desertrat77

Glad to hear it, I believe your troop will enjoy it. As with most scout ranches, only a fraction of the land is in use. On the other side the lake, I understand there are old trails and campsites from yesteryear. And as a bonus, SF has some features that are unusual to folks from the western part of OK: Green grass. Trees. Water. Clouds.

Colonel Flagg, that sounds right and gave me a much needed laugh, thanks!

Thanks for your patience, Barry! Sometimes I think I'm clear but then find out very quickly I'm in left field. Just ask my wife.

In for a penny, in for a pound.... Another random thought. I was a cub in the '70s as the BSA transitioned from traditional scouting to the infamous Improved Scouting Program. If one believed the rumors, coed BSA was right on the horizon. Much angst from youth and adults. If you have access, check out the letters to Pedro in Boy's Life from circa 72 and 73. Well, it didn't happen. But even as a shy, awkward cub, then as the most incompetent Tenderfoot in the troop, I didn't see what the big deal was. If girls joined, it was fine with me.

Barry, lol, I'm the least PC person I know! Generally, if the masses are going one way, my instinct is to go the opposite. I'm not advocating coed scouting because others are doing it, but because I think our scouts will benefit from it. I'm too lazy to find quotes from past threads on this topic, but here are some common themes I recall in support of single-gender scouting: - Girls mature faster and will outshine the boys, thus compounding the boys' already low confidence levels - Girls will make already shy and awkward boys feel more shy and awkward - Girls will dumb the program down - Boys need a place to be boys Are USA boys different than boys from other nations? Do they really need single gender scouting? Is it working here in the US? If the BSA is the place to solve these issues, it's a little late. The all-male BSA ship sailed in the '80s when women were allowed to be ASMs and SMs.

Calico, the job market is tough, but things are very cheap here, compared to the rest of the nation. Colonel, I attended SF this summer. Huge attendance that week. Rough estimate: easily half the camp was from TX. Maybe a bit more. Lots of troops from TX attend because it's closer and just a darn good camp all the way around. PS The temps were high, but not 105 high!

Colonel, I'm tracking with you, but two things keep coming to mind: - What does single-gender scouting say about young American males today? That they can't handle a coed environment? That the boys in America have issues that aren't typically found in another country that does coed scouting? - Is traditional cub and boy scouting doing so well that we don't dare break a successful business model?

Fair enough. But what about those cub aged girls? It's an easy sell to parents: "One stop scouting for your sons and daughters!" No more complaining from daughters about how lame the GSA is and how unfair it is the cubs get to do all of the cool stuff. One meeting location. One organization the whole family can be a part of. The one-scouting-organization-for-the-entire family is quite a selling point. And I'm sure National is also thinking of the business angle: more uniform sales, increased membership, more adult volunteers, etc.

There is a large population of girls, cub aged and 11 - 13, that want to join the BSA. Today. They don't like the GSA in any fashion. They want to be outdoors, doing outdoor things. And they don't want to wait till they are 14 to join Venturing. The BSA is aware these enthusiastic potential recruits. So is the GSA. But the GSA can't and won't do anything to serve these adventurous girls. Perhaps in the past coed may have been a push for PC stuff. I don't think so any more. Girls want to hike, climb, camp, backpack, canoe, follow map and compass. The GSA's offerings in this department is next to zero. Is the BSA just going to let these girls sit at home until they are 14? I doubt it.

The big afternoon event during the 1975 Catalina Council "Three C Camporee--Camping, Cooking, Competition" was a mystery until they backed up the truck full of live chickens into a big field. The SPLs formed a horseshoe behind the truck. The rest of us scouts made a huge horseshoe behind them. Thirty troops or so present. Lots of buzz: "what is going on?" Mission: when the chickens were released from the cage in a big flurry, the SPL had to grab one, and with his troop, run back to the campsite. Kill, dress and cook the chicken any way you like. Then the SPL had to run aways (half a mile?) with two pieces of chicken to the judging booth. He ate a piece, and the judges shared the other piece. Chicken cooked properly? Clocked stopped then. Best time won. The staff took about 60 seconds to explain it. Lots of excitement! Then the chickens were let go. Chaos! Scouts and chickens running about. Yelling, laughing, confusion, squawking, dust flying. Our SPL grabbed a chicken right away. Off we run together, back to camp. Across the railroad tracks and a barb wire fence. Our SM was a WWII vet who always camped with us. I'll never forget the look on his face when we ran into camp with a chicken and all of us trying to tell him why. Well, the SM was an old farm boy. He knew what to do. "You dig a hole, you get the hatchet, you build up the fire, you get the dutch oven going." Chicken killed, skinned, entrails buried. Mr. Chicken was fried to perfection in the dutch oven. We didn't win but it didn't matter. Three hours went by in a blurr. When I tell this story to scouters, the usual response is "That's great, I'd love to see that as an event today! But the public would never understand." I have lots of great camporee memories, including my last fall camporee in Arizona. Standard camporee, a little chilly. Moved to Alaska a few weeks later and attended the Fall Freezeree, two feet of snow, cold!!! with events taking place on a frozen lake. I wasn't equipped or skilled in any fashion to make the transition from Southern Arizona to Alaska that quickly, but I survived and learned the ropes. Four more years of camporees and freezerees in Alaska followed.

To amend a previous post of mine, I took another look at my late '70s Philmont crew photo. Three adults are wearing the Eagle patch: the college-age ranger, my SM (probably in his mid-30s at that point), and an ASM who was about 19. Bottom line: no one cared. It was their uniform and if they earned it they could wear it. Or not. I wouldn't say it happened a lot, but it wasn't unusual. In fact, I recall scouters wearing their old square green first class or star patches on their uniform. A few old Eagles wore the knot as well as the patch. A bit redundant but to each their own.

When I was a scout in Arizona, it was "camporee," spring and fall. Moved to Alaska, then it was "spring camporee" and simply "freezeree" in the fall. Emphasis on "freeze."

Funny you mention this. I was looking at my old patch vest recently. There are camporees 40 something years ago that I clearly remember: meals, conversations, mishaps, jokes, events, etc. Then there are a couple that I can't recall a single detail.

Flip flops/shower shoes/crocs. Can't wear them around camp, but invaluable for athlete's foot prevention when at the pool or in the shower.

I'm tracking. The role of quarterback comes to mind as well. Lots of glory, but without blockers he's nothing but a tackling dummy.

Doesn't a scout have to fulfill positions of responsibility to earn Eagle? Where he leads other scouts or performs duties to support the troop? Lead others during service projects? Pursuing the rank may be an individual goal but unless he's a Lone Scout, he's going to have work and play well with others...if he earns Eagle fair and square, that is.

@@qwazse, fixed Stosh's red, good luck with the thumbs PS I think Venturing would take off nation-wide with the right recruiting effort and motivated leaders charting the course. Both factors are in short supply.

I think Venturing is in a lull due to the lack of the right kind of adult advisors. Outdoorsmen/women. Physically fit. Energetic. Visionaries. Motivators. There are some advisors that fit the bill, but many are just not ready for the challenges. They may be okay for pack and troop level scouting, but I think Venturing requires an adult that has leadership skills above/beyond. The other limiting factor concerns many of the youth that are already in Venturing. From what I've seen, they go through the motions of having meetings and such, but they aren't interested in pushing the boundaries and gaining the potential benefits of the program as set forth from National. Inert Star/Life scouts that are bored with their troop, and looking for a safe place to hide. If anything gets done, it's accomplished by the girls. I've been to a couple of Venture crew recruiting events that were disasters from the get-go. Potential recruits ignored while the crew members gossip with each other or sit blankly looking at their phones. Program? Oh you know, just kind of float along...and the recruits leave and don't come back. I'm a firm believer in the Venture program, but it needs a serious jump start, beginning at the advisor level. Edited to add: Venturing is one program that I think National got right. A lot of thought and effort went into it, and I give kudos to the folks that got it rolling. However, implementation has been hit/miss, in the field.

Is it intolerable to accept girls into the BSA? Or intolerable not to?

Frankly, the BSA comes across as "needy." We'll take adult volunteers on the minimum qualifications of being willing to help and pass a background check. Two important factors, yes, but rarely do inquire about their outdoor experience, or willingness to learn how to lead outdoor adventure. We'll put up with toxic leaders, lazy leaders, etc., simply to keep the name on the charter and the unit viable--on paper. This trickles down to the program that is offered for the scouts. Or lack thereof. Who else is going to do it? Scouts who aren't active, or constantly act like fools, etc., are allowed to stay in the unit. Because we need the numbers. Recruits take a look and politely pass. So the BSA often comes across as an organization that really isn't serious about its mission. It wasn't always this way. Units had pride and standards. And still had the flexibility to accommodate kids who were active in church and sports and other clubs. Not so much any more.

How?

To the best of my recollection, young ladies from the sororities were almost always welcome at the frat houses.....

But will this sustain the viability of the BSA now? In the future?

But I'm wondering Stosh, how many join the BSA for the all-boys aspect? Sure, I'm biased but I'd say the percentage isn't very high. Not enough to sustain an organization the size of the BSA. Not in 2017, or beyond.

Gwaihir, what will the boys lose?