaders.

It is unfortunate that your suggestion has been twisted and distorted into a WAY too specific line of questioning. The premise of youth membership having a voice in the program is valid and I, for one, would like to apologize on behalf of far too many that appear to be attacking that suggestion. It's that type of "welcome to the real world" treatment that breeds apathy.

As for the behavior of some persons, observation over time has shown to me that there are some here who will defend their position with no stronger facts or logic than that forthcoming from National. They defend it on the merit of what they feel and want and disregard or dismiss those the sentiments of those opposed to their position yet simultaneously clamor for factual arguments when they themselves offer none. It's a tactic that increasingly succeeds in a world that moves further away from true debate and towards emotion based validation. 

Pretty sure there's more to the story than this. Although it's not like the media to leave out relevant facts or not do more investigation before publishing a story. 

It's rare (but not impossible) that a kid of this age is going to run with this line of questioning. Really suspect the parents behind this.

Very likely (yes, based on my opinion) is that the parents have some kind of political crusade and scripted the questions in furtherance of their agenda. Wouldn't really surprise me if this has happened before with this family.

Some other questions:

The program is supposed to be apolitical. Maybe his behavior was considered political in nature and outside of acceptable behavior.

But how could that be?

Leadership had issued guidelines about what the purpose of the meeting was and and this behavior violated those parameters.

What if this had been a recurring problem with this family?

Repeated refusal to follow instructions?

Repeatedly engaging in activity and discussion political in nature.

There's another side to this story, bet on it.

Yes, if the above hypotheticals were true, I'd eventually reach my limit and they would be booted. Why ruin the experience for everyone for the sake of one family that can't behave. That would be an instance in which I would remove him.