Oak Tree

how about make your own shelter using each of the lashings and knots and sleep under it for a campout? Sure, that would be fine, too. When we hand out athletic letters to Varsity basketball players, we don't hear about how the player doesn't know how to dribble, or doesn't know how to make a lay-up. If BSA had regular competitions where inspectors came around and evaluated boys' shelters, and the Scouts practiced these things as the focus of the program, then the Scouts would know their lashings, just like basketball players all know how to dribble. My point is that Scouts is not structured right now to make those skills the focus of the program, or even a pre-requisite for other parts of the program. Sure, it sounds great to say that the Scouts are out building their own shelters. And some are. But others focus on other parts of the program. And some focus on no parts of the program. But you don't have to have any skill above the minimum in order to get Eagle. Horizon, your boys may know their lashings. But it's not because the program requires it. Many troops just don't run the program the way you describe (and your description does sound like fun). The BSA could make deeper skill demonstration a key part of the program, but they don't, and I can't foresee that changing. This doesn't mean we have to accept things like what Abel describes. But neither do I assume a professional level of skill development. I figure Eagle Scout is awarded to people who have at least demonstrated a passing familiarity with a variety of skills at some point in their Scouting career. Your mileage may vary.

"How many new Eagle scouts cannot build a fire or lash a useful camp item? Just sayin" "How can Irving change this trend? Could BSA change this trend if they wanted?" If the BSA really wanted to make sure Eagle Scouts could lash useful camp items, then there could be repeated requirements throughout the advancement process that involved doing this. The requirement could be beefed up - to do five square lashings within five minutes, and then build on it. The Star requirement could be could be to lash together a cube with eight lashings in five minutes. Etc. Right now there is no need for a Scout to ever lash together a useful gadget again after he makes First Class. There are useful gadgets galore in the camping store. The program could be changed, but it's not going to be.

Hasn't happened here. Our district split once in recent memory, but that's due to a real growth in membership (and population in general). The council of my youth still has the same one district that they've always had. Stability in some areas is a good thing - I like SSScout's post and his wry take on the reorganizations. I don't think we need to tell him to get over it or anything - he seems to already be over it. I try to take posts like this and be thankful that my council doesn't have every issue.

Here in the southeast, we get thunder EVERY afternoon. At some point you would think the staff would schedule it earlier in the day. We camp somewhere similar, weather-wise (and not too far geographically-speaking, either, I suspect). The camp schedules the mile swim at 11:00am on Thursdays. In addition to being in the morning, the time also gives them options for running additional chances.

Our pack camps four times a year as a pack. I've also done the Webelos three-day event at the council camp, and our Webelos dens can camp pretty frequently. We also set up a camping group that does low-key camping at the pack level. It makes for a lot of camping. I've heard some people say that we should save some of that camping for Boy Scouts, but that hasn't been a problem. Camping as Cubs seems to help, not hurt, Boy Scout retention. Things that might get people out: - Pre-designed trips. Where to camp, what a schedule would look like. - Pictures of fun things you've done as a pack. - List of basic equipment and what it costs. - List of places to camp and what benefits go with which sites.

I'm saying it's both.

The reason I try to steer people towards the more outdoorsy badges is that they generally have more fun. There are only so many times most boys have the opportunity to do archery, or small-boat sailing, or orienteering. Aquatics and shooting sports are especially popular, and Scouts may get carried away with trying to line up Eagle classes but not actually enjoy camp. Nevertheless, after a few years of camp, they pretty much know what they are getting into, so I'll let them sit in class if they want to. So I wouldn't say I'm hostile to the Eagle classes, just that I think there are better options to be done while at camp.

Ours is done in a lake - little chance for anyone to bend the rules and no bending that I've ever noticed. We generally have one Scout, one adult, or no one do it in a given year. The requirements for the mile swim actually have three preliminary requirements - those are pretty much ignored.

I'd add Indian Lore, Swimming Some others that could be ok, which are included at our camp, are Art, Cinematography, Photography, Plant Science, Safety, Woodwork. The ones that camp offers that seem particularly poorly suited to camp are the ones taught in a classroom just like a school class. Citizenship in the World, Nation, Communications, Computers, Personal Management, Personal Fitness. These are nevertheless popular classes with our older kids, and it's nice to have something that attracts them. There is definitely consumer demand for these classes, so while I tend to steer kids away from them when asked, I can see why camps offer them, and why our guys take them. I'm glad they don't offer Citizenship in the Community, because it's my opinion that one really can't be done at camp.

I'd look at the Osprey Aether 85.

The Wisconsin Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod are quite conservative - the Wisconsin Synod opposes participation in Boy Scouts and you can find various statements to this effect on their web site. I can only imagine how they'd feel about OA. The Missouri Synod is much more conservative than the ELCA, but they do participate in Scouting to some extent, although they seem a little bit uneasy about the idea that you can tell people they can do their duty to God in any way other than as a Christian. "In 1944 Missouri made two decisions that proved disastrous to their relationship with Wisconsin: it discontinued opposition to the Boy and Girl Scout programs, and it granted approval to the practice of offering joint public prayer with church bodies not in doctrinal agreement. Wisconsin could demonstrate that both decisions constituted departures from longstanding synodical conference practice." ""We maintain," said one-time synod president, John Brenner, "that the scout program still contains elements of religion, that it perverts the teachings of Holy Scriptures; and that, therefore, the Scriptures bid us to avoid it." President Brenner said that in 1945. We must still say that in 1986. That's where we still stand. " The oath objection is something that definitely comes from Jehovah's Witnesses. All of those organizations, though, oppose Scouts for some reason, and they aren't chartered organizations. The Missouri Synod does seem to be ok with OA - I found this quote from 1962 - "The planning meeting for the 1963 NOAC was held December 27-29, at the University of Illinois in Urbana. An agreement with Lutheran Missouri Synod had been reached on changes to the Order of the Arrow Vigil ceremonies." So I don't know of any chartered organization that in principle opposes the OA.

Different kids can react differently to the various aspects of this. Some of them don't mind hanging around afterwards because they have a friend of a second leader who hangs out too. Some of them look at you like keeping them at Scouts for one more minute is going to cause them to starve to death and they will blame you for it. I try to balance it with the idea of giving some extra perks. There are certainly advantages to being the leader's son too. You can give him some extra input into things. You can take home the leftover ice cream. You can make sure his advancement doesn't get stuck. You can borrow troop gear more easily than others. Find your own little ways to give him some benefit from the fact that you are there. Sometimes I have my wife pick up my son at the end of a meeting so that I can hang around without worrying about him.

It is so easy to sit up on high and point the finger at another Eagle Mill. I think you missed the point here. An Eagle Mill troop tends to be adult led and follows those things that adults think of as important, and that very commonly includes a strong emphasis on uniforming. The poster was saying that the Eagle Mill Scout would look better - that's why he stated it as a positive for Eagle mills. Still, as to your greater point that it's easy to point fingers, yes, it is. There are all kinds of people who get Eagle - the thing they have in common is that they have persevered through the program. They may have done many things wrong - I definitely wouldn't want every Eagle to have everyone post anything that they had seen him do wrong.

Counselors that work with our troop at home generally do all the requirements as written. Counselors at camp generally do not. Some of the merit badges actually cover all the items - especially the Eagle-badges like Citizenship in the World, Communication, Citizenship in the Nation. Those are the exception, though, by far. One year we sat down with our Scouts and went through the requirements to see what they thought that they had done versus what the camp said they had done. The camp's version was a tremendous work of fiction. We did ask the camp director about it - he suggested that the boys often don't remember everything that they've done in class - which is true, but we're not talking about whether or not the boy participated in a discussion of jobs in environmental science - we were talking about some very basic requirements. The worst example was one badge where the class had apparently done none of the requirements, just went on hikes. For another badge, the camp said that the Scouts cooked and ate a fish, something that I'm sure they wouldn't have forgotten. We've come to accept that camp just doesn't have rigorous standards. Unless the camp records something really egregious (like giving them credit for 20 nights of camping), we'll take their word on what they covered. This year we only had a couple of mistakes. One of them was that the camp gave a Scout credit for a class that he never showed up for. We didn't count that one. We've decided that there isn't much value in fighting it - this is apparently just the way camps run.

An organization that never seems all that organized goes ahead and runs a huge get together once every four years. What could possibly go wrong? I don't know what all the military did at Jamboree - their presence was everywhere and I suspect it's difficult to even categorize everything they did. I would definitely anticipate a bunch of unforeseen issues popping up, without having people in place to handle. It's easy enough to think that teams of Scouts or volunteers could handle various things, but there are a lot of situations that need some top-down decision making. Like Kahuna, I expect the first one to be something of an experiment. If I were to go, I'd try to be as flexible as possible, but I'm not eager to be a guinea pig either.

The question of whether it would be legal to use only female lifeguards would depend on whether the courts found the gender of the lifeguard to be a "bona fide occupational qualification". Courts have generally found that it is acceptable to allow gender discrimination when it is necessary for the privacy of a third party. It is acceptable to have women do the pat-downs of women at airports, for example. Whether the courts would find the expectation of privacy to be justified here is something I don't know. The law clearly would not allow them to request only middle-eastern lifeguards, or only muslim lifeguards, but there are definitely situations where it is permissible, based on privacy expectations, to discriminate on the basis of gender. Regardless, the question at hand isn't whether the government will force the BSA to stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation while at the same time the government does its own discrimination. It's been clearly established that the BSA is allowed to choose its own members and leaders. But people are also free to choose to walk away from the BSA for the same reason.

Twocub, Yes, you're right - it's convenient to have a short-hand notation for the set of behaviors. It's especially convenient when discussing types of troops. As with many of these things, it's one thing when you're talking about a group, it's another thing when you are talking to a troop. And here on the internet, we're always doing both. It doesn't seem like a particularly courteous term, and I think people do use it (not all, just some) as a way to put down other troops' programs, and that doesn't seem necessary to me. As for what I would prefer, I'm not sure. For one thing, the term is used by different people to mean different things. What if a troop shows about half the signs that you list? Are they an Eagle mill? My general rule would be to use a term that the group themselves would choose. I don't think that any of these terms would have quite the same 'grabbiness' of the term Eagle mill, but maybe that's partly because the term captures a little bit of the frustration that people often use to refer to those that consistently do better on some measure. When I google "Eagle mill" or "Eagle factory", I find lots of troops that say that they are not those. I think that some people use the term to refer to any troop that produces a lot of Eagles, and of course, some (many) of those troops are units that put on a great program. Maybe the Eagle mills would describe themselves as "Advancement-oriented troops", or "Organized advancement troops" or "Eagle-expected troop" or "a troop with a plan to get every boy to Eagle" Homework assignment: Find a troop that you believe is an Eagle mill. Ask a leader in that troop whether they would agree with the term, and if not, what term would they use to capture the meaning? How do they advertise themselves to potential recruits? I have no expectation of being able to stamp out the term - I'm just asking people think a little bit about whether they really want to use a term that other troops might find insulting.

The percentage of Scouts who earn Eagle is about 5-6% per year, (something like 50,000 out of 900,000), but since the average Scout is a member for multiple years, the actual percentage is more like 16% (out of the 300,000 or so Scouts who join each year, 50,000 will earn Eagle at some point). They used to say the percentage was 2%. Some parts of the Eagle requirements have definitely become easier over the years - for example, back in the 1940's you had to have 50 nights of camping to get the Camping merit badge, and now it's 20 nights. But there are many other changes to the culture as well that could be more responsible for the increasing number of Eagles.

The number of homosexuals who join or don't join Scouts is not the membership problem associated with the issue. The membership issue is whether people think of Scouts as an organization that is intolerant and they therefore don't even consider letting their kids sign up as Cub Scouts. Just google around and you can find lots of examples of people who won't let their kids join - here are a few I found when I skimmed the surface"I know i would never let my son be a boy scout in the USA, but here in Canada they aren't such ignorant [jerks]. (no offense to you Americans, just offense to the scout leaders LOL)" http://www.circleofmoms.com/toddlers/cub-scouts-294025"I love the camping/skills/fun side of Boy Scouts but can't stomach the creed and the very clearly anti non-theist, anti gay stance they take at the highest levels." http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=545I'>http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=545I already know that I won't let my son participate because of the organization's stance on gay scouts. I find it discriminatory and won't let my son take part in something like that. I'm not trying to dissuade you, though! It's for you to decide, of course!" http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=545"I cant let my boys be part of an organization which discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, and you woud think that in California, where apparently it is the land of fruits and nuts, there wouldnt be a lot of support for scouting." http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3DJ0zH1iJEcJ:blog.erikajurney.com/trustworthy-loyal-helpful-friendly-courteous-kind/+won%27t+sign+my+son+up+for+cub+scouts&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com"My husband and I are going to have such a brawl over this. I completely agree with you. But I know my husband is going to desperately want my guys to be scouts. ""I could never knowingly participate in an organization that actively discriminates. Its the same reason why I dont ever participate in BSA fundraisers. Good thing its the Girl Scouts selling the cookies, or wed be a sad family. ;)"I hate when organizations.especially ones like the boy scouts, operate wth such descrimination."Wow. I was actually considering letting my oldest join the Boy Scouts. Not now. I had no idea.""I know a lot of people are not bothered by that and let their kids participate anyway because aside from that the boy scouts are a good organization, but I know just as many who have steered their kids away from scouting (I am one) because of their stance on homosexuality. Ive explained to my son as best as I can (hes eight) why I do not want him to participate in the scouts. I would rethink my stance if they would rethink theirs." http://blog.timesunion.com/parenting/5525/are-scouts-still-relevant/"I know many, many moms who will not sign their sons up for Cub/Boy Scouts because of the anti-gay stance. " It's hard to know how many people would actually sign up if the policy changed, but there are real people out there, and apparently many, who say that they will not sign up because of BSA's gay policy. There are a few who say they won't sign up because of a bad experience they had as a kid, and there were a couple of other reasons. But by far the most common reason people list for not having their son join Scouts is the gay issue. I know, I know, some of you don't believe it. The attitude is growing, though. I predict BSA will change. If they don't, the numbers are going to keep getting worse. The military is going to accept gays. More and more states are going to have gay marriage. The Scouts already have an image that they aren't relevant today - if they want to look more and more like dinosaurs, they can just stick with the current path. Back before the civil war there were some churches who argued in favor of slavery. The Mormon church used to prevent blacks from serving. There have been organizations and arguments against women's right to vote, inter-racial marriage. In 1989 Rotary voted to accept women "I would like to remind you that the world of 1989 is very different to the world of 1905. I sincerely believe that Rotary has to adapt itself to a changing world." The history of this country is of expanding rights - more people have the right to vote (women, blacks, Native Americans, 18-year-olds), we vote for more things (direct election of senators), more people are protected by law (age-discrimination, gender, disability, veteran status, ...), more people can get married (inter-racial couples, the divorced). Gay rights are going to end up in this category. Scouts will accept them and won't be able to argue against it any more than Southern churches can today argue in favor of slavery. And why? Because when you know actual gay people, as Trevorum points out, it can be really hard to argue that they don't deserve to be treated equally.

The AHA definitely isn't a huge fan of sugar-added sports drinks in general. At 100 calories of sugar per packet, it's not like it's a real health food. More Americans now drink sugar-sweetened sodas, sport drinks and fruit drinks daily, and this increase in consumption has led to more diabetes and heart disease over the past decade, researchers reported at the American Heart Associations 50th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention.http://www.newsroom.heart.org/index.php?s=43&item=976 They recommendHydrate, hydrate, hydrate. Maintain salt-water balance by drinking plenty of fluids (preferably water) before, during and after physical activity. Avoid alcoholic and caffeinated beverages.And they addIf you experience these symptoms [of heat exhaustion], move to a cooler place, stop exercising and cool down immediately by dousing yourself with cold water and rehydrating. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/PhysicalActivity/Exercise-is-Cool-Despite-the-Heat_UCM_428764_Article.jsp If they are recommending sports drinks like Gatorade in some situation, they are hiding it pretty well. And yes, I'm sure there are situations where it would be good, but it doesn't look like that's a routine situation.

The term "Eagle Mill" does seem a bit pejorative. Why do we need to give such a label to other troops? It may indeed be the case that some troops focus more on the advancement method. Does that mean we need to insult them? It almost feels like those using the term are offended by the troops that do this. Is it because those troops make it easier for boys to get Eagle? The troop I grew up in was barely functional, very disorganized, had a few sporadic camping trips. We had fun when we did stuff, but we were in no way an Eagle mill. Some troops focus on the outdoors method, some on the uniform method, some on advancement, some on the patrol method, some on leadership. My troop growing up did none of those. I think that the one troop in town that consistently turned out Eagles did more camping than my troop did, more patrol work than my troop, more leadership development than my troop. I don't know why I'd want to insult them by calling them an Eagle mill. Even if we were to agree on some definition of an Eagle mill (and we won't, I know), I'm not sure what the point would be. Would those troops be better if they just became all disorganized and stopped working on anything? Or sat on their applications? Eagle mill has been defined in the past on the forum - people throw out things like: a very high focus on advancement, typically including merit badge classes as meetings, adult run meetings, boys have a schedule for when they will receive each rank, boys advance in lockstep, etc. Even if we all were to agree we wouldn't want to be in that troop, I don't see how insulting them helps. If you want to convince them that there is a better way, might it be better to talk about the way things could be, rather than just disparaging the current status? If you are currently using the term "Eagle mill" to refer to other troops, let me ask this: what would convince you to stop using an insulting term (and it's definitely perceived as insulting) for other Scouts and Scouters?

BadenP, thanks, I like TwoCub's post as well. Your definition is pretty good, although it's not what I would think of as a "standard". Nor is it anything like what National would try to enforce if they did try to enforce something - it's a great vision of a program. Troops that don't live up to that vision, though, aren't necessarily "abusing" the requirements. There are undoubtedly troops that do the things you say, but it's one thing to say a troop isn't creating a great Scouting experience, and something else to say that they are taking the standard of "has the boy completed the requirement" and saying that that "one standard for Eagle has been altered, fudged, reinterpreted, ignored, and abused for years by troop leaders." I was just curious - are there particular requirements where you see troop leaders often fudge? Some of the requirements are pretty straightforward, while others might lend themselves to creative interpretations.

BadenP, which "Standard" do you believe is not being met by many Eagles? Is there a particular requirement that is not being fulfilled?

The military heard stories about how all the troops would quit if gays were officially admitted, too. So they went to an intermediate "don't ask, don't tell" policy as the culture continued to evolve. Now they're going to lift the ban on openly gay soldiers, and it will be no big deal. I've heard that people will leave, but like Fred, I don't really believe it. Maybe they'll all go to the Royal Rangers, but I doubt it. Get Robert Gates in as the next CEO, or Bear Grylls, and let them lead a change. Or maybe Michael Barrett, current Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. The Wall Street Journal reports that Sgt. Maj. Barrett brought out a small copy of the Constitution and referenced Article 1, Section 8. It says, Raise an army. It says absolutely nothing about race, color, creed, sexual orientation. He then asked if everyone in the group joined the Marines to protect their nation, going on to say, How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble? Sgt. Maj. Barrett concluded by saying Get over it Lets just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Lets be Marines.Start with the San Francisco Bay Area Council. I agree it might take people a little bit of time to come to terms with it. Don't just spring it on everyone, but slowly make it clear that's the way things are going. Boy Scouts too liberal? On what issue? The only thing I've ever heard along those lines is that the organization isn't "sufficiently Christian" - and since it's not officially Christian at all, that's understandable. Every story like this is one more item that drives home the BSA brand as anti-gay. I'll bet if you took a poll of random Americans, that's an association that's been rising over time. I do not see how this can help the BSA in the long run.

My immediate reaction is that your title isn't right. Your troop is very vital. It's more alive than the great majority of troops. You do high-adventure every year. You're large. You're active in the OA. In the OP, you say you want to get to the next level. That's different from "revitalizing". But ok, I think I understand - you want the troop to be even better. What does "even better" mean to you? What does it mean to the Scoutmaster? And in particular, what would it mean to the Scouts? The one symptom that you list that everyone probably agrees with, is that half of the boys drop out? Is this the real number? Do you normally lose half of the boys by the end of their second year? Has anyone talked to the ones who dropped out to see what they thought the problem was? Or talked to the parents? ASM change isn't really a problem - it's just a fact of life. Older boys not being too involved with younger boys - that's going to depend on what vision people have for the program. This could be fine in some people's minds, or a problem in others. Physical fitness may be an issue to deal with, but it's not because of a problem in the unit. Having six Eagles a year isn't a problem either. It might be a symptom of a program that is too focused on advancement, but not necessarily. Patrol size of 10-12 can work out fine in my experience, depending on what type of attendance you have. Boys not having fun. That's a problem, but it looks like it's more your opinion than an accepted fact. From your overall description you are part of a very active, energetic troop with lots of parent involvement. You are losing too many boys, and from what you've told us, it looks like it's because the boys are too focused on advancement and not having enough fun. If you want to change this, it's going to take a consistent message over time, and you're going to need to have leaders who are on the same page - both adult and youth. You need to ask yourselves, "What could we do differently to keep more boys engaged? What would make it more fun? How can we mix up the program a bit?" I like the idea of additional trips, some for just the older Scouts. Go in with a bunch of ideas, in case the Scouts don't have any. Come up with some that are more complicated logistically, and let the boys work on solving it. Can they do a 5-day bike trip? Backpacking trip? Can they plan their own water event? Sometimes just giving them a chance to hang out together while doing something just a little bit more challenging can grab them. Eagledad's ideas are good. Once you agree on this vision, you've got to get the parents to buy in. Talk to them repeatedly. Parents meetings, emails, one-on-one conversations. Pick a message and stay on it - and it will become part of the culture. Good luck with everything.