Col. Flagg

7 minutes ago, cocomax said:

As long as you pay your membership fee why would BSA care about anyone anyone being a member of another group?

Could you imagine how much BSA membership would drop if they did?

When they are losing so many people each year they can ill-afford to be picky about what other organizations their members belong to.

4 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

@Col. Flagg I agree (again...this is getting disturbing). We have had a few boys in High School football and marching band. In season the demands on their time was huge so if they showed up late for camp-outs (and had to drive 2-1/2 hours to get there) even though they were exhausted but attended as many as they could and stayed in contact with the SM and their Patrol. When the season was over they jumped into it.

Glad they are engaged. When we first put this policy in to effect it took a while for the older guys to engage. In talking to them the overarching reason seemed to be former troop culture. Guys went gangbusters for Life by 14 then dropped off the map. When the new SM worked with the PLC to develop an older Scout program (fashioned on the old Leadership Corps) they older guys came back in droves.

For example, the troop would go camping. The older Scouts were asked to run an event during that weekend of their choosing. After they had done that, they were free to essentially explore on their own. So they ran a first aid course at various points along a hiking trail in the state park. When they were done they packed up their packs and headed out as a patrol for the day.

That became the template for all future camp outs. Really helped keep the older guys engaged.

16 hours ago, Back Pack said:

How about using the kudu horn. Does the wood badge crowd have the African culture’s permission they stole that from? Doubt it. 

15 hours ago, Stosh said:

or the WB beads?

 

Exactly!! Where is the indignation about the appropriation of these items. Why isn't BSA voluntarily giving up those things? I'd love to see the foks siding with the no-regalia for OA crowd speak on this issue a loudly as they have on the OA issue. If only  to be consistent.

My problem with collection drives is that Scouts rarely know what their goal is. "Collecting stuff" is not a goal. So we always challenge them to come up with a goal, just like any other project. If collecting food, they can use SFF donations by unit statistics from district to gauge how much might be realistic. Clothing drives can contact local shelters and missions to see what their efforts usually obtain.

But just collecting stuff without a goal (and one that is hard to reach too) is usually frowned upon in my area too.

You mean actual events like a Scout helping a lost stranger in the London fog? 

I don't think the OA characters have to be based on real people or actual legends. Even if they borrow from or paraphrase real people or legends or stories, that should be fine as long as the proper respect is used.

If we held movie and TV writers to the standard of portraying real people and events properly (and without embellishment) we'd all be watching PBS documentaries from the 1970s still.

Just now, gblotter said:

Under your system, are you requiring that the boy actively participate throughout the entire period between Life and Eagle, or just a 6-month interval sometime between Life and Eagle?

Our troop uses the latter definition for Eagle requirement #1.

There are two issues really. First is the one you mention for fulfilling the 6 months of "active participation". For that it an be ANY six month period while a Life Scout. That seems only fair. Our PLC did not like the idea of someone cobbling six months of activity over a 36 month period (e.g. Month1, then Month 8, then Month 10, etc.). It had to be six semi-continuous months, although we are usually very lenient. It is usually VERY obvious when someone is not active. If anyone is not seen for a month the PL and SPL start calling to see what's going on. Encourage better participation. Of course we *do* use the "alternate explanation" clause allowed in the GTA. We've only had to use that once.

The second issue is keeping up participation to be considered active in the unit. We like to check in with guys to make sure they are okay, find out why they are not coming. Again, we rarely need to now since this is not really a problem. Guys may miss a month or two, but they notify their PL or SPL and they keep track. When that other activity is over we see them regularly again.

Mike, you seem to be arguing that your position is the right one and how dare anyone denigrate what you've worked for.

All I a saying is that many here see what you supported as denigrating our work to keep things the way they were. So you can't call out someone for opposing what you worked for when you oppose what they were working for. 

1 hour ago, gblotter said:

 

Yes - perhaps heavy-handed. In our troop, that would only alienate families and not fix anything in the end.

A 14 year-old Life Scout easily finds the time for six-months of activity in the troop to satisfy Eagle requirement #1, and then slips into marginal participation until age 17-3/4. Sustained activity is the issue.

To be honest, older boy participation is the single biggest problem facing our troop. Fixing it is like pushing on a string.

Oddly enough this worked fine and no one balked. Not one. Under our system that 14 year old Life Scout would have to find some way across meetings, service projects, camp outs or other events to maintain his active participation. You can't simply check out if you play football, are in band, choir, orchestra, debate, etc., so our PLC figured why should Scouting allow you to "stay dormant" and still reach the pinnacle. That's how this policy came about.

12 years on and it is a reason the troop continues to be strong and have VERY active participation from all Scouts.

3 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Sooo, you are saying they provided direction?

My personal opinion is that if your local tribe or local Tribal Org. is OK with how you run your ceremony, then I think you are provided all the coverage you need from any national criticism - inside or outside of BSA.

My hope is that all units would seek out such advice and consent. My guess is that they don't; otherwise I would think this minor controversy would quickly go away.

I think he said that all along. What he seemed to be asking was "Did national (adults) just make this decision about regalia? Or did they ADVISE the youth and the YOUTH made the decision."

If the former, that's adult-led. If the latter, that's boy-led. 

I suspect it was the former.

10 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

How does co-ed = "Family Scouting"? The two aren't mutually inclusive. Girls in a troop does not necessitate the whole family being involved. 

They are not mutually exclusive either. This is already happening. Families have been trying to water down Scouting for years. This is just another avenue for them to use. And when you look at how BSA has been marketing family this and family that, can "compelling" troops and crews to be more "family-friendly" really be un-thinkable? I can tell you from personal experience it is already happening.

10 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

I love when people remind me that issues I fought for, issues I believed in and petitioned the BSA to address, along with thousands of other Scouters, that the result of all of that was really just that the BSA "caved in" to my agenda. This nefarious "THEY" is right here. People wearing the same uniform that you do. I'm not some outsider working to poison this program. We're all here because we love this thing. 

And the majority of people in Scouting who didn't want the change are right here too. What makes your position any more correct than ours? We were working to keep BSA the way it was but you imply with your response that you hold the moral high ground. Really?

2 hours ago, ValleyBoy said:

What type locations do your units usually use for camping trips. 

• State Parks: We use these mostly. They offer nice sites both for car camping and primitive camping. The fees differ by park but a youth pass helps us save on those costs. Texas has a GREAT state park system so in that we are lucky. We go to these parks about 70% of the time.
• Scout Camps: We use these a few times a year. Camporee is one of those times. Others are when we need ranges or special gear/events. If we go three times a year that would be much for us.
• National Parks: We are lucky to have a park just north of us. We use it for our annual new scout camp out. This is once a year.
• Private Land: We use this once or twice a year.
• Summer/HA Camps: We do these once a year. Summer camp obviously every year. HA camps also, but we rotate those every other year (Philmont one year, Seabase the other). We also to to out-of-council high adventure camps too if not doing national HA camps.

1 hour ago, gblotter said:

@Back Pack I think everyone joins in their admiration for a Scout such as you.

Perhaps our troop is an exception in this regard, but once our boys hit high school their participation slows to a trickle. We never see them at meetings or outings. Then in a desperate last-minute scramble, they inevitably resurface shortly before their 18th birthday - sometimes expecting that everyone else will also scramble on their behalf to help carry them across the finish line. That's not a formula I can get excited about.

I am the father of three teenagers, so I get it. I witness their busy lives firsthand, and I understand their competing priorities. That is why I advocate striking while the iron is hot and while plenty of time is still available. Then they can enjoy high-adventure trips and other incredible Scouting adventures during their high school years without all the last-minute scrambling and pressure to finish off Eagle while applying to colleges or taking final exams. I know others here disagree with that advice - so be it.

This may be heavy-handed, but our PLC put in place many years ago a definition of what constituted "active participation". Why? About 12 years ago our troop recirculated back to a younger-aged unit, but we had a large number of older Scouts (15+) too. Big age discrepancy. About a year later the younger Scouts became part of the PLC, saw the lack of participation from the older guys, read the GTA and, with advice from the SM, decided to define "active participation". The PLC set baseline minimums for service projects, camp outs and such. Rather than requiring attendance at 50% of all camp outs or 75% of service projects, they made participation a scale commensurate with how boys choose to engage in the troop. So, if someone was in band and could not camp very often, they were required to meet the threshold through troop meetings and service projects instead. If someone played football (making Monday nigh meetings impossible) they needed to make up their threshold in other activities. This helped TREMENDOUSLY!!! Over the next few years we saw participation grow exponentially.

Also, if there were any boys on the verge of being considered in-active, the SM would send them a reminder of the policy. This kept those waffling Life Scouts on track...and participating more.

1 hour ago, cocomax said:

In all the news stories I have been reading about girls joining boy scouts the one quote that I keep seeing over and over again from scouters that sums it all up and sticks with me is:

"It doesn't matter what boys think, it only matters what girls want."

That should be the new scout motto. 

Isn't that way it is everywhere? 

[Hiding from Mrs. Col. Flagg]

17 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

I think that's ultimately the key here - educate the Scouts on the traditions, the peoples, the cultures and the controversies - and then let them decide. I don't think National - nor any one Native American nation - should have the right to dictate what they can or cannot do from there. 

Well said. 

1 hour ago, EmberMike said:

I've been circling back through this thread and I think I've picked up on what I've been missing here. 

So the main issue is family camping. Not a new thing, but something that there is now concern will become more of a challenge to units that traditionally didn't do much (or any) family camping if the latest push for family-friendly activities at the cub level trickles up to the troop level. And even though the new push for being more family-friendly at the cub level doesn't officially extendup to the troop level, family camping (not Family Scouting) can be used to circumvent this and make troops water down their activities. Possibly even force a unit to change their whole activities plan for the year and incorporate more family-friendly trips. 

Is that an accurate summarization of your views on this?

My initial response was that Family Scouting (the official program) is capped at age 10, and so parents attempting to use that to push for more "family" activities at the troop level could just be referred to the Family Scouting documentation that basically says the Family Scouting program is over when your kids cross over to the troop, so don't bother trying to bring that stuff around here. My paraphrasing, of course.

I still stand by that assessment. If some parents want to see a family camping trip added to the calendar, sure, let's do it. But if they want to shift the balance to more heavily favor family camping throughout the year, that (to me) goes against the intent of the program and the very deliberate age limit expressed in the documentation about Family Scouting.

Obviously that isn't going to end the discussion for every parent who wants more family camping trips. But in some cases it will, maybe in a lot of cases. In units where parents push harder, I hope the will and intent of the scouts, leaders, and committee will ensure that the unit continues to operate in a way that matches their goals for the program and also fits with what I thnk is the BSA model for troop-level activities. 

You now have captured what I have been trying to convey (in red).

But you are wrong in that the "Family Scouting" program is capped. Even now the idea of coed patrols is being discussed by national. We don't know yet if coed patrols or even single-sex troops will be the end result. But let's say that national allows all options (single-sex troops, separate gender patrols but coed troops, and coed patrols in coed troops), you don't think those wanting "Family Scouting" will use this program (and the idea of family camping) to crowbar open a single-sex troop? Or even a separate gender but coed troop to being fully coed? 

Just look at how many things BSA has caved in on in the last five years. Single-sex troops will be the targets of all those groups looking to take down the last bastion of this formerly boy-only program. And yes, I think they will use all the tools at their disposal to further water down the program to make it what THEY want.

12 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

I would be surprised if you did find confirmation for that statement, because it isn’t true.  If the “unit” is involved in any way, BSA rules apply. The way some people (including some people in this forum) try to get around this is by saying that the activity was organized by a group of parents, acting as parents, and the unit has nothing to do with it, and it’s just a coincidence that some of the parents are also Scouters, and all or almost all of the participants are members of the unit or their relatives.  That way they think they can take Cub Scouts whitewater rafting or go shoot paintball guns or laser guns at each other, or whatever, and not worry about the Guide to Safe Scouting.

As you can probably already tell, I am not a fan of this kind of thing.  I once had the opportunity to participate in such an activity when my son was a Cub Scout, and I said No Thanks, on his behalf and mine.

Oh I agree. I don't think the documentation for ignoring BSA rules lies anywhere under the umbrella of family Scouting. In fact, I would argue that -- although not well stated -- that if family camping is used, the activities must follow the age guidelines, as well as all other BSA rules and policies adhered to. My point above is that the whole concept is not as tightly defined as some would like. I expect this is where those folks you mention try to find and use loopholes.

4 hours ago, Tampa Turtle said:

We do use fire for staring at. 

I do too but in Texas that's not always possible. We try to be conservation-minded. We don't do Texas A&M-style bonfires. We tend toward lower impact fires...still good for staring at.

...and BSA would never charge a ridiculous and arbitrary price for anything?

**cough** foreign-made uniforms **cough**

**cough** Jambo volunteers paying reg fee **cough**

7 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

Some bad decisions and choices impact all of BSA and not just your local OA. If the potential fallout from a decision could result in negative national news, then perhaps adults should be more actively involved in providing direction on that issue. Again, such direction is completely consistent with the role of adult leadership within BSA and for being boy-led, boy-run.

As I see it, adults work WITH the boys to help them make decisions, not make the decisions FOR them. This is what appears is being done with the OA. The only time adults should be making decisions for the boys is in the event of health or safety issues. To do otherwise is pretty adult-led.

As @LeCastor asking us to help Packs with the AOL issue, my answer is "How can we?" It's called the ARROW of light and it's image appropriates as much (or arguably even more) than the OA regalia does. If we what to hold true to our collective moral outrage over the OA and regalia, we have to eliminate the AOL use and symbolism.

Until BSA calls it something else, ceremonies should eliminate any native references. The whole bridge thing is about as cool as you're gonna get.

1 hour ago, ItsBrian said:

I have just read a article posted by @WisconsinMomma regarding 11 Eagle Scouts in one year. 

One had gotten the idea to make dog beds after overhearing a humane society employee.

It made me think, how do most scouts figure out their project?

I found mine by visiting a adult day Center through clinical hours at my vocational high school. 

For those Eagles, parents of Eagles, or even future Eagle, how did you figure out your project?

In our unit guys typically come up with their own projects. Some have known since they were Cubs what they wanted to do. Others got ideas later in their career. Some have zero clue what they want to do. We had one kid who knew what he wanted to do since Kindergarten. True story. Even made it on to the Boys' Life Eagle Project idea site.

Locally, we have several resources the boys use to get ideas:

• Our CO. Sitting down and asking them what they need is a big help to both.
• Our local school district or the schools themselves.
• Local city departments (e.g., parks, community centers, etc.).
• Senior centers or homes.
• The boys' own religious institution.
• Neighborhood centers (private) or communities (e.g. community pools, playgrounds, sanctuaries, museums, etc.).
• Food banks or other non-profits.

I am sure I am missing a bunch but this is where most of the end up benefiting. 

Sounds like our unit is like @ItsBrian:

• Mess kits (no paper or plastic)
• Nagelenes (not styrofoam or disposable cups)
• KP water is Steramine (not bleach)
• Use drying cloths (not paper towels)
• Food for camp outs is fully eaten (we have awards for the patrols that have the fewest leftovers)
• Fire are only used for cooking or warmth.
• Hold LNT classes several times a year (both ethics awareness and ethic action award classes).
• Fuel conservation methods are also taught. 

18 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I am already having challenges with national's new fee. Charge my son for his Eagle application, and you can kiss not only FOS, but all participation in district/council level activities, except for free ones, goodbye.

Exactly. FOS would be non-existent. I'd encourage everyone to take that money and donate it to the troop or our CO instead.

$120 to process the Eagle application is ridiculous. Our unit has a series of checks with the applicant to confirm all the data on their application and associated paperwork is 100% correct. It takes council less than 5 mins to check this.

If they are going to charge money, charge based on incompleteness or readability of the application.

On 1/21/2018 at 11:14 AM, David CO said:

Aren't we?

When we make up fake characters and legends, aren't we lampooning the culture? 

Really?

I think it's pretty clear when we are lampooning something and when we are not. Black face? Clearly lampooning. OA regalia? Given that native nations are not in agreement that this is bad or good, I think you have your answer.

Is Halloween, or any costume party for that matter, could fall under "lampooning". Are we to end that tradition too? Santa Claus (the fat American one) is essentially a lampoon of the European-based St. Niklaus. Stop that too shall we? 

Sometimes we, as humans, are just too sensitive. 

On 1/19/2018 at 3:36 PM, EmberMike said:

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. 

Again, read the GTSS. It allows family camping at all levels and does not put any constraints around what that (family camping) means; other than the age matrix. But as some have suggested, if a unit calls an event "family camping" allegedly the BSA rules don't apply...and I can't find any place where that's confirmed either way.

15 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

Well, we didn't cancel because of that but the water flow on the river was fast enough to sweep our scouts to Houston.  I'm sorry when safety is concerned, I am the enemy of fun.  

LOL we had a similar issue. We were supposed to do a canoe trip. A few dads were like "We can go, it's just a little rain." When we checked the water flow it was nearly 10 times what they usually experience. When we looked up the flow rate online it was above what an Olympic white water kayaker would experience. 

The dads acquiesced.