Eagle1993

100% True … plus, we put 2 per canoe and I've been told Northern Tier is 3 per canoe. We just go with local outfitters.

It's good to see that they are giving us early notice through 2022. I expect councils, summer camp and High Adventure bases (that remain) will jack up their fees as well. One would think the charges would be a bit reversed (ie, new scouts, a $25 discount). New scouts are already buying uniforms, books, patches, etc... so adding an additional fee for them doesn't make sense.

I was able to follow a link and find that you can register Rover in MyScouting… interesting.

There has been a lot of discussion on various BSA groups about ending all youth programs at 18 (OA, Venturing, Sea Scouts). One part of the discussion is the thought that BSA will be reintroducing Rover Scouts. In fact, several individuals have stated that councils have already started pilots (example below … their Facebook page started ~January 2019). https://tidewaterbsa.com/districts/rovers/ It sounds like Rover Scouts are common internationally and seem to provide a lot of leadership for those scouting organizations. Does any know how Rover scouts tie into units or are they completely separate groups. Just wondering how they functional in the international scout organizations as I do believe we have simply ignored scouts (outside of a few examples) once they turn 18 and simply hope they return once they have kids in scouting age. So, if true, this seems like a great idea if implemented well.

Even high adventure can be done at a lower cost when not through BSA (which I think uses it as a profit center). When we go to BWCA we never go through Northern Tier (too expensive). The good news is that our insurance rates should drop a ton after bankruptcy. With no assets left, the lawyers would have nothing to sue to obtain. Will we see fees drop back down with the reduction in insurance costs?

Interesting quotes from the USA article. Councils are already selling camp land and expect that to accelerate due to Covid-19 In a statement, Boy Scouts said that it is aware of the concerns but that the councils must balance their assets with other financial obligations. "This has come into even greater focus due to the wide-ranging impacts of the global pandemic and social distancing measures. In these unprecedented times, councils may need to take prudent measures to monetize their assets in order to preserve the mission of Scouting," the statement said. At least one Plaintiff lawyers seems convinced they will get to the councils through National Paul Mones, who represents about 400 survivors, said he successfully argued in various state courts that Boy Scouts made clear in the landmark Supreme Court case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that it had explicit control over the approval of scoutmasters and assistant scoutmasters and thus local organizations. “The Boy Scouts of America without a doubt controls the councils,” Mones said. “There are a sufficient number of courts that have said there is that control there because if you can control the sexual orientation of the scoutmaster, you control the Boy Scouts.” The mediation will be critical and hopefully they can come to an agreement while still preserving the core of BSA.

@DuctTape You are probably correct. One of the quotes "Now, I believe the majority of Americans don't want to go camping. It just isn't fun." This is form The hiking one is interesting. Many of our scouts did indicate they were not fans of hiking, including one of our scouts going to Philmont. I looked at him a bit odd after he told me hiking was his least favorite activity. I then asked … aren't you registered to go to Philmont … you realize they are not going to drive you down those trails? He smiled and said … well, I like Philmont hiking, but not our Troop hiking. Made me think that if Troops have scouts who don't like camping, it could be the type of camping they offer.

I found a posting on Talk About Scouting Facebook page about this slide from the National Annual Meeting. The summary is similar to what I have heard directly from our scouts. What shocked me was the many contributors who stated their scouts disliked camping. Someone mentioned that on Eagle BORs he heard STEM as the leading answer. Others mentioned that their scouts "get their 20 nights in" then never camp again. Then this quote came up. The BSA needs to figure out what our youth DO NEED TO SURVIVE and to get ahead in TODAY'S world. They need computer literacy, math, science, programming. We need scouts with essential "survival skills" going into the 21st century. What do our youth in 50 years, or in 100 years need to know? Youth do need outdoor outings. But many youth live in the city, and camping is a foreign concept to them. City folks can go to museums to identify plants and animals, etc. Our youth need to know how to navigate bus routes and subway systems. Do I live in a completely different BSA universe? My scouts love camping. Kids that don't enjoy camping don't join my Troop … they find other activities. I will not run an after school program that tells kids how to tour a museum...

$7M in advertising seems like a lot … when was the last time National spent $7M on advertising? This fall is going to be rough.

I think this is probably the biggest one, especially given that most of the discussion at National will be about financials. That said, I am in a decent size council that has no Scout BSA summer camp. Our scout numbers dropped much faster than surrounding areas after they sold off the only camp we had and we have yet to recover. FOS numbers dropped and as a unit we have had discussions if we should direct our FOS donations to the council (out of state) that hosts the camp we go to. When there is redundancy, I agree that selling off an underutilized camp probably makes sense. However, councils should be careful about selling off their only camp.

I definitely agree that simply duplicating GSUSA system is not ideal and there are issues if BSA executives can simply generate units (scoutreach & fake numbers). However, I will say that I think my local GSUSA employees have a better idea of what girls & parents want than BSA. Why? Because GSUSA has more direct involvement in recruitment and leadership of units. When parents ask the GSUSA employee (directly) how much it costs … they have to answer (and FYI, their answer is "not as much as Boy Scouts ha ha ha". When camps were too far away, GSUSA employees knew as they are more directly involved with the units and created a bussing system. My council assumes COs are taking care of this (but they and we know they are not). So, their executives spend more time on FOS/popcorn and less on recruiting and leader development. Therefore, each unit is on its own with its current set of leaders and will live and die by that leadership. Councils get out of touch on what is important (as technically they don't own the units, don't recruit, don't find leaders, don't track leader training, etc.). Eventually, they make serious mistakes like selling our one BSA summer camp because there are other camps at other councils. and the "CORs didn't object". @Cburkhardt brings up several valid points as there are unit to unit culture variety that must be balanced and BSA ownership of units could kill that. However, the current CO system is broken for many units and I hope they think of creative solutions.

There are Girl Scout troops in my area who do not sell cookies and their leaders are not dismissed. There have been BSA unit leaders dismissed for "non compliance".

As a unit leader, why should I be driving the active engagement from the CO? Shouldn't that by the CO & COR's role? Our unit leaders have enough to do with managing a unit let alone trying to train the CO on how to be a CO. Our CO has no building. They provide $0 to us. They don't help find leaders. We have been attempting to get a solid COR with no success. The only decent COR we had was also our DE which caused issues. No one from their club wants to be a COR. I agree they don't want to be involved in day-to-day running of the unit … but the fact is they are barely aware that we exist other when we help at their fundraiser. Basically, we ended up with them because our PTO dropped us in the 1990s. We became a friend of unit there but that was risky so a leader at our current CO said they would be willing to sign our charter. If the CO model was working well, organizations would be contacting the BSA to setup and charter units. Every CO would have their COR really own the unit. Instead, most unit leaders are hunting for COs they can convince to take on their charter. Unit leaders are tracking down their barely existent COR and IH to get signatures on a charter app. I have never met my IH as my DE still helps me get his approval. At that point, why even bother with the CO model? I know there are good ones out there, but they seem few and far between. Getting back on topic of sacred cows ... I would kill the CO … or at least allow a hybrid model. Essentially allow the BSA council to be the CO of units. For those units with COs, they can follow the current model. I understand that could impact how COR voting is counted, but at this point I think we have bigger issues to deal with.

COs are already dropping units. I know of a unit (prior to bankruptcy) that struggled to find a new CO when their PTO dropped them. They eventually found a fire station to be a CO. Several others ended up creating "Friends of …" COs. At our district meetings I have seen 1 or 2 CORs attend ever. Very few seem to meet today's requirements. If more work/pressure/liability was put on COs, I expect the whole CO/BSA system to collapse.

I should have added … single gender Troops. I think someone mentioned that BSA would focus less on "character" and with the loss of LDS, I expect the declaration of religious principles to fall.

Not saying these will be eliminated, but would think these are Organizational structure about the unit (Districts, Councils, Areas, Regions). Charter organizations Land - Council & High Adventure Bases Ranks - Eagle, Life, Start, etc. Blue Cards Paper books Scout shops Declaration of religious principles

or the GSUSA ….

In the video they state … "End youth programs at 18 and build a volunteer corp for adults at 18." I'll be interested to hear what that looks like and if we can leverage them as adult leaders. If so, that could be a win as I think we lose young adults who could serve as leaders. "Create membership category to allow families and individuals to join special programs developed by councils." Also looking to see what this would be. I'm curious what they meant by this statement.

They will just move on to the next turnip patch …. just wait to see how much they make on Covid-19. I don't think they care if BSA exists after the lawsuits or not, they just want another vacation home or a larger boat. If little Billy doesn't have a canoe for summer camp, they don't care. They may claim they are doing this for the better of society, but that is garbage. Look at the cars they buy, the homes they live in … they are about 1 thing, money.

The lawyers for the victims groups have been clear. 85% of assets in BSA are owned by councils, only 15% by National. The 15% is simply not enough to pay all claims. Either councils fork over a big amount of $$ in bankruptcy court or they will sue in state courts. So, if Ohio never changes their law, the risk to your council is probably lower than those in California, New York, Illinois, etc. However, the impact on the brand will continue for many years as state laws change and new lawsuits are filed. I'm not sure I want to keep hearing about lawsuits 10 years from now … but I also don't want to see our local camps sold. Note that Ohio could change its law any time and if that happened, your council would then be at risk. https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/investigations/new-law-would-eliminate-statute-of-limitations-for-rape-childhood-sexual-abuse

Thanks for the updates … my biggest concern is loss of land. Primarily Philmont, Sea Base and council camps. I'm sure there is probably excess in some councils, but it is tough to put on good camporees (such as Klondike) or summer camp at public facilities or state parks. It was bad enough when we went to a camp with a non private lake. Completely understand there will be some loss, but hopefully we have enough to continue the program. Otherwise, I simply hope we survive in some form. I don't see how national or regional overhead loss will be negative, but time will tell. Scouts BSA needs to go … I haven't seen many fans of the name in my area. Explorers wouldn't be bad and could be used to emphasize the outdoor focus.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We did the same … "if you are not comfortable, do not send your son to camp". We also emphasized that while we will enforce rules and expect scouts to follow them, there will be times where there will be no direct adult supervision. I would rather have parents not send kids than have them send them thinking we are guaranteeing 100% chance of no infection. I am concerned as I think this summer may be the best chance to camp within the next 9 - 12 months. The virus spread may actually be higher in the fall, winter and next spring. I think the risk is actually pretty low right now, given number of infections in my area, which is why we are looking to camp now.

JCC camps in my area just cancelled. Surveys just started at my council. I think that ACA guidance document that was just released will accelerate decisions. Hoping my camp stays open, but if it doesn't, decided to take a father/son fishing trip.

Not sure … I think the fact that Covid is a declared pandemic present in our community and the others are not would play a factor. Our ASM asked the lawyer friend as the ASM started to get a bit concerned about personal liability when another parent, lawyer, asked what would be our plan if someone got sick and we were sued. We thought we would be safe from lawsuits by attending a council camp. The lawyer said he wouldn't care … his answer was basically sue everyone and see what sticks. In the end, we decided to still look at going to a council camp and emphasize to parents that there is no guarantees and we will do our best. We also discussed some additional permission slip to reduce our legal liability (I know those don't work well). The bigger impact the conversation had was on us putting on our own camp in the middle of a pandemic. If we could follow the ACA guidance then perhaps … but we know there would probably be gaps that then could open us up the real legal fallout (and also put scouts at risk). Perhaps other areas would have lower legal risk, but our town seems to be lawsuit happy.