Tron

The stat is 90% of eagle scouts came out of cub scouting. The number of scouts bsa members that came out of cub scouting is 70% (last time I saw the numbers). Are you saying you have a troop of 7?

So what's going on is a DC circuit court judge has dictated that burning the Israeli flag is a hate crime; therefore the response is "How is it a hate crime and illegal to burn a foreign nations flag but not illegal to burn our flag?". When stupid people do stupid things it's very common for more stupid things to happen in response.

Well when we look at family packs in my district we have a couple of hold out "boy only" packs but they are down to a handful of scouts and when those kids crossover the packs are dead; everyone else is a coed family pack now.

Maybe ... but something to think about. We're (my town) in a weird situation where the biggest female troop in our district is in the town over and almost every female scout is from my town and not that town. The DE is structurally blocking new linked and coed troops to keep the existing female troops healthy. In addition to those female scouts we're losing the brothers to that troop as well (parents don't want to drive to 2 different places on the same nights). That troop is 1 of 3 linked/coed troops; because of geography it's sort of the only game in town and sucking the air out of the room because of that. That troop is so large that it churns through crossovers and survives on gravitational affect alone. I think, and I have told my commissioner and DE the following: Once my towns troops have the ability to provide the program to female scouts it might kill that other towns mega troop. It's an upsetting discussion for them. As of right now the '26 crossover cohort in my town is female heavy; so is the '27 cohort. If the local troops are allowed to go coed in December the neighboring town (based on discussion with the crossover parents) will lose out on 10-40 scouts over the next 24 months. That's pretty much immediate affect in this program.

In my opinion it becomes a situation where the PLC is told that the program includes those items that they hate, they have to do them at least once in every 18 month period. The PLC gets told that they have an obligation to run the program and ensure that the younger and newer scouts get a chance to advance. Not running the program is what kills troops, every time. When the district committee does a postmortem on a unit that surrenders it's charter it is literally the exact same thing every time: Not running the program, which leads to scouts not advancing, which leads to them quitting or transferring out, which leads to structural imbalance in age distribution, which becomes a red flag to crossover families, whom then go somewhere else. Think of it this way, the PLC is the management but the scouters are the board of directors.

Scouts pick but they don't. This isn't the scouts get to do what they want program, this is the scouts get to lead and do things that interest them but they still have to run "the program". As adults we're the framework to make sure the program is being ran. Think of it like a Montessori school. We know that in any given 18 month period national wants us to provide a program that provides the opportunity for a scout to get from nothing to 1st class rank and star soon thereafter; so everything for scout through 1st class has to get covered at some point in any given 18 month period. Say you have a PLC that hates land navigation, sure they can push it off, maybe they love swimming and swim for one meeting every month, but sometime in that 18 month period the adults have the duty to force the PLC to accept the fact that they have to do land navigation, at least enough to teach the new crossovers so they can advance.

I think there are two or three things here. The scouts do not need to have their phones out and as adults we have an opportunity to teach the scouts to exercise self control by keeping their phones put away unless truly needed. Taking away and securing the phones as a default behavior makes adult leaders the wardens and conditions the scouts to being told when it is ok and when it is not ok to have a device out. Phones are a useful tool for the scouts. Scouts can use them to reference scout materials, use them for orienteering, checking maps, etc ... and the great big bonus is that if there is an accident and a scout has a phone they can quickly call for help. It's a tool, we want them to have them, but we need them to have the self control to keep them put away unless truly necessary. Parents need to backoff and leave their kids alone. Children need space to grow; boys especially need freedom to be about unsupervised to gain the confidence to function. Helicoptering and electronic leashing children is known to cause anxiety and depression.

So when you read the GTA, the Troop Leader Guides, etc ... the reality of the program is that getting something checked off for rank requirement requires only ever having done it successfully once. Now what separates a rank mill from a real scout troop is what happens afterwards. A good scout troop has a regular calendar and rotates through scoutcraft regularly which provides two things: First it allows scouts to revisit that skill and practice. Secondly it provides an enablement opportunity for those senior scouts to teach and thus master their scoutcraft through having to know the task well enough to explain it and teach it.

The new rule is also buddies should be no more than 3 years apart in age which also complicates mixed age patrols.

The adults are the danger, if you push too hard, they will all turn on you.

I heard a generic phrase along this line that a large number of adults can't pass the physical and that a large number of "trail guides" have been getting used to keep contingents on the trail down at Philmont. I think the solution to this problem is if you show up and fail the physical you get sent home. Right now if you fail the physical my understanding is that they put your butt up in a cabin somewhere and you chill for a week while your scouts go beat the trail.

This rule is with good reason, a lot of abuse victims were victimized by near peers.

This is sort of 3 now for high adventure now that high adventure requires 3 wilderness first aid and CPR qualified participants.

Absolutely true.

I've volunteered with troops running all sorts of patrol structures and I least like the fully mixed age patrols at this point. They always seem to devolve into a process where the patrol leaders and troop leadership regardless of ability or likeability become the troop elected leadership and the younger scouts become second class citizens who have to ride the back bench and do their time regardless of capability.

Exactly. The pattern of change has been basically a decision has been made, we'll pilot it, and then we go into it. My gut tells me that the pilot is just something to assuage concerns that people who refuse to look at the exploring/venturing track record (venturings history was pilot enough IMHO). I guess the next question becomes what happens to certain (poorly ran but pulling scouts due to coed nature) troops who got to market with a linked troop and now co-ed troop over the next 5 years? There are 2 troops in my council pulling a lot of scouts due to them getting to coed status first but they are mediocre troops at best. Will families having more choice slowly kill down those mediocre troops? Will the leadership be smart and agile enough to course correct before it's too late and we start seeing complaints of "the new program" killing our once 100 scout troop?

When California passed AB218 with it's special 2020-2022 window to unofficially target scouting we knew there were going to be more entities sued. Back in February and May this was being discussed but it's hitting the news cycle again. Schools are now being targeted. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/08/17/wave-of-sexual-assault-claims-is-latest-financial-crisis-for-public-schools-local-agencies/

This right here. This is what is going on across the whole doggone country. Then when people get sick of "commuting" to scouting after a handful of years the whole family quits. Full co-ed is going to be the long term answer. I see them providing chartering options; however, once coed is an option it will quickly become the dominant troop charter type just how family packs (which took only 3 years to become so). In 5 years we will have a couple boy only or "linked" only troops functioning out there because of some oddball leadership; however, those units will eventually die off just like the boy only pack holdouts have.

That deed restriction has made this an interesting one to watch. Did you notice how the council rep seemed dead determined to find a way to sell?

Less infrastructure is the best answer. BSA has another cost because of weather. Is this article evidence that even Philmont will suffer the same fate as overbuilt council camps?

There are references to patrol activities in modern documentation but it is very limited. The focus on leadership over being able to do things for oneself is what is really killing the patrol method. The original purpose state of which BSA is chartered by congress provides no mention of "leadership" training. The program is so overfocused on leadership training, positions of responsibility, and the eagle project that any notion of self-reliance is gone; scoutcraft is the next thing "leadership" will kill. The purpose statement of the BSA from the national charter: The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

So October is another change right? In that NAM video don't they say December is the new decision point?

This is a good example of how councils need to craft their annual plan and market their annual plan to the units in their area right? If they have a lot of large independent troops they don't need a council even every other month; on the other hand if the council is mostly troops of 1 patrol then they need a council event every other month. It's clear that we have the infrastructure (councils and properties) for a much larger organization; however, I wonder, what was really in place in those first 10-20 years of scouting in America? Were troops just camping on their own every month? Without resident camps were long term camps the product of strong well run troops and more wilderness and self reliance based?

Support from the council is one of those weird things. The council is the volunteers; there is no one to help if no one is staffing those district and council committees. If your time at the troop is sunsetting, and if the troop is folding, it might be time to consider a district role.

The other way around is much easier (doesn't have the MBC clause about being able to not accept prior completed work). The rank advancements just say do/say/particpate/etc ... and do not say in front of or with the SM.