What Is BSA Doing Right?

[Twocubdad]

I intended to add that I hope national keeps the cost of The Summit low. It defeats the purpose of having a nearby HA base if national increases it's pricing and eats away at the savings on transportation.

 

And while I absolutely agree the outdoors program is the core of the program, I think we need to be careful about marketing the HA programs. It would be tempting and fairly easy to make Scouting look like a Mountain Dew commercial -- in 30 seconds a helicopter drops you and your mountain bike atop El Capitan .... Nothing about the year of troop meetings and planning to get there.

 

We need to remember the outdoors program is a means to an ends. A big part of the program is developing within the Scouts the ability to plan and lead these activities. This means a lot of simple weekend or day trips with the two week HA trip only every year or two. If we sell Scouting as biking down El Capitan every weekend, we clearly aren't going to be able to deliver.

 

Nor to I think we want to. We're not Outward Bound, a camping club or a guide service. I fear that BSA is already expanding beyond the means of most units to deliver on the programs they are selling. We're a big troop and have a lot of adults with the ability to deliver a lot of programming. We've got certified shooting sports and climbing guys. But it's looking like I've got to send someone to aquatics school or we're going to have to drop our annual canoe trip. Right now, I don't have a prospect for anyone who can/is willing to do that.

 

If we're going to sell these Mountain Dew experiences, BSA is going to have to rethink it's model for delivering them. Expecting a troop of 12 boys and three adults to have this level of expertise is unrealistic.

 

And did't mention paying for it all.

[dkurtenbach]

Twocubdad wrote: "I fear that BSA is already expanding beyond the means of most units to deliver on the programs they are selling . . . If we're going to sell these Mountain Dew experiences, BSA is going to have to rethink it's model for delivering them. Expecting a troop of 12 boys and three adults to have this level of expertise is unrealistic."

 

I agree that a cool high adventure program is beyond the capabilities of many individual units. But for Scouts in such units, I think the model for such a program already exists. Each year, my council has lots of slots for provisional crews for each of the national high adventure bases, led by well-trained and experienced adults. Our council high adventure base is now offering a provisional crew option. There's no reason that additional, low cost, nearby adventures for provisional crews could not be created at the council level. Additionally, we regularly have troops or crews that end up with extra slots for adventure trips of all kinds and open them up to Scouts from other units. And we have troops and crews joining forces for adventure trips from the very beginning.

 

Not every Scout will want to participate in high adventure, and we do have to maintain a great, fun program for them. But for those Scouts who do want high adventure, we should be able to provide it either inside our outside the unit.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[Twocubdad]

Agreed.

[Mr. Boyce]

Special opportunities for older scouts and high adventure.

 

The transitioning of Cubs to Scouts.

 

Keeping the Scout Oath and Motto, through transient pressures.

[TheGong]

The HA oppertunities at the SBR are very important in driving the beginings of HA. If a younger scout can experience white water rafting, climbing, zip lining, and hiking in one weekend it will lead him to determine what kind of HA he wants to do in the future, maybe he found out he likes to hike so he wants to go to philmont, maybe scuba is his new hobby so he wants to go to sea base.

I do agree that the price is an issue for most people but that is what fundraising is for. Every scout no matter what social-economic level they are in should try to pay his way to camp it teaches the value of the dollar and will give a sense of pride and ownership.

[acco40]

Government support? Please, don't tell the Supreme Court or Merlyn! :-)

 

My high school buddy went to the national jamboree in Idaho. I thought scouting was something I couldn't afford - and I was correct at the time (parents had no money and I was saving my money for college over Scouts and other things). I think it's nice that Philmont, Sea Base, Boundary Waters and now Summit exist but they are not "required." Almost everywhere in the USA is less than 25 miles to some sort of park, forest, farmers vacant lot, etc. to allow low cost camping.

 

One of the draws of Scouting should be the enticement to the boys that they get to lead - and then we allow them to do so! This is not emphasized enough - both as an inducement or allowed to happen in my opinion.

[SeattlePioneer]

I'm with Acco.

 

 

Personally I think the investment of large amounts of money in Disneyland theme parks is overdone.

 

National seems to have very well snagging donations to such projects, but that raises the issue of how these investments will be maintained. Secondly, if National spent time recruiting donors for local camps, perhaps regular Scout camps would be better maintained and have higher quality programs.

 

(CITs teaching Merit badges and even Trail to First Class --- reallllly.)