Membership, developing a culture of growth... Is national on the right track? Doubtful... See Philmont Training

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

While a good plan, just be careful to make sure the challenge and adventure is included.  In the 70's and in the skill award days you could pick from 12 and had to earn 8 for Tfoot - 1st Class.  Only required ones were First Aid and Citizenship.  You could earn Family Living, Community Living, Communications, Environment, Physical Fitness, and Conservation and do minimal outdoor stuff.

Swimming, Camping, and Cooking merit badge were not Eagle required.  Yes, you could attain Eagle Scout rank and NEVER camp, NEVER build a fire, NEVER hike.

The of history of Eagle merit badge requirements is rather vague my memory, having earned Eagle about 1965.  At my time there were Eagle required merit badges. The 3 Citizenships, Swimming, Life Saving, Camping, First Aid, Personal Fitness, maybe Safety, Pioneering, and Soil And Water Conservation (I earned Soil…and NEVER would have if it weren't required.) I earned all of those.  And I earned Bird Study. There was no formal Eagle Project in my day, but apparently that was instituted a few short years thereafter.  We did have a service requirement, but I cannot remember what I did.

The recent merit badge requirement focus, last 10 or 20 years, or so, on paper-work intensive merit badges, or adventure focused merit badges with what seems like ever increasing paper work requirements, appears to me to me to stifle the adventure side of things.

As a Scouting fossil, I find it unfathomable that one can earn Eagle and not earn Swimming and Life Saving merit badges.

Camping, cooking, pioneering, first aid, perhaps safety should also be required.

I have been the lead on a number of Cub Scout weekends sponsored by the District, and I recruited Eagle Scouts as "Den Leaders" for the Cub Scout patrols.  Maybe 8 cub patrols camping for one night, with their parents.  Not a single Eagle Scout could build a fire.

In my day, as Second Class scouts, we could set up heavy canvas tents in the dark, tying all the knots in the dark-by feel. (Flashlights back then were garbage; batteries no better fading quickly in the cold.) We made our own tent pegs with a hatchet. These are much less "life skills" as confidence builders.

Granted, I think in my Scouting youth days, there was more focus on scouting skills, than interpersonal relationship issues. And the shift in Scouting toward greater awareness of interpersonal relationship issues is all for the good in my opinion, to a degree.  The balance, in my humble opinion has shifted too far from outdoor skills (and that means outdoor activities are much less emphasized and the "adventure" of Scouting is being lost).

Scouting needs to teach its principles and instill its lessons in the amphitheater of Nature and not in a classroom.

 

 

[Ojoman]

3 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

With the MBO focus now no one EVER goes and talks with successful units. 

I agree with a lot of what you posted. Several big reasons for membership loss... In the 70's some folks shied away because they thought we were too militaristic, then there was a proliferation of other youth sports and activities. Volunteerism started to dwindle, single parent families exploded and mothers were no longer 'stay at home' to become den leaders for cubs. Tigers were added and Webelos became a 2 year (really 1.5) program and the added time in Cubs caused a drop in retention and crossover recently exacerbated now by Lions. The program drifted more into urban emphasis as Green Bar Bills' handbooks were replaced by book with more advancement and program geared to city life. As we exited the 90's and entered the 2000's a major confrontation came with the gay (now LGBTQ+) segment of the population which lobbied donors and funders including United Ways to cut funding and painted the BSA as homophobic, bigots and hate mongers. (not politically correct to say but true) and just recently on top of Covid impacted program delivery we had years of negative advertising in local papers, tv and social media on the lawsuit and resulting bankruptcy. There are a few other things I could toss in but suffice it to say that Nationals reactions and decisions were generally counter productive and that is being generous.  Personally, I doubt that the BSA will ever 'recover'. We may do a bit better than just hang on but the glory days of Scouting will only exist in a few pockets of program where council and district leadership, professional and volunteer, act together to secure in their districts/council what should be possible nationally. 

 

[Ojoman]

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

And we are missing a great opportunity to be THE organization that puts outdoor stewardship as a core value

I would suggest that every new scout be introduced to the Distinguished Conservation Award. If incorporated early it can join the trail to Eagle and a Scout can have two very prestigious awards. In fact the Distinguished Conservation award makes the Eagle look commonplace. Just a thought. 

[mrjohns2]

2 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Yes, you could attain Eagle Scout rank and NEVER camp, NEVER build a fire, NEVER hike.

Thank you for the history lesson. I didn't believe you, so I looked it up. You were right. This is from the USScouts.org neat page on the changes over the years. From 1972-1979 Camping was not required. 7 years. A whole Scout generation. The strike outs didn't copy and paste. The reds are removal and greens additions. 

I earned my eagle in 1990 and Cooking wasn't required, but Safety was. 

 

1967: Camping, Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation,  Conservation of Natural Resources, Cooking, First Aid, Lifesaving, Nature, Personal Fitness, Safety, Soil and Water Conservation, Swimming.[11]

1972: Camping, Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation, Citizenship in the World, Communications, Conservation of Natural Resources, Cooking, Environmental Science, Emergency Preparedness OR Lifesaving, First Aid, Lifesaving, Nature, Personal Fitness, Personal Fitness OR Swimming OR Sports, Personal Management, Safety,.Swimming.[10]

1979:  Camping, Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation, Citizenship in the World, Communications, Emergency Preparedness OR Lifesaving, Environmental Science, First Aid, Personal Fitness OR Swimming OR Sports, Personal Management, Safety.[11]

History of Eagle Scout Required Merit Badges (usscouts.org)

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

3 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

True - oh so true.  When we are out and about during the outing closing etc leadership always tries to bring up that the state parks, WMA's, National Forest, National Battlefields etc are preserved areas and it takes support to keep them.  We mention that as Scouts we may have have camped / hike at the same place.  We need to do what we can to help preserve and promote the public lands.

Outdoor Code is more than 27 words and Leave No Trace needs to apply any time you are out in the woods.  BSA should be the experts in this and SMEs (Subject Matter Experts).

Yes, yes, and yes! This is our "thing", our wheelhouse. 

April is Earth Month... It's not too late to plan LNT training, OC-focused hikes, conservation projects, etc to teach scouts to respect their mother 😉

Our pack just set the aim that our cubs should all master LNT by the time they leave us.

[qwazse]

On 2/4/2024 at 3:32 PM, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

… Now that I think about it, there is one organizational change I'd like to see - the name of the WOSM NSO in the US. It doesn't make sense, and it's super awkward to imagine the gear with "Boy Scouts of America" in giant font on it on girl scouts. It's awkward enough to stick girls in uniforms that say "Boy Scouts of America". That made my husband very mad actually. Just Scouts of America or Scouts USA, something like that, makes sense. …

I guess if the decision to let girls participate in our program was ordained by a president, or the courts, or legislature removing “Boy” from the letterhead would be intuitive. But, what happened in this country was that men and boys developed, then preserved, a program that was fun, character-building, and largely egalitarian to the point that a percentage of American girls preferred it to programs with “girl” in the name. The enthusiasm of those girls moved the hearts and minds the preponderance of men and boys leading it. Basically, girls can become Eagle Scouts because the boys said they could. (Meanwhile the formidable executives of GS/USA continues to insist that this is a terrible idea.)

Sometimes, the patriarchy is worthy of the occasional nod.

[Ojoman]

4 minutes ago, qwazse said:

that men and boys developed, then preserved, a program that was fun, character-building, and largely egalitarian to the point that a percentage of American girls preferred it to programs with “girl” in the name.

A great decision and parents of girls in the program are much more likely to step up and take leadership positions which has been on the decline for decades. We need both. About the only decision made in the past 5 decades that I 100% agree with. 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

47 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Sometimes, the patriarchy is worthy of the occasional nod.

What does "the patriarchy" mean to you? What exactly do you think is laudable about it?

[RememberSchiff]

15 hours ago, DuctTape said:

For how long have we here at Scouter.com advocated for required mBs to be in groups/categories of which the scout could choose?

Long time. Citizenship and classroom merit badges are often catalysts.

 

[RememberSchiff]

15 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

True - oh so true.  When we are out and about during the outing closing etc leadership always tries to bring up that the state parks, WMA's, National Forest, National Battlefields etc are preserved areas and it takes support to keep them.  We mention that as Scouts we may have have camped / hike at the same place.  We need to do what we can to help preserve and promote the public lands.

Outdoor Code is more than 27 words and Leave No Trace needs to apply any time you are out in the woods.  BSA should be the experts in this and SMEs (Subject Matter Experts).

We were, but gave it away.

In the 80's the BSA did just that when we worked with the Bureau of Land Management to formulate Leave No Trace (LNT). The BSA had the opportunity to lead LNT but did not.  In the 90's, NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School) took over LNT with the US Forest Service.  Other government partners joined. Government funding of these education programs was always a problem. which lead to the creation in 1994 of  LNT, a non-profit educational program which marketed courses to many groups including the BSA.

More details at this link

https://lnt.org/sites/default/files/Leave_No_Trace_History_Paper.pdf

[Eagledad]

12 hours ago, Ojoman said:

A great decision and parents of girls in the program are much more likely to step up and take leadership positions which has been on the decline for decades. We need both. About the only decision made in the past 5 decades that I 100% agree with. 

Boys and girls are different. That includes developing behavior maturity, or character in the specific case of scouting. Girls and boys have different instinctive behaviors that add to developing maturity in moral and ethical decision-making. So, mixing genders can, and does, interfere with the best potential of developing mature decision makers of integrity. For the best development of character and integrity, some folks would rather use the environment of single gender units, at least up to puberty. 

Barry

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

6 hours ago, Eagledad said:

So, mixing genders can, and does, interfere with the best potential of developing mature decision makers of integrity. For the best development of character and integrity, some folks would rather use the environment of single gender units, at least up to puberty. 

Do I understand you correctly to be saying that all the millions of scouts that have scouted in gender-integrated programs over the decades did not develop the best character or integrity?

[Ojoman]

6 hours ago, Eagledad said:

For the best development of character and integrity, some folks would rather use the environment of single gender units, at least up to puberty. 

Kids attend school based on age, not on maturity which varies individual to individual with no emphasis on age. These days we are told that the higher reasoning functions of the brain are not fully developed until the mid 30's. Exploring has been co-ed for over half a century and Venturing since its inception. Most other countries have a blended program. Personally, I feel that co-ed scouting offers far more benefits than issues. IMHO

[Eagledad]

43 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Do I understand you correctly to be saying that all the millions of scouts that have scouted in gender-integrated programs over the decades did not develop the best character or integrity?

Yes. Each gender grows and matures differently and mixing the genders dilutes the strengths of the program for developing character and integrity.

Barry

[Ojoman]

10 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Yes. Each gender grows and matures differently and mixing the genders dilutes the strengths of the program for developing character and integrity.

That continues throughout life as any married man will attest... LOL, some boys may mature faster than some girls, some girls faster than other girls... however, they will all have to live in a world filled with both genders and multiple levels of 'maturity'. We do know that for certain ages that boys prefer to hand with other boys and the same with girls but that is no reason to keep them apart in the program. Learning to appreciate each other through scouting makes a lot of sense to me. Many girls and parents are attracted to the BSA program for multiple reasons and they are valid reasons. The girls deserve to have a quality program built around character and citizenship and there is none better than BSA. IMHO