skeptic

It comes to mind that perhaps we need to review how traditions are presented, and more importantly, be clear with parents and the youth as to what it entails. Most of these longtime activities have been around for decades and often become stories told as adults with fondness and mirth. Unfortunately, on a rare occasion. something may have gone wrong, and the memory or immediate response was not as intended. IF, all the parties involved understand what will happen and "still choose" to perpetuate the tradition, then that should be at the option of the family, as long as nothing is being done that is actually harmful. MOST kids will be nervous about some of these things but still want to do them. It is part of growing up and often a step towards coping with minor challenges. So where do you draw the line? Do you simply ban everything that might even remotely cause emotional trauma? Have we not possibly gone too far in demanding that we must protect people from any chance of physical or emotional trauma? If so, then we should be shutting down all the sports venues, all the game shows on TV, all the talent shows, and so on. Already we are seeing the results of this overreach, and it is causing us to have emotionally weak individuals who too often explode because they never learned to cope with the realities of life. We need to find that balance between real dangers and imagined "possible" dangers, and then be as sure as we are able that all involved are involved in deciding yea or nay. But, I am an old guy that somehow survived to date, in spite of numerous emotional and physical challenges. Yes, I was briefly terrified when two regalia-clad, very large teen youth grabbed me from a log and took be to the Chief when I was 15. Yet, the drama and traditional ceremonies from that era are why it was an honor. And just because a few misguided people went too far on rare occasion, it was still something that younger youth looked forward to and then stayed involved with due to the ceremonies and tradition. That loss is the biggest reason OA has lost its place in today's programs. Throw out the baby, along with the dirty water. Not the best way to respond as I see it. And the same can be said about upside down cubs and junior leadership like TLC doing basic boards for the lower ranks in Scouting, It was not only a leadership skill they learned, but it was real peer review. As long as rational adult supervision was in place, it worked well; and it still would. So, just like government regulations that overall are worthwhile, but have some tweaks needed so they will be even better, we need to constantly walk that "line" to make things safe, but maintain the mystique and possible character building challenges. JMHO of course.

Okay. We are talking about the very first one, and it was an experiment. Of course, you likely are simply pushing buttons.

Perhaps there might be a connection to the original Browsea Experience. Seems to me that BP put them in "patrols" then.

B.P. was not stuck in his own time, rather he was a forward thinker. He often challenged scouters and scouts around the world to embrace the new and find ways to weave it into their programs. He was a General who had seen more than his share of gore and the worst of society, having served in the Colonial system. He more than once hope aloud and in print that Scouting could become a movement for world peace. The fact that he turned to his sister Agnes and later his wife as well in regard to the female challenges speaks loudly. He also early on worked to find a way for the younger, as well as older youth, always exploring new ideas from around the world. And, as has been noted, he staunchly supported the spiritual element of the movement, though also accepted that it would vary dependant on where the program was, and what the family believed. In regard to the more current issues we have faced the past couple of decades, it is hard to say. If you have read some of the biographical material, there is a lot of gray area; but we are talking about a totally different cultural milieu. Again, probably not really equal comparatives due to the huge changes in not only mores, but also public exposure to things due to the instant information world today. It is sort of like comparing Ruth, Gehrig, or Cobb to today's ball players. Not only completely different approach to the game, but the equipment is totally changed, as well as the strategies. Most players simply went out and played, every inning. Few substitutions. Pitchers had far more complete games because they had to. Ruth, would have hit even more home runs if the balls and bats of the time were more like ours today. He also was a pitcher to start of course which actually kept his early career at-bats lower. And also the ball itself was balkier and not as prone to rocketing as the newer ones. So, suffice it to say that we really can only surmise how BP might react to things. He would be pleased that it has survived and is a worldwide movement still.

IF, as what I have read regarding the Summit opening up to more than Scouts is accurate, and it draws, then what would stop a similar process at the other high adventure locations? As long as the Scouts get first position in bookings, it would seem a viable option. And, those properties I believe are more financially stable in that they have been in existence for a longer time.

I have been seeing shirts from this company off and on for a while now. One would think National is aware, though who knows?

All kibitzing aside. Until we get the more detailed info from National, we can only kick it back and forth. IF, note the caps, the CO is the ultimate decider, then we will see variants, but most likely could be compatible if people simply are not intimidated by other ideas and approaches. Maybe we should simply run with it as we, that is our individual units and districts, feel is best. But while running, be open to what might not be working and make adjustments. Ultimately, we either believe in the foundation of BSA, no matter what genders are involved, or we do not. Flexibility is key, but without blinders or unwillingness to find better ways when necessary.

As already noted, technically it should, though hopefully that is not the norm or only camping. These decisions are still the responsibility of the adults ultimately, though if the scouts were to weigh in against it, they would take that into account. The thin line again.

Not necessarily true. But it does take a group effort on the COR level to make serious changes. I have seen it happen in our council when an exec pushed on the wrong sacred cow, the local camp. Years ago, a major So Cal council had an uprising by COR's and they fired the executive and his assistant. That one was led by a district Scouter in an outlying district that felt they were getting the short straw most of the time. It happened he had the resources to contact most of the COR's, not only in his district, but the whole very large council. So, it does happen, but it takes initiative and perseverance.

In regard to the council level executive boards, few have any substantial attendance from COR's. If all the COR's attended consistently, you might see many councils run very differently, as the COR's would outnumber the appointed members.

Thanks Desert, I am going to find a copy and add it to my collection. We out west are fast losing many of those wonderful spots to federal overreach or poor budgeting. Our local NF is now more controlled by "vendors" than the FS itself, and with that the cost has gotten out of reach for some of the most popular areas. And, if the scouts and a few other outdoor user groups did not maintain trails, the hiking would be even more difficult. Of course we also deal with scofflaws to the outdoor courtesy idea and the other myriad environmental issues, most recently the drought. Still, we find places or scrape up the fees as often as we are able.

We "codgers" (should be a Woodbadge patrol) mostly grew up with Hoppy, Roy, Matt and others. We also spent hours poking pointed fingers around corners of walls or from inside of hedges, then arguing that "we got them". I went through a space gun period if I remember, even having small alien figures we would arrange all over and argue about who got who. Of course, we also walked to school, ran all over the 4 to 6 block neighborhood, rode in backs of trucks and had no seatbelts. The comparison to the British model reflects a great deal on the difference in our litigation acceptance. As noted by many, we are hiding from the lawyers.

Once more I suggest that we move forward with "flexibility" and an open mind, working to resolve things as they arise if the initial thoughts did not address an issue. Making the jump that most adults of any tenure and maturity, in and out of Scouting, are capable of analysis an reasoning. Like any major change in a program or enterprise, things come up that were not predicted, but the rational managers reexamine and find a way to move forward. In BSA, when the younger boy issue was first being confronted, there were all sorts of starts and stops and rearranging. Senior programs have seen numerous tests and experiments, some which worked and thrived, others that have disappeared, such as Rovers and Rangers, and more recently, of course, Varsity. The "Negro" challenge was there from the start if you read early material and histories. It took decades for it to evolve to the point where it is normally no longer a problem of any extent. The expectation that we can move seamlessly into a change of this magnitude, especially in this age of instant announcements, even when not planned, is impossible. Evolution is slow most of the time, yet if given time, it seems to more often than not get from A to B or additional points eventually. But the initial image of the end result is seldom what it was at the beginning.

While I can accept that some individuals must find reasons for negativity and to grind their axes, I find it sad that many are doing so at the expense of the Scouting programs, both Girl and Boy. From my perspective, far too many find very weak excuses to trash positivity in our society, and this is true here as well. The stale comment "he is such a BoyScout" and similar expressions reflect a sad side of our current culture. There was a time when the positive uplifting of people and organizations was a point of pride in our communities and was displayed as often as possible to the public. When the turn towards negativity began I do not know for sure, but I suspect it began with the successive assassinations of three major societal leaders in the 60's, the Viet Nam fiasco, and the disillusionment of an entire generation. Yet, the positive elements of groups such as BSA, many quiet service groups that just take care of people, and the still silent majority are still our there. We simply need to get away from the constant blame game, worship of empty personalities, and reassert the good that is begging to be recognized and accepted. Those of us that have sat on BOR's for Eagles, or had the privilege of working with brilliant young people in some capacity have seen the possibilities. We need to find any way possible to release those fertile minds, because like it or not, they hold the survival of our world in their hands. So, I pray that we will not let our jaded attitudes push this opportunity aside, but rather we will use it to expand and find new avenues to a better society with all genders, races, and spiritual beliefs working together. "On my honor, I will do my best!"

Good approach to the ongoing issues we face, yet does not suggest giving up. Does stress that we on the ground level have the opportunity to make it better. Also totally agree with his notes on the OA. http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/20/whats-wrong-boy-scouts-goes-deeper-social-issues-cowardice/#.Weo1OC152nI.facebook

Interesting aside to this. Before the local school districts decided actual librarians in the schools were not needed. I used to donate past dated B.L.'s to one of the schools in which a regularly subbed. The librarian at the time was always very appreciative, as the magazine was one of their favorite items for the middle school group. She told me that as many girls read it as boys, maybe more. Now, most of our schools have no on site librarian and the teachers have to absorb that as well. Another example of misplaced priorities, in my view.

Thank you for the clarification. Of course, BP initially turned to his sister, then it went along the line you note. Still, the girl issue, as well as the young boy issue, were dealt with by BP early on. Here in the U.S. we did not get official younger boy programming until the early 30's, though there were attempts at local levels earlier.

Well, I have to state that while I know many councils did not follow through well with the presentations and that the timing was not necessarily ideal, but I did not hear much that I had not already heard over the past few years anyway, especially from parents with girls and often girls themselves. There has been a call for allowing girls for years. In truth, it started at the outset, but it did not have the societal push that exists today. B.P. had to deal with it almost from the start. So he turned to Olave and asked her to come up with something. That something, of course, was the Girl Guides and it eventually folded into the British Scouting program, just as a large percentage of other worldwide Scouting groups have joined the genders in some manner. As I have noted in other posts, this seems to me to be a golden opportunity to run with that, if done right and with open eyes and ears, will be a positive expansion of the program to a much wider group of young people. Naysayers and rigid thinkers will continue, to beat their brows as they peer at the sky. Those that simply have decided that anything from National or professionals automatically is bad will continue to be irrationally obdurate, but those that care about the opportunity to reach more youth will simply work to make the new direction viable and tweak as necessary. I plan on being part of the latter group, even at my advanced tenure.

The actual comments in that regard were read on a FB group for Eagle Scouts, though we have had similar responses on here in regard to earlier changes. But, you are correct that on this particular forum right now, that has not been directly stated, though there is a great deal of angst that seems to me to be overblown and self-centered. But, I did not have to do a project, and I have only been in the program over 53 years, so maybe I am not in a position to judge change effects.

Why are individuals already beating their chests about Eagle. The older youth scouts will not even be implemented for a long while. They will have a great deal of time to hopefully work out many concerns, both real and imagined. And many concerns already breached seem to me to be making a problem where none even exists and simply looking for the negative. This is the attitude that continues to confuse me, especially on a board made up of supposedly logical and proponents fo the basic tenets of Scouting. Maybe a few need to step back a distance and take a few deep breaths. IF you truly are so upset that you would turn in your Eagle, then you likely never really understood the foundation of the program. You certainly have the absolute right to your opinions of course, but the logic behind them is sorely lacking and self-defeating. Personally, I am looking forward to our pack officially expanding within its current family, and the possible addition of new opportunity for the youth of our community.

Now, why do you want to burden all the naysayers with simple logic and actual proof it can work? Your point is exactly what the likely result will be over time and adjustments. Those that are unaware of the cultural changes and vibrations, or choose to ignore them, will continue to bay at the changes and eventually leave or adjust. There is really very little reason the program cannot work, other than an unwillingness to work it and make changes and tweaks as needed on the way. B.P. turned to his wife to deal with the huge demand for girls to be in his program, and they built the Girl Guides which is still prominent there and around the world. Here, Juliette Lowe chose to go off on her own, as she did not like the British plan, nor, from most accounts Olave either. The point is that girls have wanted to do the program in some manner from its inception in England.

Only time will really tell. And this is only the first chapter. We will have the second entry the end of next year with the Scout level. I still simply do not comprehend why so many people that seem rational in other instances get so het up when changes evolve with societal adjustments. BP was never one to ignore changing ideas and norms in society and he recommended flexibility and a broad effort to adjust to complexities in the changing cultural norms of the time. As I have said numerous times. The sky is not falling. Be adults and either decide to find a way to adjust, or live in the past. It is not 1910 anymore, nor is it even 2000. Anybody paying attention would have seen this coming a decade or more ago. Society evolves normally over time, and we can try to stay in our perceived better zone, or we can work within the new program outline to make it as good as we are able to continue to serve the youth for whom we supposedly do this in the first place. While I realize I am living in an area that is not seen as reflective of a broader landscape in our society, that is So Cal, I have not heard all the nasty rumblings that some already are saying is occurring in "their" councils. Frankly, I do not think many actually have their ears to the ground and are actually hearing what goes on around them. They are frozen in their preferred roles and little patch of life, and they are simply going to ignore anything that might disrupt their ideals, even if it is something that has potential to make new advances and extend a great program to the broader field of youth we encounter. Personally, I see the entire motion towards adjusting and accepting these changes as mostly a win. I do hope that the needed tweaks will be recognized and things monitored to see the early indicators of bumps in the road. But, I realized that some of my vintage will not be able to go forward. All I ask is that they keep their objections civil and do not somehow try to sabotage things.

"Gender fluidity". Cannot say I had seen that term before, but it seems to fit in the modern discussions.

In regard to the adult qualifications, I know from experience that on occasion an adult is overqualified in regard to the intent of the OA, but they have family issues that keep them from long term summer camp. The Scout executive of each council has the ability to waive certain requirements in rare cases. But, even though our candidate had more actual nights camping than most other adult candidates, and they were almost all backpacking two and three nights, adding to over 30 days and nights, he had not been able to attend a summer camp. We nominated him anyway with an explanatory letter that mentioned his heavy support of our overall camping and hiking program, including having done all the outdoor training, high adventure training, first aide training with the extra backpacking elements, and worked with other scouts outside our unit on merit badges and also on a couple of general work weekends for the council camp. We submitted it when his son was elected, but he was turned down due to the summer camp missing. His son had done summer camp three times. So, I surely agree that there needs to be some flexibility for adults, with legitimate factors in place. He was finally able to go to summer camp two years later when his job and family schedules changed, and he and his son did the ordeal together then, though his son was already Brotherhood.

While this is true, it is like our the continual statements from many that "we need to get our elected representatives to do their jobs". Many agree, but few have any real answer or are willing to jump in deeply enough. My ready response to most issues is to review how my unit, and maybe district/council can improve, and to attempt to do my small part. As to the political stuff, try and make actual choices based on the best info available, then try to not stress when so often it seems to have little effect.