Eagle94-A1

You do realize that SCOUTNET records are local. That is why when a member or volunteer moves from council to council, they must provide a copy of their records so that the council's database can be updated. I wish it was not the case. Heck I was told by the then national SCOUTNET directors that records would be transferable in the database. Would have helped the 5 councils I've been in since SCOUTNET came into existence.

I agree 110% on this. But many folks on various Facebook Groups will argue that it is not preparing us for coed Scouting. It is to get BSA more in line with other youth organizations. But isn't it coincidence that the policy was announced 10 months and that the effective date is 10-1-18, 4 months before Scouts BSA and girls forming "linked troops."

Who would have thought :)- I agree, there should be a skip to the test option. What I really wish was that the YPT2 training would have come out AFTER the May 2018 Youth Protection updates, the ones that killed the Patrol Method. Reminded everyone at Roundtable last night that effective October 1st, patrols can no longer have their own day activities without 2 registered Scouters over 21. Lots of ticked off Scouters. lots of complaints that it was not mentioned in the new YPT2 training that just came out.

With all due respect, I again call HORSEHOCKEY. Every single time I have seen councils' electronic records messed up, or even missing information, I have had to use the Handbook to correct the councils' records. And multiple council registrars have told me the handbook is the official record since it has all of the signatures.Council records are just that,records.

While I agree 110% with this as my troop has too many helicopter and lawnmower and gunship parents, I am going ot play Devil's Advocate as I am still affiliated with this one, parent heavy program. What about all the Cub Scout parents? Rule being applied to the entire year is asinine. All Cub parents would need to be registered is indeed the 72 hours is for a program year.

I believe this one sentence is causing the problem: "The 72 hours need not be consecutive." My interpretation is that one event 72+ hours, say summer camp, and if an adult is there Sunday 12PM to Tuesday 6PM (54 hours) then comes back Thursday at 8 PM and they stay past 6PM on Friday, they need to be registered. Apparently someone is interpreting "The activity" as Scouting's year round program. If this is the case. then ALL Cub Parents need to be registered.

I believe @MattR is talking about one of his certificates from 25+ years ago. Originally YPT was a one time thing. I don't remember when it went to biannually,1995 perhaps? I'll be honest, I have lost track of the number of times I've taken and taught YPT, Exporing/Venturing YPT, and camp staff YPT. It is all a blur. Sadly YPT is needed. I have dealt with too many YP issues over the years.

We had this come up since all folks going to summer camp had to be "registered leaders" with the BSA. Camp the troop went to told us to register the parent as an MBC.

HORSEHOCKEY! The official record for all Scouts is their handbook. I've seen too many problems with electronic records over the years. And every time they fixed them they used the handbook. But yes, Scoutbook is replacing IA.

In my 25+ years as a Scouter, this has happened to me multiple times in multiple councils.I have encountered the attitude that because I don't have beads, I know nothing. It doesn't matter that I am a product of the program, or the training I've taken, or the training I've staffed. Heck it doesn't matter that folks are now receiving their 3rd or 4th beads for staffing the course I took and staffed back in the day.It doesn't matter what district and council programs I've worked on, staffed, or organized. Because I don't wear two beads, I don't know squat. I gotta laugh at some things so I don't get ticked off. Best laughs was one district committee I was ona 20+ years ago as OA Chapter Advisor. We were trying to plan something or another (old age getting to me), and I suggested solutions to some problems that were being brought up that I encountered running JLTC at the site we were going to use. I was completely ignored by the other planners except my friend, who was a 3 beader. When he made the exact same suggestions, everyone listened and agreed with them. Another time with the same committee, were were organizing another activity. This time they listened, but said what I was proposing was not feasible, it would never work, etc. My 3 beader friend was there and waited about 10 minutes before smiling at me, and gives them my proposal almost verbatim. Rest of the committee though it was sheer brilliance.

Remember when YPT was suppose to be one time only? I do.

Yes, I was referring to the "full time position" on the district committee. ASMs, Mates, ACMs, MCs, Pack Trainers, ADLs, and yes the "Red Jackets" should be the ones in those district level positions.

This is my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. I do not think SMs, Skippers, CMs, and CAs should be working on the district level except as MBCs. They need to focus on their units. I also do not recommend DLs and WDLs serving on the district, except as MBCs and day camp staff, because they are the primary direct contact leader for their dens. Serving on the district and council level can be overwhelming, time consuming, and does take away from their Cubs. I've done it, and I wish I would not have.

I am not happy about the Den Method being implemented on Scouts. "Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!"

WOW!!!!!!!! That's not how a course is supposed to be run. And like Chris1 said, I've known GSUSA volunteers to go through BSA training, and use BSA materials, because fo the challenges with their GSUSA council. I do not know if others do this, but one thing I do is IF I know someone has a lot of experience in a subject area AND they are going through the course as a student, is that I have them teach the specific area. For example, backpacking and land nav expert ( Eagle, Philmont 2x, summer camp staffer) was a student. First Aid expert was a combat medic who also is an Eagle and went to Philmont. IF I would have known about you, sometimes I get the info in advance, most of the time not, I wouyld have used you on staff.

@cocomax, Was it BALOO or IOLS? While my Cub Scout Leader BALOO class was mostly lecture, handouts, and whiteboards, LNT wasn't a topic. yes, it was boring, especially with all the experience I had. Why when I taught BALOO, it was a lot more hands on and fun. IOLS is suppsoe to be hands on with camping. LNT is part of it, but not to that extreme.

One reason why folks need to use librarians for research. Anyone remember "Mitochondria: Structure, Function, and Clinical Relevance" by Drs. Lucas McGeorge and Annette Kin ? The garbage was published in the International Journal of Molecular Biology: Open Access, Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and the American Research Journal of Biosciences. The American Journal of Medical and Biological Research accepted the paper, however, they asked for a $360 fee, which the author declined to pay.

When there was Cub Scout Trainer Wood Badge and Boy Scout Leader Wood Badge ( Sorry I cannot tell you about Explorer WB, before my time), you had to have a MINIMUM of two years in the program's WB course you were registering for in order to participate. And it was 2 separate programs that focused on specifics on either Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts. And when there was Explorere Leader WB, it focused on Exploring. Currently there is no minimum tenure requirement,. or if there is , it is not adhered to, and councils want bodies for the classes. Also since the current course is trying to cram 3 programs into one course, I feel a lot of program specific information is left out. I see it with some WB not having the basic knowledge, skills, and abilities Actually yes I do. National is not concerned about what the boots on the ground want. Best example of that would be the "InstaPalm" poll where 94% of those surveyed were either AGAINST (16%) or STRONGLY AGAINST (78%) doing away with tenure, but they did it anyway. And let's not forget, there is a lot of evidence, as posted in other threads on this topic, to show that the decision was made prior to the town halls. The speed and timing of the town halls, the biased poll questions, the release of gender neutral applications before the town halls were even announced, statements by Surbaugh that big changes were coming, ad nasueum Or they will do what many here and on Facebook are doing, becoming de facto coed dens. @DeanRx said coed troops will be the norm in 5 years. I say, 2 years, 3 tops. Heck as soon as they announced separate troops, they came back a few months later with Linked Troops. As for recruiting volunteers, a lot of them will have no experience with BSA's programs. That will make programming interesting. and if enough people complain, the program WILL change. Look at the current Cub Scout program. There was a team that s[pend several years coming up with the June 2015- December 2016 program. IMHO it was a good program. Did it take more planning to implement? Yes. Was it doable? YES. Was a lot of information provided to implement the changes? Yes, but I personally could have loved it coming out sooner. But folks who didn't attend the RTs going over this had problems. Packs not willing to adapt complained. and the progream changed. Enough girls complain, and the program will change. A lot of Scouts feel pressured to keep their mouths shut on this matter. There is a lot of societal pressure to accept it and be done. But what is interesting is that when my troop did an anonymous online poll, 50% of the troop will leave if we become a linked troop. Regarding the true impact of LDS withdrawal and membership loss due to girls is easy to calculate. Don't include the LDS membership figures when calculating loss or gain? After all, National didn't include LDS membership in the western region when they did their poll on whether or not to accept homosexual youth a few years back. Again subtract the LDS numbers from the current membership, and go from there. True Scouting is for the youth. But someone must stand up for the developmental needs of the boys. The program was created with them in mind. Boys are suffering in our society. Higher drop out rates, higher crime rates, higher drug usage,lower percentage going to college, etc. Someone needs to look out for them. Yes,.

I'd expand upon this. Even Scouters WITH experience as a youth, may have it wrong because of their youth experiences. I know of one Eagle Scout SM who does not like to camp. He came up in the 1970s ISP and rarely went camping. If the weather is not going to be picture perfect, he cancels. Doesn't understand the need for all the camping, when earning Eagle is the goal. I knew another Eagle whose troop was micromanaged by the SM. While active, the SM was the one deciding on trips, dictating cooking requirements, etc. Long story short, he ran his troop the same exact way. And don't even try get him to training, He's an Eagle and knows what to do. Regarding Wood Badge and other training. 1) Training has been dumbed down since I went through it many years ago. So much is left out. I think the current training gives some folks a false sense of knowledge and security. 2) The current Wood Badge, in an attempt to be "One size fits all" does not do enough justice to the programs. It does not cover the different programs adequately enough. And from what I've read and seen, the material for Scouts in the course use to be covered in the old Scoutmaster Fundamentals training.

While google may only show this site using "conditional Scouter," I have heard used by my DE and on a facebook page. As @an_old_DC stated, in both cases it was in a demeaning manner. I'm upfront. I think this decision was the worse one BSA has ever made. It's worse than the Improved Scouting Program of the 1970s. Boys need a place to call there own, just as the girls do. Now there is one less place for boys to be themselves. But the writing on the wall has been there since I was a Scout back in the day. I did research and talked to others about it. I was a Sea Scout and an Adviser. I've worked at international camps. I've seen that it can work IF it is brought out the right way. National screwed the process up royally. How they unveiled the Town hall meeting requirements, day before many folks were leaving for jamboree, seem to be a deliberate attempt to not get stakeholders' opinions. The refusal to release the data from the town hall surveys, to this day, is another indication for me that National has not been "Trustworthy" with us. Then you have the "gender neutral" language of the 7/17 membership applications, several weeks before the Town Hall mandate came out, is yet another indicator that this decision was made with no input from those in the field. Then you get the backlash from pro's and other high level volunteers when you express your opinions. All of this makes me question why am I still involved? Yes, I am a "conditional Scouter." I'm here until my sons are out of the program. Further, I will leave when "my Scouts" no longer need me. I no longer care about national, since they do not care about us in the field. Irony is this, as much as I think this is a mistake, I know it can work. Heck I even talked to my council key three on the matter because I and others realized how flawed National's process was going to be. But national has so screwed it up, it is a giant Charlie Foxtrot.

I stayed in the program as an ASM, OA chapter adviser, etc after earning Eagle so I could give back. But I am a "Conditional Scouter." I became a professional, dealing with all the headaches, frustration and stress that job entails so I could make a difference. But I am a "Conditional Scouter." Once I left the profession, I volunteered again, leaving my wife and later kids at home, so that others could have a Scouting Experience. But I am a "Conditional Scouter." Instead of being just a DL for my sons, I picked up additional responsibilities on the district anc council level so that they and their friends could have a great time. So instead of being with them and doing things with them, I was running entire events. But I am a "Conditional Scouter." When my district began losing district committee members due to changes in policies they did not agree with, I stuck around and tried to hold things together. I was doing 4 different district jobs, which again took time away from my family. But I am a "Conditional Scouter." Yes, the term 'Conditional Scouter" is one to denigrate and insult those of use who care about the program, yet disagree with National. A lof of people, Scouts, parents, and Scouters, have reservations and concerns about the changes. We are hearing one set of things from national, but seeing just the opposite occuring with the early adopter Cub Scout packs, and those councils using Explorer Clubs to get a jump start on girls in Scouting. Funny thing is, at the town hall meeting, al lot of what I and others are seeeing, " joint meetings" and outright coed dens, predicted this would happen.

Where I am, adult interference under the guise of Family Scouting is already being implemented. Even before "Family Scouting" was announced, some adults were bringing non-Boy Scout children to events. Now that Family Scouting being announced and promoted, those adults are emboldened. Some of you have read my posts about the family with the Second Class Scout sneaking into the parents tent. The troop officially didn't do a camp out this month. 4 families within the troop went whitewater rafting, and just happen to use troop gear and work on advancement in addition to the rafting. Already have been told by the ASM heading it up that the 4 families liked it so much, that it is being scheduled for next year again. My older two sons are getting fed up. They don't want to transfer to another troop because of their friends though. That and they are trying to change it from inside. But I think they realize that the adults are the ones making the decisions, and not the Scouts. Especially since both are PLs and are on the PLC. Best example, troop did not have a September camp out planned. PLC came up with 2 choices for a camp out. #1 was a 3 day, 2 night at a place they never went to before. #2 was a 2 day 1 night backpacking trip. #1 is full. SM overuled #2 because he wants a 3 day 2 night camp out. So they are going to a place they have already been to this year. Good news is that the Scouts were allowed hammocks there in the past, and I do not see a reason for banning them. At the moment we will not be a linked troop with a girls' troop. Not only do we no space for another meeting at our CO, the poll we took was that 1/2 the troop would quit or transfer if we started meeting and camping with the girls. But two things about the decision. 1) the IH stated if the girls' troop is not working out, he will revisit the decision. He has already come out in favor of "Linked Troops," but realizes losing 50% of the membership, and probably that many of the active and experienced Scouters would destroy the troop.2) the SM and his ASM heir apparent both have daughters and both want them in Scouts BSA. SM realizes what would happen with 50% loss and is in agreement with a separate girls' troop. The ASM however is ticked at the decision. He wants "linked troops," or as he calls it a coed troop, so that his daughter can be both an Eagle Scout and Gold Award recipient. He doesn't care if 1/2 the troop quits as a result. And he has already worked out a way to allow girls to camp without female Scouters: since the troop is "family friendly," if dad goes the girl can go since it is "family camping." But I see the writing on the wall regarding national .I am on several Scouting related Facebook groups. @gblotter is correct in that volunteers who bring up valid concerns about Family Scouting are being bullied and labeled. People do not want to recognize there are difference between boys and girls, everyone must be equal. And concerns that Scouts have are ignored. Folks are saying that they are only stating what they hear at home, or they are not getting accurate information on the changes, they need to go to XYZ website to get the correct information and see the charts. Sadly they don't believe that Scouts can think for themselves. They don't realize that they may have actually read the official documents, but either hypothesize the reality that will occur, or actually base their decisions on what they see is actually happening on the Cub level and how packs and dens are ignoring guidelines and rules to get girls in Cub Scouts. Don't believe they have seen what some councils are doing to give girls a head start: using Explorer Clubs for the 11- 13 year olds and Explorer Posts and Venturing Crews for the 14-16 year olds. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/08/historic_oregon_boy_scout_camp.html

I have had to explain some G2SS rules to parents and Cubs. Some think it is a joke. Other roll their eyes.

Been that way for a while. One of the reasons I quit. I was part of a pilot program for National Supply, and my boss has 0 experience as a youth i the program. EVERTHING I proposed was questioned, "discussed," and reviewed. I was bad.

No additional guidance. 1) No one sees a problem with the double standard, i.e 2 women with boys is OK but not 2 men with girls. 2) According to G2SS, yes one of the 2 registered Scouters must be female since it is a Scouting function. Patrols can no longer do day activities without adults. 3) Good question. Some of the things now considered abuse, would get laughed at by authorities in my day, heck I think even police would be laughing at being called in to arrest someone for name calling.