Eagledad

I'm in awe of the dialogue jousting lately in these discussion. A few posters are using cleaver twist of words, facts, and history to imply they have an upper hand with the other (opposing) poster. I admit I'm perplexed why these posters ignore the many many years of scouting experiences of the older scouters on the forum. No respect at all. Reminds me of an article explaining why some people are more hostile with politics. One "opinion" is many of these people identify personally with specific political party beliefs instead of viewing politics on the whole as an impersonal process for defining government. They feel any kind agreeing trend against their belief is a "personal" slap against them, which justifies actions necessary to gain a personal upper-hand. I kind of see it here; some twisting of words to slant the dialogue so as to imply a superiority of the discussion. The technique is risky because it only works if the other posters don't have much knowledge of the discussion or decline to go on the defensive. OK, we all do that from time to time, but the intent of these posts lately appears to be more about gaining a victory rather than passing along ideas or thoughts to brother/sister scouters. I personally find it strange and juvenile. Is this our future? Barry

Interesting thread. It has appears to be a condescending response to the discussions of BSA changes. OK, I get it, frustration drives the need to resist the resistance. But I'm curious about the instant recognition question (statement?). I have been in scouting since the 60's and I can't recall instant recognition ever being an issue. What is your concern? Barry

Until Joe and the other boys go to the camp showers together or in a tent changing. Oooops! I firmly believe everyone involved should be given the respect of choosing to be part of this family's drama, and possibly child abuse. Barry

Again...Hypothesis or theory? It doesn't matter how may different ways you say it, I still think it's a bad idea. Barry

Exactly! Now you understand the complexity of how membership can dilute the present quality of the program. There is no way around it. Your example isn't quite complete, however, odds are the woman entered the program with little or no adventurous experience. So in your analogy, the women was far more detrimental to the adventurous spirit until she got experience. At least three years. The problem is that as the program gets more inexperienced adults than experience adults, the program will change toward the greater membership demographic. The program will have less adventure, at least at the weekend camping level. Barry

Hypothesis or theory? All that dancing around of words just to say you want a national policy change for girls memberships in cubs and troops. We just have agree to disagree. Barry

Boy, you are asking a lot. I have written a lot about this very subject for over 20 years and I wish we could pull the archives. I will be brief. By the way, our pack averaged around 120 cubs. We did two approaches to bringing the parents back to the pack meetings. We made the meeting shorter than an hour (typically 55 minutes), and we made it fun for the adults as well as the scouts and their siblings. That takes some practice and some good planning, but you will find fun meetings for the whole family go very fast. And our scouts and their sibling were warn out from all the yelling, cheering, jumping and standing. Learn how to do audience participation for just about everything. We fixed den leader burnout by NOT letting them do anything else accept den meetings. Now, the program itself beats up den leaders (another discussion), but a start is not letting them lead, plan or assist any activity other than den meetings. Parents do the rest. If you can't find parents to do the other activities, then don't do the activity. Best way to find volunteers for ANYTHING is to ask personally. It's harder for them to say no, and they do feel some sense of honor that you are asking personally. Start by finding an assistant for the Den leaders. Then move down to Pinewood, B&G and other monthly pack activities. Do your annual planning in July so that the committee has time to find and recruit all their activities leaders by the end of September. Then have the CC ask for an activity update from the activities leader at each months committee meeting. Keep the pack activities simple and fun. They should be intended to help give the Den leaders a break, and fun for the whole family (so the parents want to come). Remember, each activity should be planned by a parent volunteer and helpers who were recruited personally. OK, that's a quick guide, which is rare for me. Barry

I fully agree in theory. In reality unexperienced adults need three years of additional guidance to guide a mature boy run patrol method adventure program. That opinion is based from my experience of helping and training adults in both packs and troops. If you think that is a bit harsh, I also believe adults with an extensive youth troop experience needs AT LEAST 3 years OJT to be a productive Scoutmaster for a mature program. Sadly, what programs like Philmont and Boundary Waters have done is given adults the idea that real adventure starts at 14. I would venture to guess that 90% of scouts today have never done a weekend backpacking trip with their patrol or troop because the adults are waiting for them to reach the right age. And while age is the excuse, it really has more to do with the inconvenience of the level of effort required. But hey, I'm excited to see a troop spend a weekend just fishing. Barry

That is one good perspective. But actually National does have some control of the program and it starts with membership. I realize and understand the complexities of today's culture and the survival of a values program in the middle of it, but we have to be realistic with the sacrifices that come with large program changes. I got involved as an adult leader right after the induction of female troop leaders and I have watched the program continually become less adventurous. Not because women are considered the weaker sex or whatever, but because they were a massive induction of inexperienced campers and scouts. Lets be realistic, you can't teach what you do not know. Now there is a discussion of bringing in girls on another forum. OK, I understand that National hasn't said anything official, sometimes these threads just happen. And I also understand that admitting youth females is not about bringing in more inexperienced adults, but actually it is. Just like dads who like to be part of their sons youth activities experiences, so do mothers with their daughters. Bringing in more female youth will increase the percentage of inexperienced adults. Anyone who has been working with other units the last 20 years knows that leaders without a scouting and camping experience struggle to put on a scouting and camping experience. I used to work with the adults of those units. But when you see the number of units who struggle with putting on an Aims and Methods program, the over all affect is adventure is down over the whole BSA program. Our PLC in 2000 scheduled at least two patrol campouts without the troop a year. They could do more if they wanted and they could do it without adults. A troop can't plan a campout without adults today. Big deal? Oh maybe not, but it is symbolic of the trend. I used to teach an "Aims and Methods" course for adults, guess which adults struggled with the idea of patrols camping 300 ft. apart from each, as well as from the adults? Guess which adults struggled with scouts doing hikes without adults, much less 5 miles hikes? I remember adults walking out of the course in frustration because I kept giving them examples of how they could provide such a program even with all their ignorance and fears. True Patrol Method camping is hard to imagine if you haven't seen it. I am not turning this discussion into if girls should be admitted discussion. I'm only saying that National inadvertently drives out adventure with many of their program changes. As we get generation on generation of inexperienced adults taking over units, the expectation of adventure in the unit is being driven lower. I retired as a scoutmaster about 15 years ago now. The program has changed enough that I would have to change some of how we did things then. And not for the better. Some of our best adventure experiences are in our troop program. But a lot of that started from experiences the adults had as a youth. I'm not sure how to keep the adventure up for the future troops. I worked with hundreds of adults in teaching them how to do this scouting stuff and many just don't trust it. It's a lot of work getting adults to let their scouts experience adventure just on a campout. Barry

I have a lot of respect for BSA camp Rangers and look forward to learning new LNT techniques from them. Infact, we usually have two or three scouts who are Philmont Rangers each year. So I know what they go through. But sometime their maturity lets authority go to their head. During one trek, the ranger decided to show off his fire skills at the evening fire before lights out. He poured some stove fuel on his hand and ignited it to show (show off) how the skin of his hand would not burn. Ironically this was after he led a Thorns and Roses discussion. The crew was careful to how they responded to his demonstration of physics because they knew the adult was going to have some words about fire safety. I don't like pulling authority on youth authority (he was 19) because it turns the relationship from the Crew Leader of a Crew to a Crew Leader of a Crew and adult. And that is what happened here. This Ranger was really very good and a good role model for living in the back woods, but after my very few words about safety, he treated me different the rest of the trek. In a few words, scouting is about giving young people the confidence to behave adults. But sometimes the success of our confidence feeds over into our egos. Correction or our Egos hurts a lot worse than redirection of our confidence. I prefer a scout learn from his own mistakes without adult intervention because he learns the lesson faster if he doesn't have attend to wounded ego. But sometime humility needs to be fed as well to learn how to behave like and adult. I only have a couple stories about loosing my cool because I am pretty tolerant and laid back with behavior. At most high adventure scout camps, the Rangers typically inspect each person in the crew gear to insure the crew is prepared for the trek. We are a backpacking troop and the Philmont Ranger was impressed with our preparedness. But he still felt the need to show his authority, so he picked on one scout who brought a personal backpacking stove and proceeded to chew him out for bringing more stoves than recommended for the crew. Our crew knew about it and welcomed the extra weight of the stove because the scout's mom and dad gave him the stove for his birthday just before we left for the trek. We would have brushed off the Rangers suggestion except he made such a big deal over it. It wasn't what he said because technically he was right. It was how he said it. You could see it in our scouts eyes, he felt bad for forcing the rest of the crew carry the extra weight. I took the Ranger for a walk. Over the years of Scoutmastering, I developed the skill of not letting my emotions react before spending time to calm myself down. But that situation got to me and even the scouts said they had never seen my face so red. Sometimes the rangers don't always get it right. Barry

One reason I have enjoyed your posts Matt is because I'm reliving my Scoutmaster experience through them. I also spent a lot of time trying to explain scouting from the noble perspective of the end product. This isn't mine, but it is my favorite phrase I tend use for explaining what our program does for your sons. "Building Citizens of Character and Leaders of Integrity". And if I am asked, I can explain how in the most boring detail, so I'm told. Barry

Ok, I will give the benefit of the doubt. Barry

I've been doing these discussions for 20 years, so I'm not going to do the research, again! But from memory of youth scouting associations that made major membership policy changes: GSUSA, Campfire kids, Canadian Scouts, Australian Scouts and I think New Zealand. There are a couple of others that can't remember. Yes, but my point was the boys have not come back at the numbers the program once had. I guess it's a chicken or egg question. Barry

Ahhh, condescending sarcasm. Not very scout like, but .......... Barry

When I look back over the years of posters coming and going, I can never forget the many posters who truly believe BSA membership would climb when gays were allowed to join. That never made sense to me. Gays? Just how many gays are out there waiting to join as soon as the policy changes. Not that we didn't have gay families, I knew a gay parents in units in our district and I had several atheist parents in my own pack and troop. They were joining even without policy changes. So, where was this assumption of massive growth? And maybe my problem is that I'm too pragmatic. I tend to make decisions based from facts, not theory or emotions. Theory and emotion tend to make people think the world revolves around them and if they were king, or queen, they could change the world. Facts are usually more complicated and harder to understand. They certainly don't jive with our emotions. Someone here once said in a condescending tone that the debate is really more about defending tradition. He is wrong in his application of tradition to imply that those who appose girls do so simply to keep the boys club the boy's club. In reality, the traditional part of the program that is being defended puts boys in an environment where they can grow from observing same gender role models as well as the safety of learning from their independent decisions. The difference between the guy who really believe that membership would grow in leaps and bounds from admitting gays and me is that I knew why membership was declining in the first place and how many families declined scouting because of the membership inclusiveness. I look at the history of programs changing their membership policies over the world and there isn't any program that grew larger than before it made the change. In fact, most had a dramatic drop. Everyone keeps pointing to the England, but that took many many years for them to just catch up. Even then it can be argued whether the policy change was a success because girls had to make up the loss for the boys. The evidence of history is there and the facts are the BSA WILL suffer with membership policy changes. It may eventually recover, but not in our adult leadership lifetime. Check Canada, Campfire Kids and even the GSUSA after their admittance of gays. So, from all the data accumulated from history, the discussion should trend toward if the loss of membership is worth the change. By listening to our British counterparts, I would guess they would say yes. Of course, most of the adults today were very young at the time. I certainly remember the Canadian Scouts on the forums during their time of change and they were quite bitter. They weren't coming back. Ignoring the crowd motivated by political correctness, you know who your are, it seems most of the voices for change desire a program where all the members of the family can participate together. That certainly is not the present Troop or even Venturing program. But appears to be the common drive toward the membership change. And while many folks don't see the program changing simply by admitting girls, those of us who experienced the program after women were brought in as troop level leaders know better. The program will go through massive changes. More women will become leaders, which means for the near future less adults will have a scouting and outdoor experience. Which translates into a weaker outdoor program. Which translates into a weaker patrol method program. Not all at once, but it will change a lot inside 20 years. Take a look at the Canadian program, up until the early 1990's, Canadian Scouts around the was considered the premier scouting program. It was the model everyone else said should be followed. Not anymore. Much has been said in comparing the changes to the YMCA, and that is a very valid comparison. Comparing local youth sports with the YMCA today, YMCA sports are considered noncompetitive. Only families that don't want a competitive sports experience joined the Y. That is the future of the BSA as it becomes a family camping program. In "my opinion" character grow from the BSA program will eventually just become a saying because nobody will know how to do it. Nor will they care. Scouting will be a time for families to camp together. It will be family bonding time. So my question is: Is that what the culture really wants, really desires? Is that where scouting really needs to go because I really don't know. I am a proud alumni of the traditional program. My family has been raised with the traditional program. Does the culture need a more family style program for future youth? Barry

Jrush, nobody has said anything official. We are all just blathering through our fears, hopes and desires. Your theory doesn't have anymore relevance than mine. You completely missed what I said in my post because I imagine you really want girls in the program. Badly. Barry

fehler's comment suggested racism is the source of appossing girls in the BSA. The comment is inappropriate and juvenile. Barry

Is that a racist comment? Barry

Yes, but the BSA won the Dale case, so it was dealt with, as you say. The gay issue pulled organizations and institutions that used morality as a basis for it's principle program into the debate because morality is the one world ideal that dictates behavioral decisions. A gay activist leader around 1992 told me that their goal was to confused the perspective of religious base morality. He said their activism was going after any and all organizations with a spiritual based guidance of morality. When the BSA program was mentioned, he said he didn't care what happens to the BSA or any other religious organization, they were intending to take them down so that a relgious based morality wasn't used for any lifestyle choice. For any of those who have been following this for a while, the gays activism actually didn't get any traction at first with the BSA because they approached it at allowing "adult" gay scout leaders. The program is based on role models and even families who don't have trouble with the lifestyle struggled with the idea of their kids spending a week with gay adults. But once the activist started going after admitting gay youth, the tide turned. My personal opinion is that the BSA has dug itself in a hole that isn't easy to get out of. In the big picture, girls is a very difficult road to take because it not only starts the program over again, it will also run into a feminist agenda. The cultural progressives (politically motivated) folks here naturally want to push what is one of the few bastions of conservative idealism into liberal world order. But the girl scout program has been supported by feminist contributors for a long time. As long as the BSA stayed out of their pot, they have left the BSA alone. Has anyone not noticed how quiet the GSUSA was during the gay attack on the BSA? I also agree with those who believe that the BSA is going to back off from it's present morality base to become more politically acceptable. But, personally I think it will take a lot of years to for the conservative moral stigma to fade and in the meantime will suffer membership wise as a result. I just don't see how the BSA can improve it's membership in the short term except to change the present internal problems. The new Lion program proves that National isn't going to go that direction. As for me, I'm one of those boys who thrived on camping with my male patrol mates. I was the only boy with three sisters and a father who traveled for his business. I needed scouts for a lot of reasons. I took what scouting gave me and gave it back to my scouts. I can honestly say that if girls had become part of the program when my oldest son was old enough for cubs, I would not have joined as an adult. I thrived on a program for boys and wanted the same for my sons. As for the gays and godless, well my scouts were guided by my interpretation of the Scout Law, which was instilled by my interpretations of my faith. Without a god to guide the adult leaders, the program is nothing more than a camping club. Leading a program of taking youth into the woods is too hard to not have a greater purpose of raising adults of moral character. Can a once great youth scouting organization survive the progressive cultural agenda. Well the Campfire Kids and Canadian Scouts aren't showing much hope. If after school activities is all parents really want, there are a lot of outdoor activity programs that are easier to manage around. Barry

Maybe, but do you believe jrush's post to be anything more than a personal theory? Are the professionals at National motivated by a cause? Barry

Wow! Interesting theory. I'm guessing that at least 70% of COs are religious based. Who in their right mind would want to be part of an organization with that business model? Barry

Based on what, politics, theory, personal desire? What? Barry

I miss the Tiger T-shirts. Parents (moms) did away with them because they felt t-shirts made the Tigers look exclusive to the rest of the pack. But the boys liked them because they looked cool for their age, and they could wear them anytime since they didn't look like a uniform. Barry

The worst scoutmaster I have ever met let his scouts do or say anything they wanted. They were the most misbehaved scouts I have ever seen as a group. He was not a boy run SM, he was just waiting for his son to earn Eagle so they could move on. They were kicked out of the camp campfire. Over the years, I found the challenge of scoutmastering to be setting a tone of Oath and Law without having to speak about it. And while I understand "the look", it's really more than that. It's a slight twing in the voice and lesser of a laugh. It's a slight change of stride in the walk. It's that little something that only the scouts might see, or feel, that gives them pause to wonder about their action. The tone is different for all of us, it's not something I could teach. And it took years for me to develop because it takes time to change from the correcting father to the disappointed big brother. The point of all this is boys of this age are looking for guidance in their search to find themselves. Boys don't want to be crass or antisocial, but they live in an awkward time where being accepted is a pull in all directions. Nature drives boys to look for and to look up to their gender role model leader so they can find where they are supposed to fit in their chaotic world. Finding oneself is stressful and finding the kind of person you want to be relieves that stress. Good or bad, the Scoutmaster is that role model by default. It's truly a burden and noble responsibility all at the same time. So, practice being that role model. Set a tone of acceptability. Boys will be boys and that is important, but there are limits. It's ok for boys to push the limits, but the tone of the scoutmaster is where the line is drawn. And while boys may moan outwardly with their peers when they cross the line, they are grateful inwardly for the direction. I can't say what those limits should be because we are all different, but don't be afraid to have an opinion. Be a compass for them. I want you to know, because it happens to me a lot now, adults who were once your scouts (and their parents) will walk up to shake your hand and thank you. Be the model you want them to be when they become those adults. Barry

I think you need a hug. Barry