FireStone

Whatever you pick, just own it and be consistent. I inherited a mess of a Pack number, with a 3-digit number used some places, single-digit used elsewhere. Our Pack flag had 3 digits, uniforms 1 digit, Pack website URL 3 digits, Pack fliers 1 digit. For recruiting and promotional purposes it was a mess, we looked like 2 completely different Packs. I know a lot of units use the "unofficial" number, and that's fine as long as you're consistent with it. Don't jump around with the public use of the number so that people know how to identify you.

I don't disagree, this is just counter to what I hear locally. There's a lot of local emphasis on the uniform, badges, etc., especially at the Cub level, and definitely at the recruiting level. Our Council encourages us to talk about the uniform at recruiting events, we've even set up displays of the uniform, badges, etc., as a sort of "look and see" to get kids excited about the badges they'll earn. I try to "sell the fun" in recruiting materials. And the materials using the BSA imagery are great for that, but they also mostly leave out the uniform, and that makes for a sort of weird image based on the local culture here of pushing the uniform. Maybe that's where this whole discussion came from for me. What National puts out there visually isn't so weird for many units, but for me it's jarringly different from what I see and hear locally. National seems to favor t-shirts for photos, whereas when my Pack knows we're going to be somewhere that photos will be taken, it's more like "You better show up in full uniform for those photos!" 😀

It seems odd to me, though. Especially the photos of girls, after all we've seen and heard about girls being so proud to join and wear the uniform, wouldn't that be an angle the BSA would want to emphasize? I'm not sure there's a better image of the BSA being fully open to girls than a photo of a girl in a BSA uniform. I know marketing materials aren't policy, and neither is the examples set by various folks from National and around the national organization, it just seems to me like another point of conflict between what local folks say and what National shows us by example. I've even heard from a parent in our unit that they are upset that we don't enforce uniform policy more. They force their kid to wear the uniform at every activity and event, and they say we should require all scouts to do the same. That's a tough sell already, when our Pack just spent a bunch of money on nice Class B t-shirts. Now we've got fliers going out to all the schools showing kids in t-shirts, but I'm supposed to enforce stricter uniform standards? If I go by what National is giving us, I would think it should be the opposite, de-emphasizing the uniform.

I've heard a local scouter refer to the uniform as a "field uniform", and say that it should be worn at all Scouting functions, by all scouts and scouters. "There is no Class B", he says, adding "You're either in uniform or you're not." I'm the recruitment coordinator for my Pack, and I frequently browse the BSA Brand Center for interesting photos to use in marketing materials. Not every parent wants photos of their kids used in promotional materials, fliers we distribute around town, etc., so I find the stock BSA photos to be useful for this. Browsing the latest batches of photos, I'm finding a very noticeable lack of uniform present. Under the "camping" image category for Scouts BSA, there are 52 photos, not one of them showing a Scout in uniform in the field. In fact, as best I can tell, in the entire Scouts BSA photo collection there are only 5 photos that show Scouts in uniform, and they are older images, likely to be phased out some time soon (as it seems to happen with the Brand Center, new images in, old stuff out). It's the same under Cub Scouts, most photos show scouts out of uniform, in Class B t-shirts. Under "Top Picks" for Cub Scout photos, 1 of the 19 photos shows a scout in uniform, in the background of the photo. I work in marketing, and one of the things we often say around the office is that marketing is aspirational. You don't show your potential customers what you do right now, you show them your higher view of what you do, your more aspirational ideas of where you'd like to be. One of my food science clients doesn't show photos of their actual dirty labs and equipment in their marketing materials, they show photos of super clean labs, stuff that was cleaned up just for that photo and that we then Photoshopped even further to look spectacular. Facilities are immaculate, workers are smiling, the grass outside the building is always bright green and the sun is always shining. It's a depiction of what the company wants to be, not what they actually are day-to-day. If I were to judge the aspirations of the BSA based on what they are putting out in their marketing resources, the photos they create and distribute, my conclusion would be that the scout uniform has been killed off. If these photos are any indication of what the BSA hopes we'll look like in the near future, it's a future without uniforms. Emphasis on the uniform in the BSA from the National perspective has seemed to ease up in recent years. I've even noticed the adoption of some more European trends in uniforming becoming popular at the National level in the BSA in their marketing and promotional efforts. Videos from events sometimes show scouts and scouters in casual clothing with a loosely fitted neckerchief on, tied in a friendship knot (picture how Bear Grylls typically looks in a hoodie and neckerchief). I wouldn't begrudge the BSA for killing off the uniform. I'd probably applaud the move, actually. Kids don't like the uniform (ask your kids if they'd be willing to wear their uniform to school before telling me I'm wrong about this and that they actually really love the uniform), Scouts tend to wear Class B every chance they get, sometimes even when we say Class A is required. I've actually had parents ask me, "Do they really need to wear the uniform? My son says he feels dorky in it." I love the uniform, personally, although I think it could do with a design update and modernization. But more than that, I love delivering an enjoyable program for scouts and if the uniform is something that makes them unhappy, I would be all for National doing what I think they are already doing and downplaying the importance of the uniform in most activities, or doing away with it completely. If this truly is the direction we're headed in, if BSA marketing photos are any kind of look inside the mind of National and their vision for the future, I think I'm ok with how it looks.

Girl Scouts might wish they had more of a uniform in theory, but in practice I'm not so sure they'd really like it or that what we have is the best option. Kids generally don't like the BSA uniforms. Try getting scouts at pretty much any age/rank beyond Tiger to wear a uniform to school. My son hates going out in public in-uniform. We went out for ice cream after a recent scout activity and he wanted to go home first to get changed (I didn't let him). I've debated a local scouter on the uniform, he thinks it should be worn always, no exceptions, because it's a "field uniform suitable for any activity." I've argued that the various complaints and problems with the uniform prove how unsuited it really is for youth field use. I'm not sure what the answer is. I've long admired the more European standard of limited uniform use in the field in favor of a necker over whatever clothing a scout is wearing (Bear Grylls style). Not as a replacement for the uniform but just as a more welcome option to it for activities. Maybe there's a way to simplify uniforms. It's all of the moving parts that seem to be most problematic and easily lost.

I don't know how accurate the earlier claim of 5 cases of sexual abuse in the BSA in 2018 is, but assuming for a minute that it's in the ballpark of accurate, can we just acknowledge the immense progress the BSA has made in curbing abuse? If we go by the available data from these articles, 12,254 victims of sexual abuse in the BSA have been reported since 1944. On average, that's about 163 per year. And surely the rate of abuse has diminished over time, likely with recent years tapering off and years further back having significantly greater numbers of abuses per year. We've gone from hundreds, sometimes several hundred, per year, potentially down to 5 reported cases in 2018. That's incredible. I know it's not zero, and let's not get back into the discussion about any abuse is one too many. We all agree on that. I think it's just worth saying, and I wish these articles would say it too, that the BSA has made incredible strides in drastically reducing incidents of sexual abuse.

The goal is certainly always zero. Without question. But that's a goal. Realistically, I don't see a way to ensure 100% success in stopping abuse from happening. We hope that all of the measures we put in place make it likely that we would catch a predator before they are able to abuse a scout. YPT shows us what to look for, how to spot grooming and precursors to potentially abuse before it happens. But there is nothing that can be done to ensure that 100% of our membership adheres to 100% of the policies and best practices 100% of the time. We can't track what every adult volunteer is doing 100% of the time, especially outside of official scouting activities. I would venture a guess that there isn't a unit in the country that is 100% YPT compliant 100% of the time. Mistakes happen. We see things sometimes and say "That was a YTP violation" and we correct it and prevent it from happening again, but it still happens. I'm a YPT nut, I constantly harp on it in my Pack, probably to a level of annoyance for some folks. But I can't control what everyone else does. I needed a fundraiser form from a scout and called his dad, who said he'd bring it right over (he lives a block away). My doorbell rings and it's the scout, not the dad, standing at my door, alone. Obviously not ok, and I immediately called the dad to tell him that his son was on his way back home and they he could not send his scout to an adult leader's home alone ever again. So to me, 100% success in stopping abuse across the entire BSA would mean that there are no holes in YPT, 100% compliance in all units. And at the unit level that's just not realistic. I can correct people every time, but in the fall I've got a whole new crop of scouts and parents who, like the dad mentioned above, don't know the rules, forget the rules, or just make a mistake sometimes. The BSA has done a good job of closing up the gaps in protection. YPT does a lot to make the BSA much safer. We can say "zero" is the goal, but it's not realistic to think we'll ever get to zero. Similarly I'd love to see the BSA get to zero incidents of injury or death during scouting activities, but again, zero incidence of anything just isn't realistic.

I'm struggling with this, the wording of this. Saying the "problem is worse than anyone knew", it sounds like it's ongoing, like the high levels of abuse are a current problem. And maybe, admittedly very selfishly, I'm a little more concerned about the future of the program than the past. I have sympathy for the men in this article and the countless many more who have secretly carried the burden of their abuse by scout leaders for decades. But to me that's just it... decades, not a fair reflection of abuse today. I'm sure it still happens today, I'm not naive enough to think that our YPT program has eradicated sexual abuse. But surely it's not as prevalent as it was in the past, is it? The culture today around abuse prevention is entirely different that it was 40 years ago, when many of the men in this article were abused. Abuse prevention culture barely even existed back then. The notion of a scout going to a SM's house alone wouldn't have raised many eyebrows. Today that would be a huge red flag. And kids today are far more conditioned to report abuse. Sure it's still hard to do, and many are persuaded by abusers to remain silent. But still, I struggle to believe that the problem is still an "is", rather than a "was". Again, I'm not saying it's over and abuse is down to zero. But to suggest that things are as bad (or worse) today just seems entirely unfair to the program of today and the many leaders and parents who work diligently to make the BSA far safer than it has ever been (in my estimation and belief). I'm the recruiting chair for my Pack. I can't help wondering how much stuff like this hurts our recruiting efforts, when news articles like this seem to imply in just a few words that the past abuses by scout leaders of previous generations of leaders are still the norm in this organization. And I know that's a very selfish viewpoint, but I'm just being honest here. I really don't believe that the BSA of today deserves to be destroyed by the abuses of the past. At the very least I wish the BSA got some credit for how they do things today, and the very deliberate efforts that are made throughout the organization to combat abuse for the current and future generations of scouts.

Agreed 110%. I run a Wolf Den, and at this age they've just started to be able to handle the den meeting structure. And not all of them, but I'm seeing the shift happening. As Tigers, forget it, it was a mess. And from what I hear from our Lions parents, that's an even bigger mess. My daughter is going to skip the Lion year, no way I'm subjecting her (or myself) to that. We're also seeing issues with bringing in kids that young and the expectations of parents. Cub Scouts sells the idea of adventure, "Build Your Adventure" and all that. It's a huge let-down for some parents to join and not see any of what they expected "adventure" to be until 2 or 3 years into it. It hurts retention. I know the BSA sees Lions as a way to add another dues-paying year to Cub Scouts. But long-term I wonder if it's going to negatively impact retention in later years.

Terrible news. Sad to hear this. I'm far from any kind of watercraft expert, so I'll defer to the folks here who know more... but in looking at that photo of the accident scene, it looks pretty sketchy to me. Lots of downed limbs, plenty of stuff to get tangled up in if someone is in the water.

What a cool story!

I also advise parents that if they prefer to buy a metal neckerchief slide, buy the Scouts BSA version. It's not rank-specific and can be used all throughout Cubs and Scouts BSA. Also not "official", I know, but if a scout can opt to use pretty much anything they want as a slide, I see no reason why the Scouts BSA slide isn't a suitable option too.

We made universal neckerchiefs and paracord slides for our Pack. I know that's not officially allowed, but whatever, we got tired of the nickel-and-dime routine too. Our neckers are really sharp, with a custom embroidered patch on them. Cost $12 but last all throughout their Cub years. It is ridiculous. Why on earth there are 3 different belt buckles is beyond me. It really is set up to just sell us more stuff. Not at all thrifty.

Strange that her father's law firm website seems to suggest they were involved, then. Her fight and determination are what I always liked about her. Her involvement in getting the BSA to change the policy on girls is an example of bravery that few adults could ever muster. I wouldn't want that spotlight, that attention, that pressure. I don't want scouts to be quiet in the face of something they believe should be different. But there's a right and wrong way to approach those issues. My support for Sydney ceased when she got what she wanted and it still wasn't good enough because it wasn't on her terms. The BSA gave her a path to Eagle. She wanted something different. While I would encourage any scout to speak up for something they believe in, I would also have to encourage them to accept the outcome if they try to change something and it doesn't go exactly as they would like it to. They can't always win. Sometimes you fight and lose, or fight and get something a little different than what you wanted, and sometimes that's as far as the fight should go. Sydney fought hard and won a huge victory for girls in the BSA. She should be proud of that. What I find disrespectful about her actions now is that she has essentially decided to just do things her way regardless of what the BSA says. She put that Life rank on even though the BSA specifically outlined what she would have to do to earn it, and that past activities would not be credited. They didn't say she can't be an Eagle Scout. They outlined what she would have to do to earn the rank, and she said no, I'll do it my own way. I admire her determination, I really do. I wrote letters to BSA National in support of her. But I greatly dislike what has transpired since the policy change, and her refusal to accept fair terms from the BSA on how she could reach her goal.

Over 100 years later we still talk about Arthur Eldred. It would be a lot more than 15 minutes of fame and she knows it.

There was an email address with the patch notification email, I replied but nothing back yet.

I'd be with you on this if it really was just about credit for past scouting work completed and she would join that inaugural class of Eagles. But my feeling (from what I've read and heard from this scout and her family) is that this may have more to do with her wanting to be "the first". She isn't content with credit for the work. She has specifically asked for the "immediate granting" of the rank of Eagle Scout.

My son completed the recent Boys' Life Magic Treehouse Reading Warrior promotion and qualified for the patch. The email to order the patch sat in my Inbox for 3 days too long and I missed the deadline to get one for him. Anyone have any extras? I'd happily buy one, pay for shipping, etc. Or trade for some local CSPs. Here's the original promotion with a photo of the patch: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2019/01/31/magic-tree-house-reading-warrior/

It 100% tells me that things were fudged, fabricated, altered, or ignored. It is impossible that a female scout could even be wearing the Life rank badge today, not to mention months ago. We're 3 months into Scouts BSA. In what possible way could a female scout earn Life rank already?

It is documented, as I mentioned (media photos).

On the question of whether there are any shortcuts being taken/given to girls, I don't think it's debatable. It is an absolute fact that it's happening (a prominent female scout was wearing her Life rank badge in media photos months ago). There's too much appeal for some parents and leaders to have their scouts be among this historic group of girls who are "the first" in many facets of advancement, from Cubs through Eagle. It's literal history in the making. "Inaugural Class of Female Eagle Scouts." What parent or SM of an eligible female scout wouldn't want them to be a part of that? And of course we all hope it's done by the book for every scout, but realistically we know it's not, and there's little effort to hide it in some cases. Every scout should be held to the same high standard, regardless of gender. Unfortunately I also think there's little hope of that happening any time soon. These aren't normal times for the BSA, and they won't become normal until the dust settles, we all get our bearings with the new BSA, and we're done with all of the "firsts" for girls and can get back to business as usual. Until then, it's a race to be a part of history, and for some adults that unfortunately means turning a blind eye to shortcuts.

This is really the best way to put it. If a troop's mission is to churn out Eagle Scouts, either by some benchmark over time or by some percentage of membership, that's an Eagle mill/factory. The term carries some negative connotation but in these cases, it's probably deserved. A troop that just outputs a high number/percentage of Eagle Scouts just from having a good program could possibly also be called a factory/mill, but I would call them that just because of the negativity around those terms. A troop shouldn't be unfairly labeled just for being a good troop that adequately supports scouts and patrols to move along in advancement easily as part of a robust and active program. I greatly dislike use of the terms factory/mill to describe high-eagle-count troops that are outputting high numbers of Eagle Scouts because of their good program. I've heard scouters call units factories/mills based on nothing more than number of Eagle Scouts in a given time period, and it's not fair. One such unit has 96 scouts. But this scouter felt that they're a "factory" because they produced 8 Eagles in one year. Meanwhile this troop is incredible, they're highly active in the community, help out local Cub Packs regularly, they run a solid program full of activities, community service, etc. And they don't put out 8 Eagles every year, sometimes years they have 2 or 3. But one year they have a big Eagle class and all of a sudden it's a bad thing somehow.

I'd really prefer my scouts wear bright colors, I suspect their parents would be more offended if I had to tell them we lost their kid in the woods and the forest green shirt we made them wear so they didn't offend the sensibilities of nearby hikers was making it harder to spot them.

I'm really not a fan of the drab colors of the BSA uniforms (Cub blue is ok but the SBSA olive/green is just dull), so when I had the chance to design Class B t-shirts for my Pack, I picked a bright "electric blue" shirt with bright yellow ink. 😁 I get the LNT idea here with regard to color, but that's also mostly focused on the concept of lessening your impact on natural surroundings. Natural surroundings. Being that we spend most of our time in Scout camps (especially at the Cub level), our surroundings include a lot of visual impact. Signs, flags, buildings, noise, cars, and lots of other unnatural things.

Such a shame. If any part of their intent is to force families in both organizations to make a choice, and if those families are at all like the ones in my Pack, they'll choose BSA.