FireStone

We had a similar discussion at last week's committee meeting, with pretty much an identical outcome. We're not going to recruit girls, definitely not from GSUSA and not really even from the general public. The most we're going to do is just ammend our recruiting flyers to say "Open to boys & girls in grades 1-5." Basically the committee seems content to go with whatever happens. If we get a lot of girls expressing interest, great. If nothing happens, it's business as usual for the pack.

The neckerchief (and the whole uniform for that matter, but that's another topic) seems to be in kind of a weird place in Scouting history right now. Today it's smaller and less useful than ever, and frankly I think in some cases it looks silly. I saw a photo of some scouts in uniform recently and their neckerchiefs didn't even come halfway down the front of the shirt. I wish US scouts wore the neckerchief more often and especially when out of uniform, but that doesn't even seem practical when the neckers are so small.

Actually from what @Eagle94-A1 said, mathematically it could work out to August 2020 for the first girl Eagle Scout. Even if National is saying December 2020, for sure someone will push that August possibility and try for it.

We don't care, and I doubt many girls will either. But for sure there will be some extremely "motivated" parents out there gunning for their daughter to be the first ever Eagle Scout.

I'm assuming that date was chosen as the earliest possible time that a girl could have joined and then completed the requirements. Is that really possible? If a girl can only register with a Troop February 1, 2019, can she really make Eagle in 22 months? I wonder if it's sort of warning to Troops: Don't even bother trying to submit applications for girls before December 2020, we'll know that you started too early, cut corners, etc.

I'm well-aware of all of them, as I was as a kid. I hated shorts as a kid, still do as an adult, I almost always wear long pants, and always when in the woods. I use bug sprays, and also treat my clothes with permethrim. I've used DEET sprays, and as a kid I remember my mother spraying my clothes with a heavy-duty DEET spray. I still got bit at some point, despite many efforts at prevention. And I didn't get the bullseye rash or other typical symptoms to indicate infection and prompt early treatment, which is why I live with some side-effects of Lyme to this day. Not everyone gets the rash or early symptoms. Unfortunately there is no 100% effective prevention. My family isn't leaving Scouting any time soon. We'll do our best to prevent tick bites, and just hope for the best. But there are times when this subject does give me pause to consider if this is all worth the risk. I think it is, but like any parent, I'm always inclined to question the risks and benefits of anything our kids do.

I got Lyme as a Scout. I have some minor health effects to this day because of it, although fortunately nothing debilitating. I hate to admit it, but thinking about Lyme sometimes give me doubts about whether I want my son in Scouting at all. We're especially careful with tick checks and take every possible precaution, but it's a really tough thing to protect our kids against. Realistically I also know it's possible to pick it up anywhere when you live in this area (New Jersey). I just saw today on my local community Facebook page a mom posting about finding ticks on her son just from playing in the backyard. But I also know that part of being a Scouting family is accepting some additional risk of tick-related illnesses. It's definitely something that can mess with your head as a parent if you think about it enough. And my personal experience with Lyme definitely makes me think about it.

I have very little experience with the process of getting a new CM or SM, but even still, I know enough to know that it's supposed to be a little more involved than just a "Hey, you should do it," and then wait for an immediate answer. I think it certainly speaks to the state of things at the troop if the decision is taken so lightly.

I'm still not convinced that any of this was written with any less casual a tone than how I use the word "boys" in my Den and Pack. Swap out "boy" and "boyhood" for "child" and "childhood" and it all still works. Someone could show up at my next Den meeting and make the same inferences, that based on the language I use, my program is designed only for boys. In reality, I just have some early habits with how I address a group of Scouts that I will need to evolve out of now. It's not an indication of programatic intent.

That's open to interpretation. I often say "The boys are doing XYZ," or, "Let's get the boys going," or something along those lines just out of convenience (or laziness). It doesn't mean that I think only boys should be doing whatever it is I'm talking about. Nor does it mean that I can't just as easily adapt to saying "Scouts", "kids", or any other general descriptor. I suspect many Scouting materials have been written over the years with the same tone and for the same reason. It's easy to just say "boys", but it doesn't really tell us anything about any possible underlying intent of the person saying it.

You'll have to explain that. I've never heard that any outdoors components of the program were being removed.

All optional areas of the program, no? Are any parts of the character-development and leadership aspects of the program being removed?

Isn't the BSA's core product a youth leadership and character-development program with an outdoor focus? Is that changing?

My son will be a Scout, like I was in the 80s and 90s, at least in how I referred to myself, how my parents and friends referred to us, etc. We were "scouts", our leaders called us "scouts", they addressed us, instructed us, woke us up, yelled at us, got us in line, as "scouts" ("Scouts, gather 'round," "Scouts line up!" "Scouts, attention," "Scouts, rise and shine!"). I don't care if officially he'll never be a "Boy Scout". The name is the least important part of the program for me. All that matters is what he becomes as a result of going through it.

I'm up to date on YPT for leaders, but for parents (not registered as leaders), what's the BSA policy on this? I know there's the 72-hour rule, if an adult is going to be with a scout group more than 72 hours they need to be registered. So this guy isn't going to summer camp. But what about on shorter overnights with the unit? Is he allowed? Are there any obligations to the other parents to inform them of his record?

If law enforcement confirmed the "he was 30, she was 12" story, and yet the CC continues to say saying something different, I would think that neither of them should be serving in any Pack leadership capacity. She's dishonest and is covering for a child-molester, and he, well, his record speaks for itself. He should not be around children. Get your District Exec in on this asap. If this isn't resolved to your satisfaction, switch to another Pack. If this guy was allowed on overnights in my Pack, I'd be moving on down the road to the next Pack immediately.

This feels like a stop-over change to me. The organization is still "Boy Scouts of America," and "BSA" is still in the program name for the girl groups. This doesn't feel like a final solution to the name problem when it comes to addressing this now being a co-ed organization. I suspect there will eventually be another change to step further into this co-ed role.

I understand the sentiment here, but in reality and in all practicality, does this really change anything for most troops? Let's think about it: When was the last time you said, in casual conversation, the full name, "Boy Scout Troop XX"? This came up for me back when the very idea of girls in the BSA first emerged as a real possibility and people were talking about what the organization would be called, what Troops would be called, etc. Someone said, "So what, we can't address our guys as 'Boy Scouts' anymore??" To which my response was, "When was the last time you addressed scouts directly as 'Boy Scouts'? You say 'Scouts', as in 'Scouts, line up!' or 'Scouts, attention!'." Likewise when addressing or speaking of a Troop, who ever says "Boy Scout Troop XX"? It's more likely just "Troop XX". Or in some cases people don't even say "Troop" or "Pack", especially the 3-or-4-digit unit numbers. I often hear something like "856, line up!" or something like that. Never in my life have I ever heard anyone say "Boy Scout Troop XX, line up!" So we just keep calling them Scouts. And I suspect in most cases and in most conversations, we'll still just say "Troop XX".

My Tiger Den meets once per month, with an activity thrown in on a random weekend day usually monthly as well. We’ll have 7 belt loops done by June, which I know is the bare minimum required but I’m ok with that. We really didn’t even get started on Bobcat till October, and even with the late start we can still easily finish up by June. My point being that you can very easily get the Tiger reqs done with once-monthly meetings, as long as your meetings are well-planned and make good use of the time. The way I see it, this is Tiger Scouting, it’s not Troop level and is just the first year out of 5 they’ll spend in Cub Scouting. Weekly meetings I think would put us on a path to early burnout for the scouts and parents. And me too for that matter. I’d rather we never get up to weekly meetings, not even at Webelo if we can help it. Unless there is just no other way to get it all done.

This is currently being discussed in my Pack in relation to recruiting. The question currently is: Do we try to actively recruit girls? No decisions yet, just discussion. As far as our CO is concerned, they don't really care what we do. They barely take any interest in the Pack and Troop as it is, we could probably tell them we want to start a new Scout group consisting of llamas and hedgehogs and they'd just say, "Sure, whatever." My draft recruitment flyer that will go out to schools says "... open to boys & girls in 1st - 5th grade..." We'll have to wait and see if it stays that way, should know after this week's committee meeting. My personal feeling is that if we don't talk about girls, don't recruit girls, don't put photos of girls in uniform in our recruiting materials, etc., we're not going to get enough girls to meaningfully do anything. We're not a big Pack, last year we recruited 5 Tiger boys. The chances we will get the requisite number of girls to start a Den are not great. If we don't actively promote the fact that we're open to girls, I suspect it won't happen here. And even then, it will still be a challenge to get enough girls involved. Our CO certainly isn't going to be helpful in spreading the word that we welcome girls.

My opinion on this might be slightly influenced by the fact that I'm currently neck-deep in a Pack recruitment plan and trying to finding new ways to promote the idea of "Adventure is waiting," but my first thought is that this is the opposite of adventure. Unless the adventure comes after we sit around and read for a while. I know at the Troop level a lot more reading is necessary. Just not sure it's a good use of time when the scouts are together as a patrol or troop. I've also always had the belief that Scouting shouldn't feel like school. Someone reading aloud from a book feels very school-like to me.

Poor Pedro...

I didn't say they were imaginary. Comments sections of news websites are generally pretty toxic. Mostly negative, rarely a good measure of how people feel about anything. You could be reading a feel-good article about flowers and the comments will still find a way to go negative and talk about what jerks flowers are, sitting in a feeling looking all smug and colorful. I don't know what most Americans are on board with. And if anyone is estimating how most Americans feel about this based on the comments section of a news article, I would seriously question the usefulness of that kind of data. I don't know what a good indicator would even be. But it's not that.

These were the first 4 comments I read, and if these are any indication of the genral quality and usefulness of comments, I think I'll skip the rest. I wouldn't regard the comment section of any news website as a good indicator of, well, pretty much anything, especially not what the general public thinks.

Apologies if this is already covered, I admit I mostly skimmed this thread... If the issue is stealing or damaging a scout's property by clipping a corner, or "hazing" by damaging property, is it not stealing or damaging it to just mark the card some other way? An "X" marked on a corner instead, or something similar. Surely a pen mark can't be considered "damage" when we sign off things in books and on cards all the time.