qwazse

I doubt it. If only we had charged more to girl scouts who joined our day trips -- who said they were bored to tears with their troops -- but never signed up with our crew. If all these contingents do is inspire their troops to up their game, I'll be happy.

I honestly don't keep track of these kinds of things. Seems to me that they are trolling to build a mailing list.

First, thank you for all you do (and Lord willing, will continue to do) for the boys. It sounds like you are the charter organization representative (COR), and stepping into the limelight is causing your grief. Yes, trustworthy people are a hot commodity. You'll find yourself knocking on a lot of doors. Meet with your sponsor's institutional head. (For some churches, that's the pastor. For others, it's the clerk of session or chairman of the board. For Legion halls, it's the post commander.) Let him/her know what your official position is and that you've inherited a mess, but you are trying to sort it out. Obviously, if someone else is now your COR, bring them along. If the troop that you mention is sponsored by the same organization, their COR might need to be in the room too. If any of the COR's that I knew that their troop had been given pilfered funds from some pack, they would bend over backwards to support that pack ... even if the money had been spent. That might not translate into actual dollars back into the pack. But you might find some helping hands in other ways. Legal action is not a bad idea but it may or may not be successful. You have to balance that strategy with simply moving on and investing time in the boys from this point forward.

I've mentioned this before, but it's worth reiterating. One of the more active GS/USA troops in this community is run by a mom who attended the GS Jamboree in her youth. If you can spare the coin, it might be worth your while to invest in underwriting a girl, or her troop, for the next GS Jambo.

Not just that. We have not been able to recruit female ASM's for love nor money. (Okay, we only promised them the undying affection of dozens of boys, and some coffee and chocolate -- which almost counts as currency. ) The moms who've really camped with the troop have done so because their boys have special needs. Even venturing, I've had one female co-advisor ... my other female chaperons are MCs. And, I honestly don't believe that my guys are "good old boys". Moms tell us that they are surprised at how open and inviting we are. There is a firm belief 'round here that SM/ASM is "man's work" and I don't think that will change if we go co-ed. That male role-model thing? The parents who would consider the program want that for their daughters as well as their sons. At least, that's the "vibe" I get in our neck of the woods.

My acquaintances among international scouts are somewhat baffled by the existing lack of independence of American youth in general. So, I don't think staying unisex is helping to address that concern. I've observed that similarly-aged scouts (male or female) from another country are ready to hum at 60mph while their American peers are puttering about at 25mph. This applies to basic scout skills, knowledge of Baden Powell's writings, uniforming, organizing as a patrol, and that "once a scout, always a scout" attitude. Admittedly, I have a biased sample. (It takes uniquely motivated youth to uproot and study in a strange land for months and years on end.) But, those examples are what put me at ease. What concerns me is talk of bureaucratic hurdles (e.g. revised YPT) that people will throw up as a consequence of coed scouting. Hurdles that have nothing to do with any real need to secure a youth's well-being. But, rather are to mitigate the fears of National's legal consultants. Each such regulation is a nuance that some scouts won't understand. And, it will cause them to lose interest in the program. E.g., overnight camping -- which since 2008 can't be done without adult supervision in the BSA -- some boys in my community do quite well on their own. Why would they want to waste membership $$ on BSA? Well, what if someone says an SM/ASM can't take their co-ed troop to campsites with only one latrine? Those leaders could point to the Brits and any other WOSM group to say this wouldn't be a problem, but if its coded into the American psyche, those examples won't matter. As a result, no matter how much spit and polish we put on a coed program (e.g. open access to boy scout ranks, O/A, etc ...), if it comes with too many hoops, we quickly loose the interest of candidate youth and parents.

Regarding data ... There's the quantitative and the qualitative. Qualitative (although biased through the lens of high functioning scouts - exchange students, jamborees, etc...): these coeds are having a ton of fun. The ill effects of ignoring male mystique are nowhere to be seen. Or, that mystique reappears naturally in groups of kids who self-select into unisex patrols -- no national mandate required. Program remains unchanged (down to the patches in some places: my Italian's shoulder patch still reads "Boy Scouts Italy"). Quantitative (although it's mostly perception, not survey results, well maybe a few): there are more parents who will take their boys elsewhere than there are who will be attracted to an American coed program. Venturing is the the test case. Disenfranchised teens of the GS/USA aren't flocking to us in droves. Even in European countries (for which WOSM shared decadal census results) associations lose male membership for a decade or two before regaining past popularity. The exceptions are former communist block countries in which scouting had been banned. So, although I feel BSA is missing out on good things by being so exclusive, I don't see tens of thousands of parents clamoring to bring their youth in. Quantity is a quality all its own. Special interests are notorious for tugging on the qualitative while disdaining the quantitative. That's been my experience with the last membership change. An activist relative asked me if things were any worse after the changes. I said, "60,000 boys worse" (about what we lost over two years). She replied "You don't need them." The folks writing these article, repeating claptrap, won't make the effort to survey non-scout parents or potential COs about the matter. They just don't care.

My Italian scout flies home today. That's the real problem with going co-ed: More kids to fall in love with, then watch fly away and break your heart.

How about ... Scout, you're gonna fit in, you just gotta get a necker! or Our newest mate takes 'be prepared' seriously ... showing up with his own helmet! or Used up all the scouring pads again, did we?

So much for "if you remember your brother has anything against you ..."

Thanks for the memo, Flagg. Business sense is a huge problem with these pamphlets' publication. Actually, I think it goes back to a flawed vision. Someone has this vision of lone scouts racing to knock off MB's as quickly as possible. Whereas we have a vision of scouts interacting with people in their troop/district to pick up skills and share resources. This misplaced vision causes the publishing arm to misplace value. The value of an MBP is the text and a few drawings/images that engage the scout at his convenience. A few years ago, someone thought they could add value to the pamphlets by producing colored covers. What does a kid care if the cover of a book is color or not? He's probably already picked the MB. He knows he needs the book. He's gonna get it. If it's B&W he's gonna get it for less and learn just the same. Then the whole kindle thing? How many of your scouts have that device? How many of their parents let them take it to camp with them? Home-grown videos? It takes a few seconds to look at a picture. How many scouts want to watch a five minute video to learn one requirement? Pay editors to select the best one? Tell the scouts to put it online. Count the thumbs "up" or "down". Endorse the best. Done. You don't add value to the advancement method with window-dressing or video-watching. Save that for Boy's Life. You add value by linking your product with other necessary services.

BP, you're sounding like my older scouts who can't believe that I went through college happily without a lick of alcohol, a loss of virginity, or a drink of coffee (the latter had nothing to do with sanctimony, but rather ignorance of how God meant the stuff to be made).

Because, like, people aren't producing material ancillary to he MBPs already? And well-meaning scouters aren't recommending those to e boys instead of the MBPs? If BSA makes the no-frills product available with an active registration (maybe via my scouting) for cents, not dollars, they might actually see an increase in revenue. Then we can provide better integrated service. The troop librarian could be informed of which MBs scouts are looking into, and make a plan to purchase hard-copies of the ones not already There could be a "request a blue-card from my SM" button. The SM could get a list of counselors nearest the boy's home or school. Because other plajurists won't be able to provide those integrated services, the motivation for pirating is gone.

Arrow of Light ... In case your boys were in Cub Scouts and earned it.

A policy for when paperwork flows don't proceed as usual? I doubt it. Keep calling the CO and COR, until you get a response.

Okay, maybe I'm too impatient. But I didn't see anywhere in the 2016 Annual Report about online MB publication sales. While we're talking about ease of use, why does any BSA online literature have to be in .pdf format? ASCII text with jpeg images. HTML formatting with minimum style settings. That way the user could choose his own font. Downloads would be insanely fast. The sales model could be direct for pennies via national scoutshop accounts - not unlike magazine subscriptions ... bypassing the resellers.

double post

I wonder what the sales figures are on BSAs online MBPs (https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/09/03/merit-badge-pamphlets-leader-guides-fieldbook-now-kindle/)

It's taken years of my crew giving back to the troops in our community to convince tan-shirt scouters that we're good for them. If a crew suddenly has its own youngn's to tend to, how likely will they help develop the program of neighboring troops? Crews of 11-21 year olds would tick off troops who will accuse Venturing of stealing more of "their" boys and camps who lose fees from boys who would otherwise attend them. And your working assumption is that these revamped venturers won't muscle in on Boy Scout activities? How'd that work for Jamboree? Our districts' camporees and klondike derbies welcome any interested crews. There goes any pretense of needing to keep unisex patrols away from coed patrols. Finally, thanks to BSA and NESA's overselling of the advancement method, if you ain't given girls a trail to Eagle, or entrance into O/A, you don't have an equivalent program. I'm just not seeing how Venturing-extended-younger is viable, and even if it is, how it provides parents of girls access to the brand they trust.

Oh, then drawing out (and laying in) the footprint is absolutely important! Maybe with a tape measure vertical to get a sense of volume.A "three man" tent means "casket" to abominable snowmen. That said, I've relied on garage-sale $1 two-man 24" tall pup tents for years. (With some modifications ... Replaced poles with heavyguage aluminum from a retired dining fly. Got tougher stakes, etc ...) Remind your audience what they save on canvans can be spent on coffee. But, know in advance what they've getting into. Really, if they have a buddy (or a few) who will loan his gear for a few weekends, that's the best way to learn what's important to them.

As long as the water-players aren't in vicinity of the electricians ...

Lest we take the sports metaphor as universal dogma ... WPa's smaller high schools have fielded the occasional female football player or wrestler to some degree of success. In that sense, BSA is more rigid than American varsity football. It's a big country. Carry on.

Chalk drawing tent footprints, maybe? Whatever you do, have your boys be the lead players in the video.

Venturing scouters adhere to age segregation about as much as boy scouters adhere to sex segregation! (Oh, that reminds me. I said that I'd ask some officers to comment on your idea this spring. Never got around to it. Too busy chanting under the stars with the N/A dance team -- among other things. Sorry about that.) Worse, I think we will have a lot of boy scouters gripe about any successful coed program cannibalizing their units -- even if numerically that doesn't happen. Worse yet, no matter how much spit and polish you put on Venturing awards and recognition, special interests are still gonna whine that it's not Eagle. So, you'll still have these activist editorials ripe with targeted swill. At the end of the day, I don't see how Cub/Boy aged Crews will be much different than a parent looking at a list of troops/packs and seeing "Boys", "Girls", "CoEd" in the margin and choosing which one(s) are right for his/her kids.

I'll admit that, having met people who've grown up with co-ed scouting, I'm fairly convinced that the need for a unisex scouting program is more local than global. But, I don't think that's being dismissive ... at least not any more than I think I'm being dismissive with my sincere doubts that women, having been denied access as a youth to BSA's most touted recognition, are being held back in life to the detriment of society. If there is a pervasive demand for unisex scouting across the nation that is not present worldwide (except maybe in Saudi), then honoring what the lion's share of American parents are requesting is a principle all of its own.