yknot

Yes. Our Troop insists on meeting weekly even though the meetings are deadly dull and scouts don't want to go to them. Plus they are sitting there being bored while facing hours of homework when they get home, especially the older high school scouts who are generally in AP courses, etc. If Covid has taught us something it's that you don't need to meet much to get activities organized. The activity should indeed be the focus.

I'm not arguing your legal acuity, which is obviously expert and well informed, or the logic of most of what you say. But I think this is also one of those situations where the morality gets lost and for an organization that is basically built around a moral code, this is not going to be a good look when the dust settles. I also think to some degree things are already in panic mode, at least among those organizations sophisticated enough to be monitoring the proceedings.

I totally get the legal problem but what I'm talking about is the moral issue. We're supposed to be an organization that espouses morals. If BSA still has some pieces left at the end of this but community organizations around the country that chartered units are destroyed, what reputation do we have left? What will we be? The abuse scandals have been awful, but scouting also started to die when it began listening to lawyers and corporate types more interested in marketing instead of following it's own scout law. In my opinion.

Does BSA have any moral duty to inform their COs? I feel like this is setting up to be another ineligible volunteers type situation. The BSA had information it didn't share and people got hurt. I know in a legal and financial sense there is a conflict of interest in doing so, but if scouts is going to scout like, it seems like the moral imperative should be to globally advise COs to protect themselves. The silence from BSA regarding any communication to COs throughout this has been deafening. It looks like the impact on BSA is potentially going to be catastrophic. What is the point in creating additional ill will by taking COs down with it.

American Legion Halls, Elks, Rotary, Lions, Masons, Fire Departments, businesses, community and rec centers, athletic clubs, private schools... Some of these groups have national leadership that can mobilize for their individual churches, chapters, etc., such as the major church groups are doing. Some are not as organized, like random Volunteer Fire Departments, businesses and private schools. What happens to these smaller individual organizations who probably have no idea what's going on and don't know to file a claim?

I agree. There is so much ill will that could be created here among so many community groups that I don't see how scouting in any form could withstand it. Scouts is in another impossible situation but the fact that COs have had, as far as I know, practically no direct communication from National on this as it developed has probably been alarming to the ones who have been paying attention. What will happen to the ones who aren't paying attention and don't file a claim and wind up suffering losses? The Methodist church makes out OK but the AME church or VFW down the street does not? Whose moral responsibility is it to tell them to file by Nov. 16?

Youth all over are having a hard time with this and are coping with it differently. Be aware some kids are not so much afraid of getting it themselves but may be living with high risk adults and are very fearful of bringing anything home to them. They may not want to verbalize that they are freaked out over losing mom or dad, especially if they are teens. The cold might be more of a convenient excuse in that case. Many kids are also totally done with zoom. Maybe encourage them to think less 'meet' and more is there anything safe and fun they can do as an outdoor activity at least for bonding where they'd be moving around and staying warmer? Social distance hike or outdoor service project like a trail clearing...

At this point, from an objective viewpoint, it seems like every CO group ought to be doing the same thing out of sense of self preservation -- American Legions, Volunteer Fire Departments, VFWs, private schools. I don't know if others were anticipating this but it seems like a mess on top of a mess to me.

I've received more information and I see why you said that. I just realized it will put some of us in a conflict of interest situation.

Just received a statement from state annual conference of United Methodist Church regarding child sex abuse. It noted that the BSA has filed for bankruptcy, "which limits their exposure to lawsuits and may increase the church's exposure." It further adds that the conference leadership in consult with its lawyers as well as conferences around the country is taking "appropriate steps". It additionally notes that the UMC has more scouting programs in its buildings than any other denomination. I guess that's maybe true after the LDS departure. It seems a very measured statement but still concerning. I haven't yet seen anything like this through Catholic or Lutheran church ties. Has anyone else seen similar statements from them or other religious denominations?

I just saw this article: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-22/boy-scouts-sexual-abuse-claims-bankruptcy Not much new but speculation in this article ups the potential payout to 3 billion -- double the 1.4 billion estimate I've seen elsewhere.

Very sweet essay. Thanks for sharing. We're all in it for our kids but many of us are also in it because someone else was also good to us along the way and we want to share and repay it. Or, we want to leave the world a better place because we have a passion for something or because we believe in something we think is bigger than ourselves. Despite our vastly different perspectives and experiences and our adamant beliefs, which sometimes create some very heated discussions, I think we can all share in our grief that scouting is in trouble and none of us really knows how to save it.

I also check out sometimes. I come here for hope but often leave depressed. However, just to share some uplifting info I just discovered: We all know about Bear Grylls but famous U.K. scouts also include John Lennon, Paul McCartney, David Beckham, David Bowie, Richard Branson, Tony Blair, Keith Richards (!!!!) and, my favorite, Sir David Attenborough. You have to laugh. Could you imagine having a young Keith Richards in your Pack or Troop?

Ugh. None that doesn't involve adult intervention, which is why I asked about guard rails when trying to be youth led. To some degree I think the traditional scout leadership system rewards the more articulate, self motivated, Type A scouts. The standard answer you will often get is more adult training in the patrol method is needed in order to properly train SPLs and Troop Guides, but in my neck of the woods there are so many disconnects in that process that the scouts are simply gone. If you are seeing it I do think it's worth a discussion with your SM to try and get him to have a discussion with the SPL and follow that whole chain of command back down. Another option is to have a side bar discussion with some of the Type B scouts about how they can try to be more assertive. Maybe others here have better advice. I did recommend a book here in another thread that really opened my eyes to the problems these more reserved scouts face and about how their leadership value is often completely overlooked, particularly in scouting: Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain.

I think the focus on false metrics is such an apt phrase. I think it's part of why scouting has lost the sense of fun for some scouts. I return to youth led however. I myself struggle with what the guard rails are. What is an acceptable mistake? If you don't store or cook your meat properly and make everyone sick, that is certainly a lesson learned but then that camp out has not been fun. A patrol where the Type A personalities constantly over shout the Type B personalities until the Type B's eventually leave is maybe a lesson learned for the Type A's -- be overbearing enough and you'll eventually get your way -- but then we've lost some more reserved scouts who might have actually been the more scout like scouts and better leaders. In my reality, I don't see adults dealing well with this. They either overcompensate and take it all over or they are gleefully and completely hands off. In both case, scouting is not fun for our target audience, the scouts and in my neck of the woods I see a lot of dismaying attrition. I think this is why this comment of "scouting is supposed to be fun" keeps resurfacing. It makes me think that scouting boils down more to alchemy more than training: If you get the right mix of gifted leaders and impressive scouts, it will work beautifully. If you don't have that, scouting can be very difficult to deliver.

We keep talking about the lack of clear adult training about patrol method but I wonder if it would help if we focused on the kids more before they get to Troop. I've mentioned before, youth seem to be coming to scouting today with fewer interpersonal and conflict resolution skills. All the adults see is the confusion. I know people are sick of messing with program but maybe there is more need for direct curriculum starting in Cubs about youth leadership and what youth led is. I don't think the kids understand it themselves, so it's hard for them to push back on other kids or adults. The youth leadership message is inherent in the program to some degree, but it's not spelled out in a way that I think is clear for young kids. Certainly not the way we do with Cyber Chip (although I have huge issues with the content of that but that's another topic). As I've also mentioned elsewhere, this is not unique to scouting. Schools are doing fewer group projects because of issues with kids having trouble working in groups. When BSA redid the program a few years ago, I was thinking of this and was hopeful the revisions would find some way to address it. The only thing I saw was a new Bear requirement to manage up and down and run a carnival for the Pack. It didn't think it would work well and when I saw it in action it did not work well. There was nothing that I recall in the requirement that talked about why they were doing it, how to do it, and what they might learn about working with other kids. It also seemed that such activities would be more natural for Webelos and AOLs to help prepare them for the patrol method. The other problem was that Webelos and AOLs are already antsy and looking to differentiate themselves from younger scouts and there is no way they wanted to be directed by Bears. There must have been problems elsewhere because it was taken out the next year, unfortunately along with some good stuff that had added more outdoors related requirements like camping. We do ISLT with older kids, but they are often already in situations long before that where they need some training, like patrols. If not exactly leadership training, maybe they could at least use some basics on how to function in a group like a patrol. It is going to be messy but I think if the kids actually understood what they were supposed to be doing and could explain it to the adults, there might be more patience and understanding. Right now I just see parents frustrated because they are scheduled in three places at once with four different kids and when Johnny the scout in charge of the weekend camp out sends out an email that they need to be at the camp site two hours earlier than expected, they blow up and jump in. And after a couple experiences like that what a kid might "learn" is that he doesn't want to volunteer to run anything anymore.

Just to clarify, when I say that there is nothing magical about youth led what I mean is that it is not the sole determinant for kids to have fun. Kids also have fun in more adult led activities like sports, robotics, 4-H. None of those are youth led but they still have fun. What I was musing on more was why does this come up so much in scouting? There is no doubt the kids have more fun in scouting when they get to do what they want but from general feedback it seems like it can be really hard to do. It's not just that parents helicopter it's that liability, bullying and youth protection issues are also part of the equation. And even in supposedly youth led troops adults still set the tone without even being aware they are doing it. We're youth led for example but the pressure to advance oozes out of all the adults -- leaders and parents -- and the boys seem to have internalized that to the point that it guides what they choose to do. It's great for the kids who are laser focused on getting Eagle but none of them stick around afterwards. In my various kid hats I hear a lot of "I have to go to scouts my father/mother makes me" while I almost never hear the same kind of comment about sports practice, 4-H, etc. This might be another topic to add to the list of market research that would be great to be done by someone outside of scouting if we survive bankruptcy. My sons have a couple times over the years filled out direct to scout surveys, but from what I saw those surveys didn't really ask useful questions. It was more rate how much you like this or that. I think it would useful to ask scouts what youth led means to them and what they think of advancement, have they had friends who quit scouting and why, etc., etc.

Absolutely not. It's just weird that the concept of "fun" for kids has to be discussed in an organization devoted to kids at all. Does that make any sense? I'm not trying to be adversarial I'm just noting that this never comes up for discussion in other forums I participate in for sports coaches or 4-H or whatever. The activity itself is always fun. The discussions are always about admin stuff or how to make it better or how to recruit more kids. I just realized it tonight reading that comment how strange that is that we discuss it here.

There are plenty of youth programs that are fun for youth without youth running the program and that are very popular and youth can't wait to participate in them. Sports, robotics, 4-H, etc., etc. There is nothing magical about youth led. In scouting, I think it helps make a sometimes tedious program more enjoyable for youth when we let the youth have more free rein and they truly do learn something if they are able to try to figure out the process themselves. However, the whole advancement system is an adult originated structure. Kids didn't come up with that. When you let them do what they want within that structure, scouting youth have a lot more fun, but it's not like they don't have fun in other organizations or activities that are not as kid led. I just think kids have fun when they are camping and hiking and outdoors. That's the fun.

Multiple times throughout this thread I have pointed out that scouting needs to be fun -- a game with a purpose. That fun has to be relevant for younger generations coming up though. Lotta people here seem to get their jam from doing things their way and holding on to old grievances. Every other youth organization I'm involved with is worried more about keeping and serving the kids than clinging to traditions. I don't hear or see this kind of talk anywhere but in scouts.

You are on the tail end of fall migration. Have each scout bring bins and look for Bald Eagles. They migrate into November. Lot of hawks still overhead too. Depending on where you are a lot of water birds are also showing up to overwinter. I've just started seeing wood ducks, common mergansers, black ducks, bufflehead, etc. If you are camping near a water source, might see something interesting. Bins can be used again at night to check out whatever is up there. There are apps and sites that can tell you what you can look for depending on what nights you are out. Watching the ISS go by overhead is always fun to see whether you are 6 or 60.

I so appreciate your viewpoint and agree. I will do my best not to sally forth to do battle the next time something yanks my chain.

Also, I agree about the GSUSA. I don't like double standards. I think everything should be integrated and kids should be tracked by ability or interest not by gender or anything else. If a girl is good enough to play little league, let her play. If a boy is more successful playing on a rec league vs. a travel team of any gender, let him play there.

Again, I ask what we are debating here. Up until the post WWII era in the US, and even in many parts of present day Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Asia, and Africa, many women have mastered and still have many of the outdoors or rural living related skills that most US men have forgotten and no longer have simply because they need them to survive. This is not a discussion on what women are capable or not capable of. It is a discussion of what US men's perceptions are regarding women in scouting.

That is a cri de couer. I don't know. All I know is we have to get through it and somehow figure out a way to have some version of scouting survive even if it's simply a vestige of what was because some version of scouting is better than no scouting.