FireStone

20 minute drive in either direction (one troop to the east, one to the west, both about 20 minutes away). Entirely different towns and school districts.

I just don't know of any other areas of my life where people congratulate someone for something and feel compelled to say they've done the same thing. I've never congratulated someone for a graduation and felt the need to immediately say that I also graduated from a school. In a broader conversation, sure, things like that might come up. it's just not what I would say in a brief offer of congratulations, basically in the same sentence. It's my pet peeve, I know it's not everyone's. I guess I just like to be more understated.

Anyone know of any data on retention rates for scouts who join troops outside of their hometown vs. being members of an in-town troop? The reason I'm asking: Some folks in my daughter's Pack are discussing the possibility of starting a local girls' troop or having the girls join an out-of-town troop after they finish Cub Scouts. My concern with an out-of-town troop is the possibility of scouts feeling a little disconnected by being in a troop that isn't in their own town and mostly with kids that they don't also go to school with. Are scouts more likely to stick with the program if they have a troop in their own town? Do we know that joining an out-of-town troop is or is not a detriment to willingness and enthusiasm to stick with the program?

Unpopular opinion I'm sure, but: Eagle Scouts who can't congratulate a new Eagle without making it about themselves and mentioning that they are an Eagle (usually along with the year they earned it as well). Why not just a "Congrats, huge achievement, best of luck in your future endeavors."

A post 6 years in the making... So it took a while, but I finally found one of these and picked it up on eBay. I'm going to rock it on my uniform for a bit. 😄

I'm struggling a bit with the "Do Your Best" part of this, too. On other things it's easy enough to say a Scout came to the Den Meetings, they worked on the requirements, if they came up short on 1 thing despite trying we could still say that they did their best. Not attending a campout is a little tougher to apply "Do Your Best" to if they don't show up at all. I have a large den and I'm hopeful they will all take advantage of the several camping opportunities we have planned the next few months, but realistically speaking i can imagine a couple of scouts maybe won't show up to any of them. I don't think I'd pass a Scout on AOL and award them the badge if they don't even come to a camping trip, or they don't go to a Troop meeting or any of the requirements that basically mean you have to physically be somewhere. I'm not asking for a lot, I don't think, just show up. If you go to a Troop meeting and have to leave after 10 minutes, I'm not super happy about that but it's much easier to sign off on that than a scout who never set foot in a Troop meeting. Is that excessively harsh?

Under the old (pre-2024) requirements the language used was: "As a patrol, make plans to participate in a troop’s campout or other outdoor activity. " Now (since last year), the requirement reads: "With your patrol or a Scouting America troop, participate in a campout." The "or other outdoor activity" in the old requirement made this sound (to me) like most typical outdoor activities would count, and not necessarily require an overnight stay. Since that wording was removed, and now it just says "participate in a campout", that sort of sounds like the expectation is that the AOL requirement is that scouts spend a night in the woods. "Campout" isn't showing up and doing some outdoor stuff and then going home, at least in how I'd define it. Is there any clear guidance on this from Scouting America? Or how do you interpret this requirement under the 2024 terms?

My pack is taking in another local pack that has had dwindling membership. We're not merging officially, yet, but the other pack will attend all of our den and pack meetings and activities. Packs will remain separate in registration, finance, charter, rosters, etc. Just functionally work together. What is the requirement for number of registered den leaders needed for both packs if we're working together? Do both packs still need the requisite 2 registered DLs per den? So if our Bears den has the other pack's Bears den at our den meetings, does the other pack's Bears den still need registered leaders?

Actually I think they were appeasing the simpletons by waiting 5 years to change the name. They could have done this when they opened the program up to girls but they knew that too many peoples' heads would explode if they did the name change at the same time.

Actually I think they were appeasing the simpletons by waiting 5 years to change the name. They could have done this when they opened the program up to girls but they knew that too many peoples' heads would explode if they did the name change at the same time.

I feel like the name change helps remove a distraction, the constant complaining from folks who still felt like the name "Boy Scouts of America" was some kind of mandate that girls not be allowed. Removing the basis of that argument ("Boy" in the main organization name) means there is no argument anymore. It's part of the org name, it's codified into the primary brand identity. It's done, we can (finally) move on from having to defend the contradiction in the name.

We censor speech all the time in the BSA, we're supposed to. Certain kinds of speech are not allowed according to YPT policies. Speech that is intended to make youth feel unwelcome on the basis of gender, for example, is not tolerated. I personally have no particular issue with someone thinking that girls shouldn't be here. What I do have an issue with is what kicked off this thread to begin with, people taking it from thinking this stuff and progressing to saying it in settings with scouts and scouters encounter it. So circling back to yknot's comment, that people who hold the viewpoint that girls should not be in Cub Scouts or Scouts BSA "should not be adult leaders," it's not necessarily hostile if those views turn into actions/speech that violates YPT. Now yknot and I may differ on whether saying girls don't belong here in any setting, like one adult saying it to another vs. an adult saying it in front of scouts, for example, where I think that yknot might believe that both scenarios should make someone ineligible to be a leader while I don't. But I don't think it's particularly hostile to suggest that people who hold these viewpoints might be folks who could be problematic as leaders. If someone doesn't feel that girls should be here, could they objectively sit on an EBOR for a girl? We don't have entirely free speech here, it's just how it is and it's part of the gig if you're an adult who interacts with scouts. YPT says there are, in fact, things that cannot be said. Those who violate those policies can and should face consequences for doing so. You may view that as "hostile", but that's just how the BSA is. We operate under a set of current policies or we can work to change them. That doesn't mean, however, that adults can violate those policies and not be held to appropriate consequences. They can speak out in an appropriate manner. They cannot speak out in forums and settings where scouts can see/hear/read it.

I thought that one of the points of YPT was to, in fact, shield scouts from people wishing to do harm? A lot of YPT is about prevention. Allowing hateful comments to remain on BSA social media posts (many remain and aren't deleted) seems like it would go against what we're trained to do, to stop the harm from continuing. We wouldn't just opt to ignore bullying comments made in-person, we respond to them, stop them, and address the scout or scouts making them. Comments made to make scouts feel unwelcome in the BSA constitute bullying, no matter where they happen. We certainly can't shield scouts from them everywhere, certainly not all over the Internet, but we should be able to react to them with the world of scouting in, in our units, camps, and the online social environments that we can control, along the same lines that we would respond to any such incident of bullying and/or harassment according to YPT policies and processes. The BSA has the ability to better respond to these kinds of comments, especially within their own social channels. I believe that they should.

Instagram is a public forum. And the BSA is tagging the troops they repost content from, so the scouts and scouters in those troops can (and do) see the comments. Yes I spoke up, as I intend to do anywhere I see this stuff, as well as share my concerns directly with whoever at National I can get to listen, starting with folks like Lisa Schuchart. So... what then? Adults should tell their scouts to not look at the posts the BSA tagged their troop in because of peoples' right to make hateful comments aimed at those scouts? Why do the kids have to look the other way on posts that the BSA is making, which should be a space that all scouts and scouters should feel welcome to view and engage in? The BSA has no obligation to allow any comments on their social media posts. Free speech means you can say what you want without government interference. Nothing about free speech says the BSA has to platform hateful comments on their own posts. Free speech also doesn't absolve anyone of YPT rules and regulations and the consequences of violating them.

I'm not a lawyer either and to be honest I'm not sure where the line is drawn between bullying and harassment, or what the overlap is. I used both terms here because I think the repeated nature of some of the offending comments (a few folks seem to be making negative comments on numerous posts), it looks like a campaign of harassment to me. But that's just my opinion, and not legally informed in any way.