moosetracker

If they removed the charters of those that do that would definitely lower membership, let alone the entire councils who are now bucking the policy, they did play hardball with a few, but I doubt they will the NY council that hired the homosexual eagle scout who is now over 18, for a camp councilor especially with NY looking at them for if they are not complying with the states discrimination laws.. I would imagine once NY is allowed to slide the other councils will also reinstate the policies they were forced to retract..

You can't track decline from the half-a$$ed change.. It moved some conservatives out, but did not do enough to attract anyone who are not going to have their sons join until the policy is corrected.. It gave us baby steps in the right direction, but as for membership numbers and donation money was the worst of all 3 options. We also are not for the local option exclusively nor primarily because it will stop the declining numbers (although it will defiantly help in the northern states).. We are for the local option because you cannot bill your program as non-denominational and then only cater to a few denominations (Those who not just choose not to be open to homosexual leaders, but need to control not just their units decision on this, but everyone else's) and not allow other religions to exercise their own religious freedoms.. Well I wouldn't go so far to say illegal, but perhaps to take a group of youth camping you may need to always have on hand your own licensed EMT and lawyer. (Make sure to list them on your Tour Permit).

I don't know about the layout for den meetings. I do know that for Pack meetings they seemed they had more meat to it to help organize them.. The old Pack meeting plans gave little to nothing and you were basically left doing it yourself.. So great if you had a hard time figuring out what to do at a pack meeting from month to month.. I would suppose if you have your own clever ideas that you think are better, you can scrap the suggested pack meeting plans and just do your own thing.. (I think).. I mean who is going to throw you out as Cub Master if you take the boys to participate in a community fishing derby rather then follow what the guide suggested for the Pack meeting? Pack meetings have little effect on rank advancement, and they are mostly all about having fun in a way that all the separate dens feel they are a part of a larger group.

Pthhhhhhhh... Don't go down that rabbit hole Bad Wolf.. We are told we have to play nice.. Especially with this not in "Issues & Politics"..

Oh great, Scouts (at least the alumni of scouts) is sending us junk mail in order raise money..

Depends on what the camporee is all about, if it is playing games like capture the flag, then not a good thing to spend a month or more practicing.. If the camporee is built on competing between patrols on scout-craft skills, well then the patrols are practicing their scout craft skills with a goal in mind.. Also our troop might need to rebuild Klondike derby sleds or build other things needed for the completion that they are asked to bring.. I remember one year they had to build homemade wooden mallets and of course each patrol decorated their mallets somehow, wood burning their patrol name into it, or putting beads & feathers on it.

AZMike - YOU have now brought them up, so now the thread can die..

Difficult to understand why you say districts are better off with volunteers that want to help voluntarily, then that districts are cannibalizing units if they use volunteers who willingly volunteer and they shouldn't do so.. I would say it is perhaps cannibalizing units if they just take the adults and if a unit is pestered or pleaded by the district to take on an event more then every 4 years or so (aside from what TAHAWK proposes which seems like a working idea also, but note they only do the Klondike and not also hike-a-thons and camporees which would delfinatly overtax this working model).. As for utilizing an adult who has a child in a troop.. All depends, does the adult feel they are being utilized at the troop level? Some troops are top heavy with adult leadership and if an adult can't break into that group and wants to do something, they may move to district.. Is it cannibalizing to use someone who is not being utilized at troop level? Perhaps later we loose these guys, they only stick around for a year or two because what they learn working at district level then makes them attractive for leadership at the troop level, so they get a position in their troop and leave district at that time.. We might see them again at district level when their son ages out.

Now I am confused, you said it was a terrible concept hatched by people not understanding how Boy scouting is suppose to run.. (which I can see due to it not using the patrol method).. then you say it is working great for you.. First I am not sure if it is working or not working.. But if it is working could you explain why you think it is successful?

Yeah, that does not sound good, because the SPL's of all the troops have never bonded together as a team as would a patrol or a troop. So it would be hard for them to coordinate anything.. Also, if it is always the SPL, this is not volunteering to do it, but kind of foisted on a group and expected as the original OP stated..

Oh, I know the original post, but the thread has meander from that to be more about if a district should be expected to run events for the unit with district volunteers only, or if districts can expect help from units in order to put on the event.. Should they force a unit to put on a camporee, regardless of if the unit feels they have the ability and support to do it or not? I think the unanimous conclusion is "No".. But are districts who have units that are willing to step up and help better off or not? Emphasis on units being willing, not forced.. Are units who put on an event better off for doing so or not?.. This seems to be more where the thread has moved to..

Actually our district works similar to how Fred Johnson states his works, and for the most part it is functional and not broken.. Sure our core district members are those whose boys no longer are at troop level.. But the pinewood is run by a hosting pack, the camporees and hike-a-thons by hosting troops.. The district leader for events (that usually consists of one person at district level) helps them by being available to guide and answer questions.. The one person for training, trains, the one person for advancement does advancement, the one person for camping organizes summer camp etc. etc. etc... Does it take away from the unit to host?.. Not if done right, it gives the troop a large project to focus on and if boy run can be awesome for the boys.. I know one troop who ran such a wonderful camporee boy run that his troop went for 10 or 12 boys to over 100 boys (The guy who organized it is now in our district, but not when he ran the camporee).. Also, if the district is including the units as much as possible (in the right way) I would say you don't have the good ol' boys network, even if the guys in district are your older guys.. That's because it always stays a "we", and not an "us" vs "them".. I did training for the district, and I retired to give it to a 22 year old looking for a district position.. My husband is currently doing Advancement, but always says if he can find a younger man to take over then he will happily step down.. It's like a struggling troop or pack.. If all of the parents stand back and do nothing and expect someone else to volunteer and do it all for them, the unit limps along and is never really very strong.. I guess it all depends on how your district is running now.. I would be curious who has districts like Stosh & Bad wolf and if how well you think your district doing providing district events, and if you think it is a network of good 'ol boys, and likewise who has a district similar to Fred Johnson's and mine and likewise how you think your district events are running and if you think it is a good 'ol boys network or not..

BadenP - that is a horrible story, and I don't know why the council won that.. All property of a troop or pack belong to the CO... If that were true then the council owns all the camping equipment and all the money that units have in their bank accounts and could take all that also.

Our hosting troop finds enough help to organize & setup the stations, but never enough to man all the stations.. It is expected that the other troops adult leaders who have come with the boys will help man stations.. Unless you have a very new troop with very young scouts, the scouts do not need an adult or adults following them around as they make their rounds from station to station.. So rather then the adults sitting back at camp for the whole day they are expected to help with the stations.. We don't have any arguing or rebellion by troop leadership, everyone has bought into the leadership.. Also I know with our troop the older scouts preferred running stations or doing other organizing functions, rather then just organize everything, hand it over to the adults and simply move into participant during the camporee.. They took ownership of it, and did not want to relinquish the control.. Can you serious blame them? Still it is a lot of coordination to find a place (hopefully free of charge) to run the camporee from, organize the latrines, water buffalo (if no water which is common for free sites), etc. etc.. It's about as complex as planning a wedding.. I know the 2 times our troop did it, you get a notebook with a lot of things you need to coordinate and recommended times to get them done at.. Our boys loved the planning, but keeping them on schedule to did force the adults to watch and monitor things and give needed kick in the pants when needed..

Our camp would charge to.. It is the way camps are going, you pay whether a Boy Scout group or on outside group.. The camps charge us to host our District trainings there also.. It is harder to find a place other then the camp, but a lot cheaper.. Especially for training where you may end up with only three or four signing up for the training and the camp wants to charge $100 to $150 to use their camp.. It makes it very expensive training for those 3 or 4 participants.. Our district also asks for troops to host the camporee or hike-a-thon, we do not have enough volunteers at district level, and usually the older scouter set many of who don't camp anymore.. Those with kids in the program are volunteering at the troop level.. But it is definitely street-cred.. Our troop started something that many other troops after us followed.. The troop got to design the patch, and you were not to put the hosting troops troop number on it.. Still you found some slick way to sneak it into the design where it passed the inspection.. After the patches were made the troops would show off where the numbers were hidden in the design.

Here are some more news articles : http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/living/girl-scout-boycott/index.html http://www.glaad.org/blog/girl-scouts-colorado-released-statement-welcoming-transgender-youth It does seem to be only mentioning the Colorado branch as making this decision.. Maybe more recently Nationally it has been decided.. I did not see any articles that are more recent though, or a more national decision..

I thought this was decided about a year back.. There was some story about a boy identifying as a girl and wanting to join a girl scout group.. I know there was some discussion for and against, but I had thought the end result was the child was accepted.. Perhaps I was wrong and it hadn't been decided and it took this long to make a decision. Edited: Wow times flys, this was the story I remember, October 2011.. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/transgender-boy-attempt-join-girl-scouts-initially-rejected-boy-parts-article-1.968179

Besides what DuctTape & Eagle state which I agree with.. Some troops are not strong enough to host a camporee.. With our district we have troops hosting, but we would like them to volunteer.. It ends up falling on the shoulders of our stronger troops a lot, but that is no good either because they get burned out.. If they are overwhelmed you will find little organized and the date fast approaching. We have had two or three smaller troops work together to put on one.. This might take a bit of match making and coordination, but it give our strong troops a bit of a rest, and it allows boys in the smaller weaker troops do something they wouldn't be able to pull off otherwise.. It also hopefully gives the boys a big project to focus on and get excited about and get some leadership experience if the smaller troops have leaders that will let the boys lead.. Or perhaps an adult led troop gets to work with a smaller boy led troop to put on a camporee and the boy led troop can teach the adult lead troop a thing or two..

AZ I could see where Duct Tape's moral dilemma would come into place especially with #4 One should honor one's parents and give them respect and obedience. So what happens when you have an abusing parent that hurts you, you have witnesses kill the other parent or another sibling, makes you commit crimes, pimps you out...

They aren't, that's why with those our district ignores the orders in order to teach them at least once a year (it was twice).. Council Executive thinks if they just throw troops & packs the syllabus and tell them to train themselves that the Council will get training done faster.. Not too many besides the CE think this is a good idea, but when they totally ignored him he got angry, so now they half ignore him.. But, now in our Council you can mark yourself trained for a course if a) you think you know it b) you glance over the syllabus and think you know it c) your Pack/troop try to take the syllabus and do the course d) if you take the secretive, illegally held district course (if your district offers that) Per our Council : "No more training, No more training.. All trainers have officially been retired from voluntary service.."

Our new Council Executive basically told our district and council trainers to stop doing in-person training including IOLS, OWLS, BALOO etc.. For some reason he figures more will get trained if you tell them scouter train thy self... Our DE and district trainer are ignoring him, they don't do as many in-person training for IOLS, OWLS, BALOO but still offer it.. They don't offer anything now that is on-line..

Was there a reason? Or did he just convert to what his wife was.. If she had been jewish, then he would have been Jewish.. If Catholic / then Catholic.. But because she was atheist.. I could see maybe becoming atheist with a divorce, but it's odd it that he changed upon meeting his 2nd wife.. I guess if he was Catholic and divorced his 1st wife, then perhaps that could be a reason also, but usually you just become a stay at home Catholic and remarry outside the church.

Understood Packsaddle, but what did Stosh say that you thought was out of line?.. I just see a statement to a difference of opinion.. You now got me doubting if I can continue the debate with him no matter how respectful. Eagledad - I too have friends of differing opinions, you can find people with tough skin off the internet as well as on.. So was he an atheist when he was the Scoutmaster?

Pack - could you be more specific.. There has only been one comment made, I didn't see anything condescending or negative in it.. It was just an opinion made.. And since it was not my opinion, but addressed to me, and I don't see hostility in it, what did you find wrong with it?

Stosh - Although I have some sympathy for perhaps a photographer or caterer who would work the wedding in that they would feel uncomfortable.. I seriously think they could politely duck out by saying they are booked for a different event on that day.. How will the couple know otherwise? The only way is if they feel it necessary to preach their religious belief to the couple about their wicked, sinful ways.. That would put it in my book as the photographer / caterer is the one in the wrong.. As for any of the other stuff, that is just selling a product and you do not have to be in attendance. Just sell the product.. It has nothing to do with your belief system.. It is a product.. Is it any different then selling the product for other reason you may find offensive? For instance an anti-gun person creating a cake for a gun enthusiast with semi-automatic weapons pointed at people, or perhaps a cake celebrating 3 year old Bobby's first real gun.. Because it isn't offensive to them religiously they would have to do the cake.. Both cake bakers can mutter under their breath about the moron customers all they want, they have that right. Could the same-sex couple go else where? If I were gay, I would. I agree, why should I buy something from someone who just spent 30 minutes preaching to me about my sinful ways.. But, the question is, why should I have to go blindly into an establishment, order a product and be blindsided by someone trying to convert me from my sinful ways? These laws would just protect the religious owners of an establishment anyway.. If the owners are fine with catering a same-sex wedding, or doing the cake or whatever then their employees would need to do it regardless of the employees personal view.. How complex would it get, if you go into a drug store for contraceptives and find although the store carries them, the pharmacy or the cashier refuses to ring you out, based on their religious principles? Do you have to go from drug store to drug store until you found one with a cashier who would sell you the product in their store? What if you go to a restaurant that has a great Chicken Cordon Bleu on the menu.. Unfortunately you get the Jewish waiter who will not serve it because the meat & dairy are mixed, so it is not Kosher.. Choose something off the menu that is Kosher, or starve.. Oh, and sorry, the employer can not fire them for not doing their jobs because that would be discriminating based on their religion. So, I guess we disagree.. But, again.. We need not agree.. LOL, I'm trying to figure out how you would convince my liberal democrate atheist dad that your religion has anything to do with the biology of a man born to want a man. Barry I fail to see anything in what I said that states I think my religion has anything to do with the biology of a man born to want a man.. Let me interpret.. A) Since you think that my religious beliefs for accepting the homosexuals lifestyle means I must accept every sexual lifestyle no matter how deviant.. Your belief is that of an all or nothing on the topic of sex.. If I am assigned the "all" you will need to accept the "nothing" therefore no sex for you or member of your religion ever.. This is based on your religious views, not mine. B) Religious beliefs are not undisputable fact.. There are many varying religious beliefs.. You can not dispute all religious beliefs that are not yours as being wrong simply because they do not agree with yours.. No where in there did I even mention anything about my religion playing any part in the creation of homosexual behavior.. I can not even fathom how you could interpret that from those two sentences. Given to how you totally mis-interpret anything I write, I would imagine you must have your liberal atheist friend scratching his head.. It is similar to "Home Improvement" I am Wilson the next door neighbor, and you are Tim, going back to restate Wilson's words to his wife or children and getting it so muddled they have no idea what he is talking about.