Col. Flagg

Do the 15 camping nights in the previous 2 years still apply? If so, I have a question. If an ASM has 5 long term nights, 9 regular camping nights, and tented for only 3 of the 5 days at a second summer camp, does at least 1 night at the second summer camp qualify? That would give them the 15 needed to be considered.

 

Thanks!

It is a rolling two years. So for example, if your unit election is in February 20, 2017 the two year cycle is from Feb 20, 2015 to Feb 20, 2017. They must have the required camping within that time frame.

I think you should ask your OA Lodge your question. In my Lodge that would not count. You get to pick which long term camp applies; Summer Camp 1 or Summer Camp 2. They won't allow you to combine long term camps to make one whole one.

The requirement is 5 consecutive nights for the long-term requirement to be met. If they don't meet that, they don't qualify...even if they have 30 nights for the year.

"The 15 nights must include one, but no more than one, long-term camp consisting of at least five consecutive nights of overnight camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. Only five nights of the long-term camp may be credited toward the 15-night camping requirement."

Are you actually arguing that girls have more opportunity in BSA programs than boys? I'd love to hear more about this idea. 

Read what Venturing Crew can do that Boy Scout units can't. Snowmobiles, pistols, and a few other things that Boy Scouts are not allowed to do. So yes, coed units can do more than boys in Boy Scout units. Here's the list in case it was not known to you.

I think I've said pretty much all I have to say in this discussion, but let's please get our facts straight:

 

 

Varsity Scouts is only open to boys.

 

 

Actually two, Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts.

My bad, I always get Exploring and Varsity mixed up. I meant the former.

Forgot, you can add Sea Scouts to the coed list too.

I'm not too familiar with how they are running the STEM program. The other programs are open to girls who are 14+ and even then, there are exclusions. Male venturers can join OA but females can't because...envelope please... OA is a BOY scout program and girls are not allowed in our clubhouse until they turn 21 and register as adults. 

I could care less about OA. If they went coed it might actually make the local Lodge here work again.

You still miss the point: Girls have plenty of avenues open to them -- some which exclude boys -- that are just as good or better than Boy Scouts in what they are allowed to do.

So I will ask again, what is the POINT of opening Boy Scouts to girls? What does it get them they are being denied elsewhere or through Venturing?

I don't know whether society in USA is ready for teenagers to camp together in the woods with minimal adult supervision. You know the USA far better than I do.

The answer to whether BSA should be coed lies in the USA in the 21st century, not in scouting's origins in the early 20th century in north west Europe.

We have this already. It's called Venturing.

Canoes, associated gear and trailers. Archery and climbing gear but used on prem. Meeting facilities, ranges, pools, COPE and boats.

100 years ago, there were also men's clubs and women were only allowed to hold a handful of jobs. I'd like to think we have advanced as a society a little bit since then. 

 

Then again, there are countries now where women aren't allowed to go to school or drive a car anymore even though they were allowed to before the ultraconservatives took over. Maybe that is preferable to some. 

Please, let's not be so obtuse as to equate Boy Scouts with a men's club or some Islamic country that forbids women driving or some other backwards idea.

As you so keenly point out, back then attitudes were different and the opportunities for women were not there. The DIFFERENCE now is there are plenty of opportunities for women; some of which are female-only. I think that's great!!!! We want more opportunities for women and girls, and if they are female-only, so be it.

BSA also has opportunities for girls. Venturing, Varsity, STEM, etc., are all open to girls, so even BSA is not being exclusive or discriminating...though many would have you think they are. They have one group, Boy Scouts, dedicated to boys. So girls, while being excluded from joining Boy Scouts, still have the SAME opportunity for adventure, outdoor program, STEM and other things as they'd have if Boy Scouts was open to girls. They can do everything Boy Scouts can do. Strike that, the can do MORE than Boy Scouts can do...they just cannot get Eagle.

So, again, I ask...is this just about opening Eagle to girls? We've given them MORE than what they'd get in Boy Scouts. So why the push to open Boy Scouts?

C sounds like many young scouts that crossover. He will grow up.

M sounds like a helicopter parent. He may never change so C may stay that way for a long time.

It is hard to give advice because there are many options and variables. I will give a few observations I have seen over the years:

• Boys tend to stay in scouts longer when they are with friends, so there's something to be said for sticking with the den.
• Boys tend to stay in scouts when they have fun, are active and things are less political.
• You can always go to Troop 1 and, if they fail, you can move to Troop 2 or Troop 3.
• I would not do Option 4. It take a LOT of work to start up a troop. You'd be better off going with Troop 1 and trying to keep them afloat...it is essentially the same as Option 4.

I know it's not much help but hopefully it will give you some idea of what is ahead. If it were me, I'd go with Troop 1. If your son likes the troop and the boys, that is huge. Who knows, maybe if he goes to Troop 1 the other guys in the den might follow. If M does not like Troop 1, and your son does not like M, it sounds like your son is a good judge of character. 

And he wanted the adults to appoint the boy leaders.

I didn't see that in either of the above books. I saw it say that the PL should be appointed, but it was not clear if he was attributing that act of appointment to the patrol or an adult.

I have a lot of respect for what BP thought about youth growing and becoming men, but I don't see what place that has in deciding policy today in a program that has long since embraced a much broader sense of purpose. And also is partially co-ed already. Using phrasing like "boys becoming men" isn't in the spirit of Scouting today when we've got Venturing and now the co-ed STEM program. 

You asked for where the concept of boys having their own place to learn and grow was written. I directed you to the primary source for the program. There are others. You can read papers on the subject all over, so I won't bother to cite them here.

While written over a century ago, the need for boys to have their own place to learn and grow is just as important today as it was back then. Boy Scouts is one of the last places for this development to take place. Boys choose to join scouts for this very reason, among others. Boys want to be around other guys to hang out, go on outdoor adventures, etc.

From an infrastructure perspective, Scouting is not geared for a wholesale change to its membership. It is hard enough to find female facilities at most council camps. They are not like Philmont where there are sex-based flush toilets and showers. Most camps are trap toilets and cold showers...many still communal showers. Camps would either have to build more facilities OR they'd have to time-slot shower and toilet usage. Good luck.

I won't even bring up the issue of transgender men wanting to use the female facilities. I'll bet *that* won't go over well when the shoe is on that foot.

If there were no other places for girls to go, one *might* have an argument for opening up Boy Scouts...or at very least starting a similar program. Not only do girls have GSUSA, they have Venturing, Varsity, STEM, etc., not to mention a myriad of other non-scouting programs. In contrast, there are very few boy-only programs left anymore. I would argue that, in this day and age of gender nullification and privilege shaming, boys need a place to get away and just enjoy a non-polarized environment...a place they can just relax without worrying about their (x) privilege infringing on someone.

So one has to ask: Why MUST we open Boy Scouts? Is it for Eagle? Is it for something else?

There have been other changes over the decades other than gays. One of the biggest has been that life is more competitive than it used to be. The economy is certainly more competitive. Someone once told me that decades ago if you asked a parent what they wanted for their children they would tell you they wanted their kids to be good. Now, they'll tell you they want their kids to succeed. Art is now competitive. Marching band, Dancing with the Stars, American Idol. Something is wrong when art is about winning.

 

Whereas scouts used to be about being good, now it has to be about succeeding. If all you have to do is succeed then taking care of younger scouts is not a selling point. If the parents don't see the point of scouts then they won't volunteer. They won't make sure their kid gets to meetings or campouts. That's why the numbers are going down.

Sorry, but this bolded area is opinion, right? Is there data to support this assertion?

While there are dozens of reasons scouting has been losing membership since the 1980s, the acceleration since 2013 has only a few reasons. For example, all of the COs that dropped units since 2013 in my council cited the membership policy change.

I've been hearing the "boys become men" thing more often lately. Where is that coming from? Is that documented anywhere? 

 

I was under the impression that the aims of scouting were (and still are) character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness. 

 

And none of those things are exclusive to one gender. 

Try Scouting for Boys or Aids to Scoutmastership by Baden-Powell. He talks specifically about boys becoming men through the adventures in scouts. He also points out a few times that girls have their own organization which teach the same principles of scouting, albeit geared toward girls. And he wasn't being sexist or demeaning if you read what he meant about those differences.

MB Worksheets ... you might want to know more background why people push-back on those.  

• Active, moving and doing ... Merit badges like scouts are supposed to be active, moving and doing things.  Unless the requirement says "write", the rest of the requirements (explain, discuss, show, etc) are to be live, not a report.  
• Adult interaction ... Worksheets take away a key value of the MB program which is the interaction between the youth and an expert in the topic.  
• Inspiration ... Inspiration to further pursue a MB topic is often killed by making them fill out a long, painful MB packet.  
• Too much time ... Worksheets end up taking way more time to fill out than the amount of time the scouts spends with the counselor.  The time is supposed to be with the counselor, not the paper.
• Workbook is not required ... There is nothing in BSA that says you have to use the workbook.  BSA doesn't provide them.  And if they could sell them, I'm sure they would try to make money on them.

BSA provides guidance on this in BSA's Guide To Advancement, section "7.0.4.8 Unofficial Worksheets and Learning Aids".    http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

I strongly discourage my sons and help them avoid MB programs that are fill-out the workbook and then talk to me type of programs.  IMHO, this is what is killing scouting.  People create a nice helpful tool (the workbook) that is bleeding alot of fun out of the MB program. 

 

You want to help them with the cooking merit badge:  get them cooking.  And in the process of doing that, also cover the requirements.  

 

IMHO, the requirements should be for the merit badge counselor to make sure they cover.  The MB requirements should not be for the scout to chase.  In your case, the scout should exhibit and openness and willness to be mentored by you.  Through that mentoring, the requirements get covered. 

THIS a million times repped!!

This worksheet mentality is what drives the issues with lack of "engagement" in scouting. There's a reason the wording for each badge --  where they say "show" or "demonstrate" or "do" -- is written so carefully. They want participation, and filling out a worksheet or sitting in what amounts to a MB focus group -- where everyone repeats the same answer without deep thought or conversation -- is meaningless.

Monetary/professional benefits for Eagle earners (such as the up-step in pay in the military) should be rescinded, unless the award can also be earned by girls, or if a complimentary award (such as the GSUSA Gold Award, and/or whatever the top Venturing award is) is also recognized. 

Do that and you need to take away other non-needs based programs or scholarships. To be fair, you cannot advocate that salaries or loans or scholarships be based on anything other than merit or needs. So no more only [insert pet cause here] scholarships if it is not open to everyone.

If we are going to be truly blind I have no problem opening up Eagle to all. If we are going to continue to cheery pick what we make open or closed, then please leave Eagle as it is.

My guess is that they are again reducing the amount of knots and will have one ethnic supporter knot with a device for each ethnicity.  Personally, I don't understand the motive behind the knot reductions.  Are they really worried about someone having too many leader knots?  If that is what a person wants for dedicating hours and hours of service , let them have the knots.

Had to chuckle that this. I can just imagine the conversations if something like that were true.

I agree with the post about the difference between equity and equality.

Girls are given a chance to join the Scouting program, it's called Venturing. They can even earn a pretty tough award.

Girls are not "injured" by not being able to join Boy Scouts. They are not denied anything because they are not Eagle, except the ability to join NESA. But I cannot join the AMA as a doctor because I'm not one. Maybe I should force them to change. I feel discriminated against.

Girls could always claim to be boys and join a unit. Then they can get Eagle.

So, there are her options. Pick one and more on.

I have seen healthy number of scouts at the last two Eagle Projects I dropped my son off at but at both it was mentioned my help could be used (sorry I already had plans, but here is my son) but I also see a healthy number of adults very dirty and very sweaty.  Again I could be looking at this completely wrong....I just want to make sure they are learning from what they are doing.

 

I was proud thought when I went to pick up my son and he was filthy from head to toe and asked if it was too early for him to start thinking about his project.

Sounds like the Eagle Advisor and SM did not work with the candidate to discuss the resource requirements and other planning.

While not a requirement of the Eagle Project, resource planning (and estimating) is a necessary part of any project. I get that the project is about demonstrating leadership, but since the successful execution of the project requires all sorts of planning and coordination, such "advice" ahead of time would be helpful.

For example, at one of the projects in our area (not my unit), an auger and tiller were required. The candidate did not account for who would operate these devices. No one advised him of the tools use guidelines and he did not account for training (or learning how to use one) or having someone experienced with using one attend or be present. Luckily I had experience, was passing by, and could help.

I suspect many units don't advise their scouts fully on planning and execution of projects. I'd love to see BSA re-vamp the workbook to really take this in to account...or better train adults so a more consistent, standard message is given to scouts.

Colonel Mylord Flagg?  Can I shorten it to Myles?

The proper title would be, My Lord Flagg. My rank would only be used in military situations...or at District RT when everyone wears their silver beavers.

Who are we to not honor what people want to be called? Wouldn't want to marginalize anyone.

BTW, I feel like royalty, so for now on you can address me as, "My Lord". It's how I feel. 

That's not an NSP. That's a den.

Yup...it is what we call Webelos III. 

We see this a lot in our area. In fact, our RT had this as a topic this year. I was amazed at the number of troops that use this format. 

Our kids would go insane if the adults were in their camp site at all, let alone LEADING them. We'd lose 90% of our Scouts.

I dont see how with this course being so extensive can be offered and completed in one day via a merit badge day regardless of the scouts coming in with certain requirements done.

Depends if the Scouts can demonstrated they have completed anything as pre-requisites. How is an MBC to confirm? They don't. They usually take the Scout at his word and sign anyway.

It would take me at least 2-3 saturday sessions at 4 hours each session, to feel confident in offering this course from what Im gathering via researching and experience.

Home cooking will take at least this long. Trail cooking longer because, well, you are on the trail. The trail cooking req is best done on a camp out. Patrol cooking is another one done on a camp out.

This is a tough one because anything more then a 4 hours and I know I'll lose the attn span of today's scouts.

That's why you cover what you can in a class BUT make it interactive, hands-on. For example, while teaching the various cooking techniques, we actually SHOWED THEM each technique and they got a chance to try them.

This is a life skill, so we go deeper than we would, say, for Art or Music or another "softer" MB.

Anything less and are we really doing them a service in helping them earn this badge??? Meaning them understand the basics of cooking as with the skills and knowledge? As a MB counselor for this course, we not only have to go over the basics of cooking but also lol be a a nutrionist knowing the food groups, and a dietician knowning how to effectively read lables and calorie count and consumption. This course shouldn't be offered as a saturday session from the way Im viewing it. If anything summer camp and several sat sessions. Thoughts?

Our troop class is 4-6 sessions IN ADDITION to the work they do on their own, with their patrols and at home. At the end of the course we do a Top Chef competition. It is optional (can't add requirements) but no one has ever turned us down.

We also show them knife skills in addition to other cooking hacks. This is one of those MBs where, if you design a cool course, could really catch fire with the Scouts. But it HAS to be hands on or you will lose them.

Does anybody besides me find the terminology very awkward when discussing this subject?  I mean the whole boy/girl thing has gotten kind of confusing in this thread.

Only because we make it confusing. I thought God had taken care of most of the problem by making two sexes.

When @@RememberSchiff said "first female Eagle Scout is transgender" I took that to mean a girl, who wants to be known as a boy, makes Eagle.

Call me cynical.  The General Counsel needed more latitude to stick the bat up the volunteer's ### when a situation arises.

[heavysarcasm]

ROFL...I thought it was agreed in the many other threads that BSA never pushes the liability and risk to the local level on purpose.

[/heavysarcasm]

Fred says that it is a YP issue for a 17 year old scout to tent with an 11 year old scout.  Where do we draw the line, then?  

 

I think if I were an older scout (15, 16, 17), and I heard scout leaders and parents talking that way, I would high-tail-it out of scouting.  For me, it would become be a youth protection issue, my protection!

ROFL...well BSA will have to rethink that position now. With gay and TG folks joining, there's just as much of an issue (if not more) there than with the 17 and 11 year old. Or are we going to discriminate against the 17 year old and assume things we shouldn't BSA?

@@Builder, not sure what to say other than, "wow".

I am staggered that you can give such a deep explanation for the decline, and yet ignore the fact that ALL of the reasons you give -- good ones, by the way -- have existed LONG before the decline increased. All of a sudden...for three straight years...all these factors just magically all come together to increase the decline? Talk about happenstance.

You say boys join for the program. I agree. But by your logic nearly all the programs nationwide got together since 2013 and started sucking all of a sudden?

The irony is that there is more happenstance in your assertion than there is in mine. In mine, there are just three events that take place to cause the decline. In yours, MANY forces have to come together to cause the decline. Now which is more realistic? Rhetorical question. I know your answer as you've already given it. In my district the answer is clear. Units have lost COs because of the membership policy change. My unit has lost members as a result of the change.

Sure, these other factors you note do play a part. However, there's no way they all come together magically leading to three straight years of double the average rate of decline. There has to be a catalyst. There always is.