FireStone

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.

Thanks, folks. Really appreciate the info. This is great! So internationally, even though current neckerchiefs are larger than the BSA ones, they are still a triangle, is that right? The only group I know of using large squares is the BPSA-US. Maybe other BPSA groups internationally use them as well. But it sounds like among WOSM groups, it's all triangles, is that accurate?

I don't get the need for the skort at this time, other than as a prop for marketing photos. Which, by the way, they seem to be adding more of to the BSA Brand Center site. Those red neckerchiefs look pretty darn sharp. Hoping they'll be rolled out to scout shops in time for the fall, so my Wolf den can wear them.

I've been Googling with little luck, hoping someone here can help me. I'm doing a very basic Tiger first-aid talk at our next Den meeting and wanted to mention the things we carry that can be used for first aid (we're also discussing the Six Essentials). I think a fun fact that not many scouts seem to know is that neckerchiefs actually have some practical first-aid potential, or at least they did when they used to be larger. I want to mention in my chat with the scouts that neckerchiefs used to be large enough to actually use as an arm sling, head bandage, etc. Does anyone know the size of neckerchiefs of past generations? I'm assuming BSA neckerchiefs probably started out in the early years as being of similar size and shape as the larger BP-style neckers, and at some point they shrunk and became the triangular shape (I believe they were swuare at one time). Also, does anyone know of any common standard specs neckers used by scout groups internationally, ones that use the larger traditional size/shape neckers?

There was a rumor going around a few years back that re-using disposable plastic water bottles was bad because the bottle broke down over time and chemicals would get into your water. I think that was debunked, although the breakdown issue isn't entirely without merit. But it's not because of chemicals (FDA says disposible plastic bottles are safe for single-use AND re-use), it's that the weaker plastic was more prone to scratches and cracks, which in turn could trap and house bacteria. The idea being that a smooth plastic surface is easier to clean than a cracked/scratched/worn one and so the hard plastic bottles made for re-use were easier to keep clean.

There is also the BPSA-US, active in the states co-ed for over a decade, and active globally for far longer. There is no shortage of organizations that BSA members can look to for an example of how to deal with specific issues surrounding co-ed activity logistics. The conversation here does seem to frequently devolve into something along the lines of, "How will we have enough separate toilets for boys AND girls?" But in reality, these other co-ed scouting organizations have made it all work and continue to do so. I suspect some of them might even get a good laugh at us for worrying about some of the things we've discussed here.

Is it really possible to distinguish a "BSA" fleir-de-lis from a non-BSA one? It's a pretty common shape that pre-dates the BSA. Lots of Scouting organizations around the world use it, some extremely similar to the BSA variety symbol. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering if this is really even an enforcable mark. I always throught the trademark was the full logo, with the eagle graphic.

Ah, got it. Thanks. Looks like I attributed something to you that wasn't your comment, actually. Apologies for that.

Not sure I follow. I responded to your comment about the use of "marketing mind tricks like "bit dated" and "fresh look" without identifying who disliked the old logo and who was calling for a new one..."

I don't think any mind tricks were necessary in this case. Side-by-side, the new logo seems like a pretty clear modernization to me.

It's not gambling but if the SPL is taking a cut of the money, it sort of does make it look worse than it is probably. It's not an SPL taking money selling gear or something. It's a card game. And cards + money will always raise some eyebrows. I'm much more concerned with the exclusionary aspect of it, though. If it becomes this thing where some kids feel left out of a group activity because they don't have the extra money to spend, that seems like something that shouldn't be allowed. It also seems like it would become way too much of a focus for the trip if it takes as much time as it sounds like from what others have shared (like some draft games taking up the better part of a weekend). Card games on scout trips are supposed to be a fun way to kill a little time sitting around the fire or in the dining hall. If this game becomes hours of involvement throughout the weekend and demands organizational time and attention by all involved, I'd be concerned.

Seems like they took advantage of the opportunity to rebrand the name but to upgrade the logo as well. They could have kept the old logo, but I like that they went ahead and improved on it.

I know my Pack's policy stinks, and it will be brought up at the next committee meeting and I'll be pushing to change it. I'm a Tiger Den Leader, so this is my first go-around with B&G and this mid-year rank award method. I was trying to keep an open mind about it but now having gone through it, I don't get it. Frankly there is a lot I don't get about B&G, but one thing at a time... I'm probably a perfect case study for exactly why the policy stinks. I admit I have a somewhat lax attitude about requirement completion, and it's likely compounded by the overall lax Pack advancement policy. It it can affect leadership opinions on advancement, surely it will trickle down to the scouts.

I'll start this post by saying that my Pack has a rank award policy that probably influences my somewhat lax attitude on completed requirements. That policy is to award all ranks, regardless of level of completion, at Blue and Gold in March each year. Almost no one has everything done by then, so literally everyone is awarded rank without finished reqs. In light of that, maybe I'm more relaxed in how I run my Den in this regard, too. My goal is and always will be to get my scouts to rank completion by June. I have a small Den, and it's not too hard to get there. In cases where it's not going to happen, there are extenuating circumstances. For example I have one scout with divorced parents who are heavily divided on scouting in general and one of the parents goes out of their way to actually keep the boy away from scout activities. I can already see some areas where he likely won't be able to finish some requirements. By sheer bad luck, a bunch of our planned spring activities for knocking out some outdoor requirements nearly all fall on weekends when the problematic parent has the kid. I'm not going to pull his already-awarded rank in June or August if he missed some requirements. And I'm not even going to make a big deal about it with the parents, at least not this year. If we're still in this predicament in Bear or Webelo year, we'll deal with it then. My view on Cub Scouting generally is it's all about fun, first and foremost. There will be a time for the heavy-duty record-keeping, the attention to every detail of every requirement, when they get to the troop. And I'll for sure be trying to instill some of that attention to detail in the Webelo years at the latest. But for now, I take more of a Den approach than an individual approach to advancement. I know that's not "by the book" but it's what I think is best for my Den at the moment, given our own circumstances and also the way our Pack currently works.

Was there a time when neckerchief-over-the-collar was the rule? Maybe back when neckers were larger and thus the size made under-collar more difficult? I kind of wish we went back to the larger size neckers. And wore them more without the uniform, like a lot of non-US orgs do. We had a boy at camp recently wearing his neckerchief over a t-shirt. I'm keeping hope alive that maybe this could catch on.

I kind of would love for us to have a stylish brand of casual apparelt like the i.Scout stuff over in the UK. Maybe REI can make that happen for us with the bail-out.

We glue the axles in my son's cars. There are all kinds of theories on why not to glue, being able to make adjustments to axles on race day, etc. But that's generally not practical for most packs and how they operate races. Our pack doesn't allow the kids or parents to even get their hands on the car on race day. Cars are checked in days before and that's it. Next time they see their car, it's on the track. So when a scout turns in a car, you want to be sure nothing moves. Once the axles are in, we just put a little bit of glue in the axle slot to keep things from moving. Krazy Glue works well, and it would really take a hammer to move the axles once it dries. I'd recommend that if you want a solution that pretty much guarantees that the axles won't be accidentally pushed in. It's unusual that some cars only race once or twice in your pack. On a 4-lane track the general strategy is to get each car in each lane at least once, so minimum 4 runs per car. That eliminates the differences in lane speed factor (there's almost always a "faster" lane on the track, or a bad lane). Without working software I'm sure it would be harder to track all of those races, and I'm guessing that's why fewer runs were done, but that's kind of a failure on the part of the pack, too. Ideally tracks and software should be tested (and preferably fully set up and ready to go) before race day.

I think more camps than most folks realize have a ton of these kinds of activities available, and more. Unfortunately in the earlier years of scouting, the focus is so sharply on merit badges that few scouts even realize there is other stuff to do at camp. I've seen older scouts go to camp and do 1 easy merit badge the whole week, spending the bulk of their time in other activities and having a blast. I think my favorite week of camp I did as a kid was the last one, when I was done with my Eagle reqs and only did Metalwork. Spent the rest of the time running around camp, mountain biking, climbing, the camp had a "gateway contest" (which troop had the best entrance to their site) and we went nuts on that. Built a monkey bridge over the entrance and did a bunch of stuff I'm sure wouldn't be allowed today. But it was an awesome week. I think the default response when kids and parents ask "what can they do at summer camp" is to hand them a merit badge schedule. I kind of wish we could require each scout to do at least one thing each week that they don't get a badge for. But I'm sure some parents would protest. Honestly camps are part of the problem, too. They market it to get more kids to go, and they get parents to write those checks by touting the tangible benefits of camp. "Do 6 months worth of scout work in a week!" that sort of stuff.