Just got word....

[NJCubScouter]

I agree discussion should happen.  I just fear drawing out the discussion for a significantly long time.  The time of change can be damaging and painful.  Letting it go too long just continues the pain.

 

Maybe they want to see the results of the survey first.

[Oldscout448]

Have they paid any attention to the other surveys they sent out?

 

Nope

Edited August 14, 2017 by Oldscout448

[qwazse]

Accessible for families does not equal family camping.

 

Thank you, @@RichardB, for making my point.

The chosen buzzword (even correctly spelled) does not convey the proposed means. It may convey a vision (of families happy that they can access a Pack or Troop where they couldn't before), but it doesn't convey one iota what we might do to fulfill this vision. So, it sounds like there's something magical behind the curtain. That it's so special and intricate that we need a video to decide if we like it. Someone who doesn't sit on these blogs is blindsided by the obfuscation, someone who sees no reason why their troop can't integrate tomorrow feels shortchanged.

 

Either market it as "BSA Girls-Only Packs and Troops", or chuck it.

We can debate if that really makes things more accessible to families or not. But at least we know what we're debating.

We can debate if we need the same ranks with different names or not. But at least there's some sense as to why.

Then when faced with Venturers you can introduce debate if First Classette girls can earn Eagle or First Class boys can earn Eagless.

 

But beg your colleagues to stop patronizing us with accessibility rhetoric as if being beset with daughters as well as sons is some disability to overcome. Unless, that is, they really do want the whole idea to backfire.

Edited August 15, 2017 by qwazse

[Ankylus]

Assuming they in fact are integrating girls to achieve a truly "coed" program...

 

I don't see how they can possibly have "family camping" and retain anything like the patrol method. I consider the patrol method to be one of the primary tools for teaching leadership. Family camping will destroy that aspect of the scouting program as we know it.  Admitting girls has no real impact on that, as you can have girl patrols and boy patrols and coed senior leadership. So national has an opportunity there...let's see if they can keep from screwing that up. 

 

But you need one program, I believe. In for a penny, in for a pound. Girls should be able to participate on an equal footing with boys.  All opportunities, including leadership and advancement, should be as equally available without exception or you defeat the purpose of integration.

[MattR]

@@Stosh, you've posted North of 12,000 messages in 11 years. You aren't going to quit and you know it. You bleed green. You may be angry, pissed, or going through some 6 step recovery process, but you aren't going to quit. Where else would we get all the hot sauce from?

 

There's no doubt the term Family Scouting is confusing. If parents think that means they get to bring tiger cubs to Philmont then sure, things will explode. And I hope national is reading this thread. Given that they complained before it sounds reasonable. Given that national has done a poor job of explaining other core features I hope they reach out to figure out how to explain this.

 

From what I saw I don't think Family Scouting means Family Camping. If it did I'd be as depressed as some others around here. My interpretation is it means replacing BSA+GSUSA with just BSA. i.e., this is the polite way of saying the gloves are off, we're bigger, and we're taking over GSUSA's territory within scouting families. They can have the scraps that just want to do crafts. Who knows, maybe GSUSA will make a play for cub scouts that want to keep doing crafts.

[Stosh]

I walked away from the professional ministry because of the way the church changed. I walked away from my highest paying job because my blood pressure was 250 over 125. I walked away from the Venturing Crew after 13 years because others thought the could do better, it folded in 2 years. I walked away from reenacting after 20 years as well.

 

Right now as I post this comment, I am camping in a beautiful State Park in a lake front site with the Mrs. Don't think for one second I can't make this my next adventure.

 

I have other coed groups I work with, so going coed is not the issue. I have been involved in Scouting because it was unique to just boys as I remember as a kid.

 

The program is changing, it is not what I signed up for. And yes, it is not a bunch of bluster and hot air. It is not a threat it appears to be time to focus on family camping with my family.

[Col. Flagg]

@@MattR I've see Scouters with 40 years of service walk over the membership policy change. These were guys who put in 20 hours every week for 40 years in to the program. They now fish and hunt with other buddies who did the same. I've seen families that give 10k to FOS simply close their check book or give to their church instead. Same reason.

 

I wouldn't poke that bear. You'd be surprised what people of principle can do when they've seen that last straw fall.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[ScouterNorth]

With any change you are going to lose members plain and simple.  The hope is the change brings in more than you lose but I would say it is very difficult to predict how many and who you're going to lose, especially when looking at men who have been in the program a long, long time.  Actually, I would say those guys are the ones you are most likely to lose.

 

Canadian Scouts just rolled out an overhauled program.  My son looked at it on paper, looked at his experience with it (our Troop were early adopters), compared it to two previous versions of the program and found that with the changes Scouts was no longer a good fit for him.  After talking to me about it, he discovered that I shared his concerns and it turned out to be an simple decision for both of us - we're out.

 

Scouts is not the only game in town and with so many other things to choose from nobody has to stay in Scouts.  You will be surprised at what people will not put up with when there are other options available.

[Cambridgeskip]

@@Stosh, you've posted North of 12,000 messages in 11 years. You aren't going to quit and you know it. You bleed green. You may be angry, pissed, or going through some 6 step recovery process, but you aren't going to quit. Where else would we get all the hot sauce from?

 

There's no doubt the term Family Scouting is confusing. If parents think that means they get to bring tiger cubs to Philmont then sure, things will explode. And I hope national is reading this thread. Given that they complained before it sounds reasonable. Given that national has done a poor job of explaining other core features I hope they reach out to figure out how to explain this.

 

From what I saw I don't think Family Scouting means Family Camping. If it did I'd be as depressed as some others around here. My interpretation is it means replacing BSA+GSUSA with just BSA. i.e., this is the polite way of saying the gloves are off, we're bigger, and we're taking over GSUSA's territory within scouting families. They can have the scraps that just want to do crafts. Who knows, maybe GSUSA will make a play for cub scouts that want to keep doing crafts.

 

Matt

 

From having read the various threads on this subject and broadly stayed silent I would agree with you that this aimed at coed and not family camping. Like you I see this "family" term as no more than a euphemism for going coed.

 

I would also add that from experience this side of the pond fewer people will actually quit over membership changes than do so in reality. That's human nature, people say they'll do things then back away when the reality bites.

 

BUT - don't think nobody will. Reading though the various threads there are clearly some who are very passionate about this and will go. I think it's a shame. I am happy to wax lyrically to anyone about how coed scouting really isn't all that different to single sex. But ultimately for some people it won't be the same and they will walk.

 

I think it is a mistake to single people out. Me and Stosh haven't always seen eye to eye on this forum but he's never given me reason to believe he's not a man of his word.

[Col. Flagg]

With any change you are going to lose members plain and simple.  The hope is the change brings in more than you lose but I would say it is very difficult to predict how many and who you're going to lose, especially when looking at men who have been in the program a long, long time.  Actually, I would say those guys are the ones you are most likely to lose.

 

Not sure this is true about "any" change losing you memebership. They could have kept the status quo and incurred fewer losses or even stabilized rather than DOUBLING their losses since 2013. BSA could openly solicit their membership and listen to how those of us on the ground are INCREASING our membership. They could look at niche strategies to help in formerly strong markets to see what strategies might work there.

 

No, instead we get change after I'll-thought out change which increases our decline and alienates their base rank and file. Brilliant move on BSA's part.

[Tampa Turtle]

I hope Stosh stays. I hope everyone stays. But I get it I really do. I had a good friend I met in OA who was a SM for 2 years of a small rural Troop of 12-16; the pride of their small town since the 1950's. When BSA changed the policy on gay scout inclusion they had a troop meeting and the scouts unanimously voted to disband. They donated their equipment and notified Council. Last time I heard from him none of the boys joined any of the other scout like organizations; they are just camping on their own, playing High School sports, or at a church group. It is really sad. But like Cambridge said most adults will stay and muddle on if their boys are OK with it.

 

I know for a fact this will hit my troop faster. We have two scout mom's with Webelo age girls who would make good scouts, hate GSUSA, and already want to join 'Real Scouts'. One of them is really swell kick ass camper but also a lawyer specializing in discrimination cases in the military. Folks thinks Cub Scouting with Girls means kicking the can down the road a few years for Boy Scouts but there are always a few scouts each year who join in as Webelos right before the cross over (I know because I always have to reassure a few parents who feel their boy is 'behind'. So I think a few statistical outliers are coming sooner rather than later. And National is showing no signs of adequate guidance to local units. 

 

.....so I fully expect my Troop and C.O. will meet these issues on our own and it will create new opportunities to botch things, hurt feelings, and lose members before the dust settles. THAT bothers me the most. 

 

I only got 103 days until my youngest scout ages out of the program so I do not know what I will do. It is not what I signed up for...I enjoy the all male environment. That said I much prefer working with women over men as they have in my professional experience been better team players. I probably would like working with young lasses as well as lads; the first wave is likely to be good quality. Then on the other hand my wife is looking forward to me being available for more non-scouting things with her...and she is very much opposed (and she is a feminist) to going co-ed. 

[MattR]

Okay, my apologies. My main point was not to pick on Stosh.

 

Rather, we really don't know what's going to happen until we get specifics. As I said, national has muddied up everything with nomenclature that has a lot of people seeing all sorts of things.

 

Hopefully everyone can find a place they like.

[Gwaihir]

I love how CSE said there was no rush to make a decision... 

[NJCubScouter]

I love how CSE said there was no rush to make a decision... 

 

Maybe there isn't.  If every rumor posted in this forum over the years by people who say they heard such-and-such from "top guys at council" or "someone from National" turned out to be true, the BSA would be a much different place than it is.  Scouting professionals are as susceptible to believing and spreading rumors as everybody else.  I think a wait-and-see attitude is called for here.  Those of us who are concerned about the issue should make our opinions known, whether through surveys, attending meetings, writing letters to National, talking to people of influence within the BSA, etc. etc.  Whatever seems appropriate for each individual.  Then when something happens, it happens and each person decides how to deal with it.  But nothing has actually happened yet.

[Gwaihir]

Maybe there isn't.  If every rumor posted in this forum over the years by people who say they heard such-and-such from "top guys at council" or "someone from National" turned out to be true, the BSA would be a much different place than it is.  Scouting professionals are as susceptible to believing and spreading rumors as everybody else.  I think a wait-and-see attitude is called for here.  Those of us who are concerned about the issue should make our opinions known, whether through surveys, attending meetings, writing letters to National, talking to people of influence within the BSA, etc. etc.  Whatever seems appropriate for each individual.  Then when something happens, it happens and each person decides how to deal with it.  But nothing has actually happened yet.

 

that's fair.  thanks NJ.