desertrat77

True...I recall some people thinking aloud that the removal was a precursor to the BSA going coed. But I never saw or heard anything else about it.

Excellent posts. I agree, the path to Eagle is not supposed to be a team event. It is hiked, or not, by the scout. If Johnny has advancement issues, it's up to him to resolve them. If a parent needed clarification on how something worked, or wanted to let me know something, I listened politely and offered my best insight. However, if it wasn't a life/limb situation, or something that required my attention or action as an ASM/SM, we ended the conversation with "well, I know the scouts will figure it out." When a parent wanted to harangue me, at length, about every little care and woe that Johnny Scout was experiencing in the troop (essentially sweeping his path of every twig and pebble), I learned quickly that a) Johnny wasn't upset about anything, it was usually just mom and b) the parent wasn't going to be happy no matter what. We had several of those parents in our troop. The parents who complained the most did the least for the troop, and a few thought it was their right to monopolize my time. I learned to facilitate those conversations to a polite minute or two, and not the lengthy one-way conversation they desired. That said, there were parents who were a delight to talk with, but even then, we kept the conversations short. They understood that scouting has good days and bad, and it was up to the scouts to resolve their own issues, not the parent, not the SM.

Now that you mention it, yes.

Sentinel, that may be part of it. I was a cub in '72, crossed over in '74. Looking back, I think it was an early attempt at political correctness, before there was such a phrase. I think the BSA and other similar organizations were being bashed by groups of people who had rejected faith, conventionality, uniforms, patriotism, etc. Standard '60s stuff. National tried to making scouting hip, urban, ecology minded, etc. Okay, sure, fine. So I wore the red beret. But when they gutted the traditional aspects and the camping emphasis, wow, that was a real punch in the gut for many. I think there was an anti-outdoor element in the BSA management previously, and the ISP was their opportunity to change things to their point of view. The handbook was toned down, camping MB was not required for Eagle, etc. Believe it or not, many people were very upset by the change of the Eagle rank patch. It went from something that resembles the current patch to the "chicken in the frying pan" and no wording. Scouts with military connections overseas arranged to have bootleg copies of the old style Eagle patch made.

I concur, change is going to happen whether we want it to or not. However, it is always mystifying when an organization decides to scrap a product or service that is popular and transcends fads, flights of fancy, etc. Such was the BSA in '72. The traditional program with an emphasis on the outdoors was not broken. However, it wasn't adjusted or changed a bit to update it to match the times. Instead, National threw out the baby, bath water, and tub. I liken it to a car company. If a particular make/model is selling well, slight design changes are made year to year. But stop making it and selling it when it is still wildly popular? And then offer a hunk of junk no one wants? That's what National did in '72.

Rather imperious of Dear Olde Mum to demand an hour of a volunteer leader. I agree with the previous posters' advice, particularly that the scout, PL, and SPL and another adult be present. I'd also offer her 15 mins of time initially instead of a hour. While she has nothing better to do than make a Supreme Court case out of a minor issue, the scout leader has other pressing matters. Like eating dinner at 10 PM, getting ready for work the next day, or spending a few minutes with family and friends. Sorry if I seem a bit callous to Mom, but I had a couple flashbacks to my ASM/SM days in the '80s when I read Meschen's post! I can still see/hear these ladies chewing me out, telling me what a bum I was. Naturally, when I offered them the opportunity to help lead and make things better, without fail they all blanched and unequivocally said "no." Even though they said no, most of them kept pretty quiet afterwards.

@@Rick_in_CA, thank you for those thoughtful insights. True, I was focused on the factors internal to the BSA in the '70s. The world started changing quite a bit during that era. Both for good and ill. I think it's a shame that the BSA felt the need to change so drastically during that time frame, primarily by discarding their traditional programming. They essentially decided to retire their best selling product line.

Good thoughts, Matt. Eagle has been over-touted for a couple decades now. At all levels, it is the ultimate shiny object. There have always been pushy parents and scout leaders, but nothing on the order of what we see today. It would indeed be better to get outdoors instead of chasing rank. If the rank comes, fine, it would be based on the scout's own initiative and not dozens of helping hands dragging him across the goal line.

I don't think scouting went into decline because of coeds. The BSA began its grim descent when it introduced the Improved Scouting Program in '72, which gutted the traditional approach. Women and girls were not part of the BSA in the '70s, except for den mothers. I don't recall when women became eligible to be scout leaders ('80s) but that was more of a practical move as there were fewer and fewer males willing to step up. Girls/young women comprised a very small population sample of Explorer scouts. So it wasn't a gender issue that put the BSA in a spiral downward. It was National's rejection of its own successful programming from decades past. Gender is not the cause nor the solution for the BSA's woes. Sedentary programming, rejection of successful methods from the past, and emphasis on sideline stuff like STEM and soccer are the heart of it. Stosh, I hear what you are saying. But old scouting is not coming back. It can still be practiced at the unit level, but National has moved steadily away from it for decades. Truly, the ship has sailed.

Eagle, this is the way it should work, BSA-wide...kudos!

Not only do backwoodsmen/women avoid the BSA, but also the "outdoor-minded." Let's say an adult doesn't have a backpacking or camping background. But they are expert rock climbers, or kayakers, or trapshooters, and the like. Or maybe they don't have a background but are willing to learn. Either way, they are otherwise fit, smart, adventurous, enthusiastic, civic minded. These folks are exactly what the BSA needs. But they stay away from the BSA in droves. Joe Bob precisely outlined why.

Eagle, it was true love! Bug juice and smores at the reception? Joking aside, I wish them all the best. As for the discussion at large, I've noted that several forum members are not in favor of coed scouting, and have articulated their reasons quite well. So I pose this question: give the state of the world (more and more coed), and the state of the BSA (declining numbers, National's indifference to traditional scouting, etc), what is your proposed solution to stop the BSA's slow but determined course to irrelevance? I realize that is a strong word, but I've seen the BSA slip in size and stature within communities over the years. What is going to turn the tide the other way? Soccer, STEM, and water gun bans ain't gonna bring them in the door.

David, I concur! Now that I'm retired from the military, I wear a civilian suit when I go to work. Good clothes that fit well are not a bother to wear.

Stosh, I understand your points. It occurred to me, after my second cup of coffee, to offer up this anecedote: I went to Philmont as a 14 year old, as shy and awkward a youth as you could meet. I came up thru very traditional cub and scouting programs. Philmont was the first place I worked with female Rangers/Explorer scouts. I was impressed. They were confident, mixed well with everyone, knew how to handle jerks without turning things into a Supreme Court case, etc. And they knew their outdoor skills, quite well. It was an eye opener for me. Though I could not articulate it at the time, there were two reasons why they were great scouts: they were young women of character, and they lived by the scout oath and law. One more thought: I too lament the loss of the traditional program. I'm as staunch a traditionalist as you care to meet. My favorite pack is still the canvas Yucca. But the BSA hasn't been traditional in awhile, and is getting less traditional every day. Letting a few girls join who value traditional scouting isn't going to hurt the movement.

Stosh, they are joining an organization, not designing it. I think we might be surprised if we knew their opinions on the subject. My daughter has received positive responses from interacting with scouts from troops at district and council events.

What if they do? I don't pose the question just to be argumentative. My daughter's venture crew regularly interacts with the troop from their shared CO. From what I've seen and my daughter tells me, there are few gender issues, even at council and district events. PS The gender issues: all in the normal experience of life and resolved by the scouts themselves.

Barry, I have no doubt your troop was traditional and a darn good one at that. My experiences, moving a great deal over the course my military career, showed that there are not so many traditional units left. Starting in the late 80s, scouting began a slow transition to something, and it sure wasn't traditional scouting. The BSA that you and I recall previously exists only in pockets. Truly, the ship has sailed. My support of coed BSA is based what a forum member said so well earlier: the girls that would join the BSA want outdoor adventure, and they generally get along better with boys. They'd rather be with boys than hang around other girls talking about hair and nails. They don't want to change the BSA, they want join the BSA and do BSA things. Yes, they are still girls, still feminine, but they want to chop wood and back pack and sit around shooting the breeze with the boys. (This describes my daughter and her female venture crew mates to a "T"). There's been a great deal of concern about boys being allowed to be boys, girls upstaging the boys, etc, so don't let the girls join. I respectfully submit that this is admiration of a problem rather than a solution. If boys and girls in the United States are truly that awkward, then all would be better served by learning to be around the opposite gender earlier in life rather than later.

I guess I missed the point...if we are talking about keeping the program traditional, it hasn't been traditional in awhile. At any level. The folks that made scouting traditional left the organization or retired a long time ago. There are plenty of folks that would make great scout leaders but they won't come near the BSA, for a variety of reasons. True, parents have less time for their kids, but that is only part of the reason, I think.

Barry, from your perspective: why did the old timers leave? Why do experienced, dynamic outdoorsmen/women leave the BSA shortly after signing up, or refuse to join at all?

Good question. PR is probably like most departments at Irving--they aren't required to produce anything, yet they'll continue to draw a pay check.

True, and Hillary created a firestorm with her Blackberry.

Blw2, you just described me as a scout! I pressed forward and achieved the bare minimum (the sales patch for the scoutorama, the BSA first aid kit, etc) just to do my part, but I did not like peddling. Like you, I knew people didn't want to buy. Truly it was painful. I was always relieved when the sales campaign was over. I liked scouting, but not the fundraising. To go to Philmont as a scout, we didn't have any fundraisers. It was up to each scout. I gladly mowed lawns. Useful, meaningful work, and easy to make the pitch. On the other hand, I didn't mind selling Christmas trees as a scout. Our troop raised enough money in three weeks to last the whole year. People who drove up to the lot wanted buy a tree, and it was a friendly environment. Not like knocking on a stranger's door and making a sales pitch.

Another point to consider: fundraising of yesteryear is not the same as today. As a scout, I might sell scout-o-rama tickets (wow I feel old typing that) or candy bars for camp. One troop, we sold trees at Christmas. Brief periods of hard work, but nothing too strenuous. In years past, there were fundraisers by various groups and teams, but nothing what we see today. Today: be it scouting, sports, PTA, band, etc., the peddling is year-round. Even if isn't year-round for the youth selling the items, it sure seems like a continual drip/drip/drip to the friends and neighbors that are pressed to buy this stuff. It gets very old. Expensive. And most of dollars go to a middle man.

50 miler, Grand Canyon (South Rim-North Rim-South Rim) 50 miler, Philmont Alaska five day trek, off the beaten path (north of Anchorage)

Barry, the GSA might be a national scouting program, but it offers little/nothing compared to the BSA. Particularly in the outdoor arena. Even with its evident weaknesses, the BSA is by far a better program. My daughter, a former girl scout, has been a Venture scout for about a year. She still talks about how much better the BSA is compared to the GSA, in every category. Before she was old enough to be in Venturing, she counted years till she could join a crew. To borrow her words: "I'm tired of cookie sales and gluing popsicle sticks, I'm ready to go backpacking."