Rick_in_CA

@@howarthe, as others have suggested, you need to talk to the person making the complaint in order to find out what the issue really is. Then you can consider how to address it. There is no BSA rule I am aware of that explicitly mentions swords. The closest thing I can find is the Guide to Safe Scouting which says: "Avoid large sheath knives. They are heavy and awkward to carry, and unnecessary for most camp chores except for cleaning fish." There is a lot of myth, sound and fury around "sheath knives" in the BSA (many council camps have bans on "sheath knives"), and it's possible this is where the objection is coming from. It is also possible that swords are illegal at your meeting place, especially if it's a school (here in CA, any blade over 2.75 inches is illegal on school grounds - though there are exceptions for knives used for food preparation and such).

I don't agree with you. I don't think extrapolating from the go-kart and ATV rules is valid in this case. With go-kars and ATV's, they are driven by the scouts, and riding them is generally a high risk activity. That is different from riding as a passenger in an SUV on a dirt road. Can off-roading in an SUV be dangerous? Yes. But so can driving the family car to the local supermarket. The other problem with assuming "four-wheeling" is not allowed is, what then is the actual rule? Scouts can't ride in a four wheel drive vehicle? Can't ride in a vehicle on an unpaved road? Can't cross a ford? Can't ride in a car if snow chains are required? Is a "jeep" a one, two or four wheeled cart? In which case no one under the age of 14 can ride in one?

Actually, I think your "solution" is the moral equivalent of breaking into the garage to get your car back instead of going through the proper channels. After all, the car is yours! And you would have gotten it back eventually. But that would have taken days, or maybe even a few weeks! So you are fully justified when you break into the garage the next night, in order to retrieve your car. I'm sure the police that catch you outside will understand. It was the moral thing to do! You really needed your car for the weekend! After all, leaving it there would have been foolish. Look @@hicountry, your desire to shield your troop from a problem CO is fully understandable. It would really suck if any troop suddenly lost all their gear and money to a messed up CO (or for any reason). But, sometimes bad things happen outside our control. What we can control is our responses to those things. BUT - our moral codes still need to guide those actions! And yes, sometimes doing the right thing has a cost, and sometimes it's hard. But we still should do it. People come up with justifications for doing the wrong thing all the time, we strive to be better than that. And what would have happened if your troop had lost everything? How bad would it have been really? It would have sucked, but then you would have moved on, rebuilt and survived. And maybe your scouts would have learned some valuable lessons on the way (such as bad things happening don't have to be the end of the world). I read about a troop that lost all their gear a while back when there troop trailer was stolen. What did they learn? About the generosity of their fellow troops and surrounding community. About fundraising, and about bouncing back. They had loner gear within a week, and a new troop trailer and new camping gear within a couple of months. And a new appreciation for their own resilience in the face of adversity.

Wow! What you are describing is theft from the CO. You can justify it all you want, but you are describing is a crime. Putting junk in the lockup and hiding the "good stuff" offsite? Draining the treasury and laundering money into gift cards? And if the CO came looking, you would have gladly lied to them? On what planet is that the honest and right thing to do? If you have to lie and hide things, that is usually a sign that you are doing something wrong! What a wonderful example for your scouts! A Scout is Trustworthy, A Scout is Obedient - unless it's inconvenient then how about some larceny? If that was my unit, I would have quit on the spot and I would have reported it to the DE, CE and CO. Character is what you do when no one is looking. Character is what you do when it's hard, unpleasant or unpopular! A Scout is Brave.

The sad part is that isn't unique to the GSUSA, as @@scoutldr pointed out. It is a common theme in our society: all females are potential victims, and all males are potential perpetrators. You see it in schools, airlines (unaccompanied minors are seated next to women or families - for "safety reasons"), college campuses, locker rooms, etc. The list goes on. Put a lone male on a park bench with children around and see how long it takes before the police arrive to "investigate a suspicious person". It's basically a crime for an adult male to talk to child that isn't his. Try this for an exercise in paranoia: park a white cargo van at a park where kids are playing. Time how long it is before parents start to flee and/or the cops arrive. Or even better, pickup you child from the park while driving a white cargo van (actually don't, it could become a big thing). I have met local fathers that do volunteer with their daughter's GSUSA troops, but I have also met ones that got the cold shoulder when they tried. I agree it would be nice if the GSUSA would stand up against the "all men are perpetrators" meme (which is a subset of the "our children are in constant danger" meme), and they are being hypocritical when they don't. But it's not really specifically a GSUSA problem, but a society wide problem.

I remember a lot from my cub scouts. I remember visiting the local newspaper and seeing the huge printing presses (I was amazed that the paper could move so fast without shredding). I remember a trip to SFO to visit the United Airlines maintenance facility and walking around a 747 with it's engine cowling off (it was huge). I remember doing pinewood derby, and visiting a local McDonald's. I remember working with a wood burning kit (I burned my finger), and learning how to shoot pistols (as a Webelos - .22 rifles I learned how to shoot in Indian Guides before I joined cub scouts). I remember as a Webelos going to the local council's Bicentenaree (the scouts were there for a week, but the Webelos joined them for the last two nights over the weekend - I remember being disappointed because we missed the grass fire and the water bomber that put it out My older brother told me all about it. Yes, I was a Webelos in 1976). I remember parades, silk screening shirts, baking cookies, and cooking over a fire. My Mom was the Den Mother for the wolf and bear, and a dad took over for Webelos (as my dad was already working with the troop). I'm actually a bit surprised how much I remember from cubs.

Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. I know several tech companies that really care which college you graduated from (the "we hire only from 1st tier colleges" guys). It doesn't make sense, but they do. It's even worse in some other fields. There are a bunch of law firms that only hire Harvard or Yale grads.

I would still be careful. "Route incoming dollars to a new account or a new CO" still sounds like hiding money from the bankruptcy court. Remember, it's all still the CO's money, even if you put it in a different account.

I'm glad you guys make it work. It actually sounds like a great experience for your scouts! However, my understanding is that for a lot of food banks it is counter productive (though few will publicly admit it - most just smile and eat the costs). The Slate article I linked to above lays out the whys. Here are a couple more: Hays County Food Bank LA Times Article. I'm sure you can find more via Google.

My council still does it, even though it doesn't actually help the local food banks much. A couple of years ago, I did one of the SFF drop offs for my pack, and asked the food bank rep about it. He said that SFF actually cost the food bank money (i.e., the food bank would be better off if the council dropped SFF). They didn't say anything because they were afraid it would be a PR disaster if they said no. He also said that he believed that SFF generated indirect benefits for the food bank through free PR. I have always been conflicted by SFF. I know it is actually counter productive for the food banks, but it can be a good experience for the scouts (and holding a simple fundraiser for the food bank is against BSA rules - no fundraising for other organizations).

Welcome!

I think the evidence is pretty clear that the membership policy change did cause a short term drop in membership. I know locally, we lost a few COs with the first change, and a couple with the second (though also gained a couple COs with the second change). But the rule changes have definitely opened a bunch of doors that had been closed. Various schools that always said no to recruiting are now saying yes. Multiple businesses that used to say no to selling popcorn on their property are now saying yes. Not to mention multiple donors that are returning to the table. As for the "pent up demand", I never thought we would get a big influx of new members the day after the decision. Part of the reason is most people aren't really paying attention. When the BSA was first considering the change, I was surprised how many parents in our pack had no idea those rules existed (and we had a few that said it they knew before joining, they wouldn't have). And there are still a bunch of parents that have no idea that the rules have changed. It took years for the BSA to become associated with anti-gay bigotry, and it will probably take years for it to change again. But at least now it can change. If we can get rid of the "no atheists" rules, then we can go back to having the military and public schools being COs. That is a huge pool of potential COs that might bring in new scouts. It used to be that almost every public elementary school in my town had a pack and troop. Scouting was very visible in those schools. Virtually every military base had one or more units on it, again being very visible. Even here in Silicon Valley, most kids go to public school. Being shut out of the schools hurts our visibility a lot. Today, there are a lot of parents of scouting aged kids that almost never see a scout of any kind. Out of sight, our of mind. We need to change that, and getting rid of these membership rules is a step in that direction. I don't think we can ever get back the "special relationship" that the BSA had with the government before it entered the culture wars (the BSA used to get benefits, privileges and access that no other youth group got - that is basically gone now), but I hope we can undo some of the damage that has been done.

Is it really complacency, or just a good analysis of risk? In a nation of over 320 million people, the odds of finding oneself in an active shooter situation is very low (I haven't read any good analysis on that*. According to the Nation Weather Service, the average odds of getting hit by lightning in a person's lifetime is 1/12,000. But those odds very a lot based on where you live and your life style. The odds for people that spend significant amount of time outdoors are much higher.). So the question is, given the odds, how much time and resources is it worth it to spend on active shooter training? Would it be better too spend that time and resources on other things? I don't have a good answer to that. I guess it depends (I know, real helpful ). *This is an interesting question. Based on the data from the Mother Jones investigation, in the last ten years (2005-2015) there have been 38 mass shootings with 331 dead and 250 injured (total 581). Lets use the 10 year average population of 308 million which gives us around a 1 in 930,500 of being killed, a 1 in 1,232,000 of being injured and 1 in 530,100 of being either. Given an 80 year life span (the same assumption used by the NWS for lifetime lightning strikes) you get something like 1 in 6,630 of being injured or killed in a mass shooting during your lifetime.

The problem here is you can quickly get into a situation where you have no idea who is who. Of the people with guns, which ones are the "bad guys" and which ones are the civilians responding to them? It still might be better then if there are no armed civilians, but it's still a nightmare scenario (OK, any active shooter is a nightmare scenario).

That brings to mind the old saying: "What is the safest place to be during a gun fight? Somewhere else!"

While the article mentions prior arrests, it doesn't give any details (where there any convictions?). I wouldn't be surprised if the BSA background check only looks at criminal convictions. It isn't that difficult in some places to end up with an arrest on your record without doing anything wrong. Usually those end up with the victim being let loose a few hours later with a "sorry about that", but it's still on your record.

But that does sound like fun!

This discussion of hats is interesting. I remember when I was a scout, we wore are hats all the time, indoors or out. That is basically the rule I follow as a scouter (as do most of the scouters that wear hats).

Sounds like a great trip! I first saw the Nutcracker when I was young, and I remember really enjoying it.

This bit really caught my eye: So all volunteers are now mandated reporters? That is news to me!

Nope, the charter bus driver that takes the boys up to BWCA for a week doesn't need to be registered either. The driver isn't part of the unit any more than a cab driver or any other fior-hire livery. Otherwise, the train engineer that takes the boys out to Philmont will need to be registered.... kinda dumb to assume that. If the boys fly out to Philmont, do both the pilot and co-pilot need to be registered? Dumb rules produce dumb results. Actually, according to the page link provided by @@Krampus, the answer is yes:

So, the new law has been in effect for several months now, so I was thinking it's time too get an update. Can anyone in Pennsylvania report what impact the new law is having on volunteering in Scouting and elsewhere?

You mean when only Christianity was a good thing? To bad about those students that were non-Christian ("Oh your Jewish? Sorry, just shut up and sit in the corner. Only Christianity gets honored here."). Oh wait, those kids don't count.

On this Pearl Harbor Day, I wanted to share with everyone two interesting articles on boys scouts in WW2. The first is a Boys Life article from 1991 on boy scouts at Pearl Harbor. It is interesting the level of responsibility that the scouts were allowed back then. Sadly, I don't think anything like that would be allowed today. The second is a Scouting Magazine article from 1999 on Boy Scouting in the Japanese Internment Camps. I am always humbled by the patriotism shown by those Japanese-American citizens even after they were betrayed by the nation they loved.

Then your experience is rather different from mine. While I have experience my share of "wacko liberals" in my time, I have also experience plenty of nastiness the "other way". In fact, I find your statement basically ridiculous and ignorant. No one on the right is "attacking" anyone on the left? We have various "Christian" groups demanding the death of gays, the deportation of all Muslims, the disenfranchisement of non-Christians, etc. There are plenty of right-wing wackos out there attacking anyone that disagrees with them. Unfortunately being an offensive, aggressive, hateful idiot is not a liberal or conservative thing. It's a human thing that people of all stripes can fall victim too.