fred8033

Also reach out and get to know your district advancement committee and your council advancement committee. There are many ready and willing to help. They will be accountable to BSA Guide To Advancement. https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf The applicable sections are 10.2.2.2 How to Apply for Alternative Requirements 10.2.2.3 Alternative Merit Badges for Eagle Scout Rank

"1/4 of all Cub Scout Packs will never meet again" ... Yeah. A huge number of units were already on the edge. This will absolutely kill a good number. Membership will crash for years. "#1 killer of units? Not meeting or no activities." ... Yep. Absolutely. I'd focus more on no activities, than no meetings. But absolutely. Focusing on "growing membership" ... This is always BSA's big mistake. We focus way too much on how do we fix the membership issues. The issue is really how do we fix the program. If you have a bad product, people won't buy your product. So if you want to grow membership, focus on the best camps, best activities, best reasons for being a scout. Only that will grow membership. Recruiting for the sake of recruiting will kill any organization. But selling a great product will only drive more sales.

Ok. I'm bored. I'll take the bait. Agree "The Nationwide Shutdown will continue until September. No camporees, summer camp, high adventure bases or unit face-to-face events." ... Yep. The country won't be back to normal for years. Only a vaccine or herd immunity will end it. And only a vaccine will let parents send their kids to large groups with other kids. "Operating with a skeletal professional staff of only critical field and camp maintenance personnel." ... Yep. Staff won't have time to prepare for summer camp. When camps do re-open, I could see it very much with a volunteer rangers and only the barest minimum maintenance personnel. When camps re-open, units would have to provide their own food and provide their own program. If the camps have significant staff, it will only be because of historical unemployment. "Many current professionals will never return to the paid ranks because we will only bring back 25-30% of the pre-bankruptcy/corona level." ... Yeah. I hope it's not that bad, but it will definitely be bad. Period. "Cash flow has ceased." ... That is scary. I agree. Cash is king. Also after the crisis is over, debt will be killing many families. Many won't have the optional money for scouting for years to come. Disagree "When we re-open, we will be a different organization." ... No. We'll be smaller. (and for many reasons). We'll have lost a few years of scouts, but scouting has a structure, concept and an ideal. That will still be there. It will be a rebuilding time. We thought scouting was sinking as far as it could. Well, it will go a bit lower. "The national professional and volunteer organization will focus on maintaining our program and little else." ... Once the crisis is over, I believe BSA will quickly turn back to how can we give great experiences to scouts. One might call it maintenance. I'll call it re-building and re-energizing scouting. Maybe "finally negotiate the sale of underperforming council properties and consolidate investment and usage on the finest properties. Camps foolishly built on credit or heavily mortgaged will sell first." ... Cash will be king, but property values will be down drastically. But camps are the heart of scouting. If the camp has been struggling for a long time, probably it will sell. But if the camp was being used and anywhere near close to self-sustaining, then scouters will work their hearts out to keep the property. Tangential ... I don't see the connection. "Overwhelmingly led and operated by volunteers at all levels." "Council volunteers who cluster together in territories " I'm an optimist. Scouting will continue. It's a great program. But now is the time to focus on family, friends and the care of our fellow neighbors. I prey the crisis is over quick and we can rebuild scouting. But, for now, the health of scouting can take a backseat to the health of our fellow man.

So true! Our troop has done that many times in the past. A troop own summer camp week is better than any structured summer camp. But, very different. A council camp can offer a variety of experiences, intermix with other troops and is a more traditional summer camp. It's also a consistent structure, program and tradition. Scouts can like tradition. A troop's own summer camp week is different and whatever the troop wants. Our troop chooses a destination and a group camp site. Then, our troop did day trips / activities and several of the adults were available to do location-appropriate merit badges. One year it was water-oriented with water skiing, fishing, motor boating, canoeing and row boats. Another year it was mines and caves. Another year the bad lands and tours sites. Another year the Rockies. Another was a week of hiking. It also fits the calendar naturally. The summer has three months without school. Choose one month for scout-camp summer camp week. Choose another month for troop's own summer camp week. Choose the other month for a simple fun event. It also promotes troop culture and troop pride. Council camps are about "scouting". Troop camps are about the troop. If you want your scouts to take pride in their troop, do your own big camp and big events. A side benefit is it reduces the density of adults on a single camp out. Then, a single week is not swamped by all the adults at the single summer camp week and gives the scouts a chance to get used to summer camp without parents.

It's a failure because it's a core scouting experience. It's a good that the scout has a path forward, but we want scouts at summer camp and camping in a variety of places. It builds character and builds a positive experience.

I've averaged 1.5 units of rechartering for the last 16 years. About 24 recharters. The first several years were paper and very labor intensive. The first several were also relatively stressful because of learning the ins and outs. And they have all be time intensive casing a signatures and driving people in. The only way I've made it through these is I'm either very loyal or very stubborn. This process does burn out volunteers. This can damage scouting's relationship when handed to any adult not deeply vested in scouting and especially burns new parents. I doubt it hurts "troops", but it does clearly affect packs. This rechartering process also does little to renew the relationship between scouting and the chartering organizations. IMHO, scouting would be better served by a warm friendly conversation between a scouting contact and the charter org. The paperwork is of little significance. Maybe at the end of that warm friendly conversation, the scouting contact could sign the chartering agreement with the charter org contact. Beyond that, the rechartering paperwork is a waste. IMHO, this needs to become as simple as when I go into Amazon and repeat a previous order. Once I pay, it should be good.

I can understand that view. My thoughts are there are many troops that may become viable with a critical mass of scouts when run together for a time. My gut says a troop of 5 to 10 girls is on the cusp of being viable or failing. A troop of 5 to 10 boys is on the cusp of being viable or failing. But if you run them parallel you create a unit of 10 to 20 scouts that can create more positive experiences and more opportunity. Hopefully, that recruits more scouts. If there are enough scouts to begin with, I agree. Single gender gives scouts a chance to shine. But I think the real issue is would the troop exist for more than a year or so with 5 to 10 kids. IMHO, this is about making troops viable to become strong and grow.

Don't mix YPT with the boy troop / girl troop debate. It's just not there. Scout camps have always had mixed gender under-18 staff without violating YPT. Activities, camporees and district events can have both genders. BSA G2SS never even infers single gender units is a YPT issue. If there is an issue, it's with ignoring the "INTENTION" that the troops should be separate. We as leaders should follow BSA's intentions less we are accused of going rogue. But even then, there is little to say two units can't meet in the same place at the same time and have similar calendars. IMHO, if the scouts are safe, growing, learning and having adventures, then don't question success.

#1 Camping does not mean you have to have an uncomfortable bed. Over the years, I've developed a bed that I really like. Extremely comfortable. #2 Cut out ALL caffeine. As a late night person myself, this is often a key difference. No coffee after noon. No mountain dew. No diet coke / pepsi. No chocolate. #3 Nap. And more naps. And be proud of your napping. Easier in troops, than in packs. Most of my scouts probably don't know this, but I'm usually the last to fall asleep. I do this as mischievous happens at night and less in the morning.

You are right. In my troop, we have an unofficial habit of when one adult goes somewhere, usually another tags along. It's more polite and friendly than expected. But we don't have adults follow scouts. IMHO, scouts need to exercise independence and we as adults need to look for opportunities to let scouts feel independent.

You can't write easy to understand rules that apply to all situations. When I read two deep for all scouting activities and meetings, I interpret that as structure recurring scout meetings and big activities. If a patrol wants to bike down to a park on Saturday and shoot hoops, that does not require a scout leader. If the troop is on a weekend campout and a patrol wants to go on a five mile hike in the state park or in the scout camp, that does not require adults to go with those scouts. ... BUT ... if an adult did go with them, two should be planned. We absolutely need to require youth protection, but we still need to encourage the independence that helps scouts grow and makes scouting fun.

I fully agree. I'll add ... -- No following scouts to make sure they check into a merit badge session. -- No micromanaging each scout's advancement. Be there for them, but don't make them be there for you.

I'd ask if you have competing issues here. Do you have scouts that use scouting as a hiding place away from parents where they can display bad behavior? That does happen. Scouting is good for all kids, but not all kids are good for scouting.

I love that statement. I've heard too other adult leaders say scouts are not ready to lead or not old-enough to lead. ... The above statement reflects my view that scouts learn by doing. If our scouts are young, they can still lead. Inexperienced, they can still leader. We as adult leaders continually adjust and quietly coach and slightly help as necessary with the continuous eye toward how can we step back. ... I swear I bite my tongue every time I hear another leader say the scouts are too young, too inexperienced, too <insert your favorite excuse> . When I hear it, I usually think that's not an adult I want my scouts around as it's the adult's excuse to over-engineer the scouting program or inject themselves into the program.

I often wonder about that. Does each and every skill have to have a "I'd like to be tested on xyz"? I remember a scoutmaster who did an annual canoe trip. He'd get each and every scout up to speed on canoeing before or during that trip. At the end if they did not have the canoeing MB, he awarded it. In that case, the SM saw the scout demonstrating the skills. If a leader (youth or adult) sees the scout do the skill as part of an activity, does the scout really have to say "I'd like to be tested on xyz"? Or can the leader just immediately sign off the requirement. I believe the leader can immediately sign if they have seen the skill without the scout having to ask for it to be "tested".

That statement invalidates toxic masculinity. The boys I know were naturally inclined toward fire, knives, shooting sports, skills mastery, etc. Boys have a natural tendancy toward agression. I've always connected it with testosterone and hormones. I place toxic masculinity with emphasizing destructive hormonal behaviors. For example, the old days of fighting it out to solve your differences. Or when the boss was the toughest guy who could keep people in line. Think of the old westerns with John Wayne pounding heads until everyone agrees. Or John Wayne fighting Maureen O'hara's brother for her hand in marriage.

A fundamental problem is BSA markets adventure, but delivers JROTC. My statement is absolutist, but reflects a chicken and egg issue. Which do we emphasize first and which comes as a natural result. I write as I'm often sad when I see "Sometimes it feels more like an adventure club than a scout troop." A valid statement made by a respected scouter, but it does so so make me sad. My personal view is that scouting is best served by focusing on adventure and activities. Getting the scouts out going places and doing things. Then, the structures necessary to achieve adventure and activities naturally drive teaching leadership, etc. Youth up front running things. Dividing into sub-teams. Mentoring and teaching skills, etc. I also hold this view because from what I've seen the vast majority of adults are horrible at explicitly teaching leadership. In fact, I often disagree with what they call leadership. IMHO, the best way to teach leadership is by modeling the right behaviors and letting the scouts get out in front of their fellow scouts. Scouts learn best by watching and doing. That's why I don't mind people calling BSA an adventure club. Because I think leadership, physical fitness, citizenship is a natural result of the right primary focus... Adventure.

IMHO, most of the training should occur while doing the activity. Canoing strokes, launching, landing, etc should be done while canoeing down a river. It's a great way to pass time too. Camping is often best taught by the scoutmaster as part of setting up on campouts. Friendly pieces of advice. When it's all offered, then the scout has earned the badge. Wood carving ... start carving. Then make sure each scout learns the different parts. This gets to a fundamental question that I have that I'll put in a different thread.

I'm tired. Forgive me if I babble. "First Class First Year" ... It's about program planning. The stats may be self-fulfilling stats. Motivated scouts rank up quick and stay in. Scouts less interested won't earn and won't stay in scouts. It's absolutely not our job to pull kids forward. It's their job to rank job. We help. We inspire. We encourage positive experiences. We are there for our scouts. But it's their journey. It's about program planning. A troop that supports "First Class First Year" has a planned program that has "OPPORTUNITIES" for scouts to earn first class in the first year. 10+ camp outs a year. A summer camp. Skills development. Hikes. Activities. ... INCLUDING leaders (youth or adult) available to sign off requirements on the scout's schedule, not the leaders schedule. ... If the troop provides opportunities and a scout is active, he should be able to earn first class in a year ... IF HE WANTS TO AND HE PURSUES IT. ... It's really just not that hard if the scout is active. IMHO, the biggest problem earning first class first year is the number of words in the rank requirements keeps growing. It's like a legal document now. I swear the number of words has more than doubled since 2005 for each rank. ... Example ... Second class rank requirements ... 2001 --> 490 words ... 2020 --> 1,193 words ... 243% previous size. ... More words .. same learning. "Culture shock" ... I call it broken promises. I just don't see culture shock. From what I see, scouts hear about adventure, planning their own program, being leaders, etc ... and their first six months are filled with lectures and boredom. It's boring. It's far from an adventure. Independence and adventure is the last thing they get to experience in their first six months. ... If you want to keep a scout, get him outside with matches and a fire pit or a knife and a piece of wood. .... If you want to lose him, make him watch power point or sit in a patrol line for 30+ minutes every Monday night. Patrol method ... Patrols are an identity. A group of friends that want to do things together. Many approaches can work. Key is letting scouts choose who they want to associate with as much as possible. IMHO, that means letting scouts choose their patrols. No assigning. No locking them into their patrols. Things can change, but it's their choice. Successful patrols stick together. For activities, camping, cooking, ... doing things. Sticking together as an identity for years. Patrol method is subverted by ad-hoc patrols, assigning membership, re-balancing, re-mixing, etc. ... If a scout wants to switch patrol and the other patrol wants him, it should be okay. KEY POINT --> Patrols are an identity. Patrol gear. Patrol pride. Patrol flag. Patrol cheer. Everything we do should help strength patrol identity. We subvert patrols with ad-hoc patrols, re-mixing patrols, assigning patrols, not letting scouts be with their friends, not letting scouts determine their own fate ... scouts controlling their future is a key promise we tell them that is different than cub scouts. ... For example, re-mixing patrols means destroying something we tell them they should value. Ad-hoc means we just don't take their identity seriously so why should they. One of my fondest memory was my oldest son in his last six months of scouts. His patrol had mostly aged out or withered away. It was just him and two buddies that would keep showing up and keep camping. Sometimes three on a camp-out. Sometimes two. When he turned 18, the other two were pretty much done too. When the last aged out, their patrol name was done.

It does. Check the vendor specs for the buoyancy coefficient of the sleeping bag.

Your representation and reasoning is correct. And I suspect the legal situations follow your reasoning. Like many, I'm frustrated because the connection chain does not exist. The simple fact is many of these cases were not pursued back in the time when it happened. Not by parents, police or society. Also, often the cases could not have been pursued. Laws were different. Society were different. Infrastructure was different. Mandatory reporting was not a concept. Extended automatic data analysis was not possible. This is only possible by applying today's environment to a past world that just doesn't exist anymore. Now, I know the law is different, but it's just not fair.

Patriot Scout? There is something about "Eagle Scout" that has gravitas. Continuity. History. Legacy. Association. It's like saying RC Cola is the same as Coke. Personally, I like the taste of RC Cola, but it's not Coke.

I'd expect 95% was before 2000. The abuse drop in 90s was more than about BSA. Society as a whole finally realized the nature of abuse. Before then, society as a whole did not handle it well. If you reach back to the 1970s/1980s even, parents would not believe kids. Teachers, police and other officials would often brush stuff under the rug. If you reach back to the 1960s and earlier, that was absolutely true. Some see cover up. Others see BSA as doing more than the rest of society did. IMHO ... in the era of mimeographs ... before the internet ... before automated background checks ... before society recognized the nature of abuse ... , BSA had a system to report up the chain and try to block volunteers that abused. IMHO, BSA had a system in place before the rest of society.

You are right. That will be the result. It's just not fair.

.... Not only before leadership. Federal law should consider "donated" assets and "when" the donation occurred and if the assets are fully cashable without killing the purpose of BSA. For example, a large part of Philmont was donated after most of the abuse. Paying past abuse kills the good will of the separate person who donated the assets. I really question the value of penalizing a current non-profit for what effectively were society wide ills.