HashTagScouts

59 minutes ago, qwazse said:

I'm not so sure why this is terrible. If you can't produce a program that girls enjoy and a CO loves to host, why should council bother?

Meanwhile, there are a lot of young (and young at heart) men who've benefited from that 60+ year-old troop. Some of them probably call their council to see what can be done to keep it from dissolving.

The bitter truth: it now rests squarely on the young women who've benefited from the program to promote it. If they conclude that they would have been better off with 100% of their time spent in GS/USA, their BSA4G troop will rightfully lose its foothold in the community.

Terrible if you have interest, and still cannot get anyone from your Council to make the effort to help. Sometimes it's just networking and finding someone who can assist with an intro to help to get a CO partnership. 

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 I do not know about other councils, but in my council the perceived attitude is you are on your own. Not only is there no support helping existing units that are struggling, but there is no support for creating a needed second girls' troop in my district.  There is a lot of interest for a girls troop in one section of my district, but instead of the pros helping start the unit, instead they send them to a units 45+ minutes away one way. It doesn't work like that.

Terrible. The struggle I find myself in with our units- people seem gung ho to try to move mountains to save the boys troop that has been around for 60+ years, but for the girls troop that doesn't have that longevity, its all shrugs.  

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think you make a good point and I agree, most councils struggle with their current responsibilities.  

I started the 1st girls den in my council and my daughter was the 1st registered girl in Cub Scouts in my council.  It started with ~10 girls or so across several different grades.  The biggest group came from a GSUSA troop that folded.  Over time, GSUSA did a better job in my school with retaining Troops and girls decided to stay in GSUSA.  My daughter ended up dropping out of Cub Scouts in 4th grade when there were no remaining girls in the Pack.  She is happy hanging out with the boys, but also wants some girls present.  We attempted recruiting, but every girl interested in scouts went to GSUSA (my daughter did as well).

Similar story with our girl's troop.  We started strong with some very active girls.  However, it never really rose above 7 girls.  They were adament, they wanted to remain linked to the boy's troop ... but over time, more and more dropped out.  Most dropped out as they are very active with sports, rock climbing, dance, etc. and just didn't have time for scouts.  Some had similar comments to boys who leave ... scouts is becoming boring (they don't want any meetings, just go out hiking, camping & canoeing).  Perhaps if we had a 20+ girl Troop and the girls all had friends they would have stayed.  We are now down to 3 girls (including my daughter).  If we don't get more, the Troop will fold.

I've talked through my council and many girl units have similar stories.  Initial surge, then this decline.  I am interested in a council by council breakdown of girls in scouts as the story may not be consistent nationwide.

Personally, I would welcome the council coming into my town and setting up a dedicated girl Troop.  Grab the 3 girls from the 3-4 different girl troops in the area to form a 10-12 member troop & recruit to grow that.  I simply do not have time until I leave my current Troop ... which I won't do until my son ages out.

But ... I agree, that is a lot to but on councils, so I fear we will simply watch this limp forward.  GSUSA's dominance of recruiting K-5th grade girls will limit girls in packs and that is the main feed for girls in Scouts BSA.  If you don't change that somehow, I'm not sure this will succeed.

Hope for the best for you. I hope for those units that have been successful to this point they have continued success. I really hope that Councils at the least have real, practical conversations with the units that are limping along (packs and troops) to engage in productive decisions on what is best for the youth they have to be successful, and we aren't just "keeping units around" for the sake of a few $'s in the Council/National pocket (which often translates to an awful amount of $ and energy spent by the unit/parents to keep something going until it hits critical mass).

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Just like troops, councils and lodges are chartered by national. So, just, owned in some respects. 

Well, actually even "worse" - they are chartered as a Council program. Thy don't have an independent CO that factors into their decision-making, the Council SE is effectively the IH and COR. 

47 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Correct, most of the issues are above-unit levels.  At the unit level, the program works well for girls.  While GSUSA has a great K-5th grade program, it drops off significantly after which is where Scouts BSA shines.

What would I change going forward?  Just a few ideas ....

1) Councils need to be much more active building up Girl Troops.  Perhaps even finding district/council level volunteers to help create the Troops.  I have heard of several stories where girls in Cub Scouts had no Troop to transition into. 

2) Support new Troops to help build up equipment.  One girl Troop I met at summer camp was in sad shape in terms of equipment.  It is expensive and takes years to build up patrol boxes, stoves, troop tents, dining flies, Klondike sleds, white gas stoves, etc., etc.  I expect Councils could likely find equipment from Troops in decline that could be used by these new Troops.  We need strong girl Troops in all districts and councils need to be more active helping to ramp this up.

3) National & local advertising campaign ... most girls have no clue this is an option 

4) Tools and direct support from councils to recruit 11-17 year olds into Girls Troops ... most of our recruiting experience is at the Cub Scout level ... GSUSA dominates there

5) National working on corp. partnerships (GSUSA destroys BSA in this area).  

Many of these could apply to boy troops as well.

My #1 issue is Roger Mosby.  Seems like a nice guy, but not a great leader of an organization. 

 

I don't disagree with some of your ideas, I just have significant pause when solutions are "Council, Council, Council". To me, Councils will respond in kind with the need to raise registration fees, summer camp fees, and activity fees to pay for more staff if we expect them to lead this. Volunteers- District Chairs, for example- can't make outreach for requests of units that have gear that they don't need and field connecting them to the units in need. Every OA lodge has all the contact info for every SM/Advisor/Skipper and unit committee chair, as well as Cubmasters, in their Council at their disposal, so you could also approach them just to handle the communication piece. 

Our Council has struggled with girl troops. About five have folded this year for lack of numbers to recharter. Many of our family packs only have 1-3 girls in each level, so the pipeline to those units in the same CO are slim. At the end of the day, the "rush" in the beginning was to create units as sister units to existing boy troops, and it has materialized into a mediocre reality. We have suffered in the same way. The challenge I've had is trying to convince our adults that we need to look to neighboring family packs that don't share a CO with a troop, and recruit from there. If the 1-3 girls in those packs are going to go on from AoL, where are they going to go? Could they scramble and find two other girls to start a troop? Sure, but the evidence is in that nearly every unit in the Council that started that way just a few short years ago is now either defunct or doomed. The problem is a) getting anyone other than me to actually go and take on that extra effort, but also b) our boys troop is not exactly fairing exceedingly better, and everyone worries that if we invite Council into our business to help they are going to recommend merging the boys troop with another unit. In my opinion, old thinking that we needed at least one troop in every town may no longer be the best philosophy in a number of parts of the country. Many of the youth sports leagues here are now no longer singular-town specific, which only boosts my convictions it isn't just BSA that struggles. And many of those sports leagues are competing for sponsors, just like Scout units are. The local soccer league charges $85/season for the little tikes in instructional league, and they have about ten sponsor logos on the back of their shirts. What GSUSA has done, and the BSA has no answer to, is licensing their brand- Girl Scout cookie flavored ice cream, coffee drinks, etc.

Female adults are also an issue. It is a rarity that any of these girl troops - and also true of our venturing crews and sea scout ships- are fortunate if they have more than one female adult who will participate in all activities. Our Lodge struggles as of late as well, and we came close to having to bar female youth from attending one event last year because we didn't have a female adult until last minute. 

4 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Thanks for the correction... I'm not saying that it is not a good idea but that would add 5 or 6 new leader registrations and double that if the pack has 'girl dens'. Looking at $250 to $500 or more depending on council surcharges at recharter time. 

I can understand the paranoia after the lawsuits and bankruptcy but sometimes the pendulum swings a bit too far. 

The 2021 printing of the Merit Badge Counselor application allows counselors to register without a fee. Perhaps we need to do this for the 2nd adult in Cubbing... 

"Merit badge counselors must register as adult Scouters and be approved by the council advancement committee for each merit badge listed on this Merit Badge Counselor Information form. A merit badge counselor does not have to pay a registration fee, but must complete an Adult Application for position code 42, fill out this form, and complete BSA Youth Protection training. Submit the Adult Application with the Merit Badge Counselor Information form to your council. Counselors may wish to associate with a particular unit but are encouraged to serve any Scout from any unit." This was from 2021, let me know if this has changed too. Thanks

 

MBCs are not considered a registered adult leader for any purpose other than for MBs. They are not expected to be trained on any other part of the program and serve a role in the outdoor program or troop/patrol meetings. Units do use it to avoid paying fees, but that is not at all appropriate (a Scout is trustworthy). 

MBCs especially should have nothing to do with the Cub program.

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I live East of the Mississippi.

In my state, I know of no "local tribes" which have a presence here any longer. I've lived here for more than 60 years. The only tribes claiming their origin in my state are far away. They have no presence here. Occasionally, a representative of a tribe will appear to speak to some issue.  Maybe once a decade.

And even at that, I have little sense or knowledge of their removal from my state, the depth of their connection to my state.

How does one even determine which tribes occupied their area, and their current representatives?

And, "honor."

So, if an OA lodge's ceremony script is respectful of not only Native Americans, but people generally, is that OK?

The Lenni Lenape script of my local OA Lodge is inspiring to me, a non-Native American.

 

None of the script is taken from any actual Lenape lore, it is all entirely made up. While I don't have issue with the scripts themselves, I do think dropping the association to the Lenni Lenape specifically is appropriate.

20 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Wow, with friends like this, who needs enemies. I’ve been active in scouting one way or another for almost 60:. In all those years, I have never seen AO show disrespect to the American Indian/idigenous/Native American culture. In fact OAs actions are typically respectful with the intention of showing honor. Now if the culture has changed how it looks at such things, fine, we change to continue showing respect. But done disparage the OA for living the scout law in their efforts.
 

On the other hand, I’m not sure OA can get back to the honor and respect that the organization once had because our culture doesn’t like individualism that sets piers apart. OA is/was an honor program that recognized scouts who set themselves apart as outdoorsmen and servants. They used to be the go to experts of camping skills. And, they usually were humble in their service to others. The organization used to require a scout prove discipline and maturity of camping and serving. Now many troops want all their scout to get elected in to the organization no matter their experience or maturity. Seems there is no real desire for a true honor program in the BSA.

Barry

To me, if you simply concede ground then you are letting the Order become the very thing you don't want. My son certainly had some opinions, and still does, on some of the youth that were in the Lodge with him. He's rolled his eyes a few times on who was elected as officers or for Vigil. But, he considered it to be motivation to do better himself. Part of the outside motivation for him was his former SM who very much was a "poo poo on the OA and everything else to do with Council" individual who also never was willing to take any constructive feedback from my son as SPL or any other previous SPL about their troop. The SM thought he had it all figured out, and the problem was never with him but everyone else. I don't disagree with your POV on a problem we face, just that the SM on the other side that is just bumping their youth through likely feels they are doing everything right, it's everyone else that is the problem. If we can't ever sit at a table and discuss things, or just aren't willing to even show up at the table, then we reap what we sow. 

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The first ones were in black robes.

Here's a pic from the birth of my home lodge:

 

You could easily ditch the headdresses.  And you do not need a fictional story of Native Americans to promulgate ideas about Brotherhood, Cheerfulness, and Service.

You could easily find stories to demonstrate these during the Colonial period, or during the American Revolution, or the westward expansion, etc.  It should not be offensive to find and tell a story from some native tribes to demonstrate these principles, either.  They need not be from your area particularly, since you are ditching the wearing of clothing to mimic.

Or, if a lodge wanted to incorporate stories from their local first peoples, there's plenty... 574 recognized tribes in the US.

https://www.usa.gov/tribes

P.S.  Gotta love the ties!!

P.P.S.  Also see https://oa-bsa.org/history/first-ceremony

The current options for attire aside from regalia is either field uniform or to wear all black, and the all black is what our youth have chosen if regalia is taken away. We did one ceremony this year with the ceremonialists in all black.

IMO the current Ordeal and Brotherhood ceremony texts don't need significant change- I think if you just dropped trying to associate the text to the Lenni Lenape, you're just representing a generic legend and legends are by nature not factual historical recitations. 

The Order itself can endure in a manner that Goodman and Edson envisioned. It's not very different to me from changing from the military type uniform of yesteryear to the uniform of today. We adapted, we survived. It's still the broader issue of whether the BSA itself can do the same. 

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

I've never been too involved with the OA, though an Ordeal member. My Troop was small, there were few of us in the OA, and fewer yet were interested in attending OA activities.  Somehow, time just did not allow. My huge involvement in Scouting otherwise just cast OA to the shadows.  That being said, I do understand that the OA is a huge factor spurring the involvement in Scouting for many who pass from youth to adults.

So that I can understand you better, with respect to your post, from whom were you expecting announcements regarding regalia?

The 24 month window, is that more or less than previously, and does extending or shortening it have some effect on the OA, and what effect?

The Ordeal Overnight-what are the arguments for and against eliminating it?  (I did the overnight, and thought it was great.  I bought into the whole Ordeal Weekend and live it to this day.)

Thanks.

The National Planning Meeting took place in December, where the new National Chief & Vice Chief, as well as the two Region Chiefs, were elected. The overall business of the Order is discussed at the NPM, and any changes that impact the coming year are announced. They held a FB Live "Fireside Chat" on the final night to give highlights. It's been anticipated that the end of regalia is not a question of if, but when, so many were waiting for this NPM. Today, they sent an email out with summary::

https://oa-bsa.org/article/order-arrow-national-updates-2023?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NPM Recap January OA Today&utm_content=NPM Recap January OA Today+CID_b080ae652133460be131aaf98e6eb2c7&utm_source=OA eNews Campaigns&utm_term=SEE ARTICLE

Previous was 12 months. If you didn't complete in the 12 months, you had to be elected all over again. I understood the reason for the temporary 24 months- 18 is just odd. If you didn't complete in 18 months, you basically are just "on the shelf" for 6 months now, waiting for your next unit election. To me, if we were going beyond 12 months, then should have just said 24 months.

The arguments for the overnight are it is the entire purpose of the Ordeal: a night away to reflect on what challenges you are asked to place upon yourself, and whether you are worthy for the honor. The arguments against is that a night under the stars without all your stuff is not fun for some, so it shouldn't be required. The conversations that have been occurring are more than just the overnight, it's about making the whole Ordeal weekend optional- essentially, get elected, and the Lodge hands you a sash and a handbook and you are a member, but come to Ordeal if you want to.  

To being the Scout Law into it - obedient. If the organization moves to strike regalia, going rogue is not exactly keeping to that point of the SL. At the end of the day, the AIA issue is one where we have to see it from the perspective of Native Americans, and Native Americans only. If we put a bunch of teens in clerical collars and had them start reciting a Mass, we'd have quite a few Catholics who would be up in arms. The breadth of what the OA was attempting with the "localized regalia" was a step in the right direction. Seeing just the comments in this thread make me recognize how necessary that was. Warbonnets worn by tribes from the Plains were spiritual items, not actual attire worn daily, and they don't represent well Native American from any other part of North America. Dancing,  drumming, face painting were also spiritual activities, not everyday things. What we have is ceremonies that are relaying a narrative that involves named individuals being portrayed by other named individuals- all of whom are fictitious. So, to any that feel it is appropriation, they are not wrong. I never felt that the ceremonies performed for Cub Scouts were appropriate nor necessary. Most of those involved a narrative about Akela (which was incorrect, in that the Akela from the Cub program is taken from The Jungle Book, not anything Native American), placed into a story using Native American theme performed by kids in Native American attire, delivered to even younger kids that mostly had no idea what the OA even is.

I have Native American DNA- not nearly enough I'd ever identify myself on any census as Native American. But I know many individuals who can and do. Are they terribly turned off by Native American iconography in the BSA? Not entirely, but nearly all would prefer it was done in a better way, that leaves Scouts and parents exposed to greater knowledge of what it is. For example, using actual Native American names for a camp might be OK, but using made-up names that sound Native American, not so much. Using the actual name of a Native American individual, such as Tecumseh or Pontiac, in a narrative that is factual to that individual would be OK. Making up a name that sounds Native American, not so much- unless it was fully explained to the audience of that narrative that what is being displayed is fictional. and if you did that, it pretty much says that the narrative is not quite so significant. I will say that for myself and some of my friends who are members of Native American tribal nations , we found a lot of the commentary when the Cleveland Indians changed their name to be just awful. The use of the name Indians, many NAs can deal with- it was using an image of a big-nosed red-faced "Indian" and calling it Chief Wahoo that was the offensive part. Similar to the Atlanta Braves- the name isn't quite the issue, nor the arrowhead, it's the tomahawk chop. If you want to call a sports team Warriors, Chief, etc. are those wrong? Not necessarily, but what imagery you associate to them could be.  

For those that are Vigil in this thread, think back to the Vigil ceremony. It is not laden with the same Native American thematics. It's much more of what I would describe as a spiritual psalm. Can we recreate that to use for Ordeal and Brotherhood? Absolutely. And I see that as the direction we will eventually go. The arrow itself isn't necessary to go. Lodge names, for the most part, will probably go unchanged. Titles such as Chief may not be necessary to go. But the imagery will change. Many of the youth I work with now as an adviser don't see the Native American imagery as captivating or necessary. And if that is where the majority of the youth are at, then it isn't quite so significant to me we keep things because it would upset us older folks. In regards the comment that the OA isn't quite as "honorable as it used to be", that's a bigger problem for the BSA in my view, not so much the OA. My belief is if you enacted advancement standards appropriately and used Commissioners correctly to make sure they are followed to the letter, you'd see membership drop at least 25% immediately, and that is the thing that no one higher up in the BSA is going to find acceptable. Until we are willing to accept those outcomes, the Oa is just left to have to adapt to what the BSA itself is.

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

I have recently learned that the mystical national committee, whoever they are, voted on something concerning AIA but are keeping it a secret.  A SECRET,  if they have the brass to think they can dictate what every lodge in the nation can do then they should at least publicize it and be willing to deal with the push back and fall out.  If they try to forbid the use of regalia and verbiage they may be in for a great big stinking and expensive 1st Amendment law suit.  That may get their attention.  After reading many of the previous posts I would like to remind the group that each lodge is SUPPOSED TO BE administered by youth members with the guidance of an advisor.  There are a lot of good excuses to avoid OA involvement and it does take some effort to support the lodge.  I'm pretty sure that the local lodge Advisor would welcome any help to make the lodge a success.  Rather then extinguishing the fire, the Supreme Chief should change the Lodge Advisor, and I'm sure that if someone would volunteer for that job, it would be accepted!

 

 

It's not the government so 1st A has no bearing at all. National can do whatever it wants with the OA, they own it (literally), just as they can do whatever they want with any other part of the BSA. The "should they" is always what will be up for debate.

Right now, the only change that is certain is the length of time for an individual to complete their Ordeal from their election date is now 18 months. it was a "temporary change" since 2020 that it was extended from the normal 12 months to 24 months. Made sense while camps were shuttered, but not so sure why it was deemed as necessary now to go longer than 12 months. 

The Native American iconography (seems to be the new way National is referring to it, which probably does mean it isn't just regalia but also the language/names such as those used in ceremony scripts, and probably position titles- if "clan" wasn't acceptable anymore, I'd imagine "chief" isn't too far off from getting ditched) is "still under discussion on how best to implement". My guess is that they wanted to announce now, but cost assessment needs to be done- as I understand it, the shift away from the "iconography" is going to impact the whole BSA, not just the OA, so camp names/campsite names are being discussed as part of the deal. Not that I love that idea, but if you're going to tell the OA they can't do something, it is hypocritical if you don't change your whole operation.

On 12/24/2022 at 8:27 PM, Oldscout448 said:

not unlike loosing a good friend after a long illness.  There is sadness, a feeling of loss but also a sense of relief.

Sad day for sure. Expected announcements tonight that regalia of any kind will no longer be permissible. Also that the 24 month window to complete Ordeal from election date will be permanent. A lot of us are questioning exactly what it is we are trying to keep alive at this point. I'm interested to see if they make any comment on the proposed idea of eliminating the Ordeal overnight - that's pretty much the deal breaker for me.

13 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

GSUSA sensibilities could have been handled better during the roll-out.  For example, better guidance on how to refer to our all-girl program during promotions would have helped.  Further, socially conservative persons acquired an inaccurate structural understanding of how Scouts BSA operates.  I still read conservative writers and converse with uninvolved conservative adults who vigorously claim we are a fully co-ed program.  

This is not helped at all by the "linked unit" option. As others have stated, there are far too many (and really, only 1 is more than enough) units that on paper claim to be separate units, but just have the girls as  a patrol within the single troop. Our council has 28 girl troops, and as of mid-November, about 1/3 were slated to not be able to re-charter because they had less than the five active youth.. Of those girl troops that I have some level of interaction beyond just knowing what town they are from- most of my interaction is from within those also involved in Venturing or OA, either from the youth, or adult leaders/parents- 3 are run entirely just a patrol, and all 3 hold unit elections with the girls right there with the boys for SPL election (that is, 1 SPL for the "2" units, 1 QM for the "2" units, etc.). For some of those who you interact with that have a negative view very well could look at your unit and think you are the one doing something against what the BSA envisions, and that is exceptionally awful. The BSA went from finding a path to inclusivity, IMO, to just opening a floodgate to make anything/everything work. And, I fully believe that they overestimated just how much membership they would gain. I read your posts, and do believe that your unit has been able to grow in a natural fashion, and that  your community is embracing the option. In my neck of the woods, it has been a slog. I know of our 28 girl troops, only 3 have membership over 15 scouts. Our AoL numbers are not fantastic either, and it looks like only a handful of packs will have more than 3 girls advance through AoL this year. Those are not good trends, especially with the "newness" factor waning. I envision from this point forward, attracting age 11+ girls with no prior Scouting experience into troops will be as difficult as it is to attract age 11+ boys, and the reliance on Cubs will be as real for girl troops as boy troops. That concerns me greatly that the trend of those 3 troops I mentioned earlier is going to be far more prevalent, and the fully co-ed option is going to have to happen (I suspect that my Council is not greatly different than others, in that Council rarely ever will step in when they fully know a unit is not operating by BSA guidelines and policy, other than for YP). Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of us that were in the "is this change necessary/it's happening, give them a chance" camp are not exactly impressed with where we are currently at overall, and it isn't the fault of those (girl) Scouts.

1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

If I were in charge, I would have used the CIS idea as the catalyst to merge all 3 (now 4) citizenship mBs into one grand Citizenship mB. This is probably not a popular opinion, so be glad I am not in charge. 😜

 

Keep in mind, Family Life used to be Citizenship in the Home, so really you can just roll that in as well  

The BSA HA have age requirements for most of their adventures, so you do want to research that. Philmont, for example, your 11-12 year old scouts are not going on the treks with your 16 year old scouts, so be prepared for that. If the troop has never done an excursion, my first advice to you is start planning now for 2024, not 2023. You need to know you have solid commitment before you start trying to get into a Philmont lottery. Also, watch the "crew size" on the HA bases- those do generally also have to include two adults- so, if you thought about Out Island Adventure at Seabase, for example, crew size is 6-8 and that includes your two adults. Our troop is similar size, and they did their first official BSA HA trip in 2019 to Seabase. They will be doing another in 2023. If we were a bigger troop and had more older scouts to put us into a rhythm to go every other year, we'd support that, but at our size, it would basically kill the traditional summer camp experience. Our choice, we'd rather that the traditional summer camp experience take precedence, so the HA trips are August dates, summer camp is July. You may want to take a smaller step and just plan a 5-7 day trip of your own for just your older scouts. Depending on locale, try and see if a 2-3 day canoe or whitewater adventure, with a 2-3 day backpacking trip to a national forest is a possibility. If it creates an appetite, and gets the younger kids juices flowing after hearing the older kids talk about their experience, then you can start planning one of the HA base trips. There are also many camps around the US that allow for you to put younger scouts into a traditional summer camp program, while the older youth go into an adventure program that can involve a number of possibilities- multi-day backpacking/canoe/whitewater trips. It might work out for the longer term if you begin by building a "high adventure culture", versus just the one-every-five-years trip to a HA base.         

58 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I’m not so sure. The way I understood it, at least in my council, the people still had to “reup” or not. It was only the $75 (now $100) charter that was extended. So, they dropped or not already. At least in my council. 

Same here. Charters were extended, but the annual participant registration fee was not given extension.

On 10/19/2022 at 1:52 AM, jscouter1 said:

Hello forum! It’s been a while since I have posted on here but a lot has happened since then and I am again faced with a dilemma that I can not figure out myself. As a preface for this you should know my troop does things a little differently and (among other things) runs their own high adventure programs, this means we will never use a BSA high adventure like Philmont or Northern Tier. It has come to my realization that I would like to visit Philmont in the short amount of time I have left as a scout ( 4-6 years depending on how you look at it). Now the reason I am posting on here is that when November rolls around enrollment for NAYLE at Philmont starts, while NAYLE sounds amazing a Rayado trek does as well. Any input helps!

If you are a member of the OA, check out the opportunities available to only OA members at each of the HA bases. Special pricing, and special programs available only to youth OA members.

I have a friend who ran into as issue a few years ago on a boat trailer that someone gave to him that had been sitting in their yard for years. He had to pay for a title search, which takes time, and then once that was completed the state issued a new VIN and title with that VIN. Different states have different rules, so a trip to your RMV might be the best way to get all the answers you need and save you a whole lot of headache. An hour of your time and an extra $75 spent that saves you hours of dead-ends might be the better value for you.     

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Scouting ought to be a sampling menu at kindergarten and maybe even first grade levels. It ought to be a spring or summer program where you attend a couple of den or pack activities and culminates in being able to attend a pack or district event like a special overnight camp out or fishing derby or something fun. Most other youth activities at that age are very basic, very low key, and cost practically nothing. They run for a short session and generally culminate in some big hoorah. BSA says it relied on research when formulating the Lions program but that is always suspect. It doesn't seem to be well thought out but more a knee jerk way of trying to bring in more membership money. 

When New England Base Camp began in earnest, bullet points would get whispered about how much interest there was from young boys and girls and their parents about "what Scouting had to offer", and how much the BSA should be learning from the feedback. I'm sure those kids, both boys and girls, did and do like a half day of lighting fires, throwing tomahawks, shooting BB guns, having chicken nuggets/tater tots cooked for them at the kitchen, moving from one program area to another with their parent when they are ready to move on, etc. Does any of that actually translate to whether they would have enjoyment when you put it into a larger program that involves full day or weekends at camp, pack meetings, weekly den meetings (and not necessarily on the afternoon/evening that is best/most convenient for the parent), having to memorize oaths, wearing uniforms, doing fundraisers, and generally not getting to move about as individuals but as groups? Not particularly. There are many elements within Scouting that can have appeal to a great number of youth, but when all packaged together, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, and trying to continually tinker with how we can make it so seems to bring in as many numbers equal to those it pushes out is my observation from the last decade+. Heck, we're at a place in time where there are actual conversations happening that could be implemented to no longer require an individual to go through Ordeal for membership in the Order of the Arrow, because it seems to exclude some who might not enjoy the activities that happen during the Ordeal.

Last I checked, Friendly/Courteous/Kind are still three points of the Scout Law. If you can't sit and have a civil conversation with someone you disagree or see eye-to-eye with, you really are not following the Scout Law. That's the point I would emphasize.

31 minutes ago, yknot said:

There's plenty of other research that says kids get burned out. There's also plenty of research that says kids at that age are sampling, not staying. Also, BSA has a long history of using, quote-unquote "Research", to justify marketing and financial goals. If someone on top of the food chain decided that recruiting another younger rank of cubs would increase membership and revenues, then I'm sure they were able to find the necessary research to support it. 

Based on the membership crashes of the past several years, that doesn't seem to be bearing up. During the pandemic, local nature centers, parks departments, etc., reported significant participation increases for elementary age nature programming. Many had waiting lists for programs. 

It's very easy for kids to move in and out of other activities as their interests change or their time limitations vary. There really is no reason why membership in scouting has to be so linked to a unit, council, or in some cases rank. It is truly an impediment to retention and recruitment. One of my nephews joined a troop late in high school simply because he wanted to go camping with some of his friends who he enjoyed other outdoor activities with.  Unfortunately, the troop leadership just did not know what to do with him and he only lasted a few camp outs. 

This is the reality- we became so focused on advancement as program, the organization became less about time spent in the outdoors. The skills learned were of practical nature to the environment we were in. As a youth in Scouts, I slept in a cabin maybe three times. I slept more times in a tent on top of snow than that. We didn't have "trail to First Class" at summer camp. The Troop only had two stoves, so cooking over the fire was the norm. We had a blast, and were dog tired by the end of our weekends. Checking off the boxes in the handbook was the last thing on our minds.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in New England, seems every council is now running weekends at  council camp that are open to the public, no Scouting membership required. And most of the attendees are not registered in Scouting nor have interest in joining. Cost seems less of the issue from the parent comments shared to me, it's the time commitment- they perceive that Scouting has to be full-time thing, or the kid will "fall behind". I recognize the dilemma for many leaders- if they didn't focus on advancement, they are going to deal with parents upset their kid is not advancing. I've been there. I know of far too many units that can't get enough leaders to spend the whole week at summer camp, so they have to do a rotation. 

Spirit of Adventure Council in MA did not offer summer camp at one of their camps this year. They give a long-term lease to a group of Scouting-affilited individuals to one of their camps, and that group ran a coed camp that wasn't about a Scouting advancement program. They didn't have a great deal of difficulty in getting attendees, and it cost a lot more than a week of Scout camp does. 

35 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

@HashTagScouts  Even if the is not a new Scout Patrol, the older girl or boy will be learning skills with younger youth while their friends are doing more advanced activities.  To adults, the distinctions are small but for youth, they can be substantial.  I have seen this many times, but others may have seen such situations evolve differently.  

Sorry, but I would never agree you must use that structure. 

My son had zero desire to be in Cubs. He observed the Den of his school friends in Cubs, and saw it of no interest. First troop he joined, SM (who had never been in the program, he took what he learned from the BSA training and what his wife, who had been a Cub leader told him) wouldn't let my kid go to summer camp (assumed it wouldn't be enough time for my son to prepare between when school was over and my son could officially join the troop and when camp began). My son spent the summer reading the BS handbook, learned the Law and Oath, and having a father who had been a Scout he had learned fire-building and appropriate pocket-knife handling, etc. from our father-son outdoor experiences. When the summer was over, my son was was handled differently than the kids his same age who had earned AoL. SM (and his wife), couldn't reconcile that a kid could learn the actual relevant things that Cubs is intended to teach in a matter of a few months. 80% of the Cub program is repetitive from one year to the next. After only a few months, my son was ready to quit the troop, it had become boring, the troop/SM was intent on trying to teach him skills he already knew, rather than letting him go with his age-appropriate peers that were AoL. 

The whole intent of the Scouts BSA program is kids teaching kids. If your 12 year old First Class Scout can't teach another 12 year old the Tenderfoot requirements, you may want to re-evaluate what your 12 year First Class Scout learned getting to that rank.   

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If we could likewise make Scouts BSA friendlier for coming and going, it might help us to inculcate the values of the Scout Oath and Law into many more children and youth.  Scouts BSA is harder to make it friendly and it has a nearly singular access point at about age 11.  A girl or boy who join much after age 11 could find themselves in a patrol of 11 & 12 year olds that teens usually do not like.

In my opinion, it is critical for growth of the movement to make it easier for youth to join whenever they wish and then to find the program accepting of them at whatever their age.

If you assume all troops place all newly joined Scouts into a "New Scout Patrol", then you might be right. I have never been in a unit that would take a newly-joined 14 year old and put them into a NSP. Frankly, with the current YP tenting age requirements, you really can't. We'd always put them into the age appropriate patrol they joined, and it was up to the other kids in that patrol to "bring them up to speed" and teach them. If the kid wanted to advance, the PL and other patrol members helped to teach them skills.

I don't agree it is inherently difficult for a kid to join at a later age due to limitations of the program. Limitations of the troop, possibly. Scouts BSA is not supposed to be an Advancement-above-all-else program, as has been discussed many times on the forum- Advancement is a method, not an aim. Realistically a kid joining at 14 has plenty of time to advance to Eagle, if they desired to. I'd rather focus far more on the fun aspect, and always keep the focus on getting kids to First Class by the time they are done, as those are the skills that really are not learned at school or really have an easy outlet to learn through other organizations. Time-management and service-project participation can be learned at a later point in life, the Star-
Eagle track is ultimately all about giving youth an earlier exposure to it to try and help jump-start them over their peers for readiness as adults. If a troop is too fixated on regimented structure, then it is really not going to be an ultimately welcoming place- to a newbie, nor to a transfer.

3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Bad wording on my part. Chapter 7 would end the corporation and IMHO, the Congressional Charter for a specific, non-existent entity would be...moot?

If new Scouting organizations rose, would the BSA Congressional Charter automatically transfer to any of them? IMHO no. Whatever the name, it/they would be a different corporations and I doubt any new Congressional Charters would be approved. The 1992 debate of ending Congressional Charters might resume in Congress.

Not a lawyer, just another $0.01.

Considering the cloud under which the dissolution would occur, I couldn't see it gaining massive support to give CC recognition to a new organization(s) immediately. I think you'd have to see the new organization(s) prove themselves over several years to get to a CC stage.

I personally don't think we'd see just one cohesive organization rise from the ashes. I think tribalism will direct there being multiple. Those who don't agree with there being a faith requirement could splinter, those who still don't agree with girls and boys being in the same organization could splinter, those who believe there should be mostly outdoor program/requirements versus those who don't potentially splinter, etc. The other scouting organizations out there today would likely receive marginal gains from BSA demise. I think they have not grown significantly to this point because the BSA name has been more recognizable, and Eagle Scout has certainly been more recognizable. Many not involved in Scouting have at least a basic positive reaction to hearing someone say they are an Eagle Scout. How many even know what the top award in TrailLife is called?