FireStone

I have very little experience with the process of getting a new CM or SM, but even still, I know enough to know that it's supposed to be a little more involved than just a "Hey, you should do it," and then wait for an immediate answer. I think it certainly speaks to the state of things at the troop if the decision is taken so lightly.

I'm still not convinced that any of this was written with any less casual a tone than how I use the word "boys" in my Den and Pack. Swap out "boy" and "boyhood" for "child" and "childhood" and it all still works. Someone could show up at my next Den meeting and make the same inferences, that based on the language I use, my program is designed only for boys. In reality, I just have some early habits with how I address a group of Scouts that I will need to evolve out of now. It's not an indication of programatic intent.

That's open to interpretation. I often say "The boys are doing XYZ," or, "Let's get the boys going," or something along those lines just out of convenience (or laziness). It doesn't mean that I think only boys should be doing whatever it is I'm talking about. Nor does it mean that I can't just as easily adapt to saying "Scouts", "kids", or any other general descriptor. I suspect many Scouting materials have been written over the years with the same tone and for the same reason. It's easy to just say "boys", but it doesn't really tell us anything about any possible underlying intent of the person saying it.

You'll have to explain that. I've never heard that any outdoors components of the program were being removed.

All optional areas of the program, no? Are any parts of the character-development and leadership aspects of the program being removed?

Isn't the BSA's core product a youth leadership and character-development program with an outdoor focus? Is that changing?

My son will be a Scout, like I was in the 80s and 90s, at least in how I referred to myself, how my parents and friends referred to us, etc. We were "scouts", our leaders called us "scouts", they addressed us, instructed us, woke us up, yelled at us, got us in line, as "scouts" ("Scouts, gather 'round," "Scouts line up!" "Scouts, attention," "Scouts, rise and shine!"). I don't care if officially he'll never be a "Boy Scout". The name is the least important part of the program for me. All that matters is what he becomes as a result of going through it.

I'm up to date on YPT for leaders, but for parents (not registered as leaders), what's the BSA policy on this? I know there's the 72-hour rule, if an adult is going to be with a scout group more than 72 hours they need to be registered. So this guy isn't going to summer camp. But what about on shorter overnights with the unit? Is he allowed? Are there any obligations to the other parents to inform them of his record?

If law enforcement confirmed the "he was 30, she was 12" story, and yet the CC continues to say saying something different, I would think that neither of them should be serving in any Pack leadership capacity. She's dishonest and is covering for a child-molester, and he, well, his record speaks for itself. He should not be around children. Get your District Exec in on this asap. If this isn't resolved to your satisfaction, switch to another Pack. If this guy was allowed on overnights in my Pack, I'd be moving on down the road to the next Pack immediately.

This feels like a stop-over change to me. The organization is still "Boy Scouts of America," and "BSA" is still in the program name for the girl groups. This doesn't feel like a final solution to the name problem when it comes to addressing this now being a co-ed organization. I suspect there will eventually be another change to step further into this co-ed role.

I understand the sentiment here, but in reality and in all practicality, does this really change anything for most troops? Let's think about it: When was the last time you said, in casual conversation, the full name, "Boy Scout Troop XX"? This came up for me back when the very idea of girls in the BSA first emerged as a real possibility and people were talking about what the organization would be called, what Troops would be called, etc. Someone said, "So what, we can't address our guys as 'Boy Scouts' anymore??" To which my response was, "When was the last time you addressed scouts directly as 'Boy Scouts'? You say 'Scouts', as in 'Scouts, line up!' or 'Scouts, attention!'." Likewise when addressing or speaking of a Troop, who ever says "Boy Scout Troop XX"? It's more likely just "Troop XX". Or in some cases people don't even say "Troop" or "Pack", especially the 3-or-4-digit unit numbers. I often hear something like "856, line up!" or something like that. Never in my life have I ever heard anyone say "Boy Scout Troop XX, line up!" So we just keep calling them Scouts. And I suspect in most cases and in most conversations, we'll still just say "Troop XX".

My Tiger Den meets once per month, with an activity thrown in on a random weekend day usually monthly as well. We’ll have 7 belt loops done by June, which I know is the bare minimum required but I’m ok with that. We really didn’t even get started on Bobcat till October, and even with the late start we can still easily finish up by June. My point being that you can very easily get the Tiger reqs done with once-monthly meetings, as long as your meetings are well-planned and make good use of the time. The way I see it, this is Tiger Scouting, it’s not Troop level and is just the first year out of 5 they’ll spend in Cub Scouting. Weekly meetings I think would put us on a path to early burnout for the scouts and parents. And me too for that matter. I’d rather we never get up to weekly meetings, not even at Webelo if we can help it. Unless there is just no other way to get it all done.

This is currently being discussed in my Pack in relation to recruiting. The question currently is: Do we try to actively recruit girls? No decisions yet, just discussion. As far as our CO is concerned, they don't really care what we do. They barely take any interest in the Pack and Troop as it is, we could probably tell them we want to start a new Scout group consisting of llamas and hedgehogs and they'd just say, "Sure, whatever." My draft recruitment flyer that will go out to schools says "... open to boys & girls in 1st - 5th grade..." We'll have to wait and see if it stays that way, should know after this week's committee meeting. My personal feeling is that if we don't talk about girls, don't recruit girls, don't put photos of girls in uniform in our recruiting materials, etc., we're not going to get enough girls to meaningfully do anything. We're not a big Pack, last year we recruited 5 Tiger boys. The chances we will get the requisite number of girls to start a Den are not great. If we don't actively promote the fact that we're open to girls, I suspect it won't happen here. And even then, it will still be a challenge to get enough girls involved. Our CO certainly isn't going to be helpful in spreading the word that we welcome girls.

My opinion on this might be slightly influenced by the fact that I'm currently neck-deep in a Pack recruitment plan and trying to finding new ways to promote the idea of "Adventure is waiting," but my first thought is that this is the opposite of adventure. Unless the adventure comes after we sit around and read for a while. I know at the Troop level a lot more reading is necessary. Just not sure it's a good use of time when the scouts are together as a patrol or troop. I've also always had the belief that Scouting shouldn't feel like school. Someone reading aloud from a book feels very school-like to me.

Poor Pedro...

I didn't say they were imaginary. Comments sections of news websites are generally pretty toxic. Mostly negative, rarely a good measure of how people feel about anything. You could be reading a feel-good article about flowers and the comments will still find a way to go negative and talk about what jerks flowers are, sitting in a feeling looking all smug and colorful. I don't know what most Americans are on board with. And if anyone is estimating how most Americans feel about this based on the comments section of a news article, I would seriously question the usefulness of that kind of data. I don't know what a good indicator would even be. But it's not that.

These were the first 4 comments I read, and if these are any indication of the genral quality and usefulness of comments, I think I'll skip the rest. I wouldn't regard the comment section of any news website as a good indicator of, well, pretty much anything, especially not what the general public thinks.

Apologies if this is already covered, I admit I mostly skimmed this thread... If the issue is stealing or damaging a scout's property by clipping a corner, or "hazing" by damaging property, is it not stealing or damaging it to just mark the card some other way? An "X" marked on a corner instead, or something similar. Surely a pen mark can't be considered "damage" when we sign off things in books and on cards all the time.

Thanks, folks. Really appreciate the info. This is great! So internationally, even though current neckerchiefs are larger than the BSA ones, they are still a triangle, is that right? The only group I know of using large squares is the BPSA-US. Maybe other BPSA groups internationally use them as well. But it sounds like among WOSM groups, it's all triangles, is that accurate?

I don't get the need for the skort at this time, other than as a prop for marketing photos. Which, by the way, they seem to be adding more of to the BSA Brand Center site. Those red neckerchiefs look pretty darn sharp. Hoping they'll be rolled out to scout shops in time for the fall, so my Wolf den can wear them.

I've been Googling with little luck, hoping someone here can help me. I'm doing a very basic Tiger first-aid talk at our next Den meeting and wanted to mention the things we carry that can be used for first aid (we're also discussing the Six Essentials). I think a fun fact that not many scouts seem to know is that neckerchiefs actually have some practical first-aid potential, or at least they did when they used to be larger. I want to mention in my chat with the scouts that neckerchiefs used to be large enough to actually use as an arm sling, head bandage, etc. Does anyone know the size of neckerchiefs of past generations? I'm assuming BSA neckerchiefs probably started out in the early years as being of similar size and shape as the larger BP-style neckers, and at some point they shrunk and became the triangular shape (I believe they were swuare at one time). Also, does anyone know of any common standard specs neckers used by scout groups internationally, ones that use the larger traditional size/shape neckers?

There was a rumor going around a few years back that re-using disposable plastic water bottles was bad because the bottle broke down over time and chemicals would get into your water. I think that was debunked, although the breakdown issue isn't entirely without merit. But it's not because of chemicals (FDA says disposible plastic bottles are safe for single-use AND re-use), it's that the weaker plastic was more prone to scratches and cracks, which in turn could trap and house bacteria. The idea being that a smooth plastic surface is easier to clean than a cracked/scratched/worn one and so the hard plastic bottles made for re-use were easier to keep clean.

There is also the BPSA-US, active in the states co-ed for over a decade, and active globally for far longer. There is no shortage of organizations that BSA members can look to for an example of how to deal with specific issues surrounding co-ed activity logistics. The conversation here does seem to frequently devolve into something along the lines of, "How will we have enough separate toilets for boys AND girls?" But in reality, these other co-ed scouting organizations have made it all work and continue to do so. I suspect some of them might even get a good laugh at us for worrying about some of the things we've discussed here.

Is it really possible to distinguish a "BSA" fleir-de-lis from a non-BSA one? It's a pretty common shape that pre-dates the BSA. Lots of Scouting organizations around the world use it, some extremely similar to the BSA variety symbol. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering if this is really even an enforcable mark. I always throught the trademark was the full logo, with the eagle graphic.

Ah, got it. Thanks. Looks like I attributed something to you that wasn't your comment, actually. Apologies for that.