yknot

I don't think enthusiasm is the issue. I think the issue is that fully entrenched scouters perhaps are not as cognizant of how the child abuse scandals have affected the way the general public views scouting and has created a perception that we are out of touch. I have literally sat through that song at least a dozen times. Maybe it's just our Council but those darn WB'ers bust it out at holiday meetings and COHs and Roundtables. I actually don't mind the Council events because everyone there is used to it. I don't like it at the unit level because many of our families have this image of scouters as being impressive LEOs or Corporate Execs or Vets but when they start singing that song, it's as if they've suddenly sprouted mouse ears.

Hurt? I'm flat out annoyed. Our current situation establishes just how unreliable and arbitrary internal BSA research and data is, because it's usually self validating and self congratulating. Who cares what BSA thought in the 1970s? Over decades, it has routinely manipulated data to reinforce already presumed positions and initiatives and that has resulted in one of the most poorly managed nonprofits in existence. Does anyone seriously think more girl dads are somehow bad for the future of scouting? Why would that even be relevant when you are looking at upcoming generational cohorts that, until Covid, almost never went outdoors in any substantive sense? I can't see the logic -- it's not like the apparently less desirable girl dads will somehow be replacing more desirable boy dads because the reality is there just aren't a lot of dads of any progeny type out there who are interested in scouting for their kids. That's the problem that needs focus and has to be fixed. I'm annoyed, because attitudes like yours misdirect attention and try to scapegoat more rallying emotional targets, like girls and women in scouting, over more reality based ones. It prevents us from addressing root reasons why fewer kids and families choose scouting today.

Wow. I don't think the problem is girls or girl parents at all. The problem is that not enough kids are interested in the program to begin with and that not enough people of any kind are growing up with meaningful outdoor experience and common sense. The leader pool with those skills is shrinking. Franky, I'm a little insulted by this attitude. I'm a girl, and I know at least as much and to be honest probably quite a bit more about outdoor skills than any "boy" in my Troop. But your opinion explains a lot.

It was about a 10 to 15 minute ceremony -- not bad and that part was all fine. There were a bunch of WB people in attendance however from our local troops as well as guests of the person who had earned his wood badge and they all got up to sing the song that talks about what animal they are. I didn't want to say this in my original post because it is harsh but that song does not play well in this day and age with some folks. It makes scouters seem very odd to some and reinforces the perception that some have that there are some very odd, out of the mainstream folks involved in scouting. If it had been one or two people I think it would have been fine but the new parents' reactions were that there didn't seem to be one normal adult in the troop that they would trust around their kid -- the ones who were singing it and the rest of the folks who seemed to think it was a normal thing to do.

I prefer to be on a horse and have a couple of large working dogs with me.

I don't know how to comment on this in the other thread, but absolutely agree. Growing problem with scouting today. BSA online training or a couple of weekends of in person training cannot turn people into competent outdoors leaders. In 20 years our adult leader corps has morphed from mostly farmers and outdoors people with a lifetime of experience in the elements to more corporate or suburban type people who are well intentioned but don't know what they don't know. We're making weather calls on phone apps that show red blobs 30 minutes away but if you look up at the sky weather is already over your head.

Painter may have come from a derivation of the French word le panthere, or it could have been a reference to the black paintbrush like tip of their very long tails. Catamount is a garbled version of the Spanish Gato Monte, meaning Mountain Cat. Cougar is a French translation of a Brazilian Portuguese name. Puma is also pretty well known and derived from Spanish. Ghost Cat, Shadow Cat, Mountain Screamer, Fire Cat are all obviously more Appalachian names. My favorite is Long Tail, which was the name the Erie Nation gave to it and to themselves. Apart from what they are, these animals are also a fascinating bit of natural history.

I wouldn't hike anywhere without a stick or a pole. We don't really have mountain lions around here but we do have bear. There are also a lot of people who hike with their dogs off leash and they are not all friendly. We have also had a number of cases of rabid animals attacking hikers. That's another issue scouts could use more consistent education about.

It is an encounter though that may become more common. Cougar populations are increasing and the species has expanded. Dispersing young adults are being reliably if intermittently sighted in any number of unlikely states from Illinois to Louisiana to Connecticut. In Utah where this incident took place the cougar population has tripled in recent years. Black bear populations are also on the increase in many states. Since the U.S. population is also increasing and Covid is causing more people to look for more remote trails, this video is a good reminder to be prepared.

I kinda disagree. I think for now in this Covid world, you've got to avoid any kind of nonessential interaction. If you are talking about an industrial kitchen where someone who is trained and is cooking meals that can be individually accessed via social distancing, that's one thing. But if you are talking about a camp out or camping situation that is more in the rough, which is what I think the IP was talking about, you need to keep everyone and all their meal components separate. You cannot, for example, have a communal ice chest to store foil packed meals. Even if cooking will ultimately kill pathogens that could be eaten, multiple people still have to access the chest to put the wrapped meals in and take them out which all represent possible points of contagion. Bear and wildlife issues make personal coolers a problem. Ziploc bags are not safe to boil re manufacturer specs. There is no problem with personal hot water. All you need is a tin cup on a grate. Or you have one person pour hot water into each cup. It's not just about keeping surfaces clean it's about keeping them apart and minimizing points of contact.

Also, keep in mind this virus likes colder. dryer temps so freezing, frozen or cold is not good. Anything communal needs to be cooked.

All those ideas require a degree of interaction. I would have everyone pack their own MRE type meals that only need hot water to rehydrate. You can buy expensive ones but there are also plenty of things that work at the supermarket and are all light to pack and carry -- oatmeal cups, ramen cups, mac and cheese, mashed potatoes, pasta mixes, etc. A lot of carbs but makes it workable for a couple of meals.

I've never done WB and any interest in it died the first time I watched a bunch of grown adults sing that kooky song at a COH that led to two of our newly crossed over scout families immediately pulling their scouts out, lol. However, I've known a lot of people who have gone through the training and are just great people and seem to have gotten something out of it. I think the point is it isn't for everyone and a weekend or two of training doesn't a leader make. Sometimes it only makes bad leaders worse because now they have a badge. While I didn't ever do Wood Badge, I and another person did do someone else's ticket for them without realizing it so I think I at least qualify for a Wood Chip.

Have you ever read "Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking", by Susan Cain? It helped me understand myself and my own leadership strengths as well as be able to better recognize them in some of my more "quiet" scouts. The book also showed how we often make mistakes about what true leadership is.

It's an inherent conflict of interest. Most of the COs around here are the same. They are legacy COs and believe their responsibility is to provide meeting space and benign support. I know ours doesn't have any real clue that they "own" our unit. BSA, through the Councils, has been more focused on retaining units and membership than in building relationships with COs. It's not a priority. Short of egregious circumstances, they usually will not do anything to damage a CO relationship and risk closing a unit. This is not to say that there aren't model COs but they aren't necessarily the norm. BSA has described itself as a franchise operation but it doesn't actually manage the organization that way. If you walk into a McDonald's it shouldn't look like a Wendy's, but from this forum we know there are units and councils that are almost unrecognizable to each other.

I don't think you failed. I just think it's hard to teach leadership in an organization where the structure completely muddles it. One very useful thing about this discussion is that it has crystalized how dysfunctional the CO structure is. If BSA were well led from the top down, there would be more clarity and accountability on how COs are supposed to operate. But it's impossible to manage up when there is nothing to manage up to because there is little to no accountability in BSA's separate management tiers. Every tier -- from CO to unit to district to council to national -- is operating against its own set of goals and principals. There has been little to no motivation to pull all those tiers into sync. Decades ago when BSA was less market, membership, and advancement driven, the basics of scout law and traditions were enough to keep everyone sort of on the same page. Like so many social institutions, though, we have lost those common threads. If scouts survives bankruptcy, I hope it finally gets some outside leadership that can see these challenges and find a new corporate structure that is more functional.

Here's another thing: Even just for what should be a routine thing you can't get a straight or easy answer out of national. Has anyone ever attempted to navigate the BSA Customer Service number? It was back in the day when I was so niave as to think a BSA policy was vague by accident instead of by design. I asked, "In this policy, does X mean Y or Z?" I thought it was a simple question. Turns out the person answering the phone wasn't actually anyone who could answer a question. She was very professional when she assigned me a "trouble ticket" and told me someone would get back to me. I was suitably impressed and thought it all sounded very official and important and scoutlike. I explained it was for an outing coming up in 48 hours. She said someone would get right back to me. I held my phone in my hand all afternoon. A week and half later, she called back and gave me the answer, which was to recite the same policy back to me. I reminded her that my "trouble ticket" said that X was a little vague and I had needed clarification on whether it meant Y or Z. Simple question. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. I still wanted to know for the next time this issue came up. A few days later, another call back. The answer, which the customer service officer was apparently reading off an email, was garbled. I questioned her and we established that she was not familiar with the policy to know how to interpret the response, so I asked if I could actually speak to the professional scouter who had written it. She would check. About a week later, I had a message from her that she had moved "trouble ticket XYZ" up in priority and someone would get back to me... It went on like that. It was beyond belief. The ultimate upshot is that after about four weeks I had a very gruff, businesslike, but cordial message from someone who said he was pleased to answer my question. He then proceeded to read the same policy back to me, and then chuckled and said, "and just so you know, you can also find all of the BSA's policies like this one on our website..." I gave up. Since I was still naive, I tried to use that system a few more times but except for one case they were all that frustrating and nonsensical so I stopped calling and started looking for chat groups or whatever and that's how I came across Scouter Forum.

I would bet a lot of us have attempted to make things better by reaching out, but have had no success. I stumbled across this forum after years of calling and emailing Council and National and having numerous conversations to no effect. The coffee's always been out in our unit, but generally they don't really want to hear from you unless it's related to FOS or membership.

Wow. This is where your scouting hat has to be put over your Catholic hat. I'm Catholic, at least by tradition, and I've supported you on some of your statements because I know what it's like out there. But the diocese does not direct what scouts do. The scouts do. That's what it means by boy led. And scouting adults do not put youth in situations like that. Scouts is not a religious organization. It's a youth organization that honors the importance of religion. Many religions. There's no road map for what you are espousing.

A changed work world is why some parents have different attitudes. When I was a kid, my dad was the last home at night in the neighborhood. People thought he was a workaholic because he got home around 6 or so every night, except for end of quarters and tax time when he sometimes worked nights or part of a weekend. Never on a Sunday. My mother didn't work and I wasn't in daycare or aftercare. We spent a ton of time with our parents. Today, it's a struggle for many parents to get home by 6; most work a lot later, or have to work from home after dinner. Most work weekends. Many travel (pre covid) and are actually away for whole weeks or weekends Most families are two career. Most kids are in some form of daycare and are not with family for most of the day. There are a lot of parents -- especially those who are attracted to scouting because they want something great for their kid -- who do not want to spend the few hours they have available for family time regularly working with someone else's kids or sitting around a camp fire with other parents. I think if scouts wants to be relevant going forward it's got to find a middle way -- find a way to teach scouting skills while recognizing that the generation of parents coming up wants to spend most of their limited free time with their kids. I'm not denying there aren't other societal things going on like helicopter parenting or snowflake syndrome, but this is one of the new realities of life that scouts is often so slow to identify and respond to.

LOL the wildest friends I ever had were in Catholic school. Perhaps not outwardly destructive of private property but innocent faces often hid diabolical minds.

The problems you outline are largely attributable to the inherently dysfunctional organizational structure of scouting. There is little to no accountability in the scouting hierarchy. We have at least five levels of operation -- CO, unit, district, council, and national -- and little connection between them. In a corporate structure, low level employees with an issue generally at least have an HR department. There is no such function in scouts. We have four separate tiers with their hands out for fundraising and they are each only truly interested in or accountable to their own needs -- COs, who sometimes solicit direct fundraising support from units, units, who need dues, districts and councils, who run FOS and popcorn and whatever else, and National. By design, COs and units are largely isolated and there is no conduit for requiring accountability from Councils or National. There are accountability gaps everywhere you look and I believe this is partly why we were so successfully exploited by child predators. It's no coincidence that our structure is somewhat similar to that of the Catholic Church. Before scouting became so focused on marketing (money), membership and advancement, the structure worked OK but it no longer does. One of the good things that could possibly come out of bankruptcy would be a more functional organizational structure.

This is an accurate and sad litany and is why scouts needs to stake out fresh territory in a familiar landscape: Focus the organization on getting youth outdoors. All, or at least most, of the pieces of traditional scouting can still be a part of the overall program but should not monopolize the experience the way they do now. All the aspects that have eroded scouting's prestige and reputation are linked to things like allowing rote advancement, an overemphasis on religion, and management by marketing instead of by scout values to take it over. Covid has been a crisis but it is also scouting's best and still most overlooked opportunity. It's time for the organization to evolve.

The Eagle or Else outlook is not a plus for scouts. The whole concept of pushing to First Class in the first year is a part of it.

While I am generally a rule follower, given what BSA is, I think some degree of interpretation is involved. Some of these BSA policies that seem so outrageous, like attempting to dictate what a leader does on his or her own time with their own children, are really there to give BSA plausible deniability for liability reasons. They know most leaders are not going to tolerate being told they can no longer take their kids and friends to the movies. But, if something happens, they want to be able to say you were not following BSA policy. Although the headline will still say "Boy Scout Leader Charged in..."