Eagle94-A1

No clue. I am an old fogey and what I wanted at that age may be completely different from what folks today want. But I would start with with following. 1. Get input on what the young adults want. Not just the various VOAs, but also rank and file members. A. Have actual town halls and various meetings where the members, not the advisors, have input. B. AND HAVE THE MEETING BE REAL AND NOT A COVER UP FOR PREARRANGED CHANGES, I.E. THE MEMBERSHIP TOWN HALLS. Let's face it from everything I have heard from pros, the timing of the town halls, read i.e. gender neutral language on applications prior to the changes, and the fact that the membership polls have never been published, the membership town halls were just a cover. C. Have open ended survey questions instead of the leading questions like the membership survey. If you want to know what the members want, you got to be open to both what you want to hear and what you DO NOT want to hear. D. ACTUALLY DO WHAT THE YOUTH WANT! If 94% of folks are against something, YOU DO NOT DO IT! 2. Have more national resources available to support them. And if you cannot support them, empower the members and volunteers to support themselves. One of the reasons why Sea Scouts is successful is that for the longest time, National had little to do with them. Sea Scouts and Volunteers provided their own support.

Tell me about it. We have folks who not only know school board members, but some who have been friends with them since elementary school. We have folks who work in the school system, are part of PTOs, various parents' booster clubs, etc. But council does not want us doign anything.,

As I stated, this council does not want units contacting anyone the school system and it has been like this since before I got here. As for outside groups, I will repeat, NO OUTSIDE GROUPS are allowed. This law was brought up once or twice when we had a DE, and this is what he was told. And from what I get from the Sxcouts, it is enforced. Trust me we had relationships prior to the current superintendent. Now everything needs to be focused on "teaching time."

1. I have deleted texts and emails. And I cannot find the letter I sent to a SE selection committee about one of the potential candidates. 2. For me the OA lost its uniqueness when they changed their election policies. At the time, I said it would be a slow death. I admit I was wrong as it is taking longer to die than I thought. But I also know a lot of folks are fighting tooth and nail, to preserve the OA. I was in that number until unit responsibilities took over. From the outside looking in, OA is a pale shadow of itself. 3. The Venture Patrol concept has been tried in one shape of form multiple times. If memory serves, at 14 you automatically became an Explorer in the 1950s, and troops had an explorer patrol. You had the Leadership Corps in the 1970s and 80s. Then the Venture Crew/Patrol in the 1990s to sometime in the 2000s. I can speak only for Leadership Corps and Venture crew/patrols as I have experience with those. If you read the literature, they were suppose to be able to do things separate from the troop. In reality they didn't AND THIS WAS WHEN PATROLS COULD CAMP WITHOUT ADULTS! ( emphasis). Unless you have a large troop with lots of willing adults, I cannot see folks doing 2 camp outs a month. Also something would need to get the Scouts interested. The Venture Pins idea didn't work.

"OUTING is three-fourths of ScOUTING." William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt, 3rd ed. SMHB "SCOUTING IS OUTING!" William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt

I agree completely. But when you are not allowed in the schools to recruit, eventually your pack ages out or moves to a thriving one when they get too few to recharter. Depends upon the council as I have found out. Some councils, for whatever reason, do NOT want units doing their own recruiting and round ups. Instead they set up everything, and tell us when they want us to be at the round up. And in other councils each unit has assigned schools, usually to get Scouts int eh same neighborhood to be together, because of bussing, multiple packs recruit form the same school. It is crazy. If the school system allows NO ONE to come in, then Scouts can't recruit either. Yep, that is system policy as outside groups take away form "teaching time."

I have mixed emotions on this one. One one hand I fully understand the rationale. It is a lot of work to support a struggling unit. On the other hand, i am in a struggling troop. Our pack folded about 10 years ago when we stopped having a DE that would get us into the school system to do round ups. The troop has dwindled, and was on the verge of folding. Work of mouth has been our best recruiting over the years. Almost have the troop have transferred from another, larger troop, that on paper is "more successful" but is actually not doing much. One large troop locally had a strong pack preCOVID, and folks automatically went tho them because they didn't know better. On paper that troop is strong, but they don't camp much, their SM appoints PORs, and they focus only on advancement. had one of their Eagles who NEVER went to summer camp, earning all of his MBs at the MB weekends and one day MBUs. That unit did a lot of virtual stuff during COVID, i.e. MB classes. While we did some virtual meetings, as soon as we were able to, we were meeting outside and doing day trips, mostly bike rides. We even put on our own summer camp within COVID restrictions. Tell me which troop is better?

If i have not deleted them, i will share the emails and texts.

Are you serious? Several years ago BSA had a poll in which 94% of the respondents were either against (18%) or strongly against (76%) the proposal, yet BSA did it anyway. 94% OPPOSED AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY! (emphasis). National has repeatedly announced membership increases AT THE LAST MINUTE. One year they even told units to hold off on rechartering until they finalized the price. People repeatedly complained because units had already created budgets, and round ups were going on. Again, National was told repeatedly to give more notice to help the boots on the ground prepare, especially the lower socio-economic families. Have they listened? No. The Churchill Plan came completely out of the blue, with some elements shocking National level volunteers who should have been part of the conversation. Ditto with mortgaging Philmont. Friend of mine worked his way up from local Scouter, to district/council Scouter, to being on the National 411 committee for Cub Scouts. He had a hand in the June 2015- December 2016 Cub Scout Program. He got input from local Cub Scouters for ideas, and one of my ideas made it into advancement. But National changed the program mid year and without talking to members of the 411 committee who created the program. So no, National professionals ARE NOT listening to volunteers. In my council, we have longtime, dedicated volunteers quitting because they have been ignored by, yelled at, cursed out by professionals. Worse, we have volunteers being removed from positions because they are raising questions and concerns that folks in the field are having, and the professionals do not like it one bit. And this has been going on since before I joined the council way back when as a DE. One of the many reasons why I left the profession was because of the attitude towards volunteers. So no, council professionals ARE NOT listening to volunteers. As for my background, it is extensive. I too am "known as a person who performs." Last district camporee ALMOST had as many folks at it as the last council camporee. Only reason it was not larger was because we reached capacity and had to shut down registration 3 weeks earlier than anticipated. When I was doing Cub Scout day camp, I doubled attendance within 2 years. I have restarted OA chapters, and lodges AIA committees. My record is one of the reasons why I have been repeatedly asked to become the district commissioner, recruited to run district and council events, and was even asked to return to the profession as a DE. But having been yelled at, cursed out at, and ignored, I only go above unit level, especially now as SM, when my boys ask me to. They were the ones who asked me to run district camporee.

Ah, another Sea Explorer . Agree that the constant rewrites to the Exploring and Venturing programs over the years have severely hurt the program. And the lack of professional support also hurts, because most execs are clueless as professional training is focused on Cubs Scouts and Scouts. In all my time in Scouting, I have only ran into 2 dedicated Exploring/Venturing execs, and one of them was put in the position and had to teach herself about Exploring/Venturing. When I went thru PDL-1, everyone was suppose to go through either the Exploring Leader Basic Training or the Exploring Leader Basic Training Self Study. I think I was the only one who actually did the training because the instructor said "as long as you read the info, your good, we don't need to go over it." We only spoke to the National Venturing Director for about 30 minutes the entire 2 weeks, and it was about the program that was coming out in August. On the local level, I wore a Sea Scout uniform to an event, and the SE wanted to know what I was wearing. At least in my area, there is no interest by volunteers to jumpstart Venturing because our foundation, Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA are in desperate need. We are down to 3 packs in my old district, and none of them have over 30 members. When I left my old pack 4+ years ago, we had over 70 members. I too was involved in Exploring/Venturing as a volunteer. I hate to see the program as it is today, but I have to focus my energy on keeping the troop alive.

To clarify, the Venturing logo is green, white, and gold with green lettering. BUT I have clip art with the logo in maroon, white, and gold with maroon lettering. The solid maroon golf shirt was the Venture Crew/Patrol Activity Uniform shirt from 1989 onwards. Venturing had a maroon, white, and green golf shirt, that was an activity shirt. Varsity had a tan golf activity shirt with blaze writing. See below.

Forgot to add, maroon was the Venture crew/patrol signature color, and it almost became Venturing signature color. I have clip art with the Venturing Logo in maroon, gold, and white as well as green gold, and white. In fact, the Venturing golf shirt was maroon.

Actually Venturing did not have advancement, but "Recognitions" back in 1998, and there were 5 different Bronze Awards: Outdoors, Sea Scout, Sports, Arts& Crafts, and Youth Ministries/ Religious Life. It may sound like semantics, but it was emphasized that Venturing Did not use advancement as a method, and did not have ranks. You also had the Ranger Award as well. 2014 was when Advancement was incorporated into Venturing. I think you meant Sea Scout Quartermaster, as the Ordinary rank corresponded to the Sea Scout Bronze Award. The 1998 National Venturing Director actually stated the Venturing Silver Award was Higher than Eagle Scout and Quartermaster Awards. He was quickly put in his place by a bunch of angry new professionals, and that was never mentioned again. Since that meeting, it has always been "Equal to...." Yes, he ticked off a lot of us in that meeting. The challenge is between 1989 and some time in the 2000s, Venture Scouts was the term used for older Scouts in a troop's Venture crew (1989-1998) / Venture patrol (1998 - ???? ; anyone have an idea when Venture patrols officially died?) Trust me every person in the meeting with the 1998 National Venturing Director said the terminology would cause headaches, and we were right. As I stated previously, Venturing appropriated the term 'crew," might as well appropriate the term "Venture Scouts" as well

I admit our legal environment plays a part, but BSA gave a stat on peer-on-peer abuse, without citing the sources and/or showing the evidence, in the YPT 2.1 training I took. The 50% peer-on-peer abuse is what Michael Johnson has stated without showing the data.

My comments. 1. If memory serves, BSA tried that in the 1950s or 60s, and it didn't work out. 2. BSA tried it again from 1989 to sometime in the 2000s/2010s, again with no success. 3. Very few current Scouters are familiar enough with Venturing to make it work properly. Heck it is hard enough to get Troops working properly as many adults do not get how Scouting sis suppose to work, even with training. You can see that on all the various comments and questions on social media. 4. The demographic that other countries use to support this range, 21-30 year olds, have usually been out of Scouting for a few years and have moved on. I blame current BSA YP policies forcing 18-20 YOs to abandon their <17 yo friends outside of Scouting. Plus their is a feeling of disrespect from National since they do not count towards 2 Deep Leadership, and if they have Scouts working on MBs with them, 2 additional registered adults over 21 are needed (or a parent and 1 additional registered adult over 21). These folks have the knowledge, skills, abilities, and time to do the HA stuff. 5. I believe that despite efforts by the Sea Scouting and OA communities to keep 18- 20 active in the program, the CHURCHILL PLAN's goal to limit programs up to age 18 is still being considered as they stated that the issue will be revaluated. As much as I am for Venturing, I think it is on life support and will die after the reorg.

For reasons beyond my control, I have an ASM who is a helicopter grandparent. Good news is that at meetings I have a CC who will ride herd on them when I supervise the Scouts. And they are limiting the number of camp outs they go on since the adults sleep in tents, or hammocks, just like the youth, and he likes his comforts. But at home it is a different situation. The Scout may be packing his own gear, but grandparent is telling him what to bring and not bring. It is obvious extremely obvious when the Scout was doing a shakedown and kept asking the grandparent what a piece of gear is that he packed. The Scout has been in a year and a half now, and almost 13, but is essentially still a Webelos because of the handholding. Compare this almost 13 year old Scout who has had his hands held to the 11 year old SPL I mentioned above who did not have his hands held, and you see how detrimental to development it is.

Great question. Quick and easy answer is : IT. IS. NOT. SCOUTING! (bold and cap for major emphasis and not shouting) Detailed Answer. I do not know when exactly the shift occurred, But when I took Cub Scout Basic Leader Training way back in the day, and when I taught Webelos Den Leader Specific Training, there was an emphasis on transitioning from Cub Scouts to then Boy Scouts. The syllabi discussed how you needed to give them more and more responsibility, start letting them do things for themselves, and getting away from parents signing off on advancement. That is when the "whispering in the ear" is supposed to occur so they can get used to Scouting, not as Scouts BSA troop members. Scouts BSA is when they are suppose to come up with their own plans, create their own program, and do what they want with adult supervision and guidance. They do the planning, teaching, organizing, etc because it allows them to grow, make mistakes and learn from the,m and gain experience. Adults doing stuff for Scouts really hurts the Scouts in the long term. Sadly your experience regarding new troops is all to common nowadays because it is what is coming out of National. The problem is adults either tend to keep power, or the Scouts rely too much on the adults and never grow up.. Also another problem is we have more and more Scouters with 0 experience as a Youth, and all their scouting experience is as Cub Scout leaders. Several units I have been in over the years had a 1 to 2 year "deprogramming" policy that basically said you had to serve on the unit committee and learn how Scouts operates and you understand the differences between Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA. To many times I have had to deal with interfering adults. And in one instance, I had enough of my sons complaining about the interference and we switched troops. Best material for starting new troops is anything written by William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt, especially his 3rd edition SM handbook, volumes one and two. If I recall correctly, he had a 6 week plan to start a new troop, or reinvigorating an existing troop, that moved from adult led to youth led. Sadly i lent my copy of the book to a SCOUTREACH SM who started 4 troops using Hillcourt's methodology. Despite a lot of disadvantages, they were outstanding troops. And when he moved I never got it back. As for the comment "Heck, even in established troops it can work that way if the older Scouts have gone inactive or aged out and younger Scouts are leading the troop," I quote Col. Sherman T. Potter, "HORSEHOCKEY!" One of the best SPLs I had the pleasure to work with was an 11 year old Second Class Scout who was in the troop 1 year, and had served 6 months as PL. He beat out 2 older, and former SPLs. He took his training to heart, and ran the troop like he was suppose to. One fo the guys he beat even commented at the next election that the 11 Year old did a great job and set the bar high for his successor. Bill Hillcourt had a saying about Scouts: "Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!" (sic). If you have high expectations, and give them responsibility, even the younger Scouts can do a great job. Now is the situation difficult? Yes. Is it chaotic at times? Yes. Will Scouts screw up and not do what they are suppose to do? Yes. Will you feel like pulling out your hair, or being stressed out, or being depressed about the situation? ABSOLUTELY! When my sons and I transferred, we transferred into a troop that was in that exact situation. We are going on 4 years, but the troop is getting better all the time. I have had to deal with Scouts not wanting to do their jobs, or not preparing properly to teach, or not following directions causing unneeded repetition at meetings. But it is improving. So yes, it is a major problem because adult interference holds back the Scouts from growing.

@fred8033, I hear ya. During that period I first joined a Sea Scout ship, after hearing the adventures one SM had when he was one. Sadly it was a non-traditional ship, and not very good. I lasted long enough to get Ordinary. Then I got reinvolved with the OA and BOOM I went. The Scouter Reserve was suppose to fill the wish you have, but it was not widely used until folks became obsessed with training requirements and JTE. But as I said, the 18-20 year olds I have spoken to feel both disrespected by National's pollicy that they no longer count towards YP requirements, and that National is oblivious to the fact that 18-20 year olds do indeed have friends and classmates under 17, and some YP policies prevent them from being with their friends. They would rather get out of Scouting, only attending the occasional Eagle Court of Honor than losing their friendships. To quote Col. Sherman T. Potter, US Army Medical Corps, "HORSEHOCKEY!" I have seen first hand a Venturing Crew completely and totally set up and run by 16 to 20 year olds, and a few younger ones.. In 1998 when Venturing first split from Exploring, there was a lot, and i mean a LOT of confusion between Venture Crews/Patrols in troops and Venturing. Long story short, when one motivated young man of 16 found out he was ineligible for the Venturing Awards because it was a completely separate program, he went to work and got it all done. He was the one who went to the Field Director to get the info about Venturing, he recruited other Scouts to be part of the new crew, he recruited adults to serve, and he submitted the paperwork. As for my non-interest in Venturing, in my neck of the woods Scouting is dying. I have not had a real, unit serving DE dedicated to my district since 2012. We have not been able to get into the schools for so long I cannot remember when the last Round Up was. And the DEs we shared with another district were no help. My old pack went from almost 100 Cubs in about 8 dens back in 2009 to less than 30 Cub Scouts total. We have lost 4 non LDS packs, and are on the verge of losing more. My Troop was one that lost the feeder pack, and it is all I can do to keep the troop alive. It is not that I am apathetic about Venturing, far from it. It is that I need to focus my limited time and resources on what will make the most impact on youth. And until BSA starts acknowledging reality and respecting 18-20 year olds, I do not see Venturing, at least in my area, growing. I know the 2018 YP rules are based upon data, that I have serious questions about because I have not seen the situations they say are happening in my 30 years as a Scouter.

For Venturing Advisers, I would say go after the 21+ years olds who aged out of the program. Some do remain in the area, and others who are addicted to Scouting in general, and Venturing in particular do volunteer wherever they move. Hard part now will be finding them. Sadly every single EBOR I have sat in on since 2018, the Eagles say they will stay active until aging out. Reminder that 2018 was when National said 18-20 year olds not only do not count for YP purposes, but also must essentially give up friends and/or classmates who are involved in Scouting who are under 18 because of YP rules that they must follow, but again do not count towards. And if anyone says, "but 50% of the abuse is youth on youth now," I say show me the RAW data. Mark Twain said it best. "There are lies. there are d@&*ed lies. Then there are statistics."

Respectfully disagree. The best leaders for Venturing are the 18-20 year olds who are craving HA, but also are giving back to the troop as well. Sadly because BSA no longer gives the 18-20 year olds the respect they deserve, i.e. they no longer count towards 2 deep leadership, needs 2 registered adults over 21 when teaching a MB or 1 over 21 registered adult and 1 parent with them when teaching a MB, making them choose between Scout friends and schoolmates since they have to apply YPT policies to non-Scout life, but again they do not count towards 2 deep leadership, We are losing a lot of experienced folks. I would rather have a 18-20 y.o. ASM who grew up in the program, and has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to work a successful program, than 30+ year old who just crossed over from Cub Scouts and has no idea what Scouts BSA truly is like.

Most definitely. I would add that the TG gets overwhelmed working with all of the new Scouts simultaneously. In a Traditional Patrol, older Scouts buddy up with the younger ones and work with them. Again concur. When I was a TG, if I was not actively working with someone, they were clueless as to what to do, even if I gave them specific instructions. And I was overwhelmed. In my case, adults did not get involved because we were an old fashioned Scout-led troop, unless it was disciplinary. After a year of trying, and also losing some scouts, we went back to Traditional Patrols. HOWEVER, Every time I have seen NSPs since I was a TG, including my own troop when we tried it again in 1990 when a new troop merged with us, Adults jump in and take over. And it turns into Webelos 3, or AOL 2 I guess since the 2015 CS changes . Again SPOT ON! One of the problems is that TG is an appointed position. Because of that usually the Scouts who have lost elections, but need a POR to advance get appointed TG. Hence they may not be the best choice for the POR. In only 1 case did I see someone actively pursue TG, and this was after he served a term as SPL. And he was overwhelmed. That is when that troop went back to Traditional Patrols. Absolutely correct. I have never in 36 years seen a true Scout-run NSP. And that includes the one I was in. Instead of being called a troop guide, I was appointed Patrol Leader. And let's face it, the new Scouts may elect one of their own as patrol leader, but the Troop Guide is the one running the patrol if you attempt to have it Scout run. Otherwise the den leader NSP ASM is running things. And neither an appointed TG or adult is true Patrol Method.

I wonder if SEs will be able to raid those unit accounts. Sadly i saw a SE raid the OA lodge's account that was to be used for camp improvements for conclave. When all the bills started arriving, there was no money to pay them.

I know in the early to late 1980s, 1982 - 1989 to be exact, Webelos were coming over as full dens. I do not know when the NSP was officially piloted, but in 1986, my troop was asked to pilot it. IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE and we went back to Traditional Patrols a year later. Imagine everyone's surprise when NSPs became a recommended model in August 1989

My thoughts. 1. Sea Scouts has been the exception to the Older Scout problem because they have customs and traditions dating back to 1912. Even when Sea Scouts turned into Sea Exploring, and you had traditional and non traditional ships, those traditional ships survived and thrived. 2. regarding advancement, that was NEVER meant to be a focus for Venturing, hence the original 5 Bronze in specialties, Gold, and Silver Awards. They were optional items. 3. Regarding the term Venture Scout, that term was already in use to those Scouts in Venture crews within troops. When Venturing came out in 1998, they took over the term crew, and caused Venture crews to be renamed Venture patrols. Now that Venture Patrols are dead, I see no reason to not to rename Venturers to Venture Scouts since they already appropriated the unit designation. 4. While I love the concept of Venturing, heck I would have loved an active HA Exploring Post back in the day, the biggest challenge is adult volunteers. Sadly you a need number of dedicated, adventurous adults willing to work with the young adults. 5. Why is talk about increasing Venturing membership coming up when I though the Churchill Plan looked at maximizing the age for all BSA programs at 18? I know that fact motivated some Venturing folks, and 99.9999999% of the Sea Scout Community to save the programs, FOR THE MOMENT. I emphasize FOR THE MOMENT because if you remember the response to the Churchill leak DID state they leave the 18-20 year old question open to future shutdown discussion. Yes, I remember the national Sea Scout commodore, being taken completely by surprise by that. The topic of shutting out 18-20 year old Sea Scouts had never been discussed with him, and he was the national volunteer in charge of Sea Scouts.

I think "expensive" may be relative. The troop paying $120 for 3 vehicles to park 2 nights plus over $300 for gas for a weekend backpacking trip on the AT is expensive. But I know compared to Philmont, it is dirt cheap.