desertrat77

RS, perhaps I need another cup of coffee. But when I read the post, the only word I could think of is "grim."

@HashTagScouts, you hit the nail on the head. I see the same things around here. Getting crews together for any high adventure trip is difficult, big or small. A couple old guys and maybe handful of scouts. Everyone sits there and looks at you like you are crazy for even suggesting a trip that involves backpacking, or a canoe portage, or anything that doesn't involve electricity and indoor plumbing.

@ParkMan, I think what pushed a clumsy, unsure Tenderfoot Scout Desertrat to become a better leader were certain BSA-unique goals that were akin to a championship. Being recognized as the great PL, SPL, JASM that knew how to lead scouts in the outdoors...that was the ultimate goal for me. As a young scout, I looked up to the self-motivated, confident, skilled senior scouts and that gave me the motivation I needed to improve my outdoor and leadership skills. As for formal leadership training, JLT and Brownsea II were offered, but not many went. For example, our troop sent one scout per year to Brownsea. Pretty slim cut. I attended a 1-day "All Out For Scouting" event in '76 and the National OA Leadership course (2 days) in '78. OA, Eagle, and camp staff selection were natural off-shoots for squared away senior scouts. Becoming a member of these groups certainly encouraged better leadership in the outdoors. Without that, there was no selection.

@ParkMan and @MattR, I believe your posts are directly related to a core issue: scouts with weak leadership skills and low levels of initiative. Not only in the OA, but in scouting in general. When the OA was focused on selecting the best of the best, this naturally interested a bunch of self-starters. They loved the outdoors and were the first scouts to swing an axe, start a fire in the rain when their fellow scouts were standing around miserable, etc. This in turn translated into a collective energy level at OA events. You couldn't hold them back. Today? Not much initiative. Little desire to get their hands dirty. Poor leadership skills. Sure, they'll eagerly attend something "fun" that was organized by someone else (usually adults). Matt, leadership development would help in the OA, but I think by the time they are in the OA, it's a little late (there is a National OA leadership course). For most, the die is cast. Though there was less leadership training in years past, the OA used the "honor camper" status to capture the attention of scouts who were already working on their leadership and outdoors skills. Not necessarily in a leadership course, but through the "school of hard knocks" as a patrol leader. They came to the OA with some momentum.

These 63 adults are essentially allowing, encouraging, the campfire to die....

I concur with you and Eagle94...it used to be a tough cut and there would always be some deserving scouts were not elected each year because of ratios/rules etc. But they were worth their salt, and kept striving for another year and were eventually elected. What shocks me are the reports of scouts who decline the nomination after election. Many of these scouts would have excelled in the old OA. I suspect they just weren't impressed with the OA as it is today, and had better things to do with their time. Quite a contrast to the past.

Parkman, good question. Camping was the very thing that made the OA special. It used to be called the "National Brotherhood of Honor Campers." Only the best scouts who excelled in the outdoors were elected. Ordeals were tough. Big emphasis on Native American history, heritage and respect. Staffing camporees. Performing the most difficult manual labor in the council. I can't recall when, but it was the late 80s/early 90s when it was changed to the "national honor society" of the BSA. Among other things, the outdoor element was very much de-emphasized. It's been a grim downward slide ever since.

Welcome to the forum, Matt!

Aside from a few pockets of excellence, the OA bears little resemblance to the original vision of E. Urner Goodman and Carroll Edson. Scouts now routinely decline to join, even if elected. Ordeals are now "experiences." Etc. Boggles the mind. Unheard of back in the day. This is what happens when the special aspects of an organization are watered down. Or removed entirely.

Last year, I attended PASS-PSR, the four day crew advisor course at Philmont. Outstanding training, plus a day backpacking and a night in the backcountry too. Quite a value at $99.00. Long story short, it struck me that the BSA has their best and brightest running Philmont. As others have mentioned, it's the crown jewel. I think it would be the last property to go.

I agree. The council made it clear that scouting will continue, whatever woes National may be facing. Whoever drafted the council's release did a darn good job.

Real scouting happens outdoors. At the unit level. It happens around the campfire, at the BB range, on the rappelling course, on the trail, during the last leg of the mile swim, and while paddling a canoe. Real scouts and scouters will survive without the JTE rodeo, FOS, expensive uniforms, merit badge fairs, etc. Not only survive, but thrive.

Excellent news, Qwazse! In my neck of the prairie, many units plus district/council are bent on holding events as close to man-made plumbing as possible.

Post script, forgot one of the most important shifts: More campsites festooned by a dozen hissing propane lanterns...the sounds of nature and starlight shut out....

More reliance on stoves, fewer campfires for warmth, cooking and fellowship...less backpacking and more troop trailers full of heavy gear...patrols all cooking near a single dining fly, under the direct supervision of the SM...troops camping elbow to elbow...less axemanship (directly related to fewer campfires)...camping at council properties or public areas with established latrine facilities...camp outs designed as entertainment/carnival style events, orchestrated by adults, instead of scout-planned/executed traditional activities such as hiking, fishing, pioneering projects, etc. These shifts are subtle, but they point to "less adventure."

ParkMan, points well taken. I think the criticism continues because many WBers are so tone-deaf and persistent, it becomes a stereotype that just keeps going. The WBers we're critiquing are notoriously oblivious about their actions and attitudes. And if they aren't, they don't care and trod heavily instead of focusing on mutual cooperation and respect. It's especially ironic given the source of their pride is a course that is supposed to be the pinnacle of scout leader training. Many just can't "be folks." Edited to add: Yes, there are plenty of other stereotypical scouters out there. Myself included. But at the end of the day, these others will roll up their sleeves and work with you on a level playing field. Many WBers just have a hard time doing that.

@ParkMan, a post script to my original.... In a nutshell, there are a fair number of WBers whose conduct invites such criticism. Regardless of their actual role at any event, be it staff, director or participant at unit level, they assume they a) are automatically a roving de facto official/authority figure and b) they've cornered the market on knowledge. And they aren't subtle about it. Demanding, condescending, rude, conversation interrupters, changing things for the sake of change, changing things they have no actual authority over but doing it to flex their beads, etc. All because they've attended a six day management course and rubbed shoulders with council and district luminaries.

Thanks ParkMan. The gent at the camporee was a fellow staffer who had spent the better part of the evening trying, in the most ham-fisted manner possible, to upstage and otherwise challenge me for the "camporee director" title. I bit my tongue and let him have plenty of leash. But when it was just the two of us, I used the cracker barrel question to let him know where we stood.

Camporees have changed over the years. When I was a scout, camporees/freezerees were held in wild, open spaces. Bring your own "everything." Nothing provided. Campsites far apart. Plenty of time to sit around the fire, work on camping skills, explore the forest/prairie/desert, shoot the breeze, take a nap, etc. I don't find camporees enjoyable today. Common characteristics: - Troops are directed to camp too close together - Almost always held at a council property (same place you've been a bunch of times) - Over-reliance on established shower/latrine facilities - Sometimes meals are provided by camporee staff (hard to fathom but true) - Daily schedule crammed with the same old boring events, and almost zero free time - [From darn near every camporee package] "NO CAMPFIRES, NO SHEATH KNIVES!" [Two important cornerstones of the old BSA!] I oversaw a camporee a couple years ago. I purposely left out dozens of "thou shalt/shalt nots" from the package. Our committee set forth five fun, challenging events. Otherwise, scouts and scouters, the time is yours. Feedback was good. Memory: A WBer approached me Friday night. WBer: "It's almost time for the cracker barrel." Me: "Yes..." [Waiting for the other boot to fall] WBer: "When are you planning on sending a runner to the troops to remind them?" Me: "I'm not. They have the schedule and they know how to tell time. I trust them." WBer silently strolled away. SMs and SPLs showed up right on time.

NJ, I'm envious...several years ago, I stumbled on to the Ten Mile River Alumni web page. An outstanding collection of staffer and camper recollections. Well written and many are quite humorous. Though I've never been to the camp, or even in the region, I have a deep respect for Ten Mile.

As a scout: - Camp Lawton AZ, '75 - Camp Lawton, '76 - Philmont, '77 - Camp Geronimo AZ , '77 - Camp Gorsuch AK, '78 - '80 (staff) As a scouter: huge gaps in volunteer years, but in a nutshell: back to Geronimo 2X, Rodney Scout Reservation VA, Kerr Scout Reservation (Slippery Falls) OK 2X, Hale Scout Reservation OK

Greetings, @TFrancis, welcome to the forum!

Dan, well said. My Venture Daughter, now in college, shared similar thoughts with me when the coed movement was announced. Folks were discussing the "need" to change everything, making things gender neutral. To which my daughter said, "The 'Boy Scouts of America' is fine and should stay. I'm proud to be in the BSA. And I'm happy that I'm no longer a Girl Scout." She joined the BSA for the reasons you mentioned. She enjoys being outdoors with like-minded young people. She's done a lot in three years--Jambo, 50 miler, two years on camp staff, etc.

Wow, do I feel old! I agree, the BSA was paving the way towards coed, and the Scout BSA was a hint, prepping the battlefield, if you will. I don't recall hearing about a merger (interesting to mull over now) back then, but I definitely remember conversations at the unit level, and letters to Pedro in BL, about the possibility of letting girls join.

True, it doesn't equal, but the campfire scuttlebutt and hints in official literature indicated that indeed, the BSA was leaning to going coed at that time.