yknot

I agree Hawkwin. That was part of my comment earlier. I believe that, like it or not, this is why people persist in using different nomenclature -- because it makes more sense. I'll also reiterate that I think it's time BSA re-engineered the so called field uniform to make it more functional for weather conditions in the field. I know there are plenty of people who love the uniforms as is but there are also plenty who don't. If it were truly a field uniform, people would be more likely to call it that. In reality, though, I think this is a minor thing to be worried about. When I can't remember what to call some piece of equipment I'll just point and say can you hand me that thing? It works. No one has accused me of being a slacker trying to derail kids off the path of excellence just because I've used the wrong word.

Maybe the BSA could solve this by re engineering a field uniform that is actually a field uniform. The current uniform is more like a military dress or ceremonial uniform. It's completely impractical for the field. The shirts are not warm in winter or weather wicking in summer. The patches, other than those that allow leaders to recognize who is who (meaning, I can see from a distance that that scout is in my unit 000), serve no purpose. The shoulder tabs get speared by branches. The neckerchief is actually a safety hazard in certain circumstances. The thin pant fabrics offer no warmth or little real protection while hiking. The heavier duty fabric is chafing to the point where scouts often have to wear bike shorts under them. And all this impractical nonfunctional gear is still expensive.

Our cub scouts attend day camp only, so no need for parents to attend unless they want to volunteer and get a discount. Our traditional history is that attendance is low among Lion/Tigers because many parents think the long bus ride/full day is too much for them. Picks up for wolf and bear. By Webelos and AOL rank, starts to drop off because the older kids are starting to be ready for more adventure.

One reason why scouts may be eager to sign up for merit badge days or programmed opportunities is that at least in our area it can be hard to find merit badge counselors, especially for certain badges.

I think the interesting thing here is that you can see how stressful even frivolous lawsuits can be for those who get dragged into the liability cattle call -- the CO, the CM, the ACM, the DLs and even young scouts who had to be deposed. The people who were named in this lawsuit had to live with the stress for years. It's another reminder to make sure you know GTSS and reasonably follow it. Not all judges are as sensible as this one. You also can't rely on parents having common sense when it comes to supervising their own kids on family activities.

This is a great post. The reason why we need more people exposed to the out of doors is votes. I think immigrant camping comfort is widely varied. In many parts of the world, camping is not recreational but a survival mechanism often linked to stressful or strife torn events. I think scouts can be a great way to assimilate some of these families into American style camping for fun and get them interested in our commitment to the outdoors and unspoiled places. We all wish for more solitude but the reality is there are fewer people here who are interested in the outdoor lifestyle or in preserving anything. One of the main reasons I am committed to scouts is because I support anything that gets kids out of doors and appreciating the outdoor lifestyle.

I agree about the mixed emotions. You want every scout to maximize their potential but the prime directive for leaders and people like this RSO is to keep everyone safe. I think it's also fair to allow people to say when they are not comfortable. Most of us do not have years of training or advanced degrees in dealing with some of these very complex and challenging behavioral and developmental issues. Parents of scouts with issues are often not a reliable or objective source of information about a child's real capabilities, because they are often so focused on trying to maximize mainstream opportunities for their child. That could also be part of what the RSO was referring to "in his experience."

One of my issues with scouts is that there really is no clearly defined leadership mentoring pathway. Our mantra is that it is a scout led troop, but unless scouts have had some kind of exposure to leadership training or experience with it, it can be unnecessarily difficult for some of them who do not have those natural skills yet. We seem to expect them to learn by doing, and we accept the idea that a natural state of affairs for many troops is organized chaos when they flounder. There's something to be said for trial by fire, but I also think there is a whole curriculum missing for the younger kids on how to step into leadership roles and learn how to manage projects and peers. Older scouts could use training on how to manage younger scouts as well. IMHO.

If you have a diabetic kid in your troop, I would hope the leaders would already know that because they would have medical records on hand. You can sometimes have spontaneous cases suddenly present -- and cold weather can sometimes be a trigger that raises developing or latent cases to a level of diagnosis -- but a fruity smell on a kid is more likely the result of something fruity he's gotten into lol.

If it's in bear country, it could be. Where is the scout getting the fruity substance from? Even it's smuggled starbursts and not a vaping device, it's still not safe to have in a tent. Ditto those water flavorings they like to flavor their water with. We tell them not to bring hygiene products that smell like food, even a chap stick, because of bears. It's very hard to know where to draw the line between safety and privacy but when you're responsible for a passel of kids out in the woods somewhere, I tend to side with leaders who take the proactive approach. Just this week someone posted about two bear incidents at scout camp outs. I don't think leaders who are concerned are over reacting.

A training module for leaders specifically on outdoor animal hazards, like weather hazards, would be an excellent resource. The information in the current material is thin and fewer people today seem to have much background experience to draw upon from growing up in the out of doors.

There is no policy, that's the point of this whole interesting discussion. You can say the SM was enforcing 'his' policy, or you can say he was trying to do his best in the absence of any policy. Also, the issue with the original poster seems to be that scouts weren't present. There was no mention that another adult was not present while the search was conducted, which, if not, I agree is essential to protect both the scout and the person(s) doing the search. However, without a BSA policy, no matter what he does (or any of us would do) in a difficult situation could be construed as wrong.

I'm surprised at the number of posters who are shocked at the idea of a worried SM searching backpacks. Obviously experiences vary in different parts of the country, but if bag searching isn't yet common for overnight youth activities near you, it probably will be. It would be good for BSA to develop a policy for when and how scout belongings should be searched. Preemptive searching, even if cursory and tied to presentation, makes more sense to me as a deterrent but at the very least BSA ought to give guidance on how a SM or any leader should handle it if they have reason to be concerned. It seems clear from this very interesting discussion that there doesn't appear to be any kind of policy. Apart from worries about contraband substances and weapons, smuggled food in bear territory is a real concern. Someone just posted elsewhere on this site about a bear that had to be euthanized after eating contraband food. Say all you want about scout privacy, that scout could have gotten himself or someone else mauled, and the bear died.

A 'scout is trustworthy' will not be an adequate legal defense when a scout arrives at a camp site with an inappropriate item and something unfortunate happens because a leader didn't check the bags. We're involved in a youth organization and as adults it's our job to keep them safe. No other youth organization would allow kids on an outing without checking bags. On school, church and sports outings I've been involved with, it's been done by adults as part of the routine while loading buses and cars and no kids are present.

Why would a scout need to be present? More important that two adults are present so that nothing can be "planted" on a kid. Frankly, it's only scouts where kids' luggage, backpacks, etc., is not routinely subject to adult search. BSA needs to get with the times. Class trips, sports team travel, band trips, it all gets searched no bones, no big deal about it. I applaud that scoutmaster.

I think this is another case where BSA is 10 or 15 years behind the times. There should be no expectation of privacy on a scout outing. It's not a matter of trust, it's simply the current reality. There should be no discussion here. Scoutmaster, camp personnel, other designated leaders should have ability to search backpacks at any time if they have just cause. Whether it's cell phones, medications that could make someone sick if not administered properly, or contraband snacks in bear territory, the SM and the camp and troop leaders shoulder the responsibility of keeping everyone safe.

I would suggest contacting your council to get coverage details from the horse's mouth. I have not always found a great deal of clarity about who is covered and when even at the council level, but at least it is a place to start. Whatever the pack or troop thinks is likely to be wrong.

We're doomed.

No matter what we are or how we view ourselves, we have to hold ourselves to a very high standard. Our public trust is at stake. I don't want to read posts that try to equivocate or rationalize this. We need to be perfect. We have put very good systems in place that should help us achieve that and we have decades of mistakes to atone for.

Frankly, right now, it has to be zero and there is no reason why it shouldn't be. If anyone has a qualm about an SM, an ASM, a unit, they/it should be shut down for review. We have almost zero public confidence. The days of covering for folks has to be over. Can you not see the headlines? No one will care about statistics. All they will see is that another scout has been abused despite our assurances otherwise.

If zero isn't the goal then why are we doing this? You can't compare BSA to the teaching profession where teachers and administrators are still allowed to be one on one with students and sometimes even behind closed doors. We are supposed to be the gold standard in youth protection simply because this cannot continue. There cannot be any rationalization for continuing cases.

Despite all the training and precautions in place, there were still 5 current cases of sexual abuse reported in 2018. That percentage is still very low, but with all the attention on this issue, how can this still be happening?

I am often amazed at how oblivious scout leaders are to potential liability and risk, not just for safety but for membership and advancement issues as well. First, know the BSA guidelines and training for whatever you are doing with youth and follow them even if they seem like overkill. Second, be cautious, prudent, fair, and document. Third, make sure anyone else you are leading with is also following the first and second points. The best way to avoid liability and risk is to prevent problems by being knowledgeable and cautious. It can make you an unpopular Dudley Do Right. However, even if you have done nothing negligent and followed appropriate guidelines, everyone sues these days. Even if you don't wind up in court, you can be forced to spend hours navigating the legal process until things are dismissed or you are winnowed out. I speak from experience--not in scouts but something similar.

Sometimes you can help a kid. Sometimes you can't. I always cringe when I read or hear someone say just pair them with a good scout. As the parent of a couple of good scouts who always seem to be paired with a "that kid" who had severe issues, I can say over time this is exceedingly stressful and unfair. If adults can't handle the kid, we shouldn't expect another scout to be able to do so except in short doses. I would also point out that this is also a strategy that schools use, so a mature, capable kind kid like this is frequently stuck with a scout buddy or study buddy who is unpleasant and emotionally draining a lot of the time. Scouts of course should be kind and willing to help out, but we shouldn't turn any scout's experience into drudgery. Adults really need to carefully manage this situation and not abuse the good kids to help the problem kids. No kid's scout experience should be more important than another's. We as adults have to balance that and sometimes that means you may have to say goodbye.

This has filled me with such a sense of sorrow. Scouts is such an iconic organization, but I do not feel that the organizational leadership has itself modeled the behaviors we try to instill in the boys and now girls at the unit level. I believe if the leadership had made decisions based more on how we expect our scouts to problem solve, prepare, plan ahead, and manage, this outcome would have been different.