FireStone

A plea to adults to stop staying quiet and speak up for our members, in particular the girls in our Packs and Troops: We're going on 7 years of girls in Scouts BSA at the Troop level, 8 years in Cubs. At this point, girls in Scouts BSA and Cub Scouts should seem completely normal to everyone, there aren't many active boys who would have been old enough to remember the time before girls were in the main programs after so many years. And yet if you look on social media, the hostility towards girls is still rampant, and sadly some of it comes from members, both youth and adults. Girls are treated like invaders, as if they took over the BSA and forced themselves into the organization. Nothing could be further from the truth, as these girls would have been under 10 years old when the membership policies changed. Still, some boys and men feel empowered to bully these girls, and yes I knowingly use the word "bully" as it fits the definition of what is happening here. Repeated targeted behavior meant to make someone feel unwelcome on the basis of gender. It's some of the same usernames and profiles making the same comments on every social media post that depicts girls. Whether they like it or not, these girls are full members of Scouting America and should be afforded the same recognition and respect as the boys. But few adults stand up to the bullies. Few people speak out, and even Scouting America seems reluctant to act. Anti-female comments are left on Scouting America social media posts for days or weeks before they are finally deleted, if they are even addressed at all. Meanwhile some of the older girls who are featured in these posts (or their fellow Troop scouts) see the comments and the damage is already done. I think it's long past time that the grace period be expired for what is often reduced to someone "just sharing an opinion". These are Youth Protection violations, use of social media to make people feel like they don't belong in Scouting should be handled as such. Each comment should be investigated, each person identified as a member of Scouting America should be dealt with according to any other in-person instance of bullying. Personally, I'd like to see any adult member who engages in this be immediately removed from the organization. And any scout who does it be referred to their Troop and local Council for appropriate disciplinary action. But aside from any hope for an official response and increase in action regarding this issue, I'd also like to implore EVERYONE to speak up for the girls, and defend female youth members in the same way we'd defend male youth members from bullying and targeted unkind behavior. Those opposed to girls in Scouting America have had more than enough time to get it out, say what they wanted to say, and voice their disagreement. And no one is saying that they can't still do that, but take your grievances to National or Council offices. It's been 8 years. Some girls are old enough to have joined and aged out already, and yet they've had to endure this nonsense from within the organization the whole time. Let's not let this remain a thing in Scouting. We can't control what everyone says, but we can and should end this tolerance we seem to have as an organization for social media bullying on the basis of gender.

What's weird is that by some observations, GNYC Council looks healthy and thriving. I'm in NJ but when we go to Alpine Scout Camp (a GNYC property located just across the river in NJ), that camp is always active and busy. We went to the Cub weekend in the fall and I was told that there were over 1,000 scouts there. For just that one weekend. And most seemed to be GNYC units judging by CSPs on uniforms and Pack t-shirts. The program looks healthy, so it's surprising to read that the actual numbers say otherwise.

I'm doubling down on my "Eagle Scouts who can't congratulate a new Eagle without making it about themselves and mentioning that they are an Eagle" pet peeve to now also include non-Scouters who just know an Eagle personally and seem to be afflicted with the same condition. The comment below was on a post announcing a new Eagle Scout and the commenter didn't even bother to offer any kind of congratulations or accolades and jumped straight to making it about themselves (and their husband).

This is so poorly worded and tone deaf. Family Scouting was a smart concept for Cub Scouts. It makes no sense as a marketing tool for Troops. And like Jameson76 mentioned, it's not what 11-17 year olds want. Also pitching this as a solution to inadequate numbers needed to start a single-gender troop is just pure nonsense. This didn't come about to solve that problem and we all know it. I'm 100% in favor of this all happening, it's long overdue, but I don't get this particular marketing pitch to roll it out as "family scouting". It makes no sense.

I've seen it a handful of times but what reminded me of this was seeing 2 in one camp, but in different units. I actually find it helpful, if everyone abides by the square knot rule it's easy to tell who is a late-teens scout vs. a late-teens adult.

I have so many questions... How did the driver get out? The doors had to be pinned shut. The thing traveled 75 YARDS after impact?? Wish there was video of that. How were there no injuries? Lastly, how about the troop gets to keep the car and they call it even?

Adults wearing Eagle rank patches. Not the square knot, the oval. And I'd personally let it slide for an 18 or 19-year-old, but I'm seeing too many 50-something men wearing an oval Eagle rank patch.

If a troop is starting with 11 and 12 year olds, does it even make sense to have an SPL to start?

We're moving ahead with girls-only for now, we have 2 boy troops in town already, and we are already moving along with the AOL boys preparing them to select one of those troops to join at crossover. I could be convinced to change that at some point, but that's not the plan for starting out next year regardless of what we find out in February.

We're in the early stages (working with CO and Council) to kick off a girls troop for a small group of girls completing their Cub Scout journey in March. I'm going through the SM training and trying to start to formulate a plan to hit the ground running in March despite having a roster of 11-year-olds and no older scouts to teach skills and lead younger scouts. We have a CO on board already, same CO as our Pack and CO of a boys troop, and we initially have agreement with the boys troop to have a shared Committee. From a high-level perspective, I'm just curious if anyone who has been through this or watch new troops get started have any advice, recommendations, tips, tricks, cautionary tales, etc., that could help along the way in these early stages of creating a troop and thinking about those first few months and first meetings. What worked well? What would you do differently if you had to do it again? I know there is only so much I can do with limited resources to start, so what should a new SM in a new troop prioritize? Program? Recruiting? Fundraising? Events/activities/summer camp? All of the above?

I guess it depends on how exactly Council is approaching this. From the OP it was described as "the council went after both the troop's money and equipment," which doesn't really sound like they were asking for stuff, more like demanding it or suggesting that it is their property. Even at that, maybe theft still isn't the right word but it still seems borderline criminal if they are effectively making a CO believe that stuff that belongs to them doesn't actually belong to them and should be handed over. Unless the Council rep doing the demanding is ignorant of the policy and thinking they have the right to those assets. But I have a hard time believing that would be true when money is involved. If someone in their professional capacity is asking a unit to hand over money, they should be darn sure that they are in the right to make that kind of a demand and that the funds are handled appropriately.

Pretty sure that's theft. As others have mentioned, the CO technically is the holder of the assets of the unit. It's why a lot of troop trailers are registered by the CO, insured by the CO, etc. They're not Council assets, they belong to the CO. Folding the troop doesn't default the assets to Council.

What's the minimum cabin layout requirements that would be needed to accommodate AOL dens overnight in a cabin(s) with a male den, female den, and parents attending (mixed group male and female) and be YPT compliant? Could one large cabin be used if it has 4 rooms (with doors) to separate all youth by gender and adults by gender?

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.