Eagle94-A1

I've seen "Family Scouting" four times now. As a youth, my troop did a family trip. Originally not a family trip, the scouts planned for a year what they were going to do. At the last minute it became a family tip. THE MOMS SCREWED UP THE TRIP FOR US. That troop did not do another family camp out until everyone by myself and one ASM had left. It was OK, but it was not a true Scout trip. Last year my current troop did a trip that had one family show up. very skeptical, but it worked out OK. Problem was this: it opened the doors to families coming on trips. June's camp out had issues with the Scouts doing what they were suppose to do. One of the problems was the older Scouts not teaching the younger scouts how to set up tents properly. Nor did the new scouts read the instructions on set up. Guess what, two new scouts went to sleep with their moms and dads when it was raining and they started getting wet. fast forward to this weekend. I must not have gotten the memo that this was going to be a family camp out because we had family members showing up left and right. SPL and ASMs walked around to make sure tents were set up properly. New parents were complaining about the kids taking so long, missing supplies etc, Ironic thing was this same parent did not know how to set up their own tent, and required three Scouters to help her out! That night it started to rain, and with the first few drops hitting the tent, son rushes to their mom's tent. Then that mom, and husband when he got there, hovered around their kid the entire weekend. One ASM had a meeting with all the parents about the hovering and tenting issues. OK we understand the Scout with DOCUMENTED medical issues needing to sleep with dad ( and yes we realize that this Scout appears 100% normal and no one would supsect if known too.) but the parents need to STAY WAY. I talked to the Scouts about the same thing, and reminded them about camping in a tent you pitched needs to be done for advancement (that seems to the #1 thing the new Scouts, and their parents are interested in). later that day, one mom and her son show up. A few hours later she approaches me in a huff about is it true that they need to set up their own tent in order for the camp out to count, when I said "Yes, that's in the requirements" she has a fit and says " then what's the purpose of event coming out her?" I told her to work on skills and have fun. After an hour of complaining to another new parent, she and her son leave. Yes, I am not looking forward to "Family Scouts."

I do not know if the individual had his membership revoked or not, but I had to report a youth staffer who propositioned another youth staffer. Long story short, once it was reported, the camp director removed the individual from camp.

That's because it's a job for them and not a movement.

They are also limiting discussion. there is a very set Discussion guide that the folks need need to read verbatim and follow. Trying to go off topic and address real issues I and others see at my town hall was non fully possible. I do not know if some of those concerns were written in the notes the SE wrote, but the ones I was able to get out were not discussed or talked about. In defense of the Scout Executives, or at least mine, he was ticked off at how national is doing this. He stated he received the instructions for this the day before he left for jamboree. He did not appreciate that. He also stated that National wanted the council key 3 to do the presentation as well as reading the scripts verbatim. Regarding breaking points. I know mine is coming. I am having a hard enough time trying to keep the district afloat because we essentially do not have a committee. I been in communications with other Scouters, and even spent 30+ minutes at work on a call with one leader who is adamant that there will be no girls in his troop because of how his church has set up the program as an outreach ministry to get at risk youth off the streets.

Gee, I don't know. It did get Bill Hillcourt out of retirement to write the handbook I grew up with. Seriously, I think the decision to go coed is the worse one to date. But I am also a realist. If we are forced to go coed, and we are, then we need to do it correctly, otherwise the "sexist" and "bigoted" perception will continue to exist, and numerous packs and troops will ignore national and fully integrate, having a paper unit for the girls.

Maybe I am naive, but I would not lump the DEs into the same category as the CSE and SEs. They are sometimes in the dark like the rest of us. Heck I was the one that told the DE about the transgender membership change. But some of them too see this happening though. Mine told me how when he went to TX, the word "boy" was not used to describe membership, "families" was used in its place.

Agree with retiring Eagle if we go coed, but suggest Turkey instead of Phoenix. Maybe a Blue Jay since they are nest robbers.

I said it once, I'll say it again, the model being proposed, specifically Coed Cubs, Single Gender Scout, Coed Venturing WILL NOT WORK IN THE USA. (caps for emphasis not shouting.) Partnering with an organization will not work because existing ones do not want to work with us. Plus one of them, GSUSA, has a program that royally sucks from the amount of complaints I hear and read about. As for starting our own program, BSA did just that in 1910 with Campfire Girls. It went its own way then. But in today's PC world, you know that BSA creating a girl-only program would only raise the howls of 'Sexists" and the will reignite the raging membership wildfire that is not only distracting and hurting our Scouts, and but also waste valuable time and resources that could be used for other more important things.

I see it happening, and see it happening fast. We already have 3 girls chomping at the bit. And a 4th would have done it if she would not age out before it occurs. And I see the local Frontier Girls folding and merging. And I see it happening with every unit in my district save 2: the LDS troop, and the baptist Church which uses Scouting for their 'At-risk Youth" Ministry. They only want Boys b/c they are the ones they are trying to keep out of trouble.

His thoughts are the following and I'm paraphrasing. It makes no sense to have 2 Scout aged groups meeting on separate nights and doing separate activities, especially when you are trying to promote accomodating families.If you have 2 separate groups, that means leaders will have two separate nights for meetings, and two different weekends for activities. The leaders will burn out faster, and we are already having a hard time getting new leaders. I admit I personally am against going coed. I know boys do better in a single gender environment. IO also know that it seems as if there is a war on boys and they cannot do anything on their own, but there are no questions about girls only programs. But I am also a realist. I know Separate but Equal will not work. GSUSA already works and it is a joke from all the complaints I'm hearing and the push to make BSA coed. I also know that the BSA creating a program just for girls will not work either. BSA did just that with Campfire Girls. They eventually went their own way and have nothing to do with us. Plus they went coed. Are they still around?

Some will say that it is not the program they signed up for. And they would be correct. Some will say that it now a program detrimental to boys. And they are correct. even the CSE states that research shows boys do better in a single gender environment. Some will say that they do not want to be involved with units that are "pushing the envelope." I admit I am uncomfortable with one Scouter willing to ignore a "separate but equal" program and push to fully integrate. Some will say they are concerned with Youth Protection issues. I know I am. Again I had one parent already talking about how to get around not having a female Scouter present by calling it a 'family camp out" and with just the dad present. PLUS I have seen first hand what just the accusation of some impropriety can do to someone. Some will say they do not want to deal with having to keep an eye on the Scouts 24/7. Some will say they are tired of the controversy and see this policy as continuing the controversy, and taking time and resources away from taking care of our boys, as well as girls. Some will say they are tired of being lied to by national, and do not want to be involed with an organization that cannot keep their own values.

Agree with Flagg and Gwaihir above. I'll add though that I will be following the lead of my sons. Oldest is not looking forward to it, and I don't know what he will do. Middle son says it's a bad idea, but again do not know what he will do. I do know of one troop that will stay all male, and they may want to join them. Heck the more I see of that troop, I wish I would have taken oldest to see them as they are a true, Scout-led, active troop. I am going to throw in a conversation I had with a parent on this topic. 1) If BSA creates a "separate but equal" program, he will do everything in his power to make the troop coed. There may be 2 units on paper, but in reality it will be one. Also, and I really want to hear from our Venturing leaders about this one, parent stated that if they cannot find a female Scouter to camp so that the girls can camp as Scouts, turn the camp out into a "family camp out" so the girls can camp as "family members" and stay with their dad, or with their friends, and get around having a female Scouter.

I was one of those Scouts who initially could not afford a full uniform. There were green trousers and shorts nearly identical to the BSA pants and shorts. In fact, the shorts had the 6" rule, you had to be 6 inches away and looking at the snaps to tell the difference. I wore those for a few years. Over time, I was able to obtain official pants and shorts from a thrift store. In fact, I went into "business" going to the thrift store near my high school, buying uniform items, and reselling them to Scouts in the troop. I got the patches, they got the uniform items. WIN-WIN And I agree with The Latin Scout, money that could be used for more important items is being wasted on the campaign covers. I also agree with Stosh, the knock off hats are more expensive than the shirts. Both of my campaign hats that were issued by my council growing up were knock offs. OK USGI surplus. When I added the hatband and shin strap, you cannot tell they are knock offs.

Not membership, but other areas: EAGLE PALMS. In 2014 a survey was conducted about changing requirements for Eagle Palms. 94% surveyed thought that the 3 months tenure was either Important (19%) or Very Important (74%). 85% did not want to include time as a Life Scout towards Eagle Palms. 94% is near unanimous and 85% is a supermajority. Yet BSA came out with Instapalms.

The challenge is that not every council is informing folks about their meetings. My council put a fast blurb on one district's facebook page. It's not on the district calendar, no emails were sent out. Just a fast blurb on one district's facebook page. And then is was posted in the middle of a punch of other posts. Further they selected a night and location that will make it difficult for many folks to show up. My council selected a Thursday night, a night in the middle of the week for this meeting. And they gave us 7 days notice for the meeting. Also I will be driving 3 hours round trip to attend a 1 hour long meeting. And my district is relatively close. There are some districts that will have another hour plus drive one way. So I am glad that folks are posting the video online. I am glad that folks are posting the intro and discussion questions online. A lot of people are concerned. Alot of people are interested in this. And my council at least is not doing a very good job communicating or showing that they are truly interested in our opinion.

I know in 2013, jambo participant and staff went off site to do service work. Part of it was to give back to the community. Part of it was to find things to do for Scouts and Venturers since they had more people than events. I also remember reading complaints about making folks do service work at jambo.

Why am I not surprised. I don't remember how many I has, but it wasn't that number.

When I did the survey, i answered from the heart: No to coed Scouting; let the girls fix the problems with the GSUSA. However, I am a realist. The writing is on the wall. The CSE has been constantly talking about "Families" involved in Scouting. Current BSA imagery has contained girls in it, and Bryan's Blog did an article on an all girl Venturing Crew. There is talk of a revised YPT, and there is both external and internal pressure for change. Then there are those who are apathetic and it won't matter to them which way the decision goes. I have accepted that girls are going to be allowed in the BSA. My purpose now is this: what will be the best decision for the current boys in the program, and any girls who join. IMHO, a "separate but equal" program, either with a partnership with an existing organization or one created from scratch will not work. As has been mentioned, financial reasons, emotional reasons, and practical reasons do not make this a viable option. If the BSA goes this route, it will leave a smoldering fire that will reignite a few years down the road, and continue causing problems for the BSA. The only viable answer I see is the UK model of having COs decide if they want All Male, All Female, or coed. As for me, I am here for my sons. If they stay with a coed unit, as I have been told the troop will integrate if a "separate but equal" program is created, I will stay, If they want an all male troop, and I know there will be at least one in my neck of the woods, I go with them. If they wan tto drop and join Trails Life, I with them. Once they leave Scouting, I do not know what I will do.

Folks under 21 are considered "youth" in teh OA and must have 20 days and nights of camping, including 1 long-term camp ion the past 2 years, BE FIRST CLASS OR HIGHER, (emphasis) and BE ELECTED BY THEIR TROOP OR TEAM (emphasis again). So an 18-20 year old female could not get elected into the OA, at this time.

I took the survey. If they follow the same path they have with other surveys, they will ignore what the majority wants. And in all honesty, what it looks like they want to do will not work as I posted in the other thread.

Oh there is outside pressure for the change. But as noted also a lot of internal pressure for the change. When BSA goes fully coed, I prefer what I call "The English Model of 1995." Units have the choice of coed,all male, or all female. IMHO that is to solve this problem and get back to work to caring for our boys who are currently in the program, and anyone else who joins as a result.

The "Finnish Model" as I call a coed Cub Scout program, separate Boy Scouts and Girl Guide programs, and coed Venturing program, will not work in this country. Here are a few reasons. 1) It rings of "Separate but Equal." Let's face it, a separate Girls Scout program is already not working. why rehash the same thing within BSA? 2) Those folks demanding coed Scouting will not accept anything less than total integration. If national decided to to this, we will keep revisiting this issue over the years, further hurting our boys, as well as any girls in the programs. 3) A separate program will mean additional Scouters needed, most with no Boy Scouting experience. While we cwill get a lot of dissatisfied Girl Scouts and their volunteers, will it be enough to have a separate program? Also will they have the knowledge, skills, and experience to run a proper BSA program? Some existing units today already have challenges getting enough volunteers. 4) Units will ignore the "separate but equal" programs and integrate no matter what national decides. With the emphasis being "More Accessible to Families" why create 2 separate programs at that level, when Cubs and Venturing is already coed? Why have to double the efforts and time? When I discussed this with 3 individuals who have an interest in girls coming into the BSA, All three said they would do the separate but equal units on paper, but ignore it in practice. If BSA wants to be "Family Friendly" they will need full integration. Otherwise we will be boil;ng a frog.

As others have stated, the physical contact and yelling concern me. That is grounds for council level involvement if memory serves.

I think I need to clarify a point on my Tale of the Unqualified SPL. The Scouts knew better than the adults, knew better than the SPL's father even, that the Scout could do the job. Again Scouts know what is up. If they have real control over the troop, they will take it seriously and vote for the best candidate. If adults sweep in all the time, the kids won't care b/c the election will be a farce

BSA briefy did Rovers, circa 1935 to 1953. Great Depression didn't make it too viable, then WWII, the Cold War, and Korean War did it in.