FireStone

Well, you probably won't want to hear this, but when folks like me were arguing in favor of gay scouts, gay scouters, and girls in the BSA, we weren't just talking about it on Internet forums. We were writing letters (not emails, typed letters, hand-signed and mailed) to various members of the Executive Board. We were donating money to groups like Scouts for Equality. We were signing petitions, making phine calls, and speaking up in any way that we could. This forum is great for discussion, but it doesn't actually give any of us a voice in any debate in a way that actually sways opinion. If you want to get things done, you should use your voice (and your pen, and your keyboard, and your printer paper and stamps) to be heard by anyone who you can find a phone number or mailing address for that can influence these things. I'd rather you didn't. 😉 But I'm just sayin', folks like me have been lound and clear on these issues for years, with the people making these decisions. If you haven't been, well, I think you can probably imagine how we got here then.

I've never thought that any of this was about saving the organization. This is about saving a bunch of jobs in one Texas office. The BSA can live on as a volunteer-only scouting org, like others around the world. Under 100,000 members we could keep right on scouting along. We just can't sustain the bloat of the big salaries, SBR debts, etc. The BPSA-US has, what, a couple of thousand members, maybe? They still go camping, have Camporee-type of events (Hullabalo I believe they call them), wear uniforms, give out badges, do service projects, march in parades, hold fundraisers, pay dues, have training sessions, etc. It's all done on a smaller scale (no big summer camps, no jamborees), but it works. A handful of national staff volunteers oversee the bigger operations, making program changes, writing handbooks, getting badges manufactured, etc. But the vast majority of the work happens on the ground at the unit level. Not all that different from what most of us already do anyway. Scouting will endure in America for a long time. The BSA specifically can endure, but not if we lose a lot of members and National isn't willing to change their business model to something more thrifty. I don't believe it will come to that, I have faith in our new trajectory and that this thing will work in it's new configuration. But if I'm wrong and things do go bad, I hope National will do the right thing and not sacrifice the whole ship just to keep a few captains well-paid for a few extra years.

I have to admit I didn't know much about him and had to Google him. He seems like a cool guy, just not sure he'd be the guy the BSA would be looking for as the US equivalent to Bear. Creek seems a bit more old-school and has that mid-western-rancher-meets-navajo-medicine-man vibe about him. Might not be a modern enough image for what the BSA would probably be looking for. And he wore an Eagle Scout badge on a uniform shirt as an adult, so clearly he's out. 😉

Putting aside the doom-and-gloom ideas for a moment, let's think about what this all looks like in a few years, or maybe a decade, if all of the changes don't sink the BSA. National has to have some sort of plan (go ahead, laugh, but let's assume for a minute that they actually do have a plan), or at least some idea of what they are driving the organization towards. My guess? Look at Scouts UK. Things that Scouts UK has done differently in past decades that the BSA is now doing: Scouts UK has been co-ed for a long time. They simplified their uniforms, attempting to revamp the image of scouting, something I suspect the BSA is already working on (look at BSA Brand Center marketing photos and lack of uniforms). They modernized their program, adding more non-traditional badges and activities (look at the heavy push in STEM in the BSA). These are all things that the BSA is already doing or seems to be working towards. We've had glimpses of a revamped uniform discussed here in this forum. I think we'll see more and more of that in the years to come. I've even seen BSA personnel and camp staffers occasionally walking around wearing neckerchiefs in the UK style and without the uniform shirt, and new larger necker sizes becoming available. If I had to imagine what National is envisioning as they move forward, that vision really does feel a lot like what we've seen across the pond. I would not be at all surprised to see the BSA even take on an ambassador like Bear Grylls to try and push this newer, cooler scouting image in the US. Not sure who our Bear could be, though. Any other guesses as to what the BSA of the future might look like? Are we on a path that aligns with the UK program or something else?

It could be. It just means making the effort to change the script. The lore isn't the only thing that makes the OA what it is. Sure it's rooted in Lenape history and style, but what makes it special is the mystique about it, the secretiveness, the ceremonies (the act of carrying out the ceremonies, not necessarily the exact lore behind them), etc. Swap any cultural lore into an OA ceremony and to me I think it would be just as cool. Imagine an OA based on pacific island culture, island ceremony, dance, and regalia. I think that would easily be just as impressive. I'm not saying to just appropriate another culture, but I think that the OA doesn't need to be entirely dependent on a specific brand of cultural lore to maintain the image of a brotherhood, an honor society, or a somewhat mysterious secretive group. Keep the brotherhood, the honor, the core of the organization, and instead of wrapping it in Lenape, wrap it in something else. Or create something else around it. Maybe this is actually an opportunity for the OA to recreate itself in an image that the OA can say is entirely their own.

Doesn't sound odd at all. Teen pregnancies would skyrocket if there was a minimum age for condom purchase.

That says nothing about minors having condoms, or being given them by adults.

Can we at least be fair in how we discuss this? the BSA is not "offering these items to our scouts," and not "going to be handing out these items." Condoms are made available, upon request, probably at the health center. The way this is talked about here by some folks you would almost think there will be a guy in a condom costume flinging handfuls of rubbers into the crowd. As for the religious implications, not all religions prohibit the use of condoms, and some don't prohibit pre-marital sex. So even if you were allowed by the BSA to discuss sex with Scouts, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to discuss the religious implications even under those conditions. For the purposes of informing scouts about the risk to their BSA membership by engaging in any sexual activity at a scouting venue, maybe you can find someone in your organization that is not religiously bound to refrain from dropping the hint to scouts that if they find themselves needing to use the condoms available at Jambo that the might also find themselves not in the BSA anymore. They don't have to go into detail, just make it known that there is a policy, and don't break it.

What law? I don't think such a law exists.

I think my "logic" will differ a little when we're talking about a BSA-only event. We're talking about a global event here, so a little flexibility and understanding that other scouting organizations and their approach to this topic maybe being different from ours would make sense to me. In the BSA specifically, the availability of condoms is a little odd to me because asking for one means you just became eligible for possible expulsion from the organization. I'd be very surprised if any BSA scout goes to WSJ '19 and asks for a condom knowing that it might be the last thing they do in Scouting. Or second-to-last thing anyway. But even that is still preferable in my opinion, if the alternative is doing it unprotected and risking far more than their Scouting career.

I haven't been a leader for very long, but I've already observed more than once that saying, "Don't do that, you might get hurt," frequently doesn't prevent the activity from taking place anyway. I wish that were different, but realistically I know that I carry a first aid kit everywhere because things happen, even seemingly preventable things, and occasionally some things that happen in the course of a violation of G2SS despite every effort to avoid it. If a Scout who is too young to use a saw still manages to get his/her hands on a saw and gets hurt, it doesn't do me much good at that point to say, "Well, G2SS says you shouldn't have had that saw." We can tell Scouts, "Don't have sex at Jambo," and certainly hope for the best. But I, like a lot of folks here, was a teenage boy once, and I did stupid things even though adults warned me against them. I'd rather Scouts have an opportunity to be less stupid and reckless while being stupid and reckless. It's not ideal. It's not G2SS compliant. But it's a preventative health measure for a problem that is going to exist no matter how much we try to prevent it from happening.

I regret buying my son the Tiger belt buckle. I have no idea if any of the other Tigers in his den are wearing the Tiger buckle or not. There should be one buckle type for Cub Scouts. Same with the neckerchief slide. It's just wasteful to change it every year.

I have a hard time believeing that they really felt that way. When the BSA still banned gay scouts and units were actively kicking out gay kids or blocking Eagle applications for gay scouts, many Eagle Scouts (myself included) were appalled and vowed never to rejoin the BSA while that policy stood. Some Eagle Scouts returned their medals to National during that time. I would think that that was a clear indication that no group is guaranteed to support whatever National does in terms of membership policy changes.

BSA families have been sending scouts to World Jambo all this time, though. Surely this isn't an issue now just because the condoms are being made available on US soil. If there is any outrage about this now, there should have been the same 4 years ago. Otherwise this is just a cover for being upset about the membership policy changes.

This statement makes no sense. You acknowledge immediately that "this is not new", but then go on to imply that this is part of some planned destruction of the BSA by people now in top leadership positions. Many (if not all) of those leaders would have nothing to do with condom availability at a World Jambo because those top leaders probably didn't have those positions anyway when condoms were first made available at a World Jambo all those years ago. If anything, this seems like a well-timed article aimed at taking advantage of other national BSA news to attack the reputation of the organization and exploit current opposition to the various membership policy changes.

I carry a messenger bag, which I guess is sort of purse-like. 😄 It is probably overkill for my current job and 15-minute car commute, but I think it's a bit of a holdover from my days working in NYC and it was necessary. It's a lot lighter these days, but I still always have a pocketknife, flashlight, sketchbook, pens & pencils, pillbox, business cards (personal as well as Pack cards), water bottle, and occasionaly a laptop.

I read the whole piece. It doesn't matter what he wrote previously. When you lead into a point of argument with hypothetical non-issues, that's a strawman.

But we're not putting them in the same troop or tent. I don't disagree with Mike's comments on safe spaces, but he's using strawman arguments to build his case. Interestingly enough, he makes a good point about creating a unified effort in challenging the "safe spaces" movement. I think he could still make as strong a point without resorting to the "boys and girls tenting together" fear mongering.

Everyone's "why would I" is going to be different, and often times unpredictable. I don't need a flashlight every day, but the one day I really did need one I didn't have one (I was on the 21st floor of a building in NYC when the city went dark and the building's backup generator failed). I don't want to ever have to make my way down that many stairs in the dark again, so now there is a flashlight in my bag every day. Maybe I don't need a pocket knife every day, but I have one for the times when it might be useful. We won't always know what those times will be, but to me it's something easy enough to carry daily even if the "why would I" need it is a rare occasion.

I don't think it's foolish at all. Pretty smart, actually. Wolves have been the only rank that has the primary "brand" colors of Cub Scouts as their rank colors. Now we have blue and gold as the overall Cub Scout colors, and we distinguish all ranks individually with their own unique colors. Wolves now have a rank color that is truly unique to them, they're not sharing colors with the whole pack.

I personally have no issue with Wood Badge, the program, or the participants generally. My comment was more to do with specific people who focus on Wood Badge and similar adult recognition to the point where it seems be prioritized over youth elements of the program, and how that runs counter to my own views on Scouting.

I'm in a similar boat. I was asked recently if I'd ever want to do Wood Badge and I said "No." Apparently I was a little too quick to respond, think I kind of surprised the guy asking. He was looking at me as if it was somehow odd that I wouldn't want to do Wood Badge. This was the same guy who asked me what my goals were for my own scouting career. I had no answer, I don't think about it like that. All I've thought about since I started is the Pack program and my Den. I don't know if that will change over the years, but right now I just don't see myself taking an interest in the Scouter stuff that is more focused on adults than kids.

Ugh... the wording of that 1st paragraph is just awful. Sentence #1: "Knives should be considered as a tool and treated as such." Sentence #3: "Knives are an offensive weapon so great care should be taken when dealing with them." 🙄

It's tricky because the stick/staff has a long history in Scouting. I have a picture of one of our scouts at the last camping trip with a walking stick, one leg propped up on a rock, leaning slightly forward, looking like an illustration straight out of an early handbook. We're also working on the Good Knights adventure in our Den right now, and there is that illustration in there comparing a scout to a knight, a key feature of that comparison being the staff (comparable to the knight's lance). I believe at one time the staff was a required part of a Scout's uniform. I've been on hikes where sticks weren't a problem and scouts used them properly, for the mostpart. I've been on hikes where sticks quickly turned into weapons. I've been on hikes where things started out peacefully and then an hour into the hike things went bad and we ended up leaving a pile of walking sticks on the side of the trail. I don't know how to keep things peaceful and non-violent or LNT-compliant ("Johnny, stop whacking that tree with your walking stick!"), but I do notice that there are times when scouts use sticks safely and I want to encourage that. One thing I noticed on our last Pack camping trip was that one Scout brought a nice walking stick that he had found at home and spent some time cleaning up and turning into a nice staff. Because of the time he put into it, he didn't treat it as a random stick to swing around and whack things with. I'm tempted to try this with my son, and maybe encourage any Scout who wants to use a walking stick to make a nice one and take good care of it.

I agree there is a place for everyone in this game. I just get concerned when the adult components start to take priority over the youth components. Even stuff that people do in what they believe is in the best interests of the Scouts, but it ends up being more about the adults. I've seen it in the BSA and another scouting organization. I don't think people even realize they are doing it. But when adult activities are better planned than those involving the whole unit (I've seen leaders spend more time planning their Wood Badge weekend or leader retreat than the Pack camping trip), or when your unit website or facebook page or photo gallery shows more adult activities than youth activities, something is definitely wrong in your unit priorities. I've seen a discussion forum for a scouting organization that has more topics around adult programing, Rover advancement and ceremonies, adult uniforms, etc., than about the youth program. That's just weird to me. Scouting may be available in various ways to adults, and internationally the many scouting organizations out there have varying levels of adult opportunity and participation available. But at the core this is a youth-focused movement. Youth should always be the priority. So I guess I'd say that I do believe there is a place for everyone in this game, but I also think that the place of any adult in Scouting has to come from a standpoint of youth-first, and anything else as it fits in around that.