InquisitiveScouter

LOL, thought you were talking about council/district events. Training is another matter... (Even so, training is not a unit mandated thing... those are mandates on individuals.) Disagree Sure, but if a PLC decides they do not wish to participate in these events, you should support their decision. For example, our Scouts choose not to go to many of these events because they are tired of WINNING!! For most competitions, it isn't even close. It just isn't fun for them to whoop everyone's behind. So, they only attend these things about once every three years. And we adults are fine with that. (If those events do not coincide with a unit event, we do encourage our Scouts to run stations or judge events... which they often do.) We have the capability and experience to plan and execute our own program, thank you. Most council/district events are tailored for units with little time or experience. They need the program support. We do not. And, for the record, we would operate fine without any council overhead here. We can even (and have) run our own summer camp. That is up to them... Perhaps they see those events as more value-added to their program than your council events. To each his own. I side with the units on that one.

Mandated?? A unit is "mandated" to participate in nothing. If a council ever told us we had to participate in something, we would just ignore them. You should have zero problem with this. If, by the mere location of geographic boundaries, a unit in Council A happens to be closer to all facilities and support in Council B, then there should be zero issues with them getting their Scouting groove on in Council B. Furthermore, if Council B's training and support (like a Scout Shop or camporees) are better, then units can (and should) vote with their feet. Units DO NOT exist to be cash cows for councils. Yes, you must register in the council that your CO physically resides in. Your DE is 100% right.

2 gold devices. Or here's a wacky thought... ask the Scout to read the requirements and tell you what he thinks he has earned!

A panda walks into a bar and eats shoots and leaves OR A panda walks into a bar and eats, shoots, and leaves. Let's eat, Grandma! OR Let's eat Grandma! Commas kill! Or, at least, the lack of one can cost you money! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/think-commas-don-t-matter-omitting-one-cost-maine-dairy-n847151 Without the comma, the clause causes confusion, but grammatically belongs to its immediate predecessor only. With a comma, it would be an independent clause, and therefore an additional requirement for all. The preceding "or" makes this more potentially more confusing if punctuation rules are not understood or applied. At this point, the writer has not adequately communicated the actual requirement. This is a FAIL. When confusion exists, the only correct thing to do is to make the requirement as indulgent as possible for the Scout. When they write: "Cycling merit badge or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective and 100 miles of cycling", I parse this as such: Cycling merit badge (150 miles is sufficient for Scouts) or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective and 100 miles of cycling (210 miles is sufficient for Venturers) Look at these comma cases... Cycling merit badge, or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective and 100 miles of cycling (same meaning as previous; first comma is important, and clearly separates the two conditions) Cycling merit badge or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective, and 100 miles of cycling (now both previous sufficient conditions have an added condition... an extra 100 miles, so 250 miles for Scouts, and 260 miles for Venturers) Cycling merit badge, or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective, and 100 miles of cycling (same meaning as above, first comma is superfluous) Why not write it like this: "Cycling merit badge or Ranger Cycling/Mountain Biking elective, with 100 additional miles of cycling beyond the requirements for either." ??? BSA has never been known for clear and concise communication. The Guide to Safe Scouting is the biggest case in point. Why? I have no problem with Venturers having additional requirements. If interpreted in the strictest sense, they already have to do extra miles.

And love this one from Stage 2, Undisciplined Pursuit of More - Coinciding within this stage is the loss of key talent. “The right people” begin to leave because the organization has lost sight of its core. Mediocrity permeates performance as tenure supercedes actual performance or growth economies forgive incompetency. Either way, the organization regresses developmentally from people first to product or strategy first. The flow of cash and/or profits hide the inefficiencies so that cost growth is compensated by price increases instead of greater efficiencies through disciplined action and thought. (check, check, and check!!)

Hmmm... Stage 4: Grasping for Salvation - Grasping for salvation suggests the organization has lost awareness of the soul of its own greatness. (check) - Change for change sake through a series of “silver bullets”, such as leaps into new technologies, new markets or new businesses become the thread of searching for the “home run” that can bring the organization back into the black (check) - The gap between the ideal and what is real gets larger as “hype precedes results”. No longer wedded to the brutal facts, the focus shifts to imagineering the organization’s saving grace. Chronic inconsistency permeates each new “revolution”, “future state” or “dream” of what could be similar to a pied piper leading lemmings to their demise. (check) Stage 5: Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death - The demise of the organization is at hand and either the leadership prepares for a fire sale, while it hunts for a saving organization ... or unable to capitulate to the impending demise, leadership remains true to the same logic that put the holes in the ship and rides it into the deep blue abyss (Watching for this... seeing signs now) So, we are firmly in Stage 4, progressing on to Stage 5.

And the Hawaii tragedy was on a council property... https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/06/17/boy-scouts-admit-30-shooting-investigations-near-misses-prior-big-island-scouts-death/

They aren't safer... but they have insurance coverage 😜 It's all about the money, brother... Yes... our local fish and game clubs are some of the strongest supporters of our Range and Target Activities (RTA). And they adhere to all range operation restrictions of the BSA. Do those all go away? Seems like it from this pronouncement. Bet the fundraisers will still go... they'll just be adult only. It's all about the money, brother... Dollars to doughnuts the HABs get exempted from this. It's all about the money, brother...

So many questions... So, is the muzzle loader limited to .22 caliber? Because that is really small for a muzzle loader... If we can use a .22 rimfire, why not a .22 caliber air rifle, because .22 caliber air rifles have lower muzzle velocity than the rimfires. Are we to assume the lever action rifles are limited to .22 caliber also? ummm... "air, CO2, or precharged pneumatic rifle"?? You are kind of mixing apples and oranges there... "air and CO2" are the gases used to propel the projectile. a PCP is a "method" for delivering the gas. Understood that you wish to limit the gases to air and CO2, because these large molecule gases limit the theoretical muzzle velocities you are gonna get. (1600 FPS is theoretical limit??) (LOL, a helium PCP would be wicked, but wicked expensive also) Are you trying to restrict the other "methods" or powerplants of supplying the air? - break barrels use a piston or spring, but are still "air" - gas ram rifles have a piston with N2 (usually), but that is contained. The piston pushes ambient air into the projectile. - PCP (pre-charged pneumatic) you mentioned, but these have the highest muzzle velocities of any powerplant - CO2 cartridge... I guess you mentioned?? - a variable pump (multi-pump) is still an "air" rifle I don't really understand what they are getting at... Can those programs that now have the NRA FIRST Steps Pistol do that at a commercial range??

I was thinking more along the lines of implications of the ratio, rather than causes... One thought is, this is indicative of the complexity of Scouting. There's a heck of a lot to do to run a successful unit, under the current program of Scouting. And then I looked at our unit ratio. We are 1 : 1.5 (not including IH), or one registered adult for every youth member of the unit... and we are an extremely successful unit. Then I also subtracted the adults in the unit who do not really contribute: With that, we are at 1 : 2.4, so one adult for every 2.4 Scouts. Still seems very adult dense... Is this "ratio" sort of an indicator of what it takes on the adult commitment side to make the program run well?

Just saw our council's numbers... from a year ago at this time, we are down almost 8% of our youth numbers, and almost 12% of our adult numbers. The patient is very ill. And, I noted something curious... our registered adult to youth ratio? 1 : 1.8 We have one registered adult for every 1.8 youth in the council... I am cogitating on that one for a while. Thoughts?

And, while the staff churned through the coordination and public relations blitz of the re-branding, and spent untold time preparing for and scurrying about at the National Meeting, your units do not have access to tools and resources to plan and execute their programs... https://troopleader.scouting.org/ https://troopresources.scouting.org/ https://tap.scouting.org/ How about just building your new websites in a sandbox, and then, when ready, migrate all at once? Seems a simple enough concept...

Interesting... I can use it, but you can't... https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/resolution-of-litigation-between-boy-scouts-of-america-and-touch-a-life-foundation-inc/ And yet... https://www.touchalife.org/talscouts/

https://www.rovering4life.org/ Well, if anything is worth doing, it's worth over-doing 😜 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KH_JzLLIhA&t=2s https://fb.watch/rZX80EgGZj/ Please don't show that last link to your Scouts...

Another random thought... When we offer the option of fully coed Troops, will there be an ongoing need for Venturing?

In his soul, every young man longs to know he is worthy... that he has "the right stuff". And he seeks this approval from other men whom he admires. (It is a profound evil that some men use this trait against a youth.) Unfortunately, all men are fallible. One day, the young man is mature enough to realize his approval of himself is what he ultimately needs. He is his own measurer, and harshest critic, because only he and his God know the whole, true story of himself. (And that realization will hopefully lead him on to a deeper truth.) The sooner I can help a youth to realize this, the healthier and happier that young man, and therefore, our society, will be. Even without the trappings of Native American lore, the messages and symbols of the Order of the Arrow have deep meaning. My perception is that, even more than in former times, that meaning is missed by most. I remember when the OA was (generally) for those Scouts who were the finest examples of Scouting. Today, everyone eligible with nights camped and rank gets in... (with a very few exceptions). We use the OA program at our unit level to recognize our Scouts. Even under the current rules, over the past seven years, there were two who were not elected from our Troop on their first go. They took it hard, but when I counseled them, they understood. For both, thankfully, it was a wake up call, and they changed their behavior for the better. This is the (current) way. Under the former way, Scouts were more dedicated to the unit, and performed better, if they wanted the recognition of the Arrow. When their efforts were rewarded, it inspired others to perform better, as well. Placing more of a limit on admission meant that there was, in effect, competition. If you remove all standards, and everyone gets the trophy, the trophy becomes meaningless, and competition (or change of your behavior and performance in order to be selected) dies.

@Armymutt, I empathize, brother... And I want to encourage you. As a veteran, I know you grok what servant leadership is and means... and I know it is frustrating to see, hear, and have others around you who do not. (and to have to live through the consequences of their questionable decisions.) The ideals and values we espouse are best transmitted (and maybe ONLY transmitted) through your example and presence. Without the likes of you, we are lost. Thanks for putting on the uniform... both of them 🦾 Continue to stand in the gap.

Also unveiled was new Distinguished Conservation Service Award. Procurement order for National Supply is already in. Guess no one told that committee about the brand change... Or will they play this rebranding like Scouting/USA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting/USA

Just had a conversation with someone connected... his explanation was to this effect: The corporation named the "Boy Scouts of America" will Do Business As "Scouting America", and there is ongoing discussion as to what the various program names will be. Cub Scouts, Scouting America Scouts, Scouting America Venturing, Scouting America etc.

"They also agreed to cooperate on the commercial terms of scouting trademarks in the future, according to the court filing." https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-america-girl-scouts-settle-trademark-dispute-over-co-ed-scouting-2022-07-23/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting/USA "...quietly abandoned..." And, I am waiting with bated breath to hear the GSUSA reaction to this. I would be surprised if they accept it without objection. See the Lapp Test https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lapp_test "A likelihood of confusion exists when an allegedly infringing trademark is likely to cause an appreciable number of reasonably prudent purchasers to be confused as to the source or origin of the products or services it is used to identify."

Yes, won't that be a hoot if the name change efforts crash and burn? I'll be having a tall glass of Schadenfreude if that happens...

Yeah, and think of all the churn, time, and money it will take to transition EVERY piece of literature the BSA (sorry... the SA... wait that doesn't sound right... "the Scouting America" hmmm... ) has currently published to bring in the new name. And programming/editing time for websites, web pages, posting new logos and name changes... Printing of business cards... new clothing... design/production/procurement/of new gear... and disposition of old unsold BSA items in the supply warehouses... Criminy... talk about waste... We are talking millions of dollars here. Sometimes, taking no action is the best course of action.

Here're some additional random thoughts... - The Congressional Charter is for the "Boy Scouts of America." (Congressional Charters do not mean much, anyway, but BSA likes to ride that hobby horse.) Will this "charter" now be defunct? Probably not, due to some legalese... - What will the new Eagle rank patch look like? - Will there, for the next few decades, be a bunch of "cool kids" with "BSA" on their uniforms versus "Scouting America"?? Will there be a run on buying up old logo uniforms? - What will we change the words to one of our favorites camp songs to?? http://usscouts.org/songs/ifiwerent.asp - Will there be a re-boot of the Fred McMurray classic, Follow Me, Boys! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060420/ Will Kurt Russell reprise his role as Whitey, and now be the Scoutmaster in Follow Me, Kids! - Does my BSA memorabilia collection now increase in value? (At least, the items that say "BSA" on them...) Is it time to insure my collection?? 😜 Especially stamps and coins: - Will we have an "Auld Lang Syne" party to say goodbye to 115 years of tradition?