FireStone

My deal-breaker with the BSA came several years ago when they seemed to double-down on the gay scout ban. I wasn't active at the time, but my decision was made. Despite being a multi-generation Scouting family, with many Eagles (myself included), I would not participate in the BSA with my son when he reached Scouting age. Even though the ban was always there, it a different time when I was a scout. In this day and age, we're faced with different things to consider. My moral compass and my conscience wouldn't allow me to continue the BSA tradition with my kids. I joined the BPSA-US and was in preparations to start a local group when the news hit that the BSA would reverse the policy banning gay scouts. Shortly after the other membership policy changes came. The barriers to BSA participation for me were gone, so when my son started 1st grade, we joined the local Pack. I realize my story is kind of the polar opposite of the original discussion here. I argued for the inclusion of girls, not against it. My point, though, is that I understand the way people come to these decisions, and that the breaking point exists for everyone. And sometimes that breaking point leaves us with no other option but to leave. It's sad, but it was bound to happen no matter what direction the BSA decided to go in with any of these membership policy discussions. Many families left the BSA behind when they maintained the gay scout and scouter bans. Many families will leave because of the inclusion of girls.

The new Cub handbooks are dual gender, so I suspect a new Scouts BSA handbook will be similar. And judging by the test uniform designs currently being discussed, there is no text on them at all, just the eagle/trefoil logo.

I'm learning this same lesson on a regular basis as a new Den Leader. It's amazing how much things change. I just got CPR certified, it's been 20 years since I last did it. I couldn't believe how much has changed even with that. I am sure that I'm in for many more surprises along the way, finding out that the way I learned things is now quite different.

It's not possible with many of these groups. There is a better chance that groups who diverged from the BSA because of past policies that have since changed might be brought back into the fold. Like the BPSA, which gained most of their membership from people who opposed the gay scout ban. The BSA aligns more closely with them now, except for the religious part. Those who left for Trail Life, LDS, Troops of St. George, they won't come back unless the BSA kicks out girls and gay members. That won't happen. Any group that kicks out members based on gender or sexual orientation would be committing organizational suicide in this day and age.

Is the red neckerchief even in the shop anymore? I'm not seeing it online. I do see the new red handbook, though.

I've thought that, quite often lately. Or we might be more like other scout organizations where the uniform is more akin to formal attire, and for general purposes it isn't required or even encouraged. Just look at all of the stock photos in the BSA Brand Center. Few of them show scouts in uniform anymore. It's not all bad, though. I would actually welcome a middle-ground option, less Class A uniform wear but instead encourage more Class B with a neckerchief. I really like how most other groups do that, with a good size neckerchief and a loose knot tied at the bottom, worn over a t-shirt or sweatshirt.

His take on safe spaces is interesting. I'm not so sure that many people would equate Scouting with safe spaces. Quite the opposite. We go on hikes in the woods with wild animals and deadly bugs around. We shoot guns, bow & arrows, and slingshots. We use knives. We make fires. We play rough, yell loudly, get dirty, and promote bravery. We aim to instill confidence, leadership, character, and strength in our scouts. And we reward hard work with awards and ranks that take a long time to earn. I love that about us. And I think it positions us in stark contrast to the safe space movement. But I also don't think we're in a great position to lead the charge against that movement. Maybe this isn't exactly the bravest of positions to take, but I feel like we've stuck our necks out plenty lately. Let's be brave, but not reckless. Give us a few years and maybe we can be that kind of organization that Mike suggests. Let's get our own house cleaned up and get this new co-ed thing up and running. Then maybe we can talk about leading that charge, and enjoy the help from our new female members in doing so, as Mike also suggested:

I've heard there is often a delay on these after a change of administration. I have no idea how long of a delay is normal, or how long it takes to set up the presidential signing process after a new guy takes office, but I suspect that 16 months time is probably excessive.

I was under the impression that if you quote someone in a response, you are directing that response to the person quoted. Is that not how this forum works?

He quoted me. His reply was directed to me, in response to what I had said.

Thick skin had nothing to do with it. You said this person didn't direct their comments at anyone in particular, I pointed out that was false. I wasn't "whining" about anything. Just stating facts.

He told me I hate God. That's pretty direct and personal, and I don't think there are many people of faith who would take that lightly.

You might be right. Morality isn't a one-directional straight line. Morality is different for everyone, and different issues fall in drastically different places in each of our own views on what is immoral and what isn't. So how does a national organization have any code of morality when we will all define that differently?

I've stated my beliefs as they relate to the discussion at hand. I don't feel the need to explain them any further.

You're in an advantageous position because you are making efforts to get kids to rank. It's hard for any parent or leader to oppose that, especially this late in the year. I'd be really surprised to hear anyone say, "No, you can't help those kids finish their ranks." So I would say to just go ahead and do what you need to do. I've found that it's much easier to get support for what you do when you don't ask permission to do it. I know that sounds kind of bad, but really I'm talking about just getting stuff done within the program. I just do what I need to do to get things done, by the book. When time is of the essence, often this is the only way to operate. Put stuff on the calendar, let people know about it, and get stuff done.

You're the 2nd person this week to tell me that I hate something that I love. First I was told I hate the BSA. Now I'm told that I hate God. It's interesting that people on an Internet forum who know so little about me seem to think they know me so well. Last night I was working with my Scouts on a service project at a local park, I guess hating the BSA the whole time. Friday night I'll be at our Pack meeting, apparently hating the BSA then, too. Sunday morning I'll be at church, I suppose hating God and my faith. Geez, I sure do a lot of hating. 😄 So then should I say that I'm at work right now, "loving" my job? 😉

Yes. Yes I do. Because I believe that we are as God made us, sexual orientation and all. I don't believe that being gay is a choice.

There was a time when I was anti-BSA for my family, but I never wished for the collapse of the BSA. I was looking at another Scouting organization that fit what I wanted for my family. But I can't imagine ever having wished for the BSA to completely go away just because it didn't fit my morals and beliefs at the time. That logic just doesn't register with me, wanting something to go away just because you don't like it anymore. I wish you the best in TL and hope it fulfills what you are looking for. My family will continue with the BSA, and I will continue to support the BSA as an organization that still represents the moral, social, and spiritual values that align with my beliefs. I also still believe that kids are better off in Scouting than out of it, be that through the BSA, TL, GSUSA, BPSA, or any other alternative out there. If the BSA is no longer right for any families in my Den or Pack, I'd encourage them to continue Scouting in an organization that better fits their beliefs, and I would hope that they would do so without wishing for the demise of the organization that they are leaving behind and that I and many others still believe in.

http://scouts.org.uk/home/ I think it looks pretty cool. Definitely brings the logo into modern times. The old "swoosh" logo was looking a bit dated.

On the contrary, I'm what you might call a progressive who has cheered these inclusive changes, and I just volunteered as recruitment chair to do my part and help grow our Pack.

"Deleted" doesn't really mean deleted, not in this digital world. If a leader is appropriately texting a scout and copying another leader and a parent on communications, even if the messages are deleted on both phones, they still exist and could be used in any litigation.

I don't agree that they've departed from their core mission, but if we are talking about accepting girls into the Boy Scout program, I think we all know precisely why they've decided to do that. The BSA is a business, and an expensive one to run. Lots of big paychecks need to be cut to top-level execs. The BSA could function perfectly well with 1/10th of current membership, if it wasn't for the costly overhead of the organization. Scouts UK has far fewer members. Other scouting organizations have even smaller numbers. There are scout organizations that have no paid leadership, 100% volunteer-run, and they can sustain their programs with miniscule numbers compared to the BSA. I firmly believe this change is based in a strategy designed to stop the bleeding and save the BSA as a "company". There is some minimum number of members that we need to stay above to continue to operate our big costly National office. That number was probably getting dangerously close based on year-over-year membership declines and projections. Hence the big change. Its a bet on a future of Scouting in the US that adding girls to the program will affect membership numbers in a way that slows or stops us from hitting that critical low-membership number. Or some variation of this idea, but still based on membership numbers and money. Surbaugh basically said as much in the initial presentation of the idea girls in the BSA, showing those charts with lines heading downward for BSA, GSUSA, etc.

The pants look cool. I hope they are as dark in color as what the photo shows. I've never been a big fan of the standard olive green pant color, I think a darker version would look really nice.

Not sure this qualifies as "back in the day", but I loved Scouting back in my day, 1986-1998.

No, same CO for over 50 years. Councils and districts in the area changed a lot. None of them go by the same name anymore, and some were merged into others. I believe the new number came from that somehow. I do need to ask around more and find out exactly how this all came to be.