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.

There certainly is room for discussion on those points, and on CO rights when it comes to membership, etc. My concern here is not about individual units, or CO discretion when it comes to who they allow to be a part of their chartered unit. This is about the broader ongoing harassment about girls being in the BSA at all, from people who very clearly would like to see girls excluded from the Scouts BSA program entirely.

I can't figure out what other outcome anyone would be advocating for if they believe that the membership policies are not a settled matter. And just for clarity I say "settled" to mean that they are set on paper and will not change, not that everyone is settled in their agreement with them. Outside of this forum, yes, without a doubt there are vocal individuals who wish to see girls and/or LGBTQ+ youth removed from the Scouts BSA program. That much is clear if you read the comments on any social post the BSA makes with a girl or girl troop featured. Or if you even run into one of these folks in-person, and they're often not afraid to say it out loud. Like the woman who passed by our popcorn table outside the local hardware store and said "Keep the 'boy' in Boy Scouts" to the group of young girls in Cub uniforms.

I'm not sure what kind of rational discussion there could be on the topic of girls no longer being welcome in the BSA. And as it relates to the scenarios I outlined in my OP, yes, it's a YPT issue. But that seems to be considered "hostility" to some here because I'm wording a YPT violation in terms that are apparently too harsh.

Do you really think there should be a "civil discourse" around whether or not some kids should be allowed in the BSA based on gender? It's settled policy, no going back. So at this point, any discourse around allowing girls or LGBTQ+ kids in the BSA serves no constructive purpose. When it is done in the view of youth it violates YPT and should not be tolerated.

I'm completely open to discussion about the logistics of girls being in the BSA, mixed gender troops, patrols, packs, etc. What I do not believe the organization should be tolerant of is opinions on whether girls should be welcome in the organization at all. That's not up for debate, the policy is settled on that. We're not going back. The BSA would sooner fold that suffer the societal backlash they'd face if they tried to undo this and kick the girls out. If my thread title seems hostile, it is only in response to the hostility that the BSA allows toward members who are supposed to feel welcome here.

It's been 5 years of girls being in the Scouts BSA program, and yet every time the BSA posts a picture featuring a girl in uniform on Instagram, out come the scouts, scouters, and what appears to be just random other adults to complain about girls being in the BSA. I was in a virtual training session held by the Marketing team at National last night and a Scouter took to the chat to complain about gay and trans youth being allowed in the program. Then I go over to reddit and read a story about a girl who got nasty looks from supposed "adults" at a restaurant because she was an Eagle Scout in uniform. Enough is enough. These policies are set. Girls are part of this, whether anyone likes it or not. LGBTQ+ youth are part of this whether John from the Zoom chat likes it or not. And if some folks who are registered members of this organization can't seem to get on board with that, or at the very least keep their mouths shut in public spaces about how they feel, I think the BSA should start treating these incidents like the YPT violations that they are. Comments made to make any scout feel unwelcome on the basis of gender or sexual orientation are not tolerated in the BSA, or so we're told. It's time to back that up. Scouts who participate in this online bullying, posting negative comments on social media posts suggesting that girls aren't welcome, similarly should be dealt with according to the YPT protocols that we are reminded of in detail every 2 years. At the very least, Scoutmasters should be made aware when one of their scouts engages in online harassment of another scout. Some of these offending scouts put identifiable information their public profiles, which isn't really great but it does allow for them to be identified and possibly reported to their units' leadership. The scouts who these comments are directed at do read them. They comment on those very same Instagram posts, although thankfully they take the high road and only comment in a positive way and ignore the harassment and bullying. But clearly they do see it and read it. There's no point to even having a DEI officer on staff in the BSA if they're not going to enforce even these basic YPT and membership policy standards. But what does National do when faced with these kinds of things, like they were last night on that Zoom call? They talk around it in gentle terms, trying not to ruffle too many feathers. Enough is enough. Stand up for our scouts, BSA. When John hops in the chat to voice his opinions on LGBTQ+ youth, that's the point where someone should have stepped in and immediately shut that down, in the clearest terms possible, and stated that such statements do not align with the membership policies of the BSA. When negative comments are made on social media posts, at the very least the BSA social media managers could delete them. But I'd also like to see them follow up on those that appear to have been made by active BSA members, and investigate them as YPT violations. It's time to stop this nonsense. Let's go, BSA.

Need to see the requirements to really understand how this will play out across the ranks, but my first thoughts: Arrow of Light looks like a lot as a full six-required-adventures rank, considering that most Packs don't do a full year of AOL (crossovers happen around March). Bear seems to have lost the 2 favorite adventures (at least in my Pack), Baloo the Builder and Bear Claws. Hope those get rolled into these new adventures in some way, especially Bear Claws and Whittling Chip.

Side comment: I'm still legitimately surprised that the uniform isn't more enthusiastically worn by today's youth who are growing up with video games and digital achievement badges. We offer the IRL version of that, but they don't want to wear it? What the heck!? My son with "grind" on a video game challenge until he gets it, to earn some digital achievement badge, but I can't get him to "grind" on a merit badge or some 2nd Class first-aid requirements he still needs to do. Ok, rant over. 😄

Throwing a random thought out there: I see a lot of comments about costs, registration fees, uniform costs, etc. And when I go on social media I see a lot of people commenting on photos of scouts with incomplete or improper uniforms. Scouts wearing jeans, non-standard insignia, missing badges, etc. Many of these comments come from adults, and one recent comment I saw came from a council executive. I feel like we've gotta let it go with the uniform policing. At the local unit level, if a troop wants to maintain some kind of uniform standard, fine. But at an organizational level, this can only be doing harm. Especially now, if costs are this much of an issue, shaming scouts and families into purchasing every single piece of the uniform is only going to make families question whether they want to be a part of this. I'm not that interested in what scouts are wearing when they show up. Obviously I'd prefer they wear at least a uniform shirt, but the rest is not a priority for me. Uniform shirt, t-shirt, jeans, shorts, neckerchief, no neckerchief, doesn't matter, I'd just rather they show up. If they're willing to show up, I'm not going to criticize that they're wearing jeans. I'm still shocked that a council exec took to social media to comment on a scout's jeans in a photo. It's not the only thing that will drive kids and families away from this, but it for sure could be one of the things that might.

I'll never be convinced that the modern BSA is any worse than most other youth organizations when it comes to prevention. YPT isn't perfect, and nothing is. But it's still miles ahead of what your local sports, clubs, and other youth orgs are doing. So the idea that the BSA "is still not safe for boys and girls" is unfair. There will never be any youth activity that is completely safe. And I'm fine with the BSA paying for past sins, for the coverups and failures of leadership. But I hate that today's youth and families are paying for it, too.