A letter from my SE

[Cambridgeskip 658]

A question for you... as a bit of an outsider.....

 

One or two people have talked about reducing the venturing start age to 11 with girls joining that and not scouts.

 

Is there anything to stop a venturing crew arbitrarily adopting the scout program, operating as patrols, following the training, even awarding ranks and badges on an unofficial basis?

 

As an example my troop here is twinned with one in Canada. When we have had joint camps together (2013, 2015 and one starting in a few days time) we have awarded each others scouts badges they have earned in the other country. So some of my scouts have Canadian badges on their arms. Some Canadians have UK badges on their arms. We didn't ask anyone, we just did it.

[ianwilkins 366]

If that is indeed the plan, I think National is being downright reckless with this change. This should be a gradual move, with lots of time for discussion, planning, adjustments to training, etc. Instead, it sounds like packs will be expected to just jump right in, and work out the details as they go along. I thought this would take years to achieve. Instead we're talking about 2018. It's crazy.

If wikipedia is correct, we in the UK started allowing girls in all sections from 1991 optionally (i.e. the leaders chose if they wanted to) and made it compulsory in all sections in 2007. How's that for a gradual move? Of course, when we got to 2007 there were still a fair few that had to be leant on, or they left, to comply.

[RememberSchiff 3671]

@@MattR thanks for posting video.  IMO, logical thinking appeared thin.

 

Family Scouting, dumbed down over-complicated programs,and ever increasing restrictions/costs worries me more than girls, gays, and the godless.

 

My $0.01

Edited July 20, 2017 by RememberSchiff

[Back Pack 431]

A question for you... as a bit of an outsider.....

 

One or two people have talked about reducing the venturing start age to 11 with girls joining that and not scouts.

 

Is there anything to stop a venturing crew arbitrarily adopting the scout program, operating as patrols, following the training, even awarding ranks and badges on an unofficial basis?

 

As an example my troop here is twinned with one in Canada. When we have had joint camps together (2013, 2015 and one starting in a few days time) we have awarded each others scouts badges they have earned in the other country. So some of my scouts have Canadian badges on their arms. Some Canadians have UK badges on their arms. We didn't ask anyone, we just did it.

It wouldn't work. The kids in Venturing now either don't want Scouts are are already in a troop. Why create a similar product? To some there's a difference between Bud and Bud Lite. To those with taste buds there's no difference at all.

 

(For the record both taste like carbonated swill)

[Cambridgeskip 658]

It wouldn't work. The kids in Venturing now either don't want Scouts are are already in a troop. Why create a similar product? To some there's a difference between Bud and Bud Lite. To those with taste buds there's no difference at all.

 

(For the record both taste like carbonated swill)

That's not really the question.

 

The question is would there be anything to stop it happening in terms of rules and regs? People will always look for ways round things (I normally work on the basis of its easier to gain forgiveness than permission) and its one way I could see it happening. A given group calling themselves a venture crew but operating as a scout troop so that they could be coed.

[walk in the woods 888]

To be clear, the email I received was from the DC, not the council directly.  

 

Ask if they will have to take the exit before the Cross-Over bridge?

 

That's the $100,000 question.  If in fact Cubs is co-ed by the beginning of next year the Boy Scout solution will need to be in place by March/April to prevent this from happening.

 

The Girl's Pack/Boy's Pack is a non-starter is small communities.  One of the units I UC for has about 20 boys, with sister sibs and friends it might go up to 25 or 30.  So we'd have to run two packs with that number of kids?  Double the leadership, double the charter fees?  Multiple too-small dens in multiple packs?  Right.  It may work for suburbanites and city dwellers.

[Col. Flagg 909]

That's not really the question.

 

The question is would there be anything to stop it happening in terms of rules and regs? People will always look for ways round things (I normally work on the basis of its easier to gain forgiveness than permission) and its one way I could see it happening. A given group calling themselves a venture crew but operating as a scout troop so that they could be coed.

 

Sorry to interrupt, but since BSA "owns" Boy Scouts and Venturing, the barriers to this happening would be BSA. They can do anything they want. 

 

Boys in crews can work towards Eagle if, I believe, they are registered with a troop as well as a crew. Girls in crews cannot work on Eagle, only Venturing awards. There's nothing in the Venturing rules that would allow girls to work on any Boy Scout-only awards. National would not allow it. Eagle has more paperwork and harder to get than a Green Card, so there's no way a girl would get it unless a whole group of people broke the rules and lied about her gender....or a transgender girl, er, boy made Eagle.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[Col. Flagg 909]

That's the $100,000 question.  If in fact Cubs is co-ed by the beginning of next year the Boy Scout solution will need to be in place by March/April to prevent this from happening.

 

The Girl's Pack/Boy's Pack is a non-starter is small communities.  One of the units I UC for has about 20 boys, with sister sibs and friends it might go up to 25 or 30.  So we'd have to run two packs with that number of kids?  Double the leadership, double the charter fees?  Multiple too-small dens in multiple packs?  Right.  It may work for suburbanites and city dwellers.

 

Even us "city dwellers" have that issue (of not having enough volunteers).

 

My old district got too big in the eyes of council, despite not ever having enough volunteers to staffing all the committees and programs in the district. Their solution? Split the district in two.

 

Now instead barely having enough people to staff one district, we were woefully shy of staff to even cover MINIMAL support for two districts!!! That was several years ago and it has been a joke ever since; hence, why many units just do their own thing and stay away from district/council.

[Cambridgeskip 658]

Sorry to interrupt, but since BSA "owns" Boy Scouts and Venturing, the barriers to this happening would be BSA. They can do anything they want. 

 

Boys in crews can work towards Eagle if, I believe, they are registered with a troop as well as a crew. Girls in crews cannot work on Eagle, only Venturing awards. There's nothing in the Venturing rules that would allow girls to work on any Boy Scout-only awards. National would not allow it. Eagle has more paperwork and harder to get than a Green Card, so there's no way a girl would get it unless a whole group of people broke the rules and lied about her gender....or a transgender girl, er, boy made Eagle.

 of course BSA own it but that goes without saying.

 

Let me put it another way.

 

A given crew decides that they are going to operate in such a way that they are divided into smaller groups. You could call them patrols. You could call them teams. You could call them whatever you like. Those groups select their own youth leader. You could call them a PL. You could call them a captain. Again, you can call them whatever you want. No skin off my nose. Those youth leaders make decisions collectively at crew level but most of what it is done is at patrol/team level. Furthermore they decide they're not really fussed about the venturing awards. Instead they look at what is required for the various boy scout awards. And they decide to do it. Now maybe they don't actually get the patch or whatever that goes with it. But nevertheless that's the stuff they do on a week to week or camp to camp basis. They do whatever it takes that to any outside observer what they are seeing is boy scouts with girls involved.

 

Is there anything in the rules as they stand that says that a venturing crew can't operate like that?

[AltadenaCraig 111]

Is there anything to stop a venturing crew arbitrarily adopting the scout program, operating as patrols, following the training, even awarding ranks and badges on an unofficial basis?

 

That road leads to anything being possible (awarding Eagle to someone over 18yrs old, etc.).  Girls (or their advocates) aren't going to stop until they can be officially recognized as Eagle Scouts (on college applications, for example).  Consequently I don't see Venturing as the solution to any of this.

 

An aside: While I'm not surprised that this issue is getting a lot of attention, I have to admit I never saw the BSA's "making scouting accessible" rationale coming.  On one had I'm impressed (BSA agreeing to the girl advocate's objectives not only without having to accede to their overall point, but instead appear to be championing "family values"), on the other hand wrapping a legitimate and critical issue as "we're doing it for families!" appears cynical and hiding from the real discussion.

 

C'mon, Dallas, a Scout is Brave.

[MattR 2659]

That's not really the question.

 

The question is would there be anything to stop it happening in terms of rules and regs? People will always look for ways round things (I normally work on the basis of its easier to gain forgiveness than permission) and its one way I could see it happening. A given group calling themselves a venture crew but operating as a scout troop so that they could be coed.

There's nothing stopping anyone from going to the scout store and buying any patch or rank badge, except for eagle.

 

To be honest, I'd be interested in a modified venturing. Ranks up to first class, 11-21 (but split into two age ranges) and more emphasis on outdoors and leadership/teamwork and less on advancement. Call it retro scouts.

[Col. Flagg 909]

 of course BSA own it but that goes without saying.

 

Let me put it another way.

 

A given crew decides that they are going to operate in such a way that they are divided into smaller groups. You could call them patrols. You could call them teams. You could call them whatever you like. Those groups select their own youth leader. You could call them a PL. You could call them a captain. Again, you can call them whatever you want. No skin off my nose. Those youth leaders make decisions collectively at crew level but most of what it is done is at patrol/team level. Furthermore they decide they're not really fussed about the venturing awards. Instead they look at what is required for the various boy scout awards. And they decide to do it. Now maybe they don't actually get the patch or whatever that goes with it. But nevertheless that's the stuff they do on a week to week or camp to camp basis. They do whatever it takes that to any outside observer what they are seeing is boy scouts with girls involved.

 

Is there anything in the rules as they stand that says that a venturing crew can't operate like that?

 

Yes, the rule(s) being violated are they are not operating the program under which they are chartered.

 

Spin it the other way. You have a troop that dissolves patrols and forms a "crew" structure. SPL is now President, ASPLs are VPs. They get rid of the patrol method, etc, etc, etc. They are chartered as a troop but they are essentially operating as a crew. They are not delivering the program for which they were chartered.

 

Now, who is going to stop them? LOL, I honestly don't know. I imagine if it was obvious enough that eventually council or even national would get involved. But the would very clearly be in violation of the policies outlined for the execution of the program for which they are chartered.

[qwazse 4344]

...  would there be anything to stop it happening in terms of rules and regs? People will always look for ways round things (I normally work on the basis of its easier to gain forgiveness than permission) and its one way I could see it happening. A given group calling themselves a venture crew but operating as a scout troop so that they could be coed.

'Skip crews often pushed the boundaries by a year or so in age to include a devoted younger sibling or best friend. I nicknamed these lot "Venturers in Training."  Many do wind up taking a turn as officers, where youth recruited at an older age are slightly more likely to sit on their hands.

 

One desire of the developers of the venturing program was to have them involved with existing BSA and GS/USA troops and packs, thereby creating a conduit from existing programs to Venturing. It never materialized.

 

There are some troops and crews that have gone maverick on this, and provided co-ed program, setting aside advancement, for 11-14 year olds. Their challenge, however, is insurance coverage, which they must acquire outside of BSA. and personnel who have to make up rules as they go along.

[Eagledad 2779]

Kind of funny, I have a strong opinion on this subject because I feel that any change takes away from the growth opportunity for boys. But as I read all the responses, I forget about the boys and kind of like the ideas of providing a place for girls. But then I remember back to what I think going coed will do for the boys program and jump back to a strong opinion against coed.

 

I need to quit reading this thread for my own mental health.

 

Barry

[NJCubScouter 1389]

@@Cambridgeskip, some units are doing things "unofficially" already.  Qwasze gives one example above, but presumably those "Venturers in Training" are not registered in the crew at the age of 11 or 12, because their registration would not be accepted.  We have also had posts about various units doing things "unofficially".  In some cases this may involve registering girls in Learning for Life while actually having them participate as members of packs or troops or as under-age members of crews. These maneuvers may partially satisfy the goals of the unit and the "unofficial" members, but it does not satisfy the goals of National.  National wants the registration fees, which it does not get from "unofficial" participants, and they also want to be able to show increasing membership numbers in the "traditional" programs, which does not include LFL.