Col. Flagg

No. It appears to allude to an actual BSA stance, but not a direct quote. Reuters said "the Boy Scouts of America said". That statement is being attributed to the BSA, NOT something Reuters is getting an "impression" of. Unless they are just crappy journalists and can't write well. "The Boy Scouts of America said on Monday the group would begin accepting transgender boys, bucking its more than a century-old practice of using the gender stated on a birth certificate to determine eligibility."

It seems booze in bottles is the last thing one needs to be worried about if someone is being "old-fashioned" given all the other changes lately. If anything it is a chance to have an open conversation about the dangers of alcohol.

Boy Scouts didn't allow TG because of any of that. They did it because of pressure. They likely did it because they mistakenly thing it will stop the membership loss. @@EmberMike is saying from what I read that he thinks coed is inevitable for the same reasons.

Why?

Why worry? Do the kids really care? Are these races even worth entering when you know Pack 0000 has all the parents doing their kids' cars? We did races, awards, then a HUGE Blue Bell ice cream party. There wasn't a kid who gave a darn what place they came in when they had the chance to build an ice cream sundae four times the size of their car! EDIT: Almost forgot. First, if you got a trophy for racing you could not be part of the "superlative awards" like best design, etc. Second, the non-trophy finishers got to put a pie in the CM's face.

Well there is an upside to having such a location.

And here we have an illustration at how out of touch BSA is. Their own survey of the membership showed the majority were against the policy change. Another survey a few years earlier showed that religious institutions that were COs were fairly conservative in their values, but were the overwhelming majority of their COs. Only a group of completely clueless businessmen would alienate their largest customer base. HOPING they won't leave. The result? An increase in the loss of membership. No ground swell of new members from those communities that were previously prohibited from joining. Certainly not enough of one to off set the 6-7% year on year membership loss since 2013. Do you really want to hold up THAT as a model for growth? I don't think any reasonable person expects BSA to put the genie back in the bottle. I also don't think any reasonable person thinks BSA is going to grow in membership with the changes they've made. Let me be clear: BSA will make small gains in small areas, but they will not replace the 6-7% losses they've experienced since 2013. They won't even stem the 3-4% year on year losses they've experienced for the last 25+ years. What I have read here -- from those who don't support the policy changes -- is that they believe (I among them) that BSA's best long-term interests are served by finding equilibrium among their CURRENT membership; meaning boys. If they go coed I predict you will see double-digit membership losses among those who want an all-boy program. I don't believe the "influx" of girls will be enough to offset those losses over a long period. I think in 20 years you will see BSA at the 1 million mark if they go coed. Why? The tradition of the program is a single sex outdoor program. You will lose the traditionalists and the progressives -- mostly Millennials - won't ever replace them.

Sure it does. If BSA required you to put your gender from your birth certificate on the membership application, and you didn't, you've committed fraud. It would be the same not checking the box if you've ever been arrested and you had been. It's not situational. It's black and white. You have a birth certificate. It says your sex. You put that on the BSA form. Done.

Don't worry, these kids (and parents) are found out when they hit Boy Scouts. The first thing we tell our new parents at our new parent orientation is, "You only have one more signature to give on your Scout's paperwork." We underscore the Instructors will help them on their trail to First Class. After that, they are on their own trail to Eagle. Mom and dad can sit back and help the troop, teach a MB class, be an ASM or TC member, but they won't sign off on ANY requirements ever again (unless they're an MBC). Taking over at Webelos and working that through the DL is a GREAT idea!!!

See my post. It should work.

I would venture to say that given the lack of neckers in my district that the dweeb or nerd factor for neckers is high. Maybe it's regional. Though I would ask, how much of this letting the boys decide versus adults tacitly helping them decide? On the gayness factor, all I have to say is...

We got tired of the PWD drama. So we did this: Everyone got their cars the same day. We got a few "shop dads" to donate their gear and we set up a workshop. All boys got a few hours to design their cars, then build, then paint. The "shop dads" would supervise and make sure hands weren't being cut off, etc. Cars when done -- and the boys said when they were done -- they were inspected to make sure they worked and met specs. They were "impounded" for the race the next day. Everyone shows up and watched their cars race. Winners won and losers lost, but the playing field was even.

Talk to your council. They will know the right answer.

Was fraud committed by the family? Because the BSA rules in force at the time was to use the sex listed on the birth certificate. Can you have discrimination where fraud was the basis for the membership in the first place?

I don't see the thread like that at all. I see one group of people saying that the existence of the necker should not define 1) if one looks a scout, 2) if one is a scout, 3) if one is a good scout, 4) if one is a proper scout, etc. I see another group (adults) saying that the necker is the thing that identifies one as a scout and that units shouldn't give it up...even if the boys (who, after all, should be the ones making the decision in a boy led, patrol method unit) decide to toss them and wear ball camps instead. Odd...because the rest of the world seems to wear it like a bandana. Just check out the various pics of scouts around the world wearing it. Few, if any, wear it like we (USA) do. So are they wearing bandanas? Neckers? Ascots?

In my council it was districts. Moved from ABC district to XYZ district. Most of the Scouts still lived and went to school in ABC district, though they rechartered in XYZ district. Council helped get things settled. Then ABC district said the unit could not recruit in ABC district any more. Asked to "show me in writing" ABC district could not show the unit where that was prohibited...so they kept recruiting. My understanding is that council switches would be similar. I am told, but have never seen, something that says you cannot recruit across councils.

You said... So I pointed out "anyone" who uses "a necker as a piece of clothing" other than Scouts. I guess you were surprised there were so many? Depends on your definition. One could argue they would need to see a uniform, hat and other stuff to immediately consider someone a Scout. A simple necker just won't have most people thinking, "My God! There's a Scout!!" Google it. There's a few good ideas here of who else wore neckers. HINT: It wasn't just Scouts. Any yes, it does acknowledge as Scouts being the most recent group. But your point (above) was that they weren't the only group. Any Navy non-comm would tell you that. So...not just for Scouts.

Really? What's the point in that? This is the guy that is supposed to be the primary example of the program. If there's any more evidence needed that OA has become a mere shadow of itself one need look no further. How sad.

Amen. However, some camps are FAR better than others about that. One way to avoid this problem is to ask the counselors for a list of what was covered. This helps identify who was organized and who wasn't. Usually the latter are the ones we have issues with.

Again, wait until the first law suit comes out for the boys' only troop. The CO says, "Forget it, not worth the hassle." and the unit is forced to go coed.

Well, maybe if the OA insisted on the camping requirement being met for district and council staff they wouldn't have that problem. I mean, it *is* supposed to encourage continued participation in Scouting and camping. Waive the camping and you simply have guys who work for your company. They might not even exhibit the Oath and Law.

Just wait until that thought is first put to the test and someone sues. You can time how fast that CO capitulates or drops the BSA unit with an egg timer. We had that protection previously and look how fast BSA caved and placed the burden on the CO. Old argument, same result.

This happened to several unit in my area, though they were outside district boundaries and not council boundaries. My understanding is that it is all solved in a similar manner; meaning your council and the accepting council are involved.

If acting as an MBC for someone outside my troop I fill out the WHOLE card. I fill out the center portion of the top card below for ALL requirements and sign it. Then I completely fill out the appropriate fields in the back. If the badge is complete I keep the MBC copy for my records. It literally takes less than a minute to do this AND it has saved time down the road if there were ever a controversy. In 15 years I have only had one...and it was in my own troop for a lost card.

Flight attendants, chefs, people on holiday, anyone involved in fashion, cowboys, gold miners, actors, train engineers, Clint Eastwood to hide his [edited] big boo boo [/edited], etc. And that was just googling "guys who wear neckerchiefs". [sad in this day and age we need to advise Scouts -- who we trust with knives, fire and other dangerous stuff -- not to do something painfully obvious]