Hawkwin

In my state, it is illegal to maintain such an animal for a month without it becoming a pet - such animals kept for 30 days or more cannot be released back into the wild. That means that if you don't already have such a pet and don't desire to have reptile/amphibian pet, the only way to complete this MB is by: Which can be an exceptionally inconvenient and expensive option (visiting a local zoo weekly for three months?!?!) so our local DNR/MB counselor recommended one alternative was to view such via a zoo webcam. Unfortunately, every such webcam I looked for appears to be shut down. If you are a MB counselor for this MB, how did you satisfy this requirement? Do you know of a webcam where scouts could visit weekly for three months to complete this task? We don't want scouts to have to commit to a long term pet arrangement (e.g. Dog MB and Pet MB) simply to complete a "study" badge and we certainly don't want them to have to violate state law to complete it either.

Just as a matter of professionalism, I recommend calling and having a discussion when there are sensitive issues instead of email. Written words can seem cold and you can't convey your emotion. Better to have a discussion with give and take than an email that she might perceive in a manner not intended. You might consider calling her and asking her if she received the email and if there was any part you could add any additional clarity.

I have the same, and this is a really good recommendation for everyone regardless of their volunteer status. Such policies are rather cheap for the amount of coverage.

Your anecdotal example seems like a good result. A scout behaving poorly and a leader taking care of it. No other scout did anything inappropriate based on what she was wearing. Seems like a win to me.

http://www.powwows.com/matrilineal-societies-women-with-power-and-respect/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_among_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America Lots in the second link, in particular the Hopi, that could be used to create a female version of OA. Keep in mind that if the girls are going to have their own honorary society, it need not look anything like OA. Chiefs or some female equivalent need not be recreated or duplicated.

I am not aware of other coed organizations now suffering a rash of old false sexual assault accusations. Are you? If so, can you share them? If you are not aware of such, then why assume that BSA would have a lot of them? And why assume our female scouters would be so dishonest as to make such false claims? Do our current male scouts make a lot of false claims? I am reminded of a post from one my relatives when this was announced. She was afraid that if girls joined, that they would all get sexually assaulted by their fellow scouts and scout leaders. I reminded her that the only way would happen is if scouts was full of a bunch leaders and scouts that are predators. I think more highly of our scouts and leaders than to assume that the admittance of girls will either result in a massive increase in assaults, or false claims of such.

I would theorize that the people that actually visits that property to enjoy the public hiking available, are highly unlikely to also be the same people that would vandalize the property to the tune of $20,000. I would also theorize that even if the camp was not open to the public for hiking, such damage could still occur. That being stated, it was hikers that caused the fire in the Smokies by tossing lit matches into the brush so I would not put it past a couple of opportunistic juvenile hikers: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/30/gatlinburg-wildfire-arson-charges-dropped-against-teens/443129001/ The boys were hiking on the Chimney Tops trail in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on Nov. 23 and tossing lit matches onto the ground around the trail. Brush caught fire. The boys continued hiking down the trail. A fellow hiker with a Go-Pro happened to catch footage of them with smoke in the background. He didn’t know it was important.

This is the article and I agree that too many took it way out of context. No where in the article did it even mention the word scouts. This was all about getting the entire family outdoors (instead of just the scout): A first-timer’s guide to camping with the whole family https://scoutingmagazine.org/2017/08/first-timers-guide-camping-whole-family/

I am done arguing about it. If your experience with scouts has taught you to read between the lines an infer something negative, then there is likely nothing I (some anonymous poster on a message board) can state that will change your perception. My limited experience with scouts (and life in general) is to give people the benefit of the doubt - and I going to give scouts even more latitude in that regard. I might end up being completely wrong, Nationals may change the new guidance between now and implementation from single-gender to coed, but for now, I am going to take them at their word. I see no reason to waste so much energy otherwise.

Ya, and my 3rd grade English teacher told me that similar and same are not identical. I also learned the definition of "choice" around that time too. Your mileage my vary.

That doesn't state what you think it does. Even if what you infer turns out to be correct, that "similar=same," then, as you quoted in the other thread: Nothing in any way suggests that this decision is compulsory. COs and Troops are not required to change.

Why would you have to do a single thing to accommodate girls? Did you say you were a member of the Chartering Org previously and I missed it? You appear to keep arguing your position as if the decision was to fully incorporate coed Troops. Troops will still be single-gendered. You are neither required to change based on this decision nor are you required to accept girls based on this decision. Those COs that want to accept girls into scouts will have the responsibility of recruiting volunteers for the new all-girl troop. Boys and Girls will not be competing at all within Troops for leadership positions. Boy Scout volunteers that don't want to work with girls won't have to. https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BSA_Family-Entry-Fact-Sheet-1.pdf So much of the opposition to this change seems to be rooted in the incorrect perception that next year boys are going to be losing out to girls. They will be two different programs. [Theory and practice are not the same thing but I am going to accept what they say it will be and how it will function until I see evidence otherwise.]

"Crotchity" or "cantankerous" are not terms to be wasted on the youth after all!

Thanks for the detailed response, @Stosh. That helps me better understand your point. Rather than reply to the entire post (would get messy), I have just a few bits of requested clarification: I get that BSA will have to make changes to things like Youth Protection, but that isn't what makes it unique to me. So, yes, BSA will change but more specifically, what uniqueness will it lose? In what way will it become less based on this inclusion? Keep in mind, the change is voluntary so if a CO wishes to remain "traditionally unique" then nothing really changes for them. Meh. Lot's ways to look at that including the fact that boys could also act that way to other boys. This sort of inappropriate behavior on the part of that group of scouts should not be a reason to not be inclusive, it should be a reason to better educate those scouts on the proper behavior. If they are having a conversation that should not be shared in mixed gender company, then it is probably not an appropriate conversation to be having in a scout setting even when girls are not around. My experience with the above is certainly different. We have girls (siblings and adult leaders) at every troop meeting and I have never seen a scout react in any way simply because a female walked into the room. The sudden entrance of a girl in the room should not cause all of use to panic (my word). Are there any parts of the PROGRAM you can see changing? Managing the dynamics of interpersonal relationships isn't what I see that makes BSA unique so changes to how we as adults have to relate to the scouts (and how they may have to relate to each other) are of less significance than the content, detail, and character of BSA. If you feel strongly that some aspect of that will change, then please share. As it is, each Troop is already unique in how they work with their scouts on an interpersonal level - and of course no troop will be required to accept girls so I don't see the big change that is forecasted but I remain open to being wrong (which is why I strong support a COs ability to NOT change if they don't want to).

Assumptions about NJ's experience doesn't answer the question asked. Based on your experience with coed groups, just what is it that you think we would have to change? If possible, please be specific. Our friends across the pond have indicated that they didn't really change a thing so I am very curious what people think we would have to do different here.

In my limited time with Cub and Boy Scouts, I've yet to encounter anything that is inherently manly or masculine. I don't see why we would need to create anything that is inherently womanly or feminine simply because we include girls that want to be Boy Scouts. As I suggested, I don't have decades of experience as many here do so if you or others are aware of something within BSA that is inherently manly or masculine, I welcome being educated on such. I can't think of a single thing that my son has done so far that would not be just as natural for my daughter to do - and at 9 years old, she has logged well over 100 miles hiked in the Smokies and the White Mountains (NH).

This is my major gripe about many and perhaps even most of the merit badges - they don't rely on or even require experiential learning. They appear to require a bunch of research or fill in the blank memorization. When my son was working on First Aid from home, he simply took the worksheet and his tablet and said, "Hey Google, Explain the standard precautions as applied to bloodborne pathogens." He did that with nearly every section that didn't require him to "show" or "demonstrate." I am quite positive he didn't even know what a pathogen was or what made one bloodborne, but he was able to write down the answer Google gave him and this discuss it with his MBC at his last campout. The Merit Badge program is bloated with a bunch of junk geared toward filling in the blanks so that you too can be featured in a national expose about how you completed all 135+ merit badges. When you design a system with incentives, you can't really blame people for responding to the incentives and the MB process doesn't appear to really incentivize scouts to learn by experiential learning.

This! I think the best thing you could do would be to let the Troops, on some sort of random rotation, plan each Camporee. The next one is probably too close for them to plan (and maybe even the one after that) but I would grant/gift this responsibility and authority to the Troops. All of our local Camporees are sponsored by Troops. I don't know if that sponsorship means that they plan everything or just a little bit but I think some of your best and certainly your highest conviction ideas will come from the Troops themselves.

No, I got the point. The data I posted is still relevant: That includes smart phones. More relevant data: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/a-majority-of-american-teens-report-access-to-a-computer-game-console-smartphone-and-a-tablet/ I didn't dismiss it, I very specifically addressed it by posting data as I did above. Many households have "no regular internet access at all, either at home or elsewhere." With respect, I don't know what is unclear about that phrase that would lead anyone to think it is any way a logical fallacy. Telling a poor Tenderfoot without home internet access that they need to go to a library to vote their opinion and be active participant in Scouts is BAD POLICY and we should not encourage a program that effectively discriminates against scouts based on the their socio-economic conditions.

*sigh* You really don't know what a straw man is, but I digress. It doesn't matter how many have their own phone. If you are trying to be FAIR to all scouts, then you can't do an internet survey as not all scouts have such ready access to the internet at home. There is nothing "straw man" about that. It is simply fact. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/19/census-computer-ownership-internet-connection-varies-widely-across-u-s/ And that stat is even worse for low-income households with kids: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/12/what-happens-when-kids-dont-have-internet-at-home/383680/ A decent sampling REQUIRES the survey participants to have equal access to the survey - otherwise you would get very poor results that will skew toward higher net worth households and urban households. Forcing some scouts (in particular poor scouts) to go out of their way to respond is a great way to discourage them to respond at all.

How many 1st year scouts have a my.scouting login? I am positive my son doesn't. Nationals also doesn't have his email. And, unless you obtained a 100% response rate, then you would still have a margin of error - and one probably much higher than a survey that was sent to a random but otherwise representative sample of scouts. An online survey would most definitely skew results toward older scouts, urban scouts, and higher household income scouts as there are still scouts not only without their own email but also without home internet. I would think a richer more urban segment might give different results.

I've worked for a non-profit member organization decades ago and one of my roles was member surveys. We ALWAYS outsourced that function as you want a company that does that and nothing else. Wording of a survey can change the results so you want experts to do that. The order of the questions can change the results, again, you want experts. If you want to survey more than just your members, then you need a company that has access to existing lists of people based on the demographics you want to survey - again you will want experts to do that for you. And lastly, you really don't want people like me (someone that was an employee at the time), that might have a bias toward one result or the other, designing the survey. You want an unbiased expert company (assuming you want good data and not just confirmation of your opinion) to run the survey. This is why very few entities do their own survey.

And just in case anyone is wondering, yes, I also have the same complaint of the official press release from Nationals that quoted survey results but then didn't publish the survey. If I was king for a day, one of my edicts would be to ban any publishing of poll or survey results without the supporting data. I have my doubts about any survey that can get 90% of people to agree on any topic.

I really dislike news stories that publish survey results but don't publish the survey. We have no idea how the question was worded or even if the change was fully explained. I think it fair to assume that the vast majority of non-scouters (and probably scouters) think the change means full integration instead of inclusion but continued segregation by den and Troop. I think it also fair to assume that the vast major of non-scouters are not aware that it is optional and that no Troop will be required to accept girls. It would be like asking the general public if they approve of the change made to Eagle Palms without detailing just want exactly has changed. If anyone can find the actual survey details, please share it with the rest of us.