qwazse

I'm sorry for the "you know it when you see it" attitude. The problem with too much detail in a BSHB requirement: it intimidates boys. That's not what we want. We want them to work with a mentor (for swimming it is usually an adult) who can help them reflect on a concept. Here's part of the swim test description from National Camp School: I honestly have never met any life guard or scout who has thought that this was problematic. The requirement takes a back seat to forestalling death. If we have the slightest inkling that next time a scout jumps in the water he wouldn't make the distance, we'd ask him to come back for some coaching and retake the test. Most days, if you pull a scout out of the water after he barely covered some distance, you can flat-out ask him "Was that in a strong manner?" And, having never read verbiage like that, he'll give you an honest appraisal. Maybe it's my upbringing. I knew I had mastered the breast stroke only after the pool director (a veteran from the Women's Air Corps) didn't cuss at me. That was better than any possible sign-off or patch. God rest her. If she was still living when my kids were learning to swim, I would have arranged the one hour commute for them to learn from her. Now I'm not encouraging anyone to take up her style of student-teacher interaction. (Most of you couldn't survive the chain smoking required for it.) But accept the fact that someone who's had to rescue a few victims (and you usually don't have to guard for long before you do) has a pretty clear vision of what they need to see before they clear your scout.

@hawkwin, I'm not sure what problem you're having with this. Our SPL asked our PL's to not sign off on any trail to first class requirements until they've seen a scout perform the skill a week after it was taught. He effectively expected scouts to be able to tie a knot in a strong manner. We're supporting him.

Actually very few endorse a candidate -- relative to lively debates that I may have heard in the 70s and 80s. Since then, the fear of losing non-profit status is palpable. Issues are slightly different, but even so I only heard one pastor in as many decades ask congregants to contact their representatives about an issue (specifically, to let them know that invading Iraq did not meet criteria of just war.) Talk shows have filled the void left by pulpits.

It could be a case of "When government runs like business." It's been interesting to see the gerrymandering cases in PA and WI (among others). Academing solutions of how to redistrict states have been cooked up (e.g., https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08781) but deciding bodies want to have their cake and it it too.

The thing is, I feel like I've always been taught (and have taught my kids) to respect Girl Scouts, Campfire Girls, Swedes visitng Jambo, etc ... all my life. (My SM had requisition tents from the QM for when GS Troop who needed to borrow tents ... and smiled to myself when they came back with a perfume scent.) Then these decades of polarization come and suddenly those programs become second class, NESA our rowdy fans cheered excessively, and our program gets pegged great -- but our leaders arrogant and bull-headed. So, we try to provide what others seem to have lost. Some of us are uncomfortable with the sacrifice, and the solution? Marginalize anybody who feels we've moved beyond them? That's a great way to drain our brain trust, our manpower, and ultimately, our camps. Think units sparsely dispersed, districts as bigger than councils used to be, councils the size of areas. But, who cares about money? Someone may step in where a traditional-minded leader steps out. But at what costs? Scouts without a trained leader who they trust? Disenchanted boys abandon Oath and Law (or never get a chance to learn them)? One more angry kid stewing at home until old enough to acquire munitions? One hiker injured alone on a trail without scouts strolling by to treat him/her. There are enough I suggest those of us who find redemption in BSA4G should refrain from disparaging remarks regarding unisex-minded scouters, and replace them with this simple thought: we need them. Our boys need them. Even our girls need them. Unisex-mined scouters are doing a great job with our youth. If WOSM includes many organizations who deliver the promise of scouting according to the customs of their countrymen and deems them worthy of the world crest, we certainly can respect our own citizens who desire to do the same.

This ^^^. Three troops eventually spun off from ours, in addition to one that met a little to north. (Some of our scouts have worn three different #s.) One for each night of the week ... you'd think. BUT NO!!! All chose the same night and time. At least scouts from two of the troops asked us to consider the idiocy of it all, and we merged back together. Still, there's no options to youth who might be free the other nights of the week.

I get that. I really do. I grew up with classmates who invested a lot of time and energy worrying about people who weren't their problem at all. There are certainly girls and boys who will miss out due to skills unlearned in the absence of each other's company. But, what will they learn in the absence of any scouting environment? I've not been satisfied with the consequences of such neglect that have made the headline news of late. If councils won't make unisex camps available for BSA and BSA4G troops, others will. And we might not be pleased with the results.

The law is clear. There should have been no mention that he was a candidate for office. That said, it is my speculation that the muzzling of leaders of non-profits contributed to the results of recent elections -- especially among evangelicals whose leaders are notoriously more nuanced than their congregations.

@gblotter, @RememberSchiff, @Jameson76and @Tampa Turtle Lead scouts or lead someone else .... my recommendation remains: work for smiles. When my venturers were getting short shrift because, well, girls were seen as some sort of contaminant -- even when no girls were present and I had simply dropped by a troop meeting in a venturing shirt: I made it clear to adults that I was not about to be bothered by the burrs up anyone's butts -- especially theirs. (Yes, I used those words. No, that's not how I usually phrase things.) Instead I made sure that their boys had outstanding, inexpensive, backcountry experiences. The reward: Boys taking an extra weekend to help girls hike. Shouts across a copse in the dark: "Hey Boy Scouts, you wanna play cards?" An introverted 11 year old making tea for a 16 year old venturer. E-mail from young scout thanking me for a backpacking trip. Girl Scouts canoeing FOR THEIR FIRST TIME. Chili powder+espresso suggested by an Italian scout/venturer. Watching her say "cheap" because "thrifty" wouldn't roll of the tongue! The look on my SM's face when he realized he was transporting his first car-full of girls, and his offer to assist me anytime after that. And what's more, I had plenty of all-boy outings full of smiles there as well. I reaped a lot of rewards. Nevertheless, I certainly could have done without the well-meaning scouters who tried to "tradition-shame" me. So, if another scouter manages reap that level of happiness maintaining a unisex environment, why should we "world-shame" him or her? Especially when the WOSM does nothing of the sort? While some of us move on to making BSA4G environments, we need to do our level best to honor scouters asking for unisex environments for their youth. Some of you, citing Scouts UK, think it's gotta be one way or the other. Good news, we're not British. Unisex and coed. We want to have it all. It's the American way.

Welcome, and thanks for all you do for the boys.

Thanks for explaining double-blocking, @Chadamus. I guess if it's part of the camp routine, and the scout's with his buddies, and the water's warm, it works. We attend camp during session 1 at 2500 feet on a 250 acre lake in Western PA. The mountain laurel is just blooming if it's not in shade, and winter is barely forgotten.

Cub scouts try, Boy Scouts do. We're in the business of forestalling death. Thus "Strong".

It's like my Son #2 has an evil twin a decade delayed! That boy got a partial year 1 and held on to it for 6 years without walking down to the nearest aquatics area and completing his surface dives (which he would do frequently and often in a lake at half the temperature, twice as turbid, and a billion times the volume of the lake (let alone the aquatics area) at camp. He wound up earning Hiking MB for his Eagle requirement. So, as you can see, distance wasn't the issue. The issue was we had storms nearly every day the first summer he took the badge, and a short attention span for six years following. There are a wide variety of boys who take Swimming MB. And instructors and aquatics directors vary from year to year. But generally, they try to work with every boy to get up to speed. Frankly, if your family spends a lot of time on big water (as ours does), those swimming lessons buy some peace of mind. I'm not sure what double-block class means. If that means he's in two classes to other boys being in one, I would not recommend it. Hypothermia is a real risk of extended lessons (take it from a guy who has to re-up his guard certification) and that hits skinny kids harder. It's better to have lessons, do something else like scout craft, nature, or handicraft, then come back later during free time if he wants. As to strong manner, it is subjective. The aquatics director sets the tone. I generally want to see the boy coming out of a test happy and ready for the next challenge. I want to know that if a guard's back is turned (which should never happen) and the boy's buddy swam off (again, should never happen) and the boat that he got tossed from didn't have flotation (like I said ...), that the scout can get to safety from the middle of deep water. That's especially true of bodies that aren't as buoyant. But I think your son will likely pass if not on day one, by midweek. A strong kick usually covers a multitude of shortcomings.

@RememberSchiff, I don't think "global-shaming" American scouters is appropriate. Nor is it fair. Pakistan, one of the fastest growing associations -- strictly boys -- also wears its crest with pride. Other associations work hard to honor their groups who want their youth to have a unisex camping experience.

That's what I was thinking. (In fact, any BSA4G troop of mine would not be found anywhere near a dining hall. ) The two camps don't even share the same counselors or campfires, let alone the same classes! So, if the demand were there, the camp could field one week where the boys get the dinning hall, and another week where they get patrol cooking. But, like I said, there are a couple of activities that -- to maintain safety standards -- are between the two camps. These usually only attract older scouts.

I guess that depends on the state and the park ranger/game commissioner -- and how many times you've invited scouts to do honor guard and other service projects for state representatives, park board members, etc ... . Life is about relationships. Build the relationships, and many rules become suggestions. Don't ask for "best" sites. Part of scouting is making do in the cheap seats. Get to know who is most flexible with what property, and have that list at the ready for the PLC. Most state trails around here have rules for leave-no-trace campsites that don't even require reservation. They may insist that minors be accompanied by adults, or even that registration be turned in at the trail head, but no advance paperwork is necessary. Boys can pull up all of that fine print, then consult their SM/ASM about what it all means and what they need to do secure from adults to improve their plan. Still, not every PL (or crew president) can pull off a cold call even with a buddy beside him, and follow through getting all of the steps in line so that the adult's time approving is minimal. That's why I said I respect that certain youth aren't gonna pull this off in certain locations at certain times. We need to work to make those the exceptions. I was one of those youth, at one time. But after years of my SM putting us forward, I started getting more invites directly from landowners and managers asking when me and my buddies would be back. More offers than I had time to take up on! Son #1, once an adult, totally freaked out when he realized the bit about LNT campsites on state park trails. It's like he wasn't even paying attention at how little line-up work I actually did the whole time he was VP of our crew. My kids knew they "arrived" as scouts when they could contact the property owners on their own, get their buddies in line, be trusted with the car keys and any gear I lent them, and hit the road. Many times this was done outside of troop or crew to eliminate all of us adult middle men. Scouts will have a pinnacle experience with or without you, BSA.

Would you take them to a reservation where the boys' troops were assigned a camp on one side of a 250 acre lake, and the BSA4G troops were assigned a camp on the other side of the lake? Camps would have different, largely independent, staff (from director on down - same rangers though). Some facilities (Cope, Shotgun) would be on a red line that's about 400 yards wide. Just picking your brain for the sake of certain council camping committees who will try to be proactive about this kind of thing. If such an idea is a non-starter, they hopefully won't waste much time it and hustle back to the drawing board.

@Treflienne, I feel your pain. Last year recruiting girls for my crew was a complete bust. There were some things beyond my control. But mainly, the girls who could have pulled together were in different circles of friends, and within those circles they were the only girl interested in hiking and camping. Your daughter will have to shake quite a few trees to harvest first fruits. This will include figuring out which troop's CO is most enthusiastic about a linked troop, talking to girls older and younger than her who might like the idea, putting up flyers and posters, and talking to strangers. Most of this work will be hers. Even if she can't find four other girls willing to form patrol alpha, that learning experience will be invaluable. She'll still grow up strong and good.

Don't succumb to the "Yes, but's ..." Tell every such service that they must find a way for your designated youth to work with them to reserve sites on certain dates, for him/her to secure confirmation from his responsible leader, and for him to get that confirmation back to the service representative. Otherwise, you'll take your camp fees elsewhere. It's amazing what people will do for a kid once they see cold, hard cash walking out their door to a competitor. The only "yes, but" should be the unit leader's comfort level. True story: a few years ago the ski lodge changed it's rental to some goofy electronic system for signing off on liability. For the life of me, I couldn't figure it out. Fortunately my youth went to the representative, got help, and went around to each adult showing us which parts of the screen to tap in which order.

If I could have a do-over, I would ask that awards would only be acknowledged briefly. (E.g., at a pack meeting, the Denner for the month might report, "Three guys in our den earned bobcat and four made rank. We had fun at the lake. Johnny tipped my canoe. Thank you.") The only ceremony I'd call for is a passing of the neckers for "move up" day. I'm envious of these scouts: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/03/08/pack-cub-scouts-pass-neckerchief-younger-scouts-advancing-rank/

It confused me as a kid as well. In the 70s we didn't make such a fuss about crossing over. The B&G was for songs and skits (one year we had a magician) and happy birthday to scouting. Awards were secondary. If you got rank then, cool. If not, you still had a couple of months. Then regardless, come fall, "poof" you and your buddies were all working on the next rank. But, in retrospect, it would have been really lame if one of us was "held back" because we didn't accomplish everything our book told us to. Think of this kid-friendly way of summing up the methods of cub scouting: Bobcat is the #1 priority. You want all scouts to sign on to those ideals. Fellowship is #2. You want scouts spend once a week with buddies of the same age/grade and a caring DL. Adventure is #3 priority. You want your scouts to have a fun identity. That's a combination of regiment (Den #) and imagination (Tiger, Wolf, Bear, Webelos). Personal growth is #4. You want scouts to experience accomplishment. This is where rank comes in. It symbolizes that while he was identified with a den, a scout achieved what was expected of scouts in that den. So if you want to recognize "moving up" you need to address two sets of boys: For scouts who've accomplished all four tasks, congratulate them on meeting personal growth goals (i.e. earning rank) and encourage them to do the same next year (by doing the cool stuff needed to their next rank ASAP). For scouts who don't achieve what was expected (i.e. did not earn rank), congratulate each one for sharing in his den's identity, fellowship, and ideals and encourage him to earn a new rank worthy of his den in the coming year. Let him know that he gets a fresh start, a new book, with new fun things to do, and if he does his very best, fun (and maybe a patch or two) will be had! Keep it simple. Make it fun.

She should see the look on female venturers' faces when I give them a patch from a council/area activity! Something between "What am I supposed to do with this?" to "I am surrounded by dorks!"

What's unfair is that there was only one Small Boat Sailing MBC, and that the scout's sailing coach was not recruited to be a another one. Regardless, it's hard to imagine that in the age of hand-held recording devices that this would be an issue.

@Cindy121, welcome! There are no rules. I have scouts show up with boxes of knives to sell at a formidable mark-up. I tried to discourage parents from giving their begging sons cash to buy them. But to no avail. I am not a fan of business transactions during troop activities. But, I know that's spitting into the wind. I just make sure that my kids use their own $$s, bargain hard, or do without. What I try to insist on is a full disclosure of revenue vs. expenses. That way boys know what is going into the SPL's pocket when they "buy in" to the game.

If your assertion is true, and labor-differentiation by sex is an inevitable consequence of adolescence, then why does National see the need to legislate it? They could simply say, "Troops may now welcome girls, if they do, we recommend segregated patrols that ensure each scout gets a fair distribution of chores." (FWIW, in my patrol growing up there were some boys who we would never have cook for us -- if we could help it.) Moreover, I don't see how "linked-troops" avoids this. PLs in the traditional troop may like their boys' cooking. PLs of BSA4G just can't stand what their girls pull out of the pot. The one troop declares their patrols as cookers, the other troop offers their patrols to fetch wood and water. Everyone's happy. Thus that linked troop will have effectively differentiated chores by sex. What I found in scouts who group up co-ed in other countries was that they were especially adept at dividing up chores. Boys were as good at cooking as girls. So, they must have taken turns at some point. As far as I can tell, the only reason National is doing this is because they believe this is the only way they can make it palatable to reactionary leaders leaders while giving the revolutionary leaders a place at the table. Or, this is the best way for them to monitor program growth in hopes of pitching it to COs looking for the next big thing.