Jump to content
RememberSchiff

Annual BSA Meeting 5/24-27/16 San Diego

Recommended Posts

Yes imagine that - fun, challenge, and adventure at a scout summer camp and maybe an incomplete merit badge or two.

 

Back in the day :rolleyes: , we had a Pirate's breakfast at camp. If I remember correctly, you had to row or canoe your patrol across the lake to a field kitchen. But the game was more involved like the cat, chicken, and feed rowboat problem. There were other patrol competitions during the camp week that were clever and fun.

 

I did not complete merit badges at camp until I was a C.I.T. :eek:

Edited by RememberSchiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember MBs at the various camps (two camps in AZ, one in AK), but not very many offered at any.

 

Crafts--Basketry, Leather, etc.

Waterfront--Lifesaving, Swimming, Rowing, Canoeing 

Rifle and Shotgun

Archery

Nature lodge--Environmental Sci, Nature, Mammals, Astronomy

Pioneering

 

About a dozen total?   Note:  zero homework MBs, period.   Except for Env Sci.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think they would want to keep the annual meeting relatively free of controversy this year, after what's gone on the past few years.

 

I have probably said this before, but I think most "strategic planning" is a waste of time and money.

 

As for the location of the meeting, we're lucky they are at least meeting within the confines of the 50 United States and not on some tropical island. Which I guess raises the question, have they ever met in Hawaii?

 

Stosh, if you are going to complain about the moderators (again), I wish you would at least give an accurate picture of what happened. The word in question was removed from a TOPIC HEADING, not from the text of a post. I don't remember if I was the one that did that or not, but I agreed with it, anyway. Readers of the forum didn't necessarily need to see that word "in lights" and it was totally unnecessary to use the word there. I don't think that particular word has ever been removed from the text of a post. And by the way, nobody beat the anything out of you over it. We just removed the word and told you why.

Edited by NJCubScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the location of the meeting, we're lucky they are at least meeting within the confines of the 50 United States and not on some tropical island. Which I guess raises the question, have they ever met in Hawaii?

 

Yes 1974, in Honolulu. Membership had significantly dropped that year to 5,803,885 from 6,405,225 the year before.

 

http://www2.powercom.net/~stolerd/about/ahistory.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes 1974, in Honolulu. Membership had significantly dropped that year to 5,803,885 from 6,405,225 the year before.

 

http://www2.powercom.net/~stolerd/about/ahistory.html

From the '74 para:

 

"Despite a loss in members, Scouting made positive gains in 1974 in the quality of its program. Membership on December 31 was 5,803,885."

 

Gosh, that Improved Scouting Program was such an improvement, it prompted over 60,000 folks to depart.  

 

Once one mulls the particulars of that bit of wonderful spin, I guess the only logical thing to do is fly all of the execs to Hawaii for a meeting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the '74 para:

 

"Despite a loss in members, Scouting made positive gains in 1974 in the quality of its program. Membership on December 31 was 5,803,885."

 

Gosh, that Improved Scouting Program was such an improvement, it prompted over 60,000 folks to depart.  

 

Once one mulls the particulars of that bit of wonderful spin, I guess the only logical thing to do is fly all of the execs to Hawaii for a meeting.

 

It will be interesting to see the membership numbers for 2015. The initial word I got was it was over 10% off what 2014 was, but the date was being "re-evaluated" for accuracy.  :rolleyes:  :dry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see the membership numbers for 2015. The initial word I got was it was over 10% off what 2014 was, but the date was being "re-evaluated" for accuracy.  :rolleyes:  :dry:

Krampus, does "re-evaluated" mean what I think it means?  :)

 

So the best thing for National to do:  go to Sandy Eggo and tout the "positive gains...in the quality of its program."

 

Two words:  open bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krampus, does "re-evaluated" mean what I think it means?  :)

 

So the best thing for National to do:  go to Sandy Eggo and tout the "positive gains...in the quality of its program."

 

Two words:  open bar.

 

Historically the numbers released at the annual meeting have been adjusted downward (meaning the loss of membership has been increased, the membership numbers lowered)  later in the year (usually July or August). Last year's numbers, I am told, are showing double-digit losses and that may not be something they want to present in May. What I heard was there was a request to "revise" the numbers so that they do not show a double-digit loss.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens....and to see what happens later in the year when the numbers get updated.

Edited by Krampus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically the numbers released at the annual meeting have been adjusted downward (meaning the loss of membership has been increased, the membership numbers lowered)  later in the year (usually July or August). Last year's numbers, I am told, are showing double-digit losses and that may not be something they want to present in May. What I heard was there was a request to "revise" the numbers so that they do not show a double-digit loss.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens....and to see what happens later in the year when the numbers get updated.

I see, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? I thought the previous year membership numbers were released in the Report to the Nation, two months before Annual Meeting.

 

2015:

         1,261,340 boys ages 6 to 10 in Cub Scouts

            840,654 boys ages 11 to 17 in Boy Scouts and Varsity Scouts

            142,892 young men and women ages 14 to 20 in Venturing and Sea Scouts

 

http://scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2015-Report-to-the-Nation.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Despite a loss in members, Scouting made positive gains in 1974 in the quality of its program. Membership on December 31 was 5,803,885."

 

Gosh, that Improved Scouting Program was such an improvement, it prompted over 60,000 folks to depart.

I think the declining number of births following the peak of the baby boom (1957) may have had more to do with it. (A child born in 1963, by which time the number of births had really started dropping, would have been 11 in 1974.) It's the same reason why, after building tons of schools in the 50's and early 60's, a lot of school districts started closing schools in the late 70's and 80's.

 

But I know it is the conventional wisdom in this forum to blame the "Improved Scouting Program" for the membership losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? I thought the previous year membership numbers were released in the Report to the Nation, two months before Annual Meeting.

 

2015:

         1,261,340 boys ages 6 to 10 in Cub Scouts

            840,654 boys ages 11 to 17 in Boy Scouts and Varsity Scouts

            142,892 young men and women ages 14 to 20 in Venturing and Sea Scouts

 

http://scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2015-Report-to-the-Nation.pdf

Those are the 2014 numbers released before the 2015 annual meeting. The numbers in the annual report are a bit different from those. The numbers revised later in 2015 were different still.

 

The point: Membership numbers for the previous year are announced in the spring, reported in the annual report and revised later in the year. There have been times when they release provisional registration numbers in the spring for the current year but they are unofficial until they are in the annual report...which are usually revised downward (in terms of membership numbers).

 

 

But I know it is the conventional wisdom in this forum to blame the "Improved Scouting Program" for the membership losses.

 

Exactly. Everyone knows it was Jimmy Carter's fault. ;)

Edited by Krampus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the declining number of births following the peak of the baby boom (1957) may have had more to do with it. (A child born in 1963, by which time the number of births had really started dropping, would have been 11 in 1974.) It's the same reason why, after building tons of schools in the 50's and early 60's, a lot of school districts started closing schools in the late 70's and 80's.

 

But I know it is the conventional wisdom in this forum to blame the "Improved Scouting Program" for the membership losses.

True; but my criticism of the ISP is based on having lived thru it, Scout - Eagle.   When I became an SPL/JASM, I also listened to the perspectives of my scouters who stuck with the program despite the glaring deficiencies of the ISP.   These men were no malcontents, but good, solid, loyal leaders.   Our discussions were not in front of the other scouts, but campfire/scouter time.

 

Even as a thick-headed 16 year old, I could compare/contrast scout hand books, '60s era and the ISP 8th edition, and see the difference.

 

60K departure in 1 year cannot be totally explained by the tailing off of the Baby Boom.   Other factors were afoot.

 

(Edited to add) PS   By my own observation and those of my scout leaders, many folks left the BSA because of the ISP, and the way it was implemented.  Thankfully, enough old fashioned scouters stuck around long enough to guide us through the BSA's "darkest hour." 

PPS   When the BSA dropped Camping MB from the required list for Eagle, everyone knew the score.

Edited by desertrat77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Everyone knows it was Jimmy Carter's fault. ;)

I do see the winky-face, but I'll ask anyway: When he was governor of Georgia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...