ParkMan

I'd discourage that. Let the boys earn all they can - just build it into your cost for the pack. It will all work out.

Around here packs own their own track or share one with another pack. The district doesn't own a track. A cost sharing model like that sounds like a creative idea though.

We to love to proscribe blame here for the decline in membership. The country has changed since the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. I don't know why we would believe that if only we did things like the "olden days" that the situation would be better. All kinds of organizations that continue to do things "the old way" struggle for membership - Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, YMCA, membership groups like the Lions, organized religion, the list goes on. The reality is that we stopped doing things like the "olden days" for good reason. The trick is to find the right "olden things" that are important to continue while trying new things to be relevant for today. Our problem isn't a program one. Our program is largely fine. The BSA keeps thinking it's a program issue and that offering some "new thing" will solve the problem. STEM Scouts is a good example of this I think this is misguided. Our problem is an engagement and quality one. You've got to work harder today to reach families. You've got to run a higher quality program because there are so many more choices out there. We've got a challenge in that many of our volunteers have less knowledge about Scoutcraft than they once did. So, the expectations on the average unit are a lot higher than before. In my humble opinion, this is the struggle. Strong packs & troops with well defined programs are doing fine. Weak packs & troops with poorly defined programs, insufficient leadership, and untrained adults are having problems. Would I love such a resurgence in interest in Scouting that membership would go up 15% a year. Maybe if Marvel would create a Scouting superhero or Harry Potter became a Scout. But, otherwise I don't see anything on the horizon that is going to generate a swell of interest in Scouting. So, I think we have to improve our membership the old fashioned way - by word of mouth, solid program, and hard work from units. Where I'd love to see national focus is on really encouraging hands on volunteering in Scouting again. Really focusing on supporting tools & methods for council & district Scouters to get out and engage with new volunteers to help them in strengthening their unit programs. Creating decent local training, teaching local leaders how to run a modern roundtable, how to really build a local membership program, etc. National could do a lot to recognize that basic leader training, IOLS, and Wood Badge are not enough to really prepare a local team to run a Scouting program in a city or several small towns.

Here's the history I could find here: 1948 - 1st Class - 1 night of camping 1965 - 1st Class - 2 overnight trips 1972 - no camping requirement 1976 - earn camping skill award ( 2 overnight trips) 1990 - 1 overnight camp for each rank. 3 overnight camps total 2016 - T-1 night. 2nd Class-3 nights. 1st Class-6 nights If we're at 3 nights now, we didn't even get there until 1990. Seems to me that we've actually gotten more outdoor focused over time.

It's probably worth noting that while Scout wasn't a true rank until just a few years ago, it has been a badge for some time. I received it when I started as a Boy Scout in 1984. Back then, it was pretty much a "gimme". I was an Arrow of Light recipient from my Cub Scout years. So, when I showed up there were a few basic questions and then they handed me the Scout badge at my first meeting. I believe it was intended to be a way of signifying that I had "become a Scout". That I knew the same sort of info present in the now rank made it possible for me to participate actively as a Scout. Actually, I don't really see the distinction about why it wasn't a rank before, but now is. Feels a lot like a distinction without a difference to me. I guess they were trying to beef up the Tenderfoot rank and felt that making Scout a rank made it less likely that troops would rush to award it. Not sure. Looks pretty much like the same stuff to me.

Yes true. But just about everything they wrote in the article had been said here 100 times. What this also shows is that we're ceding the floor on this conversation to whatever article comes up. What I really wish is that at a national level we'd really engage in this conversation. See the quotes To which someone ought to immediately reply that this happened 20-30 years ago and that none of those people (whether the abusers or those who didn't stop it) are here anymore. Then talk about how the BSA has the strongest anti-abuse program today - bar none. Someone needs to immediately call this guy out. The BSA can very well describe exactly what it is doing today. Someone needs to point out exactly where the money in the BSA comes from and is used for. While everyone supports making abuse victims whole, the money for these lawsuits comes from a) insurance & b) dues from kids in the program today. These lawsuits are trying to punish an organization of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the abuse and are in the process asking millions of kids to pay for those lawsuits.

His quote is really not all that surprising or new. We all know that the rise in insurance prices is a direct result of the sexual abuse lawsuits. He puts it in very stark terms, but I think everyone knows that part is true. What he needed to also say was that the abuse happened long ago and that Scouting today has completely different leadership and membership than it did then. But, when folks make these knee jerk comments, they leave that part out. On his comments about national. Goodness, the NYPost could stop by here just about any day of the week and hear the same. Local Scouters have complained about National forever and probably will complain forever. What's always missing in these kind of quotes is the next sentence of "here is what National should do to rectify the problem." I don't know Mr. Griensky and this is the first I've heard his name. He's a council VP and it sure sounds like he knows what needs to be done. So, what are they doing to reverse the trend in membership there? I'm sure it must be working, so let's find out and copy them.

Holy cow! $200 to council?

Seems like a good point to me. We (volunteer leaders) feel that having scouts operate without direct adult supervision is an important part of the program. So, what steps need to happen to enable that to happen? Training? New policies? What?

It may have been lost in the noise. But, the recent decision about youth meeting alone was not just for bullying. It was as much (and I suspect more) to do with youth on youth sexual abuse.

Good point. Everyone involved in Scouting needs to talk a lot more about what we do (outdoors, camping, adventure, leadership) and less about how. In some fairness to national on this. We're in the middle of a historic event on sexual abuse. I expect that many people who are responsible for growing Scouting are very concerned about the implication that Scouting is not a safe place for kids. So, when you're concerned about it - you tend to over focus on it. I get that when all we hear from national is YPT, YPT, G2SS, it's demoralizing. But beyond the specific examples of how YPT decisions have impacted how you run the program (such as ending youth being without adult supervision), how has this impacted your local work?

Sorry - I misspoke. Having a digital copy is fine. Doing away with a physical copy in favor of a digital one is the kiss of death for the magazine. I hear this a lot from parents too. The magazine is a good tool to reinforce a kids involvement in Scouting. Is another way for a scout to have exposure to a Scouting world. If even for an hour a month that he/she looks through it. I never even asked my son if we wanted it - because I knew that it was going to be a way to reinforce his involvement in Scouting. So I'd chip in a $1 month with the idea that I'd have something to put in his hands about Scouting. It would be some mail addressed to him as well - which kids don't get a lot of. My encouragement to people is that if you are already investing the time to have your son/daughter in Scouting, it's worth an extra dollar a month to get Boys Life.

Hi @yknot This sentence jumped out at me this morning. How specifically would you like to see the structure reorganized? I ask this because part of the time I serve in a district capacity. I struggle with the right way to organize district volunteers to provide service to units. I watch all the energy our DE puts into supporting requests from units. Yet, I suspect if you asked our units locally they'd say much the same thing. Your answer here will help me in understanding these challenges. I would propose that we keep in minds there are some things we cannot change. Most specifically the abuse lawsuits and cost of insurance for the BSA.

Around here Boys Life is optional. A digital/online version would be the kiss of death for the magazine. As a parent I always encouraged my son to read it. It was a good way to reinforce his involvement in Scouting. I can't say that he always read it, but I was surprised how putting it in his hand did help.

Perhaps. I suspect there is a rethinking of how Scouting is funded coming. I think we all noticed the comment about council program fees being capped at the national fee. I can certainly see in a few years: $60 to national $60 to council $60 to the unit I wouldn't be surprised to see $15 a month in fixed Scouting costs in a few years.

Thank you @qwazse. I asked for specifics and you kindly gave them. I appreciate you replying with just what I asked for. In my mind, I'd probably try to find a way to make this work. But, I can certainly see the value in having older Scouts experience the outdoors independent of adult supervision. Yes, this would be a case where the BSA's higher priority of youth protection has impacted what you are able to realize in the outdoors with your scouts. I'd propose that this doesn't suggest the BSA values outdoor programs less than they used to - just that in 2019 protecting youth from abuse is the single highest priority today. I see like a company building great things still putting the safety of their workers above their products and profits.

At some point I look at it as just part of the cost of having a program. If national has to shell out a million dollars a year for MBC background checks and that gets amortized across all of the registered Scouts, that doesn't seem so odd. Actually, I'm kind of surprised that national hasn't cut adult membership fees for the same reason.

HBO did convince me to pay $10 a month so I could watch Game of Thrones - so I'm guilty too. My daughter wanted Netflix for Stranger Things too. Don't even get me started on my monthly cable or phone bills. Both of which are way more each month than we'd pay all year to national. I'm with @Liz. Scouting is a core part of our families life. $60 a year to national is still a bargain to me.

I thought that was a normal Wednesday (kidding also)

I do see they've made it a little easier on families by keeping the adult fees essentially the same. It's small consolation, but it's something

My take away from this thread is that it is very easy to get caught up in the politics of Scouting. The national council did this, my local council did that. Be it professionals, council volunteers, Wood Badgers, whatever. I'm not for a minute going to pretend that any of those groups always or even often make the right choices. As a long time volunteer, I've come to appreciate just how little any of that matters to a specific unit program. The program I saw in the 80's is very, very similar to the one our troop runs. The amount of district and council interference I see is remarkably minimal. The irony of this tread is that I think national is doing very little to impact the outdoor program - it's us who want to engage in national Scouting politics. You want to have a great outdoor program - have it. It's up to you.

These sound like good things for a pack to use. Can you not do this now?

I like a good rant as much as anyone, but how does this impact prioritizing an outdoor program? If anything, providing more facilities for advanced outdoor programming is a good thing. The location is within a day car drive for a very large percentage of the US population. That would be good for encouraging more outdoor use.

The challenge with all the information available in our society today is that it's really difficult to make sense of questions like priorities. The BSA's priorities are different depending on who you talk to. If you're the Chief Scout Executive or the national board, what's more important - fostering an outdoor program that already exists or trying to stave off financial disaster, continual declines in membership, or abuse lawsuits? If you're a local Scout Executive, is it outdoor program or keeping your council camp open and stopping membership losses? If you're a Scoutmaster is it outdoor program, patrol method, or something else? I think it's part of our culture today that we all get online and discuss the topic of the day. Hopefully most Scouters are with it enough that they put all this in proper context.

Ok - then we should start preparing for $100.