Col. Flagg

Yeah, the band front man made several remarks during their set that were quite political and inappropriate. I have Scouts and adults on the ground there. What I am hearing is that folks at home are the ones upset. The boys don't care one way or the other from what I am hearing. The only thing I heard was a group of Scouts from the west coast were less-than-Scoutlike to a group from south because they thought they were Trump supporters.

I referee competitive youth and college soccer. I can tell you girls can say things on the pitch that would make a merchant sailor blush.

Agreed. But why address one overly political issue that arose and not the other?

The guy could pass gas and the media would find something to put on the front page.

Odd that BSA didn't feel the need to distance themselves from the band that made political statements to the boys earlier in the week. So much for non-partisanship. Or could it be that the parents trust their kids to hear something, not whine about it and make up their own mind without complaining to the principal about it.

But that's BSA. They usually tend to miss the mark in their communications to people. Why would one expect this situation to be any different? Scoutingwire usually has some inane thing about so-and-so earning a Silver Otter or something rather than the pertinent Scouting news of the day. They post what THEY think is relevant...which rarely is to anyone outside of the inner sanctum.

Success or failure of any elected/appointed to do a job is premature until that role is over. Success or failure of a membership organization who changes its membership or program have more immediate and tangible results. Yes there are long term effects, as there are short term. Measuring the long term effects is harder because more issues can influence the outcome over time.

I understand there was a drop. But the '72 drop was attributed to 1) a significant change in program, 2) a drop in scouting-aged boys (baby boom maturing), and 3) social attitudes of the time about being hip and cool (anti-establishment), in which Scouting was the poster child for straight kids (back when straight meant non-corrupted by drugs, sex, etc).

Yes the troop was from Carollton. Yes, their unit is literally 3 miles from my CO. I met the ASM. She was very nice and even looked at our troop when crossing over. She stood out because she was female and very well trained. Different district but close enough that unit paths cross often. I chase storms in my copious spare time. I like to get a close to tornadoes as I can. It is a family thing because my brother and cousins all do it too (Yeah, we're those guys). So we have gone through all the NWS training offered, have done all the ARC and local CERT training possible. From my perspective the two incidents (Philmont 2013 and NT 2016) were quite different. Again, my opinion. NT: The troop was hit in the middle of the night by a front of straight line winds from a gust front. In Texas we call them "Derechos". They arise from storms colliding with outflow boundaries and can travel great distances. The troop was in their proper camp site and in a remote part of the range. Even if they had known about the gust front coming in 100 miles away they would have been caught in open water and/or old growth forest. Neither good for cover. It had rained quite a bit the weeks prior to their trek, so the ground was saturated leaving the root systems of the trees susceptible to up-rooting from strong winds. The team that went in to do the assessment of the accident area said 1) there was no cover from what they were up against, 2) their option was be on the water (not good) or hunker down in place. The leaders did what they were supposed to do. Short of being evac'd out hours prior, no crew could have taken cover better. Philmont: The monsoon season was in swing. The high level mark of the Ponil Creek was visibly near the staff lodge and encompassed several of the "camp sites" allocated for the season. The camp site in question was in a field within that high water line. There were many severe storms in the area that day, especially up stream from the Ponil Canyon staff camp, but the crews were allowed to camp in what was essentially a flood zone. This was one of the wettest monsoon seasons in NM; some areas in the north getting 12" or more. IMHO Philmont and staff camps should have warned crews on the ranges of any camps in danger of flash flooding. We had three crews there that month and all crews were warned (by us) to 1) check for high water marks in any break or camp areas, and then 2) head 10 ft above those marks and camp/rest. Sorry for the diatribe. I just believe that if we truly train our crews/troops well (and even expect similar training at camps we attend) some situations can be avoided. Unfortunately for my friends who went to NT, there is nothing they could have done short of digging trenches like in Bastogne '44. Not sure that would have even helped.

Really? What were the immediate membership loss percentages after those changes? Because the most recent policy changes doubled the "average" year on year losses and have remained so since 2013. I'd be curious as to your source for the % reductions immediately following the changes you cite. NOTE: To be clear, are you referring to the changes GBB made in '79? Or the changes made in '72?

Sorry to hear about the Scout's eye. Hope all is okay. Regarding the death's at Northern Tier, they were from my area. It was a female ASM and a Scout. The young man went to my brother's unit's CO but both were part of a different troop. The deaths were well-reported in North Texas. Happened June of last year. Must be the same event unless NT lost 4 people last year. The Ponil Canyon incident is something every Philmont crew, ranger and staff person should always have at the forefront of their mind. IMHO it could have been avoided with better training and logistics.

So a decade or more is your answer? The loss of membership is easy to track and maps to the membership policy changes. The gain of membership should follow a similar cause and effect. If not, then we won't ever know if the policy change was the catalyst for membership increases if it takes more than a few years. My experience in membership organizations is that membership numbers respond fairly quickly to changes either positive or negative. The irony being that it's the SAME ORGANIZATION it was in both instances, only the membership policy changed. The program has not changed to make the youth any less patriotic. Parts of society demanded that the organization change to meet their view of the world. Face it Rick, BSA has changed (now) and it's so important to the left that they haven't even noticed. Most never plan on being part of BSA. It's like someone telling you the Greek place around the corner sucks. The problem is they don't like Greek food and never plan on ever going there...they just think Greek food sucks. I guess I'd feel better if your friend was more informed before giving his opinion, but he's welcome to his (misinformed) opinion.

Sadly, my brother's unit had to deal with this issue. Contact your council exec and they can expedite it for you. The paperwork is all at the council level. Thankfully his council was able to get this done fast. I do not recall if national was involved or not, but his CE was the key. Condolences.

BSA reports a few sets on numbers. One for the annual report and then revised numbers in August. It will be interesting to see what the Aug numbers say. Corp donations usually do not take years and years to rebound. I would expect to see those rebound faster. I will concede FOS donations are related to more personal giving. While personal giving across the board is down, surveys show that religious institutions and conservative organizations tend to give more. I would argue that these very organizations are the ones being (to a degree) alienated by BSA. But that's an argument no one can prove. Economy, age, rising costs, taxes, El Nino, etc., are all blamed for things that affect spending and the such. Who knows why FOS is down.

@@EmberMike... Resumption of Donations: It's been 4 years since the 2013 change. That's centuries in the donation world. A company that is eager for revenue (which is the supposed basis for letting in girls) would be at post donors doors with hat in hand showing how they've changed. FOS donations AND corporate donations continue to decline despite the changes. Why? I would argue that those companies that left never had any intention in coming back. What does that say about FOS? One could postulate that donors simply don't want to give to an organization that makes changes contrary to what the majority of their membership wanted. Loss of Members: Whether it was a feared backlash of BSA families that supported the inclusion of gays or a perceived increase in membership, neither has taken place. In fact the exact opposite has taken place. Those that didn't want the change have left, resulting in a doubling of membership losses year on year. So what does that say? To me that says that BSA made a change, for whatever reason, which lead to an increased decline in membership. No successful company makes changes to their flagship product without EXTENSIVE market research and then following what the their largest customer base wants. BSA's Intent vs. Marketing: Again we see BSA playing a game of business without a clue. It is ten times more expensive to attract NEW customers than it is to retain EXISTING customers. By changing their membership model they are alienating their base. This is not anything successful businesses, or even membership organizations, do. Changing your membership base will eventually lead to a change in your program; something many here think will never happen. If an organization is willing to sacrifice decades of tradition in failed attempt to increase (or stem the decline) in membership, what makes anyone think they won't also sacrifice the program on which the membership is based? You think BSA is not 0-2 on these issues, but the strike counts as soon as the swing is made. We have seen continued membership declines since 2013. We have seen the loss in revenue since the same time. How long do we need to wait until we call something a success? As an aside, I will note that the President has been in office 7 months and it was less than two before everyone (many here) were calling him a failure. The irony is amusing.

Well, the past two decisions about membership have NOT increased their bottom line. Membership is down, product sales are down, FOS is down (big) and corporate donations have not recovered (as many speculated they would). Not sure why anyone thinks going coed will be any different. You have to take in MANY more new people than are leaving and I don't see that happening. Apples and oranges. Increased membership would first have to surpass out-migration of people leaving Scouts before you go ascertain if there's any net growth. Obviously, if net inflow exceeds net outflow then you will have a revenue gain from membership. There may be a gain in product revenue if this happens BUT it would depends on the operational costs needed to create, develop and re-do certain product lines, losses some lines might incur, etc. The revenues from donors is a whole different kettle of fish. Folks said to let in gays and corp donations would resume. They haven't. They said let in transgender and the donations would resume. They haven't. Now the mantra is let in girls. Well, we will see what happens but I ain't holding my breath. So far the "let them in" crowd is 0-2.

@@desertrat77, take your daughter out for a Sonic or Whataburger shake (people in the northeast jealous right now) for being such a sensible young woman. She echoed by my own daughter said about the same subject, though she noted most of the guys over 15 weren't so silly/stupid. It was the younger guys she couldn't stand. If you ever want to hook crews up let me know. We can meet at the Red River.

Funny you should mention that.... First four emails I received this AM were from moms who either 1) thought it was a good speech and we should use it to promote the troop, or 2) thought the speech was horrid and that the BSA response didn't go far enough in lambasting POTUS and we as a unit should do something. I replied to all four basically telling them we'd have no part in what happened one way or the other. BSA has spoken and we won't "put out our press release". You have to laugh sometimes at how worked up folks get about this guy.

Kia Kima always makes the short list of our top 5. Then the guys get reminded how hot it gets in Texas and we literally head to the mountains. I suspect we will make it east to Kia Kima sometime soon.

The Texas Pledge has been around since 1933. I was required to be recited in all schools starting in 2003.

KKSR as in Kia Kima, yeah?

I am in a similar situation, except the girls around our crew are adamant that they want a Venturing-style program, just available younger. The do NOT want the Boy Scout experience (MBs, ranks, uniforms, mtgs, boards, more mtgs, more hoops). They really like the freestyle nature of Venturing. Listening to them they'd join my crew now if they could. They don't want Eagle. They don't want Gold Star. They want fun, adventure and being carefree. They see the rah-rah in Boy Scouts and roll their eyes. One even said, "If I wanted that I'd joing Girl Scouts." This might just be a representation of my area.

Sorry, but I worked in that White House. The decision not to attend was based on the fact the he pushed himself to come back too fast and the doctors told him to take a break in his schedule that July, so he sent his wife. Obama is certainly able to send his wife at least if he cannot make it. The comparison is totally valid. Unless the President is somewhere else requiring his attention, there's no reason he, his spouse or VP cannot attend. As for the speech, I cannot say I am disappointed because I expect very little from politicians anymore. Rising above the arguing and end-fighting has NOT been the hallmark of our recent historical landscape going back quite a ways. Hearing our leaders (on both sides) makes you long for Carter or Reagan. At least they were eloquent (and civil) when telling each other to go pound sand.

@@JasonG172, are you on the Buffalo River?

We've tried this. They will sell you one badge and one replacement. My son was able to get them to sell him three since he had three field uniforms he needed patches for (staffing HA base). Even with your NESA or certification of rank from the council office they will only sell you two at a time. It's harder than getting a fake SSN card. Those I can get no problem.