Eagle94-A1

Maybe because they do not have to fill out an application for their position, but the IH can also in a second, or these two other specific positions: COR and CC or MC. I believe Scoutparent is no longer allowed.

Me personally, I have lots of concerns. One I've seen first hand is what can happen when female siblings attend major district and council Cub events, but due to limit space for activities, cannot do the activities their brothers are doing. To quote the 9th Doctor, "RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!" To quote the 2nd Doctor, 'When I say run, run. RUN!"

Of course district and council want you to try it. You are going to eb the guinea pigs for coed Cubs.

Regarding knots, my philosophy is I don't care what you wear. I do know from first hand experience, new Cub parents feel comfortable with someone "experience" in a leadership role, even if the experience is based upon working with Boy Scouts. Me personally, I wear none to some to all, depending upon the shirt.

My thoughts. 1) You can only help your fellow units out so far, then they have to do something. trust me, we have one unit that has some major issues. The adults would not listen to anyone: their Scouts, other Boy Scouters, their commissioner, even their CO's pack leadership. Thankfully they got some fresh blood in the form of Scouts and an adult after 3 years of no new Scouts. 2) I respectfully disagree with Fred Johnson in that the BSA actually promotes COs having all three programs: Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Venturing. The problem comes in with the relationships within the CO. Units within a CO MUST HAVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT UNITS! ( caps, bold and underline are for emphasis). If the adults in the different units cannot work together, the CO really needs to get invovled and find out the problem. Unfortunately, most COs are hands off; they will not get involved. 3) Every troop is different. One troop may not fit the needs of the Scout. IMHO, the adults should help the Scout find a better fit. I know with my unit, the philosophy is we'd rather keep Scouts in the program with a unit that better fits them, than quit altogether.

No, it does not exist today and the purpose of selling them is to get rid of them. You would be surprised what supply still has in its warehouse. In 2010, I bought some Sea Scout merchandise, and it still had the Sea Explorer labels on it. Sea Exploring became Sea Scouts again in 1998!

Forgot to add, it's a generic hat pin, not authorized for uniform wear. https://books.google.com/books?id=mT46AQAAIAAJ&pg=RA12-PA9&lpg=RA12-PA9&dq=%22BSA+BEST%22+merchandise&source=bl&ots=xUBhxJugIL&sig=RV3f03OaoVF6MbAB0Rngl9N4Ukg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj275yj4JLSAhXJbiYKHWseBr0Q6AEIPTAH#v=onepage&q=%22BSA%20BEST%22%20merchandise&f=false and I forgot about the "Black Bull" brand. https://books.google.com/books?id=imYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=%22BSA+BEST%22+merchandise&source=bl&ots=_Vwdyun-4b&sig=k8cAIWlLKfGfnE-5VzfNo0qrcuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj275yj4JLSAhXJbiYKHWseBr0Q6AEINjAF#v=onepage&q=%22BSA%20BEST%22%20merchandise&f=false and an ad being sold on Ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/1984-Boy-Scouts-New-Horizons-Combo-Backpack-BSA-BEST-photo-vintage-print-Ad/142277140241?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D41376%26meid%3D210063ad849742738fbe2210f6bd0960%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D142244594417 1984 must have been the year the brand came out as the photo of the backpack has the generic BSA logo used on red jackets.

"BSA Best" was the "brand" of merchandise that was produced specifically for the BSA and sold by national supply. The nylon Yucca Rangers, several styles of sleeping bags and external backpacks, etc had that logo. This was the logo circa late 1980s to mid 1990s if memory serves. All I know is that I wanted some of the merchandise when I was a Scout, but ended up with USGI surplus. If you look closely in this picture, the black nylon Yucca Ranger pack has the BSA Best logo on it. http://www.terapeak.com/worth/hillary-and-bsa-best-cruiser-external-frame-green-nylon-backpack-open-32-x-16/282224140930/

I know every area is different, but the local Catholic church/school's was open to everyone. About 1/3 of my pack growing up had no affilaition to either the church or school. That being said, do what your son wants to do. The troop my son joined was small, needed adults, and had some challenges. He liked it, and brought 3 of his buddies over to the troop within 9 months.

the one day dsitrict training, if you got it. Unfortunately A) not every SM goes to these sessions and B) ev en if they do attend, they do not buy into it. Regarding training. I agree that more emphasis is needed on patrol method. I really think the old SM Fundamentals Course, which required a month long commitment, is the way to go in regards to training, especially for those who have never been involved in Scouting. We were put into patrol right from the get go. And we had to meet as a patrol prior to the last, weekend session to come up with menus, duty roster, etc.

Bear Cub son snuck in on older brothers' Castaway/ Wilderness Survival weekend back in December and had a blast. For Christmas, he got USGI canteen, canteen cup, case, and a Rothco stove for the rig. Happy Camper I hear ya. Up until very recently, I had to use my modern pack because I was lending it to oldest son. He bought an 1980s Coleman external frame, and was planning on lending A.L.I.C.E. to middle son. Wife found another 1980s Coleman external friend sized just right for the new Scout. So now I have A.L.I.C.E. All to myself for 2 more years, unless youngest gets his on pack too.

I'd count nature center and recycling center. Animal shelter would require more details for me. \

Lots of great advice. My thoughts are the following 1) Finances should not be in the power or one person or one family. For whatever reason, I feel a disturbance in the Force. 2) When my pack was having problems, and it was CM related, I focused on my den, and only my den. Thankfully the CM was only there for 18 months, and 3 were summer. Disturbing and raised concerns, you bet. And it was extremely frustrating. But I focused on my den and took care of my Cubs. However, when he became SM of the troop, I had some reservations. Yes I camped with them 1 time, and my Webelos son told me point blank they are not doing Scouting. We went elsewhere. 3) David CO is spot on. Only the IH or the COR can really remove people.

Unfortunately that aint a recent problem. When I did BA22, one Scout I went through the course with was also in my high school. This was a problem he had. One thing my JLT course did 6 months after the training was have a conference to see how things are going. Several folks had the same problem. Worse case though was a troop that had a change in SMs. Old SM was very boy led oriented, but was building up the troop and they were young. He finally was able to get funds to send 3 scouts to NYLT. When the new SM took over, everythign the Scouts learned and try to implement, which would have build upon the old SM's vision for the troop, was negated by the new SM. 1 left to join a neighboring, youth led troop; 2 eagled and left. Could you PM me a copy of the syllabus? I did a district-wide 1 day training in order to qualify for BA22. That was an awesome expereince, especially since the staff of instructors were BA22 grads.

A few thoughts. 1) Scouts come up with where they want to go, ADULTS SUPPORT THEM (emphasis) 2) If the camp costs more, then the adults need to help the Scouts find ways to get the money. 3) Rotate adults while at camp. My troop decided to go to a different camp this year. With 2 boys going, it costing the family $650. Several families are in a bad fix, and we are coming up with fundraisers to help cut costs. With the exception of some new parents who are a little skeptical of letting their kids go tocamp for a week by themselves and are planning to go with their Scouts (don't ask; we told them fine, but you will be taking training and will be leaving your sons alone) We have 1 experienced leader their to keep the adults from hovering, and several other experienced leaders will be rotating in and out of camp.

"Government surplus: if it's designed for combat, it may survive Boy Scouts." I still have my old A.L.I.C.E. pack that I did two 50 milers with.

EXACTLY! (emphasis, ok maybe a little shouting in agreement with you and Back Pack ) When I was the ASM assigned to the NSP, after we discovered the "dictator," I tried my darndest not to intervene, just make sure everything was OK. I hated every minute of it because I did feel like a Den Leader. And as you all know this is when my troop was having some leadership disagreements, which added to the problems I and the troop was having. When we went away from the NSP, our issues went down drastically, and the Scouts are learning things faster with the older Scouts workign with the younger ones.

I have to agree with Eagledad. With the exception of one older scout who was a dictator and threatened violence to get the patrol to work together, and that situation was corrected as soon as it was found out, I've never seen older Scouts bully younger ones. As to the original questions: For those of you that believe in the concept of mixed or what I have heard called traditional patrols, what is your main driving force for steering it this way? and why, in your mind, is it successful? In my troop growing up, mixed aged patrols were the norm. NSPs came about 20+ years after the troop was founded, and they did not work. It was successful because "experienced" Scouts, i.e. those a year to three years older than the new Scouts would buddy up with the new guy in their patrol and mentor him. It was successful because Scouts learned from other Scouts, gave leadership opportunities at a younger age, i.e. mentoring, developed 'servant leadership" i.e. "I got help (THE OWL) learn first aid" to " I gotta take care of my patrol" to "I gotta take care of the guys in my troop; and finally THE ADULTS DID NOT INTERVENE UNLESS IT WAS SERIOUS, i.e. a true medical emergency or serious discipline problem that the Scouts could not handle. (caps for emphasis) In the current troop, the NSP was a complete disaster. They didn't listen to the Scout leaders unless threatened with physcial violence ( the TG we took care of) and would not listen to anyone but adults. Since the decision by the PLC, the patrols have had minimal problems. Scouts are taking charge more, helping each other out, etc. Does it point to an aim or goal that scouting is supposed to fill? Is it for rank advancement purposes? Is it to foster friendships? Is it done only because that's what the book says to do? something else? In my troop growing up, the answer is a definitive "YES!" The mixed aged patrols allowed Scouts to grow via mentoring,giving some youth their first sense of responsibility, i.e. working with a new guy. Scouts are required to teach skills to Scouts for advancement, and mentoring new guys in their patrol can either meet the requirement if at that stage, or give them their first taste of teaching so that they have some experience. As for friendships, I'm still in contact with the guys who mentored me when I joined the troop, and I'm in contact with the guys who I worked with. As for the" What the book says..." prior to 1989, Mixed aged patrols were the norm, with an older Scout patrol of some sort being incorporated into the troop, whether it was Explorers or Leadership Corps, from circa 1950s to today's venture patrols. So yes, mixed aged patrols were what the books said to use. How do you know when you are successful? When the Scouts do everything on their own and the adults stay out of it.

In my neck of the woods, a lot of the membership and volunteer decline is a result of the previous membership policy change. We immediately lost 1 troop, and about 1/2 the district committee. Recruiting has fallen to the point that 4 established packs and 2 additional established troops have folded. That's not including the pack that was started in 2015 and folded because they could not get enough leadership. And with the new policy change, we just lost our district training chair. What's interesting is this, many folks opposed to the new policy wish BSA would go coed and become Scouting USA (1970s proposed name) and get it over and done with. They see these policy changes as a death by a thousand cuts.

My comment was related to the BSA FAQ on the Jan 30, 2017 Eligibility Requirement Update which looks like it came from national BSA.

Troop growing up had two type of patrols: an older Scout patrol called the Leadership Corps, and mixed aged patrols. New Scout Patrols didn't exist initially. Then my SM wanted to try something new out to see if it works or not: an NSP. I was the PL as the TG was called in 1986, and it was disaster. We tried it for a year, then went back to mixed aged patrols. Issues included a lot of what was mentioned previously, but add in inter-patrol competition issues. All the other patrols had an advantage over the "newbies." When NSPs were officially introduced in 1989, we ignored it since our experience with it was negative. When a new troop was started and tagged along with us so they could get some experience, it was essentially a NSP. Again we had issues, and within a year both troops merged together, and the "NSP" and other patrols were all integrated, except for the Leadership Corps/venture crew/patrol (we had a stock of LC patches and continued with that name until the patches were gone). Fast forward 23 years and my son joins a troop. Since it was a resurrected, small troop with the oldest Scout being 13, he was in an NSP. there were issues, challenges and we did lose some Scouts. But the troop, and the Scouts, were growing.Thinking about it, I think what helped was that the new Scouts came from 2 packs with very similar philosophies and experiences that helped them along. But it was slower than in mixed aged patrols that I dealt within the past. Then all hell breaks lose in the next NSP we had. The first 6 months had few issues, but we found out later that the TG assigned to them threatened them and was essentially a dictator. Once he was removed was when the problems began. Bickering, taking 3 weeks to come up with a menu, arguing over who is doing what on a duty roster IF THEY EVEN HAD ONE! Adults were constantly jumping in as they would not listen to anyone:PL, TG, or SPL. My son was their last TG, and he was miserable. The PLC and our venture patrol were asked to come up with ideas to solve the problem. They came up with mixed aged patrols with pulling names out of a hat to decide who joined what patrol. They did that, then adults changed it to 2 mixed aged patrols and a venture patrol for those going on the AT. Even then, they had to take one of the younger guys into their patrol since he was doing the AT with them. Part of it was so that the venture patrol could do some patrol activities for the AT. part of it was disgruntlement from the older Scouts who wanted to stick together.So that's why the adults switched it. I was not part of that decision, and told after the fact. Lots of issues initially with this, but in the long term it worked out. We just got 4 new Scouts. The PLC decided, with some advice from the adults, to split the new Scouts into two groups of 2, and put them with the venture patrol, and one of the mixed aged patrols that was doing well. The other mixed aged patrol has a few issues to be worked out, but they will be getting a new Scouts next month, as well as the other two patrols. And IF we get the entire den of Webelos, we may have to form a 4th patrol. For summer camp, we have 3 full, 8 man patrols going, and 2/3 of the Webelos IIs in the feeder pack have not told us one way or the other yet!

The last question and answer make me believe that we will be completely coed program soon. Q. Is there mounting pressure to be more inclusive and change your policies again? A. We understand and appreciate that the values and the lessons of Scouting are attractive to the entire family, so we are committed to identifying program options that will help us truly do so. This is an area that we will continue to thoughtfully evaluate in order to bring the benefits of Scouting to the greatest number of youth possible.

Regarding Scouting removing a volunteer, unless A) it a youth protection issue B) health and safety issue, or C) legal issue, they will not remove someone. If the CO would have sought legal recourse, the the council would have jumped in.

Unfortunately the answer is yes. And I say unfortunately because the OA is a great tool to retain older Scouts, and invigorate the troop. Me personally, I would like to know why and have a chat. The SM may not know a lot about the OA. Real situation occurred to me when I was an OA chapter advisor. I found out that one Scout's mother would not let her son join the OA. Spent over an hour and a half on the phone talking to her about her concerns, what the OA really does, etc. She got a lot of malarky off the internet, and wanted to know if the OA is so special why no one in the troop was in the OA, nor the old long time SM or the new SM (whom I didn't know as they just took over), if the OA was so special. I told her don't know why the members of the troop were not active (sash and dash), nor who the new SM was. But the old SM was not only a member, but a Vigil Honor member who served as a lodge chief, and section chief when he was a youth in the OA.

In my humble opinion, Older Scouts in a troop is a sign of a good troop. I know growing up, most of us didn't earn Eagle 17 or 18 ( using the "wimp clause" ) The one Eagle at 15 did leave the troop shortly after getting Eagle, but for a darn good reason: his family was moving to Hawawii. And if I'm remember correctly, he got involved in Sea Scouts once he moved.