Stosh

If the troop is broken into patrols of 6-8 boys, one can rely on the boys developing their own leadership so an influx of more adults is not necessary. 20 new boys? 3 patrols, 3 TG's a half dozen new Instructors is all that is needed. The PLC will grow by only 3 boys. If more support leadership is needed, the SPL might consider more ASPL's to help with the load, maybe an ASPL dedicated to supporting the 3 new TG's. The knee jerk reaction to a situation like this is to add more adults rather than accepting the challenge of developing new youth leaders. As a boy led, patrol method scouter, I'd go with developing more boy leaders to carry the load. I went from a 5 boy troop that was floundering to 28 boys in 3 years. I was SM and I had 1 ASM. More adults were never considered an option during that growth period.

Good catch, didn't notice that. I think BSA says long term camping is 72+ hours

I think bearess is in the situation we face in our council. Only one Pack opted for Lions and the jury is still out on it's success/failure situation. Not really much choice for parents of kindergarten kids in this area.

@@Cambridgeskip one of the issues I struggle with currently is the issue of these choices. I was a Venturing Advisor for 13 years of a co-ed group in the BSA. I don't have a problem with that. And I can stay in the BSA as long as I have the option of choice of an all male developmental program option as well. Take away all-male Boy Scouts, I have no other all-male option except by going to the Trail life/USA option or start an all-mail youth group in my church or other organization. Going with an established program or starting another one from scratch would sway me towards Trail Life/USA or GS/USA, but GS/USA won't take me. My choice if I wish it is very limited at best. Sure, I can stick with Venturing, but I get as much enjoyment working with my church youth group, both which are co-ed. Now, If I struggle with this dilemma, I'm sure others do as well. If the issue of co-ed or separated is not a big deal, then there is no need for a choice. If the choice is not there anymore, again, no need to decide. But for those who wish a choice, I would like to see that option remain on the table.

If viewed While I think your other arguments are valid, this issue is based more on age appropriateness than it is on gender. I'm not going to go out in the woods with an 8 year old with a .22 of ether sex, I would feel more comfortable with a more mature 17 year old of either sex hunting in the woods.

I think (and it's only my opinion based on my historical research of the era) that BP understood deeply the importance of leadership, character development, camaraderie, and moral choices based on his time in the military. I'm sure it played a large part in his own life and he wished to share it with others. With that being said, moving the age down from military service ages to those much younger would promote the same kinds of benefits to the younger males at an earlier developmental stage and with the military being all male, co-ed wasn't part of his expertise. Knowing the desire of females to be a part of that process was also recognized and he and his sister developed a program oriented specifically for the women of that era as well. BP needed his sister in the process who would know the needs of the female sector of society. Yes, times changed and instead of altering both of these programs, would it not be beneficial to all to promote a second option of integrating both into a hybrid program between the two. It does have it's advantages yet by preserving the separate program, would offer youth a viable alternative and it's advantages. Each person could have a choice which in my mind is not only equitable but good for a changing society while retain and even expanding the freedom of choice. To this day, even with the changing of societal norms WGAAAS still retains this option for the gals. Would it not have been far more restrictive to insist that the guys no longer have that choice and have to go with just the hybrid option?

Some is a relative term and even then imply a smallish number. I applaud the ability to have this option in the realm of sports, but I would also fight hard to preserve the other option as well.

Yes, I understand the societal changes occurring in the 21st Century. I am not anti-co-ed in any sense of the word. (I don't even know if anti-co-ed is even a word. ) What I am trying to point out is that the freedom of choice is being systematically removed from the society. In the far extreme the other way, having men and women separate denies the choice of co-ed. In our society, we are doing the same in the exact opposite, the choice of separated social dynamics is being denied. A fair and equitable society would promote both options. male/female separate AND co-ed, allowing people of that society to choose from both worlds. This third option is still valued in our society as we see the strength of GS/USA offering females this option. It would be nice to have it equally applicable to males as well. One does not see large numbers of people opting for Heritage Girls as one sees it happening with Trail Life/USA. As far as male/female traditional roles adapting, 4-H has mastered this within it's co-ed program. Males can have access to household/traditional female skill development (some of the best needlepoint at the fairs are done by males and many of the needlepoint classes I attended were taught by males. On the other hand, females raising horses, sheep and pigs is common as well at the fairs. The boys have the option to choose. What is interesting and supports a valid point is that religious based organizations have co-ed development programs as well as such programs as Heritage Girls and Trail Life USA and do just as well as 4-H. These community and faith based organizations still honor the option in our society for the freedom to make multiple choices, not just ones that are correct only according to some political agenda that restricts the freedom of choice. It is unfortunate that only the wealthy that can afford it in our society still have the option and means to make such a choice. Even the world of sports still is a bastion of male/female separation that has always had the option for co-ed. Yet, one does not see co-ed as being a chosen choice very often. But when it is chosen, it is acceptable, net not much in the schools, community and professional levels. I have yet to see professional wrestling or ultimate boxing pitting male against female. The choice is there, the famous tennis match between King and Riggs was viewed more as a joke than serious sports.

If it is "as simple as that" why is there such a long running, heated debate still raging on? One would think that with highly adult supervised co-ed groupings would run counter to the principles of BSA and GS/USA who's goal is not to provide independent development of male and female maturity into adulthood. Heavily supervised runs contrary to such principles. The BSA has had to go to great lengths to insure the co-ed option, but would not have had to had it remained all-male. When I went to college in the later half of the 20th century, female dorms did not have urinals. Now all dorms do, at whose expense did this all happen? And are the co-ed dorms need more adult supervision? Rules? Yes, the elite few can have the separation option because of their financial means to be able to buy that freedom, Those that can't afford it don't have the freedom of choice. I wonder if the demise of the patrol method started with the need for co-ed adult leadership that was mentioned as necessary for a co-ed program. My buddies and I always had the freedom to choose independent activities because such heavy supervision from adults was not necessary. Does one think this society is ready for 2-deep male leadership 300' away from an all-male patrol is the same as 2-deep co-ed leadership 300' away from a gender-mixed patrol? It's easy to see how such freedoms are taken from the program that was once established for a certain goal in mind. The arguments presented for co-ed are duly understood by me. I am an adult leader for church and community organizations, but while there is a lot of "stuff" floating around about BSA going co-ed, one does not hear any discussions about Big Brother/Little Sister or Big Sister/Little Brother dialog on the table. Why not? Where's the legal outcry for these community programs? And as far as religious organizations, they make no bones about heavy supervision, background checks, and major policy rulings about how they run their programs. One does not see many men involved in the sewing group, nor do many women attend the men's Bible-study or vice-versa. There are plenty of examples of co-ed and it's advantages, but there just as many examples to support it's disadvantages, and one of the first to go is boy led, patrol method in the BSA. Ever notice that Venturing is not boy led, patrol method in nature? There's a reason for that.

I'm thinking the issue of religion and sexuality are based by the BSA on whatever the says he is rather than what he really is. If the boy says he has a religious belief system in place, it could mean he believes there is no God and it opens the door. Therefore whatever the person says is the determining factor and all the policies and by-laws are meaningless.

Pinewood derby tracks in our area are owned by many Packs and are available to other packs on a loan and/or rental basis. Our Council camp does rent out equipment on a seasonable/available basis as do units in the council. Winter activities are not common so skis and snowshoes are available only through commercial and educational sources. Our local university does well with being one such source. A ski shop in town rents skis and boots for about $10/day which is great for the units that don't wish to invest in such expensive equipment which is used only for a couple of months a year. There are camps in the area that specialize in winter activities and do have equipment to use during the programs they offer. Usually they are extremely busy during the winter season and would not be wanting to rent/loan during their peak program season.

The facts unfortunately don't bear that supposition out very well. In the history of England, Scotland had co-education in the schools in the early 1800's and showed in the one room schools of America from early on. Churches started (in England) mixed schools as early as the late 1700's. I would find it very difficult for the Edwardian era to really believe that co-ed in the educational and religious world would be considered "immoral". Yes there was a social transformation in the early 20th century on the role of females, but separate school options were still available until the late 20th century. Social activities were and still are separated in the areas of sports and social clubs. The WGAAAS is still going strong separated and yet male societies are attacked. This bias may have begun 100 years ago, but it still continues today because the bulk of society resists it's influence as seen by the number of legal challenges. No one is assailing the all female institutes as they are the male institutions and this option of mixed vs separate has been going on for 200 years. Today's society seems to be hell-bent on removing the separation option which has always been there. In a free society that champions personal choice, removing choices from their citizens is not a step in the right direction, never has and will not go away until it becomes illegal to make that choice. Thus the society will no longer be able to have such freedoms. Culturally/Socially today the female has more freedom in this area than males. This is not equality in any sense of the word.

One doesn't need to be an adrenaline junkie to drift slowly down the river with a dry paddle soaking up the rays and listing to the silence or propped up against a tree with a .22 across your lap watching the squirrels play in the fall leaves, or laying in a meadow staring out into the silence of space watching for a satellite to pass by or the loudest noise one hears is the swish of the cross-country skies on a cold winter night as the snow gently falls all around.........

Let's put it in perspective, in my neighborhood, if you weren't in scouts there wasn't much to do other than ride bikes around town and shoot baskets. We did have Little League in the summer, but the coaches forfeited games during scout summer camp. We had a poorly run troop, but we went camping whether we wore the uniform or not. Kids back then went indoors only to catch a bit of TV which parents policed far more than iPhones and Smartphones of today. It was a different world back then.

Sorry, guys, but I'm not fond of hickory smoked nitrates, smothered in fake cheese. I'm from Wisconsin, I don't eat margarine, fake "cheese", or drink skim "milk". My dad worked as a manager of a dairy. Nuff said.

Welcome to the forum, Noticed your posts, glad you gave up lurking.

With 3 or 4 boys considering going to Troop 1, I'm doubling-down on my recommendation. Go with Troop 1

In reading early scout literature, the boy led, patrol method in America didn't seem to reflect the military tone of the original BP format. The patrols were very autonomous with the boys going off to camp early in the week and the adults coming to check on them on the weekends. Otherwise they spent most of the summer at camp. Later literature had same patrol autonomy but structured camps run by adult administration of the camp. Camp commissioners would test out and pass the scouts at that time to the next rank.

Just another thought..... If BP wanted to make his scouting program co-ed because of the pressure from females wanting to join, why did he start out with the two separated?/ Kinda makes one wonder the intent of his vision.

I've been in both Troop 1 and Troop 4 position. Those boys work hard to make it happen, their survival depends on it. Sometimes larger troops get a bit complacent.

In military lingo, the PL's used to be called "corporals", the NCO that took a small "patrol" out for reconnaissance. The "officers" would be the commissioned officers, i.e."leaders". (Just trying to put myself in the military structure of the armies at the turn of the century.)

Go with Troop 1 - No doubt in my mind. The relationship issues are the main reason, goes where he feels welcomed and the adult drama isn't a factor. There's no way the DL will follow him there and small troops offer a lot of advantages. I took over a troop of 5 boys and within 3 years was at 28 boys. Sign on as an ASM and pitch in and help make your son's scouting career a success.

That's an easy question. If girls have been wanting into Scouting since the beginning and BP set up two programs one oriented to boys and same program oriented to girls, it's taken a mere 100+ years of political posturing and whining to get the boys to cave. The Girl Guides/Girl Scouts are doing very well without having to succumb to political agendas of a few. I think WAGGGS' membership worldwide female only runs about 10 million, I might be wrong on that, maybe someone knows.

In this day and age it would appear that people can redefine themselves at the drop of a hat. Why would agnostics and atheists be any different? It used to be male and female, now the list of options has gone into the realm of sublime. Maybe this has something to do with some ancient tower called Babel.

But It would be safe to assume that respect for the male scout program isn't there anymore. The female scout program he started is still in tact today following the program set down by BP. They didn't seem to need to alter course to accommodate any of the societies it is associated with around the world.