FireStone

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. 

On 4/13/2018 at 11:50 AM, MikeS said:

Guess I don't really see what the big concern is with coed rules and the like - there has been co-ed Scouting in the US since the 50's...

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. 

31 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

Actually, they aren't in the public domain.  Don't confuse the current branding guidelines with actual trademarks.   While the current Eagle/Star/Fleur-De-Lis branding is trademarked, the basic shape of this particular design of a fleur-de-lis is separately trademarked so that no one can take the BSA-designed fleur-de-lis and add something to it to call it their own.  This basic shape is readily identifiable as the BSA fleur-de-lis...

 

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. 

1 minute ago, RememberSchiff said:

Sorry, I should have quoted  @CalicoPenn regarding the fleur-de-lis. I just wanted to clarify that the fleur-de-lis in those logos are not BSA brand property; they are public domain.

 

Ah, got it. Thanks. 

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

9 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Their old logo has "Boy Scout of America" , a brand name. Their new logo on right has no BSA branding on it.  A BSA fleur-de-lis requires further embellishment - an eagle, two stars,..as detailed in link below...

 

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..." 

5 hours ago, qwazse said:

My guess is that this is a bit of "tail trying to wag the dog."

The last scentence of the introduction uses 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. 

On 3/29/2018 at 11:28 AM, cyphertext said:

You're not understanding how the draft game works.  It isn't gambling...  the money is used to pay for the cards that are provided.  What your Scouts are doing is playing with cards they brought.  In a draft game, you don't bring your own cards...  new packs are purchased and the players select their cards to build their decks from that pool of cards, the theory being that everyone stars on equal footing.  And at the end of the game, you get to keep the cards you selected.  So basically, you are paying for new cards. In games where you bring your own cards, it can be difficult to be competitive because one player may have bought 5 packs of cards and built his deck from the best of those, and the other player may have bought 100 packs to build a deck. 

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.

On 2/28/2018 at 4:17 PM, Eagle1993 said:

If girls represent 5% and our membership continues to decline we will become REI Scouts of America (or whatever brand(s) help bail us out).

 

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. 

19 hours ago, gblotter said:

Many BSA summer camps (ours included) have a high adventure program specifically targeted at older scouts who are not interested in earning merit badges. Very tempting activities like climbing, mountain biking, sailing, water skiing, etc. Minimum age 14 to participate.

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. 

I'm still waiting on Skateboarding Merit Badge. I've been tempted to submit a proposal but surely they've already gotten plenty of requests for this one by now.

It's always been interesting to me that it's a key marketing feature of any Summit promotions, and yet there's no badge for it. Maybe now with it becoming an Olympic sport, the BSA will finally make it available as a merit badge. 

The video games and movies thing drives me nuts every time the gun debate comes up. Do our politicians really not realize that these same video games and movies get shipped around the world, including to countries with little gun violence? There are countries that are far bigger consumers of video games than the US. So where are all of the school shootings in those countries? 

38 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

Everytown for Gun Safety is quite clear on what they consider the parameters to be to call something a school shooting - you can disagree if you want but its rather disingenuous to claim they are being dishonest just because the numbers they are reporting which match their criteria doesn't meet yours or someone else's idea of what a school shooting means.

We can have honest differences of opinion without calling other people dishonest

I think we all have a pretty clear idea of what "school shooting" means in this country today. So if someone says there was a "school shooting" and you come to find that a guy shot himself in a school parking lot when no children were present, or it was a gun fired in a parking lot at a college basketball game after class hours, that seems dishonest to me. 

I get that they disclose their parameters to define "school shooting", but it doesn't matter if their definition is contrary to what the vast majority of Americans think of when someone says "school shooting."

1 minute ago, Col. Flagg said:

Really? So people do pot never kill anyone while on pot? Never drive stoned and kill someone?

Really? C'mon.

I'm sure it happens. But I'd venture a guess that crime related to marijuana is probably lower than crime related to other drugs, and certainly to crime related to guns. 

Just now, Col. Flagg said:

Not the point, is it.

But how many druggies have killed people to get their next fix? 

Potheads? Very few I'd imagine. 

22 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Why is it that people want to take guns away from legal use under the auspices that access to them is bad and leads to crime, but they use the opposite argument when pot is mentioned? Access to guns=bad. Access to pot=good.

Either access to something is bad or good. You can't have it both ways...and be credible.

Because you don't often hear about someone being stoned to death, at least not in the marijuana sense of the word "stoned". 

How many people have killed other people with a joint? 

3 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Unless you're next to a screaming toddler on a Lufthansa flight. THEN it is all about the destination and not the journey! 

https://metro.co.uk/video/video-demonic-child-screams-eight-hour-flight-1628342/?ito=vjs-link

I flew to the Dominican Republic sitting near a bathroom that was broken (and unable to contain the smell of itself as a result of whatever was broken). It was 100% about the destination then. 

11 minutes ago, perdidochas said:

I personally think that the Scouts should be working on T-2-1 simultaneously.  Then, after a while, they should concentrate on Tenderfoot to finish, then Second Class, then First Class.  

I think a lot of scouts do. Some summer camps have a "Dan Beard Program" or some other-named first-year scout program to work on a ton of T-2-1 requirements. I did it as a kid and if memory serves, that week-long program knocked out about half of the reqs for each rank. 

Off-topic: I also remember you got a sign-off sheet with initials by each requirement, and in the handbook they just put "DB" for "Dan Beard". You had to refer to the sign-off sheet to see the actual initials. Another scout in my troop tried to add a few extra "DB"s in his book for requirements that weren't actually done in the program. He finally got caught in the Eagle paperwork, yet somehow he still got Eagle. I never figured out how he was allowed to pass.