ParkMan

It's been so long since the official knot was discontinued that I think it's the effectively like back in the old days.

I'd think this would be good for a new patrol leader to train on. Some things that come to mind are: - it would be good for them to understand the core responsibilities of a patrol in a few basic scenarios - a camping trip & a troop meeting. Just what is it that a patrol is supposed to do? - get them to work on prioritizing their patrol's goals and then work with the patrol members to accomplish them. Have them work through interruptions to get back on task. Further - I think it would be good to get them to start thinking about how leading and managing are different. Get the wheels turning on why being a patrol leader is more than simply taking charge at meetings and getting stuff done.

I thought it useful to go back to the Guide to Advancement.

Not sure - but I'd hope not. Unless this lawsuit is just a warning shot to remind the BSA not to try and co-opt the term Girl Scouts, I find it very hard to believe this lawsuit is really about the brand confusion. How many people really get duped into joining the wrong unit. Other than a few instances of the really clueless, do folks really accidentally sign up for Cub Scouts when they thought that they wanted Daisies or Brownies? I think this is really "West Cola" telling "East Cola" not to use the term Cola in the west. My other thought it that this has nothing to do with stopping the BSA, but instead delaying things. Imagine if there is an injunction preventing the BSA from using the terms "Scouts BSA" or "Scouts" at all for anything to do with girls for the next 3-5 years while lawsuits work through the courts. In the spring, no more "Scout Me In" and instead it's the BSA promoting "join our leadership and outdoor educational program for girls"

Hah - now I'm going to see the word Scouts and think Bourbon.

Sorta. I see the GSUSA point. They have been recognized as the Scouting organization that provides services to girls for 100 years and are claiming that they are the only organization allowed to use the term "Scouts" in association with programs for girls. I am nor versed in the legal rules here, but it seems clear to me that they own the term "Girl Scouts" (upper case). It's not clear to me that they own the term "scouts" or "girl scouts" (lower case). So, in the context of programs for boys, it's fine for the BSA to say "Scouts". In the context of programs for girls, their claim is that it is not OK. Again, I don't hear the argue that the BSA cannot provide these programs - just that they cannot provide the programs for girls and then call them Scouts, scouts, or girl scouts. I'm trying to think of a similar analogy

So true! Whenever someone brings up neckerchiefs or hats in our troop, the Scoutmaster looks at them and says "if you want to. hey, let's talk about going camping." There's no neckerchiefs or hats.

Gotcha. But competition in itself isn't a problem. Unless the GSUSA could somehow argue that the BSA was infringing on the GSUSA's constitutional mandate and it was therefore requesting an injunction on the basis that the BSA simply isn't allowed to offer Scouting programs to girls. I didn't see that argument though.

I just read through the GS/USA brief. What seems like a valid question here is whether the BSA & GSUSA had previously agreed on the usage of Scouts & Scouting by the respective organizations. Some of the other things like asserting that the BSA only provided programs to boys seems a stretch. The BSA has been providing co-ed programming since 1971. Much of that time it's been to girls and boys. When it was exploring or venturing they didn't object. But, now that it's the Cub Scouts & Boy Scouts they do? I'd think a jury would take that into account.

It's been moderately important in our troop. We've had a few opportunities to interact with Scouts internationally - but not a lot. We encourage the World Jamboree and in past years used to do attend jamborees in other countries. Given the geographic isolation and size of the United States, I'm afraid that it's more of a concept than a reality for most scouts.

I think this is the key. The training syllabus is simply the starting point. I've come to understand the best courses are those where the trainer takes the material and then adds their experience. It's all about quality in my mind. An instructor needs to add value over taking it online or not at all. The online courses add something over not taking it at all. A live instructor has the potential to add much more - but it only happens when the instructor really invests them self in building a great course. I remember one evening with some of the "senior staff" on one of our Wood Badge courses. They were telling some stories about their earliest courses. In those stories I realized that they, at one point in time, had really invested themselves in making our Wood Badge courses outstanding. The energy, enthusiasm, and preparation they embodied was inspiring as a newer staff member. I came back to one of our district courses and realized that this same desire to make it the "best course ever" was not present. That's not a critique of our district courses - we've got good instructors. It's just that this group of Wood Badge staff really strived to make it the best they could. Participants - whether they liked the syllabus or not - knew that they staff was prepared. They saw that every presentation had been prepared by hand, reviewed, and rehearsed multiple times. As a staff it was more work - sure. But it was fun too. I'm not sure how to encourage this at the district level with basic training - but my sense is that this would help.

I've gotta wonder though. How my accountability does the BSA really have for individual Scouters & units. They could remove us I suppose like they do for YPT violations - but that seems pretty extreme because I make a recruiting flier and mis-use the term "Girl Scouts".

That's a bummer! Our Cub Scout pack did the same thing. The local Girl Scout camps are here are awesome. Great size for a pack camping trip too.

@Eagle94-A1 - I'm glad to hear your sons like the new troop. That's fantastic. I fully agree - rushing the boys through too quickly is a big mistake. Scouts BSA is just another section of the Scouting trail - it's not a destination. I would also agree - these last spring crossovers are too late. Boys get into the troop and almost immediately have to decide about Summer Camp. I'd rather see a Dec-March crossover too.

What I see has more to do with activity level in Scouting than it does Boy Scout prep. For example: - Pack A camps twice a year - camping trips are usually two nights and often at a BSA camp. The Webelos had a camping trip of their own. The met weekly. The leaders put more responsibilty for advancement on the Scouts. - Pack B is much more laid back. The pack would have a local overnighter. Webelos dens met once or twice a month. Fewer activities, no Webelos camping. Boys earned all awards together. I see very different engagement levels from the respective new Scouts. Scouts from Pack A are there weekly. The boys jump in, earn Scout and then Tenderfoot quickly. They go to Summer Camp. Scouts from Pack B are casual Scouts. They are more likely to miss meeting, take a year to earn Tenderfoot, and skip Summer Camp. Both Packs think they are doing the right thing. Pack A has higher expectations and encourages more involvement. Pack B is the "laid back" pack - they respect families time.

Interesting to hear that this is more of a national trend. It would seem that packs and troops focusing on the outdoor program might indeed be a very good way to recruit both girls & boys. i.e. join Scouts BSA for an active, outdoor program.

I'm guessing that stuff like this will be hard for the BSA to police. DIdn't they already write a letter saying not to use the term "girl scouts? of the images of the GSUSA?

I think @Eagledad describes it well. I'd only add that in our council, we did ask participants to pick a primary position. It's your choice what that position is. When you write the ticket, part of the point is to establish a big picture goal that you'd like to accomplish for your time in that position. Your ticket is a series of smaller projects that help you accomplish that goal. A goal for an ASM is probably different than a goal for a MB counselor. So that's why you'll probably see them nudge you to pick one of the two positions to focus on. But, if both of those roles are important to your vision for the troop, then I imagine you can find a way to work them both in. As an example. When I took the course I was an Asst. Cubmaster. My goal was to see us develop into a more energetic pack with lots of participation. Some of my goals were things like: start a summertime program, increase participation on camping trips, foster a sense of den spirit by introducing den names, cheers, & flags.

That would fit with what I see here. We have plenty of outdoor oriented moms and female leaders. I get the sense that around here, there was a shift a few generations back where women started doing all the same kinds of outdoor things as men. So, today we have many women who camp, hike, bike, fish, etc... This could be regional and could be part of what is going on in the Southern region. It is a part of the country where outdoor activities are fairly prevalent. From a marketing perspective, this is where I think focusing on the outdoor aspect of the BSA makes sense. Encouraging those girls who want outdoor adventure to join the BSA makes a lot of sense in my region.

Living in the south myself, I suspect that conservative folks are most concerned about the values taught in the program. I don't think that they are all that concerned whether their kid's scout group is boys only, girls only, or co-ed. Most church youth groups are co-ed, so if it's fine for youth group, it's fine for a scout troop. We Scouters may have a perspective because we're invested in the program. But, if you're a parent making the choice for the first time - I think that's a very different scenario.

I'd just welcome a place to talk Scouting where many threads didn't end in a negative criticism of something. Girls in Scouting, patrol method and YPT, Wood Badge, etc. It wears me out to just keep being so negative. I'd love for a thread on a recruiting video to be about great ways to make that happen - not about the the masculinity of girls or the death of patrol method. I respect the energy and passion you all have for Scouting. I understand how many are very frustrated about the changes in Scouting. I just feel like we get so negative so quickly. I simply thought that maybe we could find a way to let and encourage people to vent but still have a place for discussion about program mechanics.

I would very much welcome a policy decision by this moderators of this forum that posts continuing to debate the merits of girls in the BSA get moved to I&P. I'm perfectly fine that you all continue to debate it. I just would like to have a place focus on the mechanics and best practices of the Scouting program itself.

I've got a 9 year old daughter and a 14 year old daughter. They are both active Girl Scouts. This video captures exactly the things that they like about Girl Scouts now. Hiking, canoeing, archery, climbing, roasting marshmallows, camping. If anyone thinks this is too masculine for girls, then you've not met my daughters, their friends, or their Girl Scouts troops. A very good video.

I fondly use the phrase "Cruise Director". I've always felt that 50% of my job as a Scouter is to explain things to parents. Part of providing the programming for a youth activity is to help the parents understand why we do what we do and how to best reinforce it. I see working with new parents and leaders as a big part of that. Their scout is going to have a less fulfilling time in Scouting if the parents don't really understand why we're doing things the way we do. Having a bunch of parents running around doing the wrong things creates chaos too. That's where a key part of running a youth activity to getting the parents properly aligned to support it. I think that's why we have fewer problems with helicopter parents than some troops. Since we've been explaining why for so long many people now internalize it and it's generally part of our culture. So, more and more parents can help with explaining why to others. In fact, we've gone further with the concept and now one of our Committee Members have been holding parent info sessions at meetings to explain things to newer parents. It's working out really, really well. I'd kinda disagree here. If a parent wanted to do something at a troop meeting, camping trip, whatever, then I'd have the parent start by talking with the SM. The SM could then say something like "ok, gotchca, that's probably not what you want to do - here's why." Or, perhaps he could say "hey, that makes sense. You should check with the SPL to see if he can fit it into his plans." The SM, as an adult, is in a good position to act as a coach to the parent and filter for the SPL.

Just so there is no confusion, that should have been: "We also do not try to limit new adults". I had that backwards. I know that it is a common thing to ask first year parents to be committee members or to ask them to wait a year to volunteer. We don't do that. Really what we tend to do is just guide new parents. If a new parent starts doing too much for the scouts, the New Scout ASM simply pulls them aside and mentors them. That tends to be all we need to do.