CalicoPenn

For every boy that joins Cub Scouts, how mant boys don't join? For every boy that joins Boy Scouts, how many boys don't join? When I was of Cub Scout age, my neighborhood had around 25 boys my age or within a year on either side of my age. Of those 25, only 10 boys joined the neighborhood cub scout pack (and it truly was a neighborhood cub scout pack, it was sponsored by our school and we all went to the same school. Of those 10 Cub Scouts, 7 crossed over to Boy Scouts. Of those 7, only 3 were still Boy Scouts at the start of 9th grade. Lets look at that number agin - 3 out of 25 were Boy Scouts through high school. The BSA has always been this way. If STEM Scouts was around back then, maybe they could have raised that number to 5 out of 25, or 7 out of 25. Wouldn't it have been worth it to try? Does it dilute the brand by not being outdoors enough? Ok, I'll accept that, but at the same time, in this day and age, more and more people are afraid of the outdoors (which is frankly odd given that most of us no longer live anywhere near bears and mountain lions) and so that attraction to the outdoors is no longer the draw it used to be. We can and should still offer a great outdoor program for those that are looking for a good outdoor program, but what is the real harm in offering a non-outdoor program to boys and girls who are more interested in STEM than they are in the outdoors?

I get it - there are districts out there with entrenched good old boys that make it hard for people like you to volunteer I also know that giving up and sitting back griping isn't going to change things - and if it's that bad for you, it's likely to be that bad for the other units. It can change - it takes a little work, but it can change - you've actually already suggested one way to start change - organizing multi-unit events on your own. If other units are feeling the same way, go ahead and organize your own "camporee" or first aid meet, or orienteering match, or Klondike with the other units - and make a point of tweaking the district folks by holding yours on the same days/weekends as the official district events. If the strongest units start doing multi-unit activities on their own, it's going to be noticed. It also gives you folks the chance to work with each other strategize - you've just created a mini-district within your district. If you can get enough COR's to back you and can get them to go to the next annual meeting, you can walk in and install your own slate over the official nominated slate - it's the COR's votes that count. Then you can dismantle the old boys network. Impossible? Not at all - others have done it in the past. Could the DE get perturbed at you and try to cause problems? Sure - but you just his/her boss and tell them that none of the units in your camp will be doing FOS or popcorn sales. What are they going to do, revoke the charters of their strongest units? Or maybe it's time to change the model completely - ake it easy for folks - have Councils hire programming staff who will staff and run pinewood derbies, camporees, first aid meets, trainings, and stuff that volunteers have been doing for decades - but we better find something other than popcorn to sell because the fundraising to keep that kind of monster running will be brutal.

I don't think we can point to any one, or even two, big things. I suspect it's more a death by a thousand cuts going on here. Go through the many diverse threads on this board and you can get a feeling for all of the things that has had some effect on the BSA. While there are some things that were in the BSA's control - the insularity (as we've read, the BSA rarely appoints upper management staff from other orgnizations - when all you do is promote from within, you limit your ability to grow), the ham-handed dealing with certain social issues (that in turn gave many people the idea that the BSA was unwelcoming, religious and political, and caused the loss of major sponsorship opportunities within government entities), the miserable attempts to either stay ahead of trends (like the 1970's "urbanization" of Scouting because of the increasing urbanization of society) or the miserable attempts to attract minorities (can anyone honestly say that the whole Soccer Scouts for Hispanics stuff wasn't a huge insult to the Hispanic community?). There is a lot of external stuff that the BSA just never responded well to such as the slow death march of rural communities (which one time was a big contributor of Scouts - most small towns large enough to support a Pack and a Troop did), the blurring of suburban boundaries as suburban spawl continues on, which affectively negates a sense of community for many of us (what makes up a neighborhood these days when your primary school may be a mile bus ride in one direction to a different town and your high school may be a 2 mile bus ride in the other direction to yet another town and the nearest fire station doesn't respond to your 911 call because they aren't in your town?), the increasingly mobile work force (your insurance agent, or banker, or doctor may commute to their offices instead of living in town), the increasing paranoia of parents (heaven forbid your ten year old ride his bike on his own to the swimming pool down the street) and helicoptering of parents (an 18 year old filling out a college application on his own with mommy and daddy sitting at his elbow? Never!), and the increasing competition to get in to college (in the late 70's, as long as you got reasonable grades, and did ok on the SAT or ACT, you could get into college - nowadays, got to fill up that resume of after school activities to even have a chance (or so the conventional thinking goes). There is also somewhat of an unwillingness on the part of the people in Scouting to embrace change and adaptation. The number of people complaining about STEM is staggering - the BSA has a lot they can already offer to advancing STEM (and let's face it, the concept is not going away) - why shouldn't the BSA start using what exists to reach out to boys that aren't interested in camping and hiking but would be interested in those nice STEM related merit badges (and if they learn to like to camp and hike because of their exposure to the Scouts, all the better).

If you want to stay within your own unit and do all that wonderful stuff, fine, go for it - just stop complaining and grumping about how bad the district is, how bad the council is, how horrible training is unless your willing to step up and change things - the grand poobahs not accepting your help with range activities? Maybe they're being cautious since your folks aren't participating. But the key point to all of this is you can either step up and help change things, or you can do your own thing - just stop complaining about how poorly other people run the district if you have decided you're not going to be bothered with them. The Council is there to make sure you have access to the BSA materials, and have access to camps and other facilities - they aren't there to spoon feed you everything - units have to do some of the work too. Districts aren't there to spoon feed units either - in fact, Districts can't really work unless the units in them help pull their own weight. Districts are more like a cooperative (OMG - Communism in the Boy Scouts!) It's Unit Scouters and former Unit Scouters coming together to provide programs and advice to the units in their District. If folks from the units in the district won;t step up - there is no District and there won't be any district wide events, which is a shame since it's those district wide events that help form a greater Scouting bond beyond one's unit.

If the training "stinks" then why aren't you holding up your hand and volunteering to be the next training guru for your district? Let me guess - no time or no desire - so instead just sit back and gripe while the person(s) who are doing the training (who are also sacrificing their time and would likely say they don't have a lot of time either, but are taking away from family time or their own personal time) keep offering the "stinky" training to people taking the training. Think you could do it better? Step up and prove it. Make sure you develop a thick skin while folks follow your example and start to complain how training stinks. I think there is more to this griping than just bad training. I think I get it - some people just don't like the Boy Scouts of America and it's programming - they don't like National, they don't like Council, they think the volunteers running the Districts, the programming and the training are jokes, they think you can do it all better, that they know better than the 100's of thousands of leaders that have come before them and have helped develop the program, that their standards for BOR's and Eagle Scouts are better than everyone elses. It just makes me wonder - why do people even bother sticking with an organization that they do nothing but complain about, that they don't want to help make better. I have a lot more sympathy for the District volunteer that draws back to the Troop level because other Troop leaders do nothing but gripe and moan without stepping up to help out, than I do for the volunteer that never steps up to assist at the District level because they're one of the moaners and complainers and think the District is nothing but some good old boys club that only wants to scold their Troop. Poor training, "good old boys" clubs, poor district events, poor commissioner service will never improve if all people do is sit on the sidelines and gripe.

I am just honestly confused by the statements the LDS church has made regarding this issue, particularly the part about the program not being available to half their eligible members (and I can only presume they mean the male youth in other countries - countries which have Scouting programs of their own but likely aren't a good fit because they're co-ed). The BSA has Boy Scout of America units in other countries - they have an entire international division devoted to them - can anyone explain why the LDS church never took advantage of that and created BSA units in their overseas stakes, thus providing them with the same youth program for those boys? In my mind, all those statements about thinking about the boys in other countries is just grasping at something that they could point to if they ever did decide to leave over this issue to try to mute criticism of bigotry for doing so from the public and some of their own members.

I find it highly ironic that the same people complaining about Scout's not being able to tie a bowline as an Eagle Scout are complaining about being offered the opportunity to learn new techniques and practice the old. We know the best way to help a Scout retain the knowledge on how to tie a bowline is repetition and practice. Why do adults think that once they've been trained that's all they need to do? Have you taken a CPR course? Have you maintained your certification by taking it again when the certification expires? Or is once and I'm good for life your mantra? Many professions have continuing education requirements. Are you a Doctor, Lawyer, Real Estate Broker, Architect, Teacher, Hair Dresser? You likely have continuing education requirements to maintain your license. Been an MD for 30 years? You still have to take continuing ed courses to maintain your license. Is it really that onerous to re-take a course once every three years if you want to help train new BSA leaders?

The way I read it, the organization offering these opportunities has been offering a program where Scouts can earn specific merit badges and can earn a special patch from the organization for the past 3 years in Akron and is expanding the program to another Council, and is using the term Merit Badge incorrectly for their special patch, apparently not knowing that the term Merit Badge has specific meaning in the Boy Scouts .

In my neck of the woods, the color guard would form the top of the arch of the horseshoe and everyone would form up the horsehoe (and in some cases, a full circle) from them - then the color guard would leave the formation of the horseshoe and walk directly across the field straight ahead of them to the flag pole rather than sneak up on the flag pole like the Canadians like to do. Stosh, We would do it your way too (most of us down here do so) and salute the flag directly. If any one were to tell us we were wrong, we would tell them our Scouts are saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag, not to the back of someones head.

Given his background and prior postings in the Church, and given the small number of units affected, I think he was sending a message to his fellow Bishops in the US.

What do they do at night when it isn't winter? They can do the same in winter.

I've always found it a bit odd for people to claim that it's role modeling that makes people gay when pretty close to 100% of gay people were raised in heterosexual households - seems a bit odd to claim that exposure to a gay person for a couple of hours a week, or for 36 hours on a camping trip would be enough to override years of being raised by heterosexuals. I've also found it amusing that, in a still almost puritan America, that the first thing that many people seem to think of when they hear the words gay, lesbian or homosexual - the first thing that pops into their head, is an image of people having sex. It just makes me wonder how these folks could possibly imagine it if they've never done it or seen it. Goodness knows what they're actually imagining.

In general, if the flag is being raised on a pole, (such as at an outdoor ceremony), the order to "present arms" or to "Hand Salute" is given as the flag is being raised. The "guards" will salute at this time, while watching the flag being raised. The flag bearers will step back and salute once they have raised the flag and tied it off. When "Order Arms" or "Two" is commanded, they will return to formation. In general, it the flag is being carried on a standard (aka pole that is carried), the color guard will end up facing the audience with the flag bearers holding the flags and the guards standing at attention next to them while everyone else salutes and states the pledge - the color guard does not salute in this case, nor do they say the pledge. Only after the pledge has been stated and the order of "two" or "order arms" is given, does the color guard receive orders to post the colors. For the requirement, I still think participate in this case means that the Cubs actually take part in the active, non-spectator part of the ceremony. Den of eight Cubs? No problem - one pole is needed for two ceremonies - one to raise the flag and one to lower the flag. 4 Cubs raise the flag and 4 Cubs lower the flag - both are separate ceremonies. While it would be great if the Cubs could raise and lower the flags as part of a memorial day, or labor day, or veteran's day, or independence day celebration, I don't think there are enough holidays and opportunities to do so. I don't think the intent of the requirement is that the ceremony be part of a larger event - I believe the intent is for the Cubs to learn how to do it and then to try it for themselves. So how does one figure out how to do that? As has been suggested, you can jury-rig an outdoor flag raising set-up. Another alternative would be to approach the guy who has a flag pole set up in his front yard - chances are he's a veteran and would be glad to help teach the Cubs how to do it. Don't have that guy in your neighborhood? Talk to the fire department and/or police department and/or the guy in Public Works who raises and lowers the flag at City Hall. Most are happy to help out and will be fine with the flag being raised and lowered multiple times while the Cubs are learning. That being said, the BSA doesn't really do a very good job of explaining exactly what they mean by "participate" so yes, I suppose you could decide that saluting and saying the pledge at an outdoor flag raising might meet the requirements - but I'll bring it back to my original post on this subject back in 2012 - Scouting IS for the boys - and I know from experience that boys are much more excited about this when they actually get to raise and lower the flags, when they get to be the color guard and flag bearers, than they are just watching so my questions would be - since Scouting is for the boys, why would anyone not try their hardest to make sure the boys got to experience being part of an outdoor color guard???

I'm wondering if he worrys that kids might be around gay people if kids go to the mall, or the theater, or a renaissance faire, or a restaurant, or school??

Maybe the Marines don't teach the reason behind the use of "two" as a command but the Coast Guard did, or at least their reasoning behind it (which makes sense but since we are talking military, it could be completely wrong since sense often times doesn't count for anything). The reason for "two"? The hand salute is a two part process - raising the hand in salute, and lowering the hand back to it's original position. The command to do the second part of the hand salute is often expressed as "Two" (as in "Hand Salute" (part one) and "Two" (part two). (Of course by now it's realized that the military has a command for just about everything). But what about "Order Arms" some folks are now screaming at their screen. It's a perfectly acceptable command for the 2nd part of the salute - if there are rifles (aka "arms") present and if rifle commands are being issued. When there are no rifles incorporated as part of the ceremony, where everyone is giving a hand salute, the orders are "Hand Salute" and "Two". "Present Arms" and "Order Arms" are only used when rifles are included as part of the ceremony and in that case, everyone that salutes, whether with rifle or by hand, follows the rifle orders (so there may be times when giving the hand salute that you respond to "order arms" and times that you respond to "two" - it all depends on the presence and use of rifles in the ceremony). There is also an exception to a verbal command of "two" or "order arms" - if music is being played, the 2nd part of the hand (or rifle) salute is automatically performed at the end of the music. For instance, if the Star Spangled Banner is played after the flag is raised and folks are saluting the flag during the song, when it ends, the salute ends - no other command needed. Now as to the flag code - there is a common misconception that the flag code is codified law with penalties for not doing things right. That isn't the case. The way the flag code was written, and is maintained, it is a set of guidelines - more suggestions than anything else. It's an attempt at unifying the way civilians fly the flag but it has no real teeth to it, from a legal perspective. This is a case where enforcement of the code is through shaming. We know the code says that flags should be replaced when they get frayed and torn but we've all gone buy homes and businesses where the flag is hanging by threads - it usually takes some veterans complaining to either a corporate office or to the local media on a slow news day (or right around a holiday like Memorial Day or Veteran's Day) to get it changed. Does that mean we shouldn't follow the flag code? Nope - we should follow it and teach it as best as we can but also understand that, unless someone is showing absolutely blatant and purposeful disrespect for the flag, people will get it wrong but it's the sentiment that counts more than whether the flag is hung with the field to the left or to the right.

Oh jeesh - to clarify something - it's my family that does not have a tartan of it's own, not Aberdeenshire (the Aberdeen tartan is the tartan of Aberdeenshire).

I have Scottish ancestry but not of any clan affiliation. My family comes from Aberdeenshire which does have a tartan of it's own so I could wear the Aberdeen tartan (which is quite a handsome tartan). The Aberdeen tartan was created sometime between 1746-1782, during the period when tartans were not allowed by order of the King. It is an example of a district tartan, representing a specific place. The original tartans, which weren't created until the 1600's, also tended to be tied to a place but not necessarily because it was honoring the place but because the weavers were using threads of colors that were available to them in their locale. Folks dyed threads using the plants available to them (for instance, goldenrod) and if you lived in an area that didn't have that plant, you probably weren't going to have that color thread on hand (unless you were able to trade for it). Interesting note about clan tartans - we tend to think of clan tartans reaching way back to the 1600's and 1700's and being associated with specific clans way back then - but that's not quite how tartans came to be identified with certain clans. Tartans may have been informally associated with certain clans before the 1800's but that was mostly due to regionalism (again, weavers working with what they had) and not because of any kind of rule - the Clan McGregor's might have all worn the same style tartan because their weavers used the same pattern and colors for the cloth they used but there might be McGregors wearing other tartans because they traveled and traded for them. It wasn't until the late 1700's and early 1800's, as tartan societies and makers started to gather patterns in books that the clan tartans started to be exclusively associated with clans - in some cases, when tartan book companies called on clans for their tartan patterns, the elders didn't even know if they had a clan tartan (because they didn't know what a clan tartan was) and would choose the one most commonly used by their clan. I do, however, and on occasion, wear a tartan but not the Aberdeen tartan. I wear an "Original State of Maine" tartan kilt (which is not the official Maine tartan though it was created in the 1960's with the intention of being so - the legislature has never created an official tartan). The kilt was hand woven for me by the copyright holder of the tartan who also happened to be my landlady for a time when I was a student in Maine. I figure that's permission enough for me to wear it.

It was even more interesting reading the comments. Folks pointed out that the article doesn't explore the reasons people want to leave, nor does it make any comparisons (likely because no one thought to do a poll beforehand) pre-and post announcement. A number of folks mentioned that the BSA isn't getting with the times fast enough (for instance, why are we still using "blue cards" and not an app for a smart phone to track merit badge requirements? Great question.) A few mentioned just how expensive Scouting is and some complained about the inequity between the boys youth programs and the girls youth programs. A number of folks mentioned that they would prefer a Mormon only youth group for boys so that more emphasis can be placed on church doctrine. One person said they didn't like the BSA because it seems so "cultish" (and my irony meter jumped into the red zone when I read that). There really weren't all that many commenters complaining that the BSA was allowing gay youth or gay adult leaders. Hmmmmmmm. A couple of other things about the article I noticed - it seems to backtrack a bit on the claim that leadership is upset that the decision wasn't postponed while they were on vacation - it doesn't directly mention that but points out that the leadership traditionally takes August off (and the decision was made in July) and it also points out that the current head of the church has been a strong supporter of the BSA and is a Silver Beaver hinting that perhaps the decision by the BSA wasn't as rash or unexpected as some spokesperson for the church made it out to be. What was really interesting, though, and might be missed if you didn't get farther down in to the article is that the polling firm also polled non-Mormons on the question. Catholics apparently were fairly closely split but the majority think the Mormons should stay in the BSA - it's the Protestant result that really got my attention - it wasn't even close - according to the poll, 49% of Protestants think the Mormons should leave the BSA, only 28% think they should stay - and I'd really be interested in knowing why Protestants think that and though I have no data to back it up, I suspect a lot of it might still be lingering protestant bigotry against a church they feel is a cult.

As has been mentioned, offering the option of opening the checkbook really doesn't solve your issue which is getting enough parents to volunteer for those one time events. But, the perfect solution is right under your nose, and you just need to get the CO to buy in. You said the CO picks up the rechartering fee for the boys. Get buy-in from the CO to draft a letter to the parents that the CO's new policy on rechartering is that they will cover the rechartering fee of every boy whose family volunteers at least 2 times during the year for events or fundraising duties. If a mother and father work the same shift at the county fair, that will count as their 2 times.

NJCub - You're absolutely correct and I stand corrected!

Esther! Esther!! I'm coming Esther! I'm on my way (on knees holding chest with one hand and raising hand to the sky with the other - the oldsters will get the reference to Mr. Sanford).

It's not like the BSA hasn't had internal arguments about these very same issues for years so really, no reason for any of us to go off the deep end here. I clicked on the links in the article and saw that the protest was four people holding up signs at the Spartan statue on campus and respectfully engaging and listening to other points of view while those giving the other points of view were respectfully engaging and listening to the protestors. All in all, what I saw was a perfect example to the Scouts of free speech and respect for others - it looked to me as if both sides were following the Scout Law and were acknowledging that they could find common ground. The protesters have a point - there has been cultural appropriation by the OA - it's no secret that the OA actually acknowledges this. The OA also has a point - we've worked hard and closely with Native American tribes and groups to reverse the "Hollywood" imagery that was common right on in to the 70's and 80's to become more culturally appropriate, and one way we're doing that is to more closely emulate the tribes indigenous to our areas. Souix feather headresses are becoming a bit less common than they were.

To the best of my knowledge, the only BSA restrictions facing a Scout undertaking fundraising on his own for his Scouting experience is in raising funds for his Eagle Scout project which requires a form to be filled out and has rules to follow on what is and what isn't allowable. Since this Scout is not raising funds for an Eagle Scout project and is not raising funds for another group using the BSA name or for his Troop using the BSA name, or presumably trying to benefit off the BSA brand to pay the family's bills, it would likely pass muster (disclaimer - I have not seen the language of the GoFundMe plea so it's also possible that the BSA might take issue with it on technical terms (use of copyrighted materials, unclear language, etc.). While I'm not a big fan of this kind of social network fundraising for individuals (though I love the platform for non-profit fundraising - for instance, I'm all for it if it helps a small rural community volunteer fire department raise funds to buy a Jaws of Life set-up, or a Boy Scout Troop to raise funds to replace tents destroyed in a storm, for example), when I put my personal feelings aside, it seems to me to be not much different (other than the laziness and sense of entitlement - ooops, maybe my personal feelings aren't all that far aside) from a Scout going around the neighborhood and telling his neighbors he's trying to raise some money for Philmont and asking if he can mow their lawns, or do other gardening work, or help clean out a garage or shovel snow or something - either way, he's still letting folks know he's a Scout and is trying to raise funds for a Scouting activity. The latter has historically been suggested by the BSA. If the Scout was raising funds through GoFund Me (or mowing lawns) using the BSA brand to do so to pay his family's bills or to buy a car, for something not related to Scouts, it's not a BSA policy that he needs to worry about, it's going to be state laws against fraud that he's going to be facing.

I didn't have summer homework either, which around here amounts mainly to reading and reporting on two or three books from the summer reading list - not really an onerous task, but if I did, I expect my parents would have done the same thing they did during the school year - ask me if I've done my homework, ask how my paper was coming along, ask if I was keeping up with my reading. In other words, they would be engaged because they did recognize that it wasn't just the teacher's job to be involved, and they did have a responsibility to make sure that I was getting my work done, but they did it without hovering too. They did their part, they didn't hound me but they let me know they were watching - if I still failed to finish my homework, there was no one to blame but me and in that sense it was my responsibility, but it was my parents responsibility to monitor me and my progress, not anyone elses (the teacher's job was to instruct and mark my progress and share that with my parents).

Well, we Americans are really good at forgetting or ignoring parts of our history that we just don't want to admit or deal with - hardly anyone remembers that the author of the Pledge of Allegiance was a Socialist.