walk in the woods

What! Vanilla! You got to be kiddng! What kind of pinko commie eats vanilla ice cream!

Hmmm, I figured they dropped the Patrol references in NYLT when they added Venturing youth to the program last year. At least that's when it changed in our Council course.

Brother Buffalo, you might reach out to your local OA Lodge. They may have (well should have) a camping primer like you are discussing. I bet they'd be happy to have you work with them to expand and update their database!

I think college age adults could help by teaching youth today to take risks. I read stuff about managing the millennial generation that talks about their group-focus and consensus-management styles. While team building and consensus building have a place, I too often observe group-think instead. I personally believe group-think is the result of risk-aversion and/or fear of the unknown. I'd encourage you to work on that.

Not so sure about the EmberMike, the kids in the YG aren't interested in scouts, Eagle or no Eagle. Eagle is the end-game for kids already in the pipeline, or at least their parents anyway. But, it's only a differentiator if it draws people into the program. Not sure it's doing that. One of our differentiators, the uniform, is probably a net negative. Probably should be another thread though.

On this Friday before Mother's Day all the talk about scouting in the world community reminds me of something my mother used to say to me. "If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you jump too?" . One of the things not discussed here is differentiation. Yeah, it's an MBA kind of term but applicable none the less. The BSA is in competition for kid's and parent's free-time investment. I suspect we all lose kids to sports. In my neck of the woods I lose kids to 4H and FFA (good programs as well) because those programs more closely match their interests. I've had parents tell me they wouldn't let their kids sign up for scouts unless they gave up something else. I've heard other scoutmasters say they lose kids because they already camp, hike, hunt, fish, boat, canoe, ride ATVs and snowmobiles with their dads. They don't need scouts. The reason I bring it up is I also do some work with my son's youth group at church. The YG is co-ed, basically 7th - 12th graders. We camp, we do service projects, we play laser tag (gasp!), hold lock-ins, go to amusement parks, go on mission trips, etc. If the BSA went co-ed, how would we differentiate ourselves from my son's youth group in the values-based youth program competition for the scarce resource of time? I gotta say I don't see anything in the BSA program that I couldn't also do with the youth group and frankly with a lot fewer rules in the way.

When 2 or 3 30-something dads come in and ask for my job they can have it .

Mission statement doesn't include the word BOYS becasue the BSA also includes girls in Venturing and LFL. The Mission Statement is for the entire organization. That's a different scope than allowing girls into the Boy Scout program.

Well, a number of more conservative religions do separate men and women at worship. My very liberal congregation (UCC) has Men's Groups and Women's Groups because we acknowlege the differences in the genders and how people learn.

This ought to be fun . Boys need places to just be boys, where they don't have to worry about anything but being a boy. In my opinion, your example of schools disproves your hypothesis. The schools may be co-ed, but, the ones I've witnessed spend a lot of time telling boys they learn in the wrong ways, chastising them for not sitting still like the good girls, taking away their recesses, giving them poor grades because they color outside the lines and then wondering why the boys struggle. Scouting is the one place they get to run, jump, scream, yell, wrestle, play and learn as boys. FWIW, I think the need extends into adulthood. I have a wife, but I also have male friends. Those male friends have wives as well. But, we regularly have a boy's night out. Not because we're going to some seedy strip club or anything, just because we need some time with other men for our own mental health. Boys and girls are different, men and women are different. We should stop pretending that's not the case.

The 800# Gorilla being the absense of the LDS units in the numbers.

Statistics being what they are, survey results are summarized at http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Summary.aspx.

Clearly unconstitutional and politically driven. But whatever, it's just local option .

Sure, because all white country and suburban folks are intolerant bigots? Really? And what does that make you? Sterotyping is wrong Basementdweller. Take a hard look in the mirror.

Niether old nor far right. But I do enjoy firing up liberals who tell me how wonderful and tolerant they are and why I should take their position, then resort to ad hominem attacks if I challenge them on any single point. I also enjoy firing up conservatives the same way. You see, the problem with the far left and the far right is they are both so intolerant that neither can see anything approaching compromise. This results in a constant battle and a constant lack of progress. Life is not a zero sum game but the extremist on both sides fail to recognize that simple reality. We may or may not agree on things but it's those types of attacks that prevent constructive dialog.

Bible Thumper is the derogetory name the left came up with to describe anybody who disagrees with their position on anything. Easier to de-humanize that way.

And a couple more... Straight woman sues the church over a headstone she was told was not acceptable to the church leadership for their private cemetery. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nascar-from-the-marbles/man-nascar-headstone-banned-church-widow-sues-230302885--nascar.html. Transgendered "woman" sues private relgious college after her expulsion for "lying" on "her" application. http://www.christianpost.com/news/california-baptist-university-sued-by-expelled-transgender-student-90934/. Point here isn't whether these cases are direct corrolations to the BSA decision (although the later case is interesting). Point is, organizations can be sued regardless of their position. The BSA national is the current target because they dictate policy to the chartering organizations. In short, the best return on investment for the ACLU and other organizations is to attack the shield. Remove the shield and the COs are now forced to have a policy, thus, they become the obvious target for the continued campaign. The larger the chartering organization, the better return on investment. I simply don't believe the gay movement will be satisfied with the local option and some chartering organizations will simply move on rather than fight.

And another. Private citizens running a private business sued for standing on their faith http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/07/slippery-slope-catholics-sued-over-gay.html

Well, here's a story about a gay couple suing the catholic church for refusing to sell them property based on the churches policy of not allowing gay wedding in formerly sacred spaces... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/11/ma-catholic-diocese-refuses-to-sell-mantion-to-gay-couple-and-now-its-being-sued/ Different yes, but not entirely.

OldGreyEagle, I think the concern has some validity in that the chartering units have the "cover" if you will of the national policy. Once (and if) the policy is changed at the national level, the CO is now the decision maker. It's not too hard to see a scenario where an activist seeks out a unit to join expressly to keep the fight alive. I suspect there will be people who will be willing to keep the fight up until the policy requires all units to be open and accepting. The BSA has been the easy single target to this point. Once (and if) they push it to the local COs, the largest COs become the highest value targets in the environment.

I'm sorry, but with all the news of late, Train and Carly Rae are saying they (and all their handlers and agents and managers) didn't know about the BSA membership policy? BS! They knew and didn't care until their fans called them out. Disingenuous at best, but likely just spineless.

I've always understood that the OA handbook calls fro the sash to be worn at an OA event or when otherwise representing the OA to identify the brothers providing a service. I do try to find OA stuff to recognize at Courts of Honor or otherwise use the OA so the brothers can wear their sashes at the Troop level. But generally, we go with MB sashes at the Scout's option for Courts of Honor/Boards of Review.

A lot of anger directed at JTE. Could it be that some people's programs aren't as balanced as they should be? Hmmm......