Jameson76

On 2/7/2018 at 10:13 AM, perdidochas said:

Sure, but in general, it shouldn't count as camping for Camping Merit Badge or for T-2-1 requirements.  

Well...unless the scouts fell trees and build the cabin, that would count I would assume???

34 minutes ago, Pale Horse said:

It has existed long before Family Scouting, but now we're qualified to baby sit for girls...well not me personally, I'm the wrong sex to be trusted. 

 

Should be under the CO. 

If it is in fact registered in her name, then she is on the hook for any damage or liability that arise out of it's use.  Presume she is paying the registration each year and (depending on the state) any ad valorem tax, and maintaining insurance on the trailer.

For our unit the trailer is registered and tagged by the church.  Typically we forget to look at the tag and have in fact been stopped on the way to an outings due to expired tags.  Most officers send us on our way (met a really nice Eagle Scout who was with the State Patrol one time) and we get the sticker from the church.  Also we got a ticket in the HOV lane one time that came to the church.  Good times, we paid the $25

4 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

the fictitious "Urban Assault Vehicle"

Nothing  fictitious about the EM-50. Keep one in the garage, lousy on city mileage though.  Picked it up in a surplus deal during one of the drawdowns.  Hard part is mixing my own fuel for the flamethrower.  Neighbor kids love it, keep getting letters from the HOA however

On 2/5/2018 at 2:25 PM, Col. Flagg said:

I think many can get behind all of this.

The reality -- and I think the point of the OP -- is that culturally, BSA at the national and local levels, have created such a problem for themselves that they cannot possibly reach your excellent vision of what is needed. Why? They are too busy doing their usual stuff -- stuff needed to keep the juggernaut afloat -- that they don't have time to stop bailing to work on the ideas you suggest.

I suspect this is the very reason why many of us have decided to focus on our units and not do anything with council and national. 

Yep.  All council is not bad, but really different objectives.  The challenge is we (volunteers and leaders) are focused on one element (they are called scouts and fun) and the "Council" is focused on other elements (called money and numbers)

You hit the nail on the head in that many of use will continue to focus only on our units.  As one who is a former professional (lasted a couple of years, way too much Sustaining Membership and numbers while not near enough program), former district volunteer, etc etc now focus is my unit.  

Sadly I am torn.  I know the value that scouting brings, I can see challenges within the district, but do I want to put up with the hassle and group think to try and change it?  We have two district scout events, attendance is OK, but they really need to be revamped and brought up to date, be more engaging.  We are the largest troop in the district and the Greenbar came to us during planning and asked do we have to go to the winter one?  We had stopped attending the Spring camporees a few years ago.  Our input was, that is your decision, if you want to do something else, that's fine.  This year we are going backpacking and while a couple of weeks out still, we have more Scouts signed up for that than went to the winter event in any of the last 5 years.  We are in the southern US so winter event just means it may be below 40 for part of the day.

The council runs a great summer camp and we enjoy that.  We use the council properties (and adjacent council's) each year.  They can bring value and can serve a purpose.  Yet when I look at the council staff and see SE, and Asst SE, marketing staff, development staff, safety staff, mystery staff, multiple FD's, etc etc I seriously wonder what these folks do all day.  Honestly I see our DE once per year at our troop FOS event.  Never seen them or their FD while we were at camp, at any of our meetings or events.   True we run a good program, but you would think if numbers are the end all be all, maybe go out and actually see what makes a good unit.

If you need me I'll be backpacking with the scouts.

1 hour ago, SpEdScouter said:

Just like the title says, we are going to be staying for 3 days in a state park. Can we stay in a camper like a pop up instead of using tents?

Is it a cool Urban Assault Vehicle ??  That would be really cool

7 minutes ago, cocomax said:

Not only is scouting doomed,   Civilization as we know it is doomed.  .  .   we have left the slippery sloop and are now in free fall without a parachute.

9 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Hooters?

There was a Playboy patrol 

From articles in May of 1974

ATLANTA (UPI) - The Rabbit Patrol or the Bunny Patrol might have been acceptable. But the Atlanta Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America decided yesterday that a Playboy Patrol was going a little too far. A group of boys in Troop 61 of suburban Smyrna named themselves the Playboy Patrol last week, rejecting traditional patrol names like the Owl Patrol or the Mole Patrol as boring. A presentation of bunny patches and flags was to have been made to the troop tomor­row from a personal emissary from Playboy head Hugh Hefner and four shapely bunnies from the local Playboy Club. But the Atlanta Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America called a halt to the planned activities yesterday, saying the presentation, or any further activities involving the Playboy organization, would not be permitted

Assuming all G2SS guidelines were followed, and not really up to speed on Cub camping, it has been a while.  I was under the impression (thought??) that Cub camping and overnighters were all family camping.  Should he have been there without parents?  Can they have another leader / parent be responsible?

Just curious on how that should work.

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

Even the second boy standing next to his sister looked demoralized.

 

Thought the same thing, he looked like a very sad prop.  "Hey kid...make sure you stand at least 1 step behind your sister"

6 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

I want to say I'm overthinking this, but sadly I'm probably not...

It is more than a tad bit suspicious to me that every girl in the group pictured on the original post is wearing the new skirt, and they're out doing outdoorsy stuff in front of BSA banners. Because we know how easy it is to get every kid to show up in identical uniform and we all make sure to take our regulation BSA banners with us on all outings, right? 

Why do so many of these media pieces reference some girl being the first to register in their area/council/region? What is going on here? 

I wanted to be optimistic about this early enthusiasm we're seeing from girls, but I'm concerned we're getting too many media-opportunist parents as early adopters.

It did seem a bit like a staged event, complete with happy squealing girls, all in the NEW (available at BSA.com) skirts and uniforms, completed with patches sewn on.   Every single one of them.  I guess they kept the wardrobe trailer out of sight.

Did notice the Male leaders (oh no!!) leading them along the trail with no female leader in plain and conspicuous view, though I am sure she was about someplace so as to be 100% compliant to the Girls Den YPT guidelines.

1 minute ago, NJCubScouter said:

Unfortunately, it seems that they just saw it as an opportunity to sell more stuff.

3 minutes ago, Cambridgeskip said:

If you turn out anything like the UK the girls stuff will quietly disappear.

Theoretically there is a uniform skirt. If memory serves I have seen precisely one adult wear it and not one single youth member. The girls just go for the trousers, same as the boys.

Was it a Scottish person??

I know I know...not a skirt

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Fair enough and true. So I recalculated. But, since Explorers were effectively split (in this statistical report) with School/Career based Exploring moving to LFL and some staying under Exploring program, I removed exploring altogether. This was to compare apples to apples. Leaving Explorers in, but not LFL, creates an impression that there was a significant drop in participation rather than a reclassification of what was a member.

That said, the comparison of the 70's membership drop is still valid and between BSA and GSUSA and both still suffer very equivalent drops. Clearly there were factors in the membership decline beyond the program change, else GSUSA would not have suffered the same decline.

I am not saying the program change had no effect. Perhaps without the change, the decline would not have been as drastic, now way to know for sure. But it appears that other factors were also involved. It is not as simple as saying the program change was the reason.

From the 2016 Annual Report BSA is now at 2,221,939

• Cubs - 1,262,311
• Scouts - 822,999
• Venture - 136,629

• L for L - 372,891
• Explorers - 119,268

Your chart shows (estimate) 3,400,000 in 99.  That is a 35% decline in 17 years.  

Will you poach our crew's women?

Do they have ear tags?  Have you claimed them?  Seems really cavemanny

Somebodies got to do the jokes and heckles from the back of the room, they aren't writing themselves

Saw our CSE, interesting comments from him.  Apparently the drop in numbers for BSA is all about the change in families

"And you think about how families then, in the '70s, '80s and '90s, started to change," he said. "More pressures on the family. More activities for children. Moms now are in the workforce. But because we didn't adapt our program design, we just had a slow, steady erosion."

Partially true, but unless an organization / business / group really, well and truly, understands the issues, they will no doubt repeat them.  Basically CSE is blaming the decline on influences outside the organization.  A very shallow and simplistic view.

Membership declines had nothing to do with the wholesale change in the program in 1974, the continued emphasis on everything BUT outdoor skills and leadership, not fully understanding where your user base is coming from, not the large membership accuracy issues pretty much every decade, not a large professional base more attuned to fund raising than delivery of program, etc etc etc.

Scouting is a great program, one that teaches leadership and self reliance.  Unfortunately we seem to be moving to just another after school program in may ways.  Stick to the strong points if you want to grow.

YPT videos are always entertaining, assume this will cover the updates to the Girls in Cubs requirements.  Would be good if they had updates for coed family Girls in Separate Troops  option.  Most likely there will be a 2019 revision 

21 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I just came back from one of the most depressing District meetings I had been to in years.  There was a proposal to create a council wide camporee for Cubs through Boy Scouts, with a goal of 1,000 Scouts .  The council voted it down as it was not in their best interest.

Was it they just wanted to focus on FOS?  (and popcorn and camp cards and golf tournaments and and and)

We are a successful troop because we have good program and execute it week in and week out.  Also we have and support the feeder packs at the CO who do a good job of providing program to the local area.  We are successful because of our experience and what we do.  The district and council do little to bother us.

Ike had a similar thought

And not sure who advised

“No business plan survives first contact with customers.”

3 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Usually this would have been something you think about before changes are made. Get folks trained. Promote the rules so there's no grey area. 

This potential problem could have been avoided.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

The separate sleeping arrangements was an area of widespread agreement  ... but I expect some  most Packs to screw that up.

I fixed it for you....

6 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Over/under on when the first lawsuit against BSA concerning the mixing of girls and boys on an overnighter?

You just know some Pack somewhere is going to have a coed Den and not properly separate the kids.

I'm gonna go with soon

9 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Assuming that is the case, I would question the comment that the pack wouldn't have to pretend.  The pack would be making a direct promise not to do something, and then do it anyway.

Sadly our good friends at BSA National seem to take the path that this is what the policy is today, but if units choose to do something else, it is what it is.  Then when updating policies and using the path of least resistance, they figure it is less hassle to embrace the ones outside the lines than wrangle them back into compliance, so what the heck, let's make up new rules