FireStone

Speaking broadly but locally, I'm kind of shocked at how little the local community knows about scouting. Got back from a National Night Out event tonight where our Pack had a booth set up. We got so many questions from kids and parents about programs for older kids, middle and high school age. We have 3 troops in town. And yet seemingly no one knows about them. None of the troops have any social media presence, 2 don't even have a website. The 3rd has a website with pretty much nothing on it. In doing some searching around online, I'm finding that very few troops in my area have much of any online presence. Offline, they aren't very visible either. No troops attended today's community event. None hold any kind of open house or sign-up night events. And so finding info about the local Scouts BSA offerings is pretty limited. No wonder people don't even know we have troops in town. Not to mention that people don't know what they do. Folks around here, including some already in Cub Scouts, have no idea that Scouts BSA troops in our area do things like Philmont, Northern Tier, and Sea Base. They think we just go camping once in a while and sell poinsettias around the holidays. I'm convinced that some parents IN the troop don't even know exactly what the troop does sometimes, because parents are discouraged from hanging around so they drop off their kid and leave, and since there is zero online presence to even share photos of recent activities, everything is happening in a bubble. The community knows very little about local scouting, or that local scouts go off on amazing adventures around the country. I think this is terrible. Scouting should be visible, online and offline, throughout the community. We aren't very good at marketing ourselves, and this is made more glaringly obvious when Cub Scout Packs have to carry the load and tell people that the town Troops even exist. I don't think troops should be relying solely on Packs to feed new scouts into them, and yet that seems to be exactly how troops here view this. I guess this is partially a rant but I also hope this can be constructive discussion and idea-sharing conversation. What does local scouting marketing and community awareness look like in your area? Does your troop share info with the community or do any outreach? Is recruiting in scouting beyond Cub Scouts a waste of time for troops to invest much effort into?

Can Cub Scout families still opt to do advancement requirements at home, all the way through Arrow of Light? Got a family wanting to not attend meetings but still have their scout complete Arrow of Light. Not sure how this is even possible for the patrol-based requirements and the troop visit requirements, but someone wants to do it anyway.

I should have mentioned, I'm not even talking about giving an 18-year-old a hard time about it. These are 50+ year old guys wearing rank ovals.

The general vibe I'm getting here is that pretty much everyone has a preference one way or the other, but is also mostly ok with everyone doing whatever they personally want to do. Which is great. I like to say I'm open-minded about uniforms but I do have one thing I'm 100% against: Adults wearing Eagle rank patches. I've seen 2 people do it.

I brought this up in another topic and thought it was worth spinning off into a separate discussion, because I'd be interested in getting some other opinions on this. In my area there are some adults who are of the philosophy that the adult uniform should be minimal, displaying as few patches as possible. Many adults in one particular unit intentionally wear nothing more than the default patches that come with the uniform. The idea is that adults shouldn't be "bragging" about their scouting accomplishments, but rather leave the display of accomplishments on the uniform to the scouts. I generally disagree with this, but thinking about it some more I was wondering if there isn't at least a hint of a valid point here. What is the purpose of adult recognition on the uniform, and does it serve a purpose for the scouts? If it doesn't serve a purpose, then does it have a place in a youth program? I've viewed it this way: Patches on my uniform are often conversation starters, both with scouts and with parents. Scouts often ask about my OA flap and square knots, which leads to discussions about things you can aspire to accomplish later on in your scouting journey. Parents have asked about my Baloo training patch, which leads to constructive conversations about training in general. Are there other benefits to adults keeping their uniforms appropriately outfitted with patches? Or should uniform patches beyond the basics be the exclusive domain of scouts?

If seattlecyclone is considering being a den leader, they should wear the uniform. AND help their scout look sharp. If they're going to be a helpful parent in the den, uniform is optional. I use my uniform as a conversation starter, for adults and scouts alike. For adults, I like to keep my training badges on my uniform, including a Baloo badge. Parents do ask about it sometimes, and it's a great way to let them know that we go out of our way to train leaders and that we put some time into it, we spend weekends in the woods learning how to be better leaders for their kids. For scouts, I like to wear badges that are likely to get questions. The ones that get the most questions are the OA flap and square knots. And if they ask about the eagle square knot, usually the explanation of it is met with some surprise. For a lot of cubs, Eagle Scouts are these mythical scouts they have only heard exist. They really don't meet many until they get into doing Webelos activities with local troops. I'm a big proponent of giving scouts glimpses into the stuff that comes with staying in the program, things they can look forward to. So I take any opportunity to talk about that stuff. The adult uniform is often the conversation starter for those topics. I know some local adults who have a philosophy that adult uniforms should be minimal, they don't put anything more than the basics on theirs and believe adults shouldn't use the uniform to brag about their accomplishments. The scouts should be showing off their awards, not adults. I don't see it that way, at least not in how I treat the adult uniform. If done right, anyway. I do think there are some adults who use it to unnecessarily brag (we have a local guy who is in his 60s and insists on still wearing an eagle rank patch and the square knot too), but for the most part I think the adult uniform has a useful place in letting adults and scouts know what a leader has done and what scouts can aspire to accomplish themselves in the program. With seattlecyclone being an Eagle Scout, wearing a uniform with an eagle square knot could be a similar conversation starter in their pack and den.

It's not the best phrasing but what I making the comparison to the general criteria where adults are supposed to intervene. Usually that is in scenarios where something is unsafe. So I used similar terminology here. I don't mean literally/physically unsafe/harmful to others, just harmful in general. Or let's say disrespectful is a better way to put it.

Adults are there to step in when something is unsafe. Not just physically unsafe but also socially, emotionally, culturally, etc. We're not supposed to stand aside and say "scout-led" to everything the scouts want to do. Certainly if something crosses into territory that is possibly harmful to people of a specific heritage, we are supposed to intervene. That said, I do think a line has been crossed if adults are blocking OA elections because they think it takes scouts away from the troop. Regardless of whether it is true or not (debatable that it excessively removes scouts from troop participation), that alone is not a reason to block elections. That is not scout-led.

Scott still has some work to do on this. Articles are still circulating that read, "Boy Scout makes threat with rifle on social media to New York middle school." With no correction. I get that with school safety, reacting quickly is important. Too bad the media doesn't react as quickly to incorrect information as they did when they reacted hastily to the original erroneous report.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, what we should be avoiding. Equating all face paint to being Native-American-inspired is attaching cultural ownership of something that no one really has claim to. Putting color on your face does not mean it's cultural appropriation. It doesn't mean that when a football player puts black under his eyes, it doesn't mean that when a student at a pep rally paints their face blue to match school colors. It doesn't mean that when a den leader puts an orange stripe on a Tiger scout's face at a ceremony. Paint and feathers are not just part of native american culture. They are part of many cultures. It's in how they are used that makes them specific to a tribe, a region, a culture, etc. I'm pretty sure people of aztec or asian tribal heritage would be pretty annoyed to find that we regard the use of feathers to be exclusively Native American. Frankly I find it just as "odd and out of the mainstream" to suggest that something as commonplace as feathers is the exclusive domain of one specific group of people.

I think there's a big difference between "face paint" and "face paint that mimics specific tribal designs". And your example illustrates this as well. Face paint itself isn't inherently native american, but face paint intended to copy specific native american designs would be an issue. Obviously red body paint is problematic. Likewise, arrows, hatchets, feathers aren't exclusive to native american culture, but a tomahawk is, or a feathered headdress. My point is this: Are we going too far with stripping out anything even remotely native american from ceremonies, removing stuff that doesn't need to be removed and thereby taking out stuff that made these ceremonies more enjoyable? These things are native american only in the context of how they are used, not that the items themselves should be protected from appropriation. As others have mentioned, I just wonder if we gave some thought to how to use certain things in ceremonies in a non-culturally-appropriated way that we could then also retain some of the visual interest of the ceremonies.

Agreed. I don't think a troop can call itself scout-led if the adults are opting not to allow the troop to have OA elections. Regarding ceremonies and regalia, I feel like there was a missed opportunity to re-work the scripts and reduce dependence on native-American-specific regalia and culture and shift focus to something more neutral without losing the all allure and mystique that makes those ceremonies so cool. Sounds like some lodges went all western cowboy themed and it misses the mark. I think there are ceremonial features that are more neutral than we realize, and they didn't have to get removed. There isn't anything uniquely native-American about shooting a flaming arrow into a lake or painting your face. Obviously things like putting on a headdress or wearing something that is very specific to a particular tribe or region are more problematic. But I feel like we scrapped everything when we didn't have to. Scouts like OA ceremonies because they are different. Kids aren't sitting there thinking, "Wow, that was an incredibly authentic hoop dance and the beaded belt that scout wore was beautifully detailed." They like the ceremonies because they are different, they are seeing stuff that is unique not just in scouting but in general. Most couldn't tell you if the costuming was authentic or completely uninspired by any specific tribe at all. Ceremonies can still be interesting and inspiring without the cringe. It just will take some more work to get there. If a lodge is just going to phone it in and go with an easy cowboy theme, stripped entirely of what made previous OA ceremonies cool, then I'm not surprised that the scouts aren't enjoying them anymore.

It's hard to watch. But it's necessary. The stories are told in a way and with a degree of detail that I haven't seen or heard previously, not in a more graphic way but as it relates to how the victims were impacted at the time and throughout their lives afterwards. And still today. And what the BSA was doing about it at the time. And the lengths to which a shockingly large number of people at various levels from CO to National worked to cover up abuse. Even making up stories about why some abusers suddenly left their positions, but still fully documenting that these people were committing felony abuse, but being let off the hook. It was really interesting to see victim's reactions to some of the documentation from the BSA and/or COs when dismissing abusers. They knew how bad these guys were, and they protected them from any and all exposure, even to other families within the troop.

They had to do this. It was a real problem sometimes with a kid not getting AOL and being 10, crossing the bridge and then not being able to join a Troop, it created a gap in their scouting experience that wasn't good. Does it open the door to other problems with even younger kids joining a troop? Maybe. But the original problem still needed to be addressed. It had to either be this or set a rule to stop Packs bridging too early. Which, BTW, is possibly another problem worth addressing. I've had leaders tell me we should do the crossover in February. I think that's way too early.

Youth members also use this forum, can we please keep the conversations and language respectful of that? Scouting is local, always has been, always will be. And locally, most units operate without any cases of abuse. Nationally the numbers of cases are horrific. But keep in mind they are national numbers, spread over the better part of a century and heavily weighted towards decades in the middle of the 20th century. Today's BSA stands well above most other youth organizations in terms of training and resources to protect youth members. We have a lower incidence of abuse than most other things kids can join, including sports. Locally, I think it would be tragic if Packs and Troops had to fold because of what the national organization did in the past, based largely on things that happened long before many of us were even in the BSA as kids ourselves. What good does it do to deprive the current generation of scouts the opportunity to benefit from the program? Is it just revenge for the sins of the past at the BSA headquarters? And we're going to take it out on kids who have nothing to do with it? Or paid staff who weren't even in those positions when the abuse was being covered up? The BSA today isn't the BSA that did these things. Punish those responsible. Support the victims, award them the damages they deserve. But let the program continue for the kids today who want it. And let us adults who are committed to doing absolutely everything we can possibly do to protect kids continue to be able to do that and keep this organization the safe space that it has grown into for these scouts. I support the victims. And I will stand with you in any way I can. But I won't do that by calling for the BSA to burn to the ground.

I'm not but I'd like to look into it.

No, direct with council, it's mostly roster issues, account issues, stuff we can't even change at the Pack level.

The amount of time I'm spending this week trying to get Scoutbook issues resolved, I should be paid for this. 😖

Our Pack does a winter campfire in December, and Webelos dens have done winter cabin camping. If you have a big indoor space you could try something like a paper airplane derby. And we occasionally in Januarys have done a battleship overnight, but last year we couldn't. Similarly, we have considered doing a museum sleepover/overnight.

It's in 2 places on my son's shirt, one will be covered by rank patches (it's where his Webelos rank badge was). The other spot is where the Pack number was. He's going from a 3-digit Pack number to a single-digit Troop number, so it shows. I'll try to get it out if possible, but he's already a year into this shirt and the way he's growing, he'll need another size up in a year, so this is probably a temporary situation anyway.

They were badges that I sewed on, so off the shelf from the scout shop and hand-sewn on myself. No adhesive added. I might try goof off first. Thanks for the idea.

My son just crossed over and we're debadging his uniform shirt that still fits perfectly well. Don't want to buy a new one if I can help it. But the removed badges left some bits of a glue-like residue on the shirt. All badges were sewn on, no badge magic. The residue looks like it's just from the badge backing. Is there any trick to removing this stuff. Or can it even be removed at all?

I saw a facebook post/rumor that the BSA is possibly voting next month on whether to continue STEM programs. I know, it's a facebook post, far from reliable. But it sounded somewhat credible. Anyone have anything more concrete on this? If true, I can't say that I'd be surprised. But it also seems premature to just do away with them. More likely I'd expect National to revamp the STEM programs. The current requirements, at least at the Cub level that I've worked with, seem kinda of oddly positioned next to the adventurous outdoorsy program we're more known for. Especially post-COVID (i know it's not over, but it's better), where parents have been specifically wanting things for their kids that are more outdoors. No one wants to sit inside on a computer anymore than we have to lately. It's a weird thing to bring kids into Cub Scouts after hyping up the outside adventure part of things, and then offer them the Nova program where the first requirements are usually to sit and watch tv shows or videos. I've also found it hard to stay motivated to encourage the Nova program with older Cub Scouts, when the Webelos program is so much more focused on preparing scouts for troop life, getting more familiar with camping, cooking, patrol method, etc.

But we're really talking about structure within a structure. Within another structure, really. The Pack has it's own structure, dens, etc. We show up at camp and that in itself is structured, being there at a certain time, in a certain place, in a specific campsite, meal times, etc. And then within that we add in scheduled activities, be at the BB range at X time, then we're hiking here, then we're doing lunch, then archery... I think the mix of structure and free play is what works best for the widest array of families. We're not going to the neighborhood park and letting them loose on the playground for 3 hours. Just showing up at camp is more structured than most of the things kids can do around town. We're going on planned and structured camping trips, with some planned activities, but also some free play time worked in. I do all of the marketing and promotional stuff for my Pack, and for several years the slogan we were getting from National to use was "Build Your Adventure". There is a certain free-range DIY element to the program we are selling. If families are coming into this expecting either more structure or more free-range, I think in both scenarios the families got the wrong impression of us.

Another Den Leader made the comment upon seeing the Eagle square knot on my uniform that I must be the resident expert on being a DL. My response was that I'm not, at least not based on that square knot, because no part of the Eagle requirements cover cat herding.