skeptic

Our water 1960 sometimes got almost warm; but it came directly off the Rockies, so you can imagine.

I think uniforming included required gear too, such as the duffle bag, and yes, a few Jambo only items such as extra patches, neckerchiefs, and such. Do not have any idea how much they may have spent, but I think I had three complete uniforms, but just my regular shoes with one extra pair perhaps. That was Colorado Springs on a ranch, and we certainly did a lot of walking. Showers were fun too. Still remember we discovered the best time to shower was about 2PM to 3PM when the sun was just right. Was a bit of a shock to be in view of passersby; the showers were enclosures with canvas sides, open at the bottom about 2 feet and going up to maybe a bit over 5 feet. So showering was generally done in swimming trunks or shorts because people could see under and over. Something that came out after the event that was probably more shocking then than now was that they arrested close to 500 prostitutes during the time it was on, and sent a number of scouts and more leaders home due to their choosing to meet said ladies. Kind of like camp followers I guess.

My question is why so many seem to think there is even a significant number of these individuals about whom you are having such grave concerns. Once again, making waves before there is even a storm. Why not simply wait and see; then deal with things as best we can? Why is it necessary to beat your chest and project indignation or fear before you even know how it will fall out? Half the problem is just that. Too many people feel they need to get involved with other peoples' problems or issues, often without knowing the complete story or having had the situation have time to work itself out with those actually involved.

This article, "AN EMPIRE OF YOUTH: AMERICAN BOY SCOUTS IN THE WORLD", 1910-1960 by Mischa Honeck of the GERMAN HISTORICAL INSTITUTE is really a good piece and gives a truly good idea of how part of the rest of the world sees us. It was published in 2010. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bulletin/bu052/bu52_095.pdf

The big question is why the leader had a gun in camp to begin with? Certainly is a no-no locally; and we have had people banned from outings in our council due to violation of this rule. Of course, besides the fact the scouts ignored the safety deterrents by leaving food on the tables, was there any attempt to simple scare the bear off and report it to camp leaders? Without the total story of course, we cannot know how great the perceived threat actually was. But it still remains that there were some obvious misjudgments or poor adherence to simple protective actions.

Scouter99; You need to understand the difference between founders and pro's. While Beard and Seton were established youth group men with their own organizations, and were directly involved early (Beard until his death), they were not paid exectuives working in the field. Read Win Davis' new book, MEN OF SCHIFF, or A PIONEER'S JOURNAL of SCOUTING STORIES, by Waldo Shaver, or Harold Pote's FIFTY YEARS of SCOUTING IN AMERICA. There are others, but these are major ones. And Boyce promised $1,000 per month, not $10,000 per year; see Petterchak book on Boyce. On page 70 and 71 there are a number of references regarding Boyce's financial support. "In January, 1911, Boyce supplied funding for Robinson (YMCA co-founder) to open an office at 200 Fifth Ave, N.Y.......The new stationery listed 75 National Council members, including Boyce ...." (p 70). "Boyce company treasurer Frank Reynolds recalls that he was responsible for sending money to West 'every month, not only for salary, but also for incidental expenses. Mr. Boyce never questioned the amount. In getting the national charter for the Boy Scouts of America, Mr. Boyce paid all expenses, including legal fees." After reading these, perhaps you will get a better understanding of the huge differences.

When I went to the 1960 Jamboree, the info we got for our council, Arrowhead Area in San Bernardino County, was $400 plus approximately $50 for uniforming, plus personal spending money and gear beyond what might have. My parents told me; "We will buy the uniforms". Somehow I was able to go; and they did only buy the uniforms, plus take me to the pre jamboree camp at George AFB and to and from the train in San Berdo. What is that in today's money? Who cares. It was one of the highlights of my youth, period.

Alot of work, but it was very well received for a number of years here. Do a Show-N-Do. If you can find someone to coordinate it properly, you can put the most asked for real skills out there for the taking. Ours began with the gathering and patrol assignments. Then they learned to do a woggle and put on the event neckerchiefs using their new slide. They were given a half hour to come up with their name and make a flag from offered materials. The rest of the day, they worked within that patrol learning basics of pioneering, map and compass, knife and axe, first aid, fires and stoves, cooking demo which included their making their own lunch using the tinfoil method, and a few other things that changed year to year. Also had demo of dutch oven, completed pioneering devices, woodcarving, a few memorabilia displays and short history discussion, and so on. We started with three patrols the first time. The last time we had nine and turned them away. But, the persons doing the grunt work got burned out, and no one was able to fill the gap well. For seven years though, we had a really great event. Keep hoping someone with the time and skills will bring it back. I admittedly simply do not have the needed organizational skills at that level.

In reading various recent historical efforts on Scouting, and going back and reading older ones, it is apparent that there is little similarity between today's professional and the ones that were working prior to 1950 or so. Story after story about how they were paid next to nothing, ran camps all summer, went without pay at times, had huge issues with which to deal that today we would simply not see; yet they persevered and kept the basics in focus most of the time. While I would not like to see today's pro's have to live with some of those conditions, I would like to see more of them allowed to focus more on the youth than numbers of any kind. And I really would like to see National make some serious adjustments to the inequities in pay between the men that still try to do the job at the lowest levels, and the few that have somehow made it near the top. Like in all corporations almost, the highest few could lose about half their salaries and still be well paid; and that money could be used to keep people at the lower levels long enough to build more consistency within councils. Better yet, would love to see ALL high level pro's, including council top men, spend at least a month working directly with the real units, including on staff at summer camp and day camp for at least a couple of days straight, doing the job of counselor or even working in the kitchen or maintenance. We might actually see a bit more recognition of the realities of the challenges we face. Another great change, at least for me, would be an actual National policy that would require each council board, all the way up to the National level, to have about one quarter of the people on it be involved in units directly in some capacity. That would mean either using COR's on local level as active members of the board, not just paper signatures, or pulling people from unit committees or districts. Of course, that also would require the COR to actually know what his job really is. One can dream I suppose. But I am not holding my breath.

"While the program, which doesn’t yet have a name, will allow gays, it won’t let them “flaunt†it, said John Stemberger, founder of OnMyHonor.net, a coalition opposed to the BSA’s vote in late May to change the controversial membership policy. “We don’t think sex and politics should be in a program for kids. Those are issues for parents,â€Âsaid Stemberger, of Orlando, Fla., who left the Boy Scouts along with his two sons over the decision in May. “If a young man has a same-sex attraction he would not be turned away in the program, but he’s not going to be allowed to kind of openly flaunt it and carry a rainbow flag,†he added, apparently referring to the participation of some BSA members in LGBT pride parades in recent weeks." So, please explain to me how this is different than the current BSA position, other than they say they will allow adults too. The new resolution states that no sexual discussion of activity of any kind is allowed, nor any political activity. So, this is different? Maybe I need to go back and improve my language skills.

Well and good T.J.; but there is a place for these things. And it is not where it disrupts the program or intrudes on others' rights. One of the recent reinforcements in the resolution just passed is that of NO POLITICAL ACTIVISM that suggests BSA is pro or con in any particular issue. BSA is a-political in theory, and certainly does not have lobbyists or other pols that push agendas. Still, this specific forum was set up for those that choose to do these things, so as to hopefully keep them from disrupting the other forums. My point is simply that the argument never ending and we can better spend our time if we really care about the program and the kids involved. As I have pointed out numerous times, NOBODY is required to join BSA. It is a choice, so if you choose to not agree, then you can simply do other things that better reflect your positions.

Hey, why don't we simply quit worrying about the politicization of Scouting anywhere, and simply offer the program to the best of our abilities, dealing with "occasional" problems as they occur? We will NOT solve the political issues nor the religious ones either, as some will simply refuse to even be remotely reasonable. So, just hunker down and do Scouting, keeping as close to the foundational principles as we can.

Even more ironic is that if someone makes the effort to actually learn these "outdated" trades, they can almost demand their own price to those who want premium work. Look at the program American Restoration for example. We had a couple of brothers in the troop a few years back whose father specialized in custom body work; clients came to him when they could not get original parts, and he would make them from scratch or rebuild old ones if usable. Always had more work than he could handle. A master furniture maker never lacks for customers. These people also take "pride" in their skills. I am not, nor ever have been, one with skills along these lines, but I do know something about them. When needed, because of my financial state at the time, I have done basic plumbing, basic electrical, and basic carpentry. Not pretty, but utile at the time. And, kids very often are literally fascinated by even rudimentary skills in these areas. Interestingly enough, even the so called "modern" skills already are begging for people that can fix things from the early days. In computers, there are fewer and fewer that understand the very basic codes that are the foundations of so much of the current programing. They are just there; but when something goes buggy with these early programs, it is often a really serious issue because they cannot find anyone knowledgeable about them. Similar situations are found with auto repair, especially if the vehicle is pre computer era. We are missing the boat in trying to "force" everybody to go to college. And even in the college level programs, we are losing leverage by undermining the value of the arts and even, to some extent, basic language skills. Just things that I have noted and find cautionary or simply interesting.

"On their own, the boys questioned the "Duty to God" wording". Sorry, but I was well informed by local OCC people who knew the whole story as well. No way did two cub scouts at that age question the wording by themselves; their father admitted as such in at least one or two incidences when he stressed that was the "family" belief and what he taught them. I agree that there was an over reaction on the part of the council, but it was made far worse by Mr. Randall insisting on making it into publicity for himself as a lawyer. We all should recognize that most of these cases are caused by people with too much time on their hands, too big of egos, or really low self esteem making them unable to accept others as they are. But there seem to continue to be those that cannot let it go and must continue to mislead or over hype things to their own purposes. It still comes down to the same thing. Scouting has a religious element which is part of its basic foundation, no matter what one might choose to call that element. NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO BE A SCOUT; if a boy wants to be, but his parent cannot accept the program as it is, then it is their fault the boy may be disappointed, not the scouts. It is still a choice, afterall.

But, if someone chooses to directly challenge this as a member, they should be allowed to continue in membership because it is their right to force their beliefs on the others and demand it be change to accommodate them. Why? Because they say so. Exactly where does it say that ANYONE is REQUIRED to join the BSA or any other group for that matter? The real sad thing with all of this is that the problems are brought on by adults in almost all the public cases. Few children have actually settled on personal faith or spiritual beliefs. When they claim atheism, it is usually a reiteration of a parent of other adult authority figure. In the case of the Randall twins, their father made sure that "his" being a lawyer was well noted and that HE was fighting for his kids right to echo his own beliefs. I have always found it amusing that when one reporter actually got a statement from one of the boys, asking about explaining natural phenomena and so, the boy said it was "mother nature" that made it. Again, it is the adults that cause the problems for the most part. What is wrong with simply letting others live their lives without your interference, and others doing the same?

A good suggestion for sure. But, believe it or not, there are a lot of people that still like to browse through old scrapbooks and hard copy material. If you are a real historian, primary sources are still what you want. The LBC does not accept anything but originals for their collection if at all possible. Granted, sometimes that is not feasible, and certainly, computer copies and backups are great; just do not be too quick to simply get rid of those primary sources.

"Just curious......Is the parents scout neurotic and paranoid too????" More than a few are. Agree though; no medical, no attendance. It is their choice. The council and camp need to cta's.

Yep, be careful when tossing that you do not lose the history of the unit. Our unit is over 91 years old, and we have huge gaps in its history due to some overly zealous cleaning. Ironically, I do have complete membership listings; but that is due to finding the originals in the attic of the council office. Our gap is in the middle, as the son of one of the founders kept a lot of material from the early years and we have it all in the scrapbooks and binders. Advancement records, once the scout is gone, really have little significance unless someone is tracing something; and theoretically, that info would be in a council file or now on Scout net. Unless there is something significant related to a unit purchase, most financial records should follow general recommendations for these type of documents, I believe that is seven years.

Interesting how concerns a century old are so similar to current ones. Hopefully we will see a sea change back towards more rational and altruistic interactions in our society. If not, we could yet go the way of the Roman Empire.

Kahuna; Am in the process of reading the book after recently receiving your inscribed copy as ordered. Am not very far as yet, but already finding it interesting. Found your quote on page 17 from James Truslow particularly applicable, in my mind, to what goes on today in many of these forums and our society as a whole. You might post some of it in another more contentious forum. Also find your comments on your short career as a professional, and the reasons for leaving to be spot on from what I have observed over my long tenure. The terrible schedule, which I briefly observed in 1971 while shadowing a pro from the old Riverside council in So Cal, was enough to put me off; added to it was the under $8K starting salary of the time and the lack of youth contact. Will likely post additional comments as I work through the meat of the book. Thanks.

Thanks; good to see that simple common sense is still around after-all.

KDD; I am likely much more seasoned so probably do have somewhat different view on many things. Do accept the much greater variety argument; when I was a scout, it was pretty much scouts, little league (if you had it nearby), the Y in its old formats, 4H, and a few others. But there also was no real peer pressure against scouting or the PC nonsense that is so common today. Of course we did have our McCarthyism going full bore at the time, and the start of the worst years of the Cold War. But we also had far stronger familial connections, less fear about something happening to kids if they are out of sight, and a basic respect for adults (on occasion a bit too much I admit, ranching to a fear of sorts). Still, general public life was far less filled with obvious egoism, and there was usually pride in communities reflected by the best things noted by the media regularly. As I said; I am an old guy. But, Scouting still has its place. If we simply run it as each unit sees fit, but within the honest parameters of "mutual" respect, it has much to continue as an important element of our society in nurturing youth.

Maybe the loss in membership is very simple. Our society no longer holds things like honesty, truth, real altruistic actions or thoughts, or other more traditional moral ideas as important. The ego -centrism of so much of our population and the mocking attitude towards idealism is reflected in the sneering comments such as "he such a boy scout". That in itself is reflective of the problem. That is not to say that some people, maybe even a majority, still respect these things; but they tend to no longer feel as comfortable expressing it a lot of the time, due to the tendency for so many people to make light of them. Just an observation of an old guy.

Frankly, due to the lack of almost any positive media coverage, I am not so sure people really know what BSA units do, especially the level of service they give. In our small to medium council, using a conservative average of 100 hours per Eagle project, last years Eagle class contributed over 20K hours, mostly to public schools, local parks, and the Forest Service. Without those projects, these improvements would simply not occur, as the state budgets do not allow it. That does not include the money factors in the projects, nor the likely similar level of hours in other general troop projects. My point is simply that the overall good the BSA does for their communities far outweighs the backlash of the PC campaign that favors a very small percentage of the public and in its own way is just as bigoted as they claim the Scouts are. The real problem is that Scouting IS NOT a political organization, nor does it have a huge, wealthy and powerful lobby pushing its cause. It has issues that need to be solved; but its history has shown it evolves over time. Their problem is that the negative campaigners do not care about how much damage may be done to communities or the children deriving real growth from their Scouting experience. All they want is to enforce their "rights", not understanding that rights are not license; nobody's rights should overpower someone else's. The two sides of the controversy could exist without all the drama, especially since NO ONE is required to join BSA or any church. It is a choice. The common sense idea that if you do not agree, simply do not intermingle seems to have no place anymore. We live in a world where the loudest, most strident voice or the richest cause wins. I suspect if you could ever get the 70% or so of the populace that simply tunes it all out, refusing to side with anyone, to speak up, they would overwhelm the more radical issues on both the right and left. JMO of course.

This is a nice article. I could not help but wonder why the Times can publish this very positive piece, though they did mention the Gay issue slightly in passing, and seldom recognize the similar large contribution of Scouting to the communities here. They certainly find the space to publicize all kinds of negative things, even though the positive is far more the norm.