TAHAWK

Perfectly tolerable to me to let girls in, if the CO agrees. I help with Venturing. That's where I hear about trouble recruiting adult female campers. Moreover, unlike some here, what I get from Scouters in Canada, is that they underestimated the problems co-ed Scouting adds to the load. And, according to them, it cost them heavily membership, as did the "solution" to the gay issue. Others, right and left, are not tolerant of optional co-ed Scouting. For some it's too much, and for others not enough. They have a right to hold an opinion that is at least as good as mine. It just that, lately, freedom of speech is a one-way street. The some that want "progress" always seem to want more. They will not tolerate less than 100% of what they see as right and virtuous. Their rhetoric has not cooled down. Their idea of "compromise": "For now, we get at least some of what we want . You didn't give up everything. See, both sides got something." Sort of like "compromise" on government spending: only the rate of increase is one the table. The big change pushed by the employees of BSA started just about as membership peaked, and we are down at least 50% since. How's that Change business working for y'all? Whose Scouting is it? Scouting, that is, as distinct from the 501©(3) Delaware corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas, and it's institutional objectives. And I just hate being pushed. "My way or else." It makes it harder to see merit in the side pushing, even if it's there. When I got pelted with eggs by "antiwar" types in 1965, because I was in the line-of-fire between them and the drilling ROTC members, I was less concerned with the wisdom of the War than the egg innards in my hair and running down my neck and the broken glasses I would need to replace out of $350/month, gross. I wanted eggs to throw back.

Toleration is no longer PC. One must accept.

A disgrace.

Inconsistency is not necessarily hypocrisy. The differences in Cub neckerchiefs are by program, not by den as such. The BSA rule on neckerchiefs is largely ignored, like wearing denims with the blue Cub shirt. Because most troops are not Patrol Method troops, there is little pressure for formally allowing patrol neckerchiefs. Troop. Troop. Troop. I think patrol neckerchiefs are a great idea, like large, square neckerchiefs and going back to registering patrols as "units." So long as it has no financial impact, BSA would like those ideas too.

A co-ed unit will need adult female campers unless we are to drop what is left of the "outdoor" method. Some of our local Venturing units have had a problem getting adult females to camp in all but the most favorable weather conditions. In Baloo locally, over 80% of the trainees are male - 16 of 19 at the Baloo course earlier this month.

"Most of my concerns with girls in the program are mitigated by having a strong youth led program. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests this would be micromanaged from above." It did not used to be so adult-run. Adult-run was the exception, and we felt sorry for those Scouts and for the fact that we had no room for them when they came knocking. Decades since the Patrol Method was explained by BSA Not taught in basic training for adults - just odds and ends that are buried in such "critical" issues as the "three types of patrols" Not taught in Wood Badge Not taught in the only training most leaders (that is, Scouts) ever receive - "Introduction to TROOP Leadership." No incentive to use the Patrol method (certainly not in JTM) No disincentive to failing to use the Patrol Method. "What we've got here is failure to communicate." What if BSA did one thing - just one - to coherently promote the Patrol Method? The evidence suggests we will never know. So we need to do what needs to be done. BSA is not the Scoutmaster of a single troop. Know the answers: 1. In what context does a Scout experience Boy Scouting? 2. What is a patrol? 3. What is a troop and what is its purpose? 4. What is the role of adults in Boy Scouting? When you have the answers and are committed to the Patrol Method, this will happen: 1. You and SPL and ??? Teach "Introduction to Patrol Leadership" 2. Scouts decide who is in what patrol, and they do so primarily on the basis of friendship, current or potential. 3. Scouts train Scouts in Scoutcraft in the vast majority of cases. (Things are done "to a boy's standard, of course.") 4. There is an annual Patrol program-planning conference. The troop can have any openings left. SPL presents resulting proposed program to Committee. 5. Troop meets twice a month so the patrols can meet every week. 6. Most meetings and activities are patrol meetings and activities. Most time at troop meetings is spent on patrol work. 7. Boys are leaders because they and the led will probably benefit from that leadership NOT due to POR requirements.

If the adults had exciting, challenging, fun training - more WOW!, perhaps they would find outdoors program more to their taste. What they get is all that can be done, to some minimal standard, in 24 hours, including Scoutmaster-Specific. Very little time for application to "fix" the information and gain the actual skills. Of that time, almost none is devoted to the Patrol Method - what it is and why t works - or to hiking or backpacking (which someone at BSA decided is also hiking" in the syllabus) beyond the safety concerns reflected in the advancement requirements. That's two big whiffs. The original Wood Badge said it only aimed at T-F, but allowed so much time and staffed on the basis of competence to such a level that the actual instruction and application was far, far beyond T-F - beyond typical Merit Badge level in many cases. When that version of WB went away, nothing replaced it, just as district-level leader (that is youth) training went away in 2001 and was not replaced. Can the rare unit adult overcome this? Find his own resources? Train his leaders properly? Can Scouts go outside BSa to find the intermediate and advanced information gone from the Field Book? Sure. By where is the institutional push behind two important methods, including the one said to me "most important"? A better product often produced increased "sales." Old reputation will only carry you so far. Google Landers, Frary & Clark

I live in an 2,000,000-population Standard Metropolitan Area area that, in the last thirty years, saw the biggest three banks, the biggest three S&Ls, the biggest three supermarkets, the biggest two big box stores (and K-mart soon to follow), the biggest three conventional department stores, the biggest three sporting goods stores, and the biggest three home-improvement stores all disappear. With only one exception, when things got tough, they all tried to reach new customers with a variety of tactics and strategies, primarily opening new locations to "serve more customers." Here's a non-original thought: As the absolute and relative numbers of people using the wilderness has increased, BSA has deemphasized its outdoor program. Evidence? Outdoor program training is now only offered to the "Introduction" level and the hours for even that have declined by one-third recently (Fewer hours are now required for combined SM-Specific and IOLS than were once required for IOLS alone.) Camping Merit Badge once required fifty days and nights of camping when the wilderness was pretty empty; now it's twenty "nights." A Gallup pole released May 22nd finds that 81 % of the population says that moral values in the U.S. are fair or poor. 77% say those values are getting worse. Views on that issue have been going down steadily since 2002. So where is BSA leading us? Towards the 81%, the 77%, or the minority who like where we are heading in the "culture wars"? So if it's only about membership: "He was right, dead right, as he walked along, but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong." Berma-Shave Confucius: "Do not confuse change with improvement." See, one is inevitable but the other is desirable and to be worked for. Change what must be changed to preserve what is worth saving. Now how to figure out what is what.

Who sets the agenda and controls the information flow also has a tremendous impact on the outcome(s). I, for one, would like to see some attention to improving the quality of the current program for the current "customers" before looking for new customers.

I staffed Baloo a couple weeks ago for a guy who stays pretty current on everything. It was same-o, same-o. Used same syllabus as last year as "current." Another district where I help has taught a "combined" course for years, but the OWL trainees stay for several extra hours after the Baloo folk are done.

Some of these unofficial worksheets are misleading as to the actual requirements.

Nice summary. Never lost a slide as I was taught to wear a cord around my neck and feed he "tail" though a loop in the cord below the slide. Those with beads understand.

Zip codes: 06070. Estimated median household income in 2015: $113,846 (it was $82,996 in 2000) Simsbury: $113,846 CT: $71,346 Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Simsbury-Connecticut.html#ixzz4i8lLtF6Q

They'd love Cleveland. In one year we had nine different CSP's - including all white and all black. $$$$$

Clarke Green: "Those of you who have attended international Scouting events know just about everyone wears a neckerchief with or without the uniform. As a matter of fact at Kandersteg International Scout Center (KISC) the staff, Scouts and rovers wore their neckerchiefs all the time. Some wore two or three different neckerchiefs at the same time. There were lots of different slides (‘woggle’ being the more familiar international term) some folks wore several and many put pins on their neckerchiefs as well. Most neckerchiefs were worn with their ends knotted and, if they had a slide at all, they were not usually worn high on the collar but more open as the pictures below show. . . . am not advocating some sweeping policy change or attempting to undermine long standing traditions. But I do think that a neckerchief makes a great activity uniform and a reasonable, workable compromise Scouts would take to pretty readily. I like the idea of troop tee shirts, but Scouts outgrow them, they don’t outgrow neckerchiefs."

The OP asked, "Has the time come for the BSA to consider a more formal reduction of the neckerchief in uniform wear?" He then invited a discussion pro and con. I cast no aspersions. Indeed, I argue it's just a method. OK. I get it. You don't like neckerchiefs. And so? The neckerchief has been an optional part of the uniform for decades. What change is proposed? It should not be an option? The tent is not big enough for contrary opinions? I vote leave it the heck alone and get on to some issue worthy of attention.

I made another typo? I'm a Scot, but did I mention Scot socks? I own some Scot socks, along with Scots flashes. I'm cornfused [confusion with a higher carbohydrate content].

When popular songs had words.

Bandannas have been (Cleveland Heights) Troop 22's neckerchief since 1977. Only turns into a necker when they go north of the border every other year for the Dorchester International Camporee. The uniform is secondary to the objectives, but uniform or drop out may be a false dichotomy.

qwazse, remember the three adults who were picked to the the poster persons for the fitness program a few years ago? (Tons of Fun.) qwazse

Important to keep up with the times. Wouldn't want to be left behind the more successful Scouting programs Must be cool. But some things are hard to forget.

Outstanding !