InquisitiveScouter

God forbid? 😜

I think the best approach would be to give the CO's options, and let them decide how they wish to structure their Scouting program... Just like they already do with selection of adults, religious and character requirements, and whether they have a girl Troop under their umbrella. There are many that would wish to stay with the single-gender approach. There are many that would integrate.

No, they do not. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States. Just like a Texas Flag on a uniform does not make sense for Scouts from Texas.

And not enough, or quick enough punishment of the offenders. We are seeing the rate of our decline increase... coming to a neighborhood near you...

This

A Scout is Obedient ..."He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks those rules and laws are unfair, he seeks to have them changed in an orderly way." Is that who you are?

Love the idea, but... trademark violation.

The price mark-up is a lot less. Gotta fund those salaries! That whole "A Scout is Thrifty" thing... nah, BSA doesn't mean it.

Still waiting for a coherent answer to the post above... Meanwhile, I asked this question at our last Roundtable, as one topic of discussion was recruiting and transition. This went up to council, and the word back through our District Commissioner from our SE (we have no DE) was that youth who meet the criteria for joining Scouts, BSA, may camp with a Troop, and they are covered by insurance if not registered. (and I have the email trail...) Our Caesar has spoken. And common sense has prevailed. In my opinion, the more nonsensical restrictions we (the BSA) impose on families, the less likely they are to join the movement. Rules are fine, when you can present a logical reason for the rule. The thinking and position that, "We have this rule, and we know it does not jive with other rules or common sense, but that is the rule!" really puts people off. I would submit that this BSA mindset is another straw on the camel's back for parents when deciding whether to join or continue in Scouting. Kind of like the "Our kids are friends, but your Scout son (a neighbor) cannot come over to hang out or study with my Scout son because BSA says I have to have another adult leader present. Yes, I know these two 17 year-olds are taking on their AP Chemistry test this week, and they want to study together, but BSA rules are BSA rules!" Um... no. And also.... from G2SS FAQ, which is not "really" policy 😜 "All parents and caregivers should understand that our leaders are to abide by these safeguards. Registered leaders must follow these guidelines with all Scouting youth outside of Scouting activities. There are careers that may require one-on-one contact with youth, however aside from those roles, volunteers must abide by the youth protection policies of the BSA even outside of Scouting activities." "MUST" um... no. This nonsensical statement is overstepping, and balderdash, and parents laugh at BSA openly when they hear it. BSA policy does not nullify parental rights and authority to make decisions about the welfare of their children just because their child becomes a member of BSA. Nonsensical policies also cause many leaders to adopt a "we'll just do it our way" mentality. And when they begin to ignore one or two confusing guidelines, the path becomes slippery and they ignore more and more and more... This describes about half of the units I know of... It also drives away older youth who are becoming more independent. Freedom comes with risk, and they crave both. Give them no freedom, and remove all risk (versus giving them tools and guidance to understand and manage risk), and you destroy the development of their independence. And FAQ are no way to promulgate policy. If your policy is written so ambiguously as to require FAQ to explain it, then you need to re-write your policy. The better statement in G2SS is this: "In situations not specifically covered in this guide, activity planners should evaluate the risk or potential risk of harm, and respond with action plans based on common sense, community standards, the Scout motto, and safety policies and practices commonly prescribed for the activity by experienced providers and practitioners." I often operate under that mindset. Like when my son and his neighbor buddy studied for their AP test together with just me at home, or when they camped in the back yard while my wife was visiting her parents, or when they went down to the creek to play together without an adult there, etc. etc. etc...

Funny how we discuss these things here, and voila! National starts "testing the waters" on this...

100% Also 100% Commissioner has correct picture... it's about best opportunity for those Scouts. Let others worry about the other unit. They can work to either save it, or transfer their Scouts to you. Be open and supportive to their coming over, but focus on your unit and Scouts. My hunch is, their CM will bring them over.

I would say to anyone who is making a decision about Scouting to not pay attention to posts on a website that is not official. And that ALL Scouting is local. So check out your local Troop to see if it is a good fit. I honestly do not believe anyone is so naïve as to think that way. We can (and do) have any number of people here who are not even involved in Scouting, yet post their ideas in conversations about topics. Just because you do not like people's opinions, or how they express them, or the way they pose an idea or question doesn't mean you are the hall monitor who has to intervene. And you have incorrectly conflated way too much stuff here for me to pick it all apart. Except one bit: I would say the OP provided evidence, through his experience, that these groups were detrimental to him, and made him feel excluded. The very fact that no affinity group marketing made him feel welcome to that group is his experiential evidence, is it not? And his expression that he knows his creating an affinity group for "...straight white folks..." would only create further division is evidence that these groups, and the way they are marketed has had a negative effect on him.

I have done that section of the AT! This may not too much for WEBELOS who have never backpacked, if you limit their pack weight by having a good gear shakedown, and limit their weight to about 25% of their body weight. This means others may have to help carry gear. Or, you could let them join you for just one night on the trail! Have them backpack up with you to the first campsite. In the morning, they pack up and go back down to trailhead. This means you'd need two more adults, but they could ferry your cars to Crater Lake, and save you that logistical pain on the first day. There's a million ways to skin that cat. And, are you using this tool with layers? https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6298c848ba2a490588b7f6d25453e4e0

Ummm.... where did I say I was offended, or that you were an enemy? Your posts have not offended, just... confused (to use your phrasing) I often find myself reading tone and intent into these posts, and have to check those inclinations. Doing either pushes my own thoughts and biases onto the other person posting. So, I ask a lot of questions to get at the heart of a matter for understanding. I do find people often take offense at the mere asking of questions. This I find puzzling. And it is why I often say if you look for offense, you will find it. And on your discourse on civil discourse, I think advice given by another poster is valid: If you don't like it, you do not have to engage. I ignore lots of people here in that way 😜

Drei Ecken hat mein Hut!

We disagree that that is an answer. The verbiage you cited specifically applies to den coordinated camping, on its face. But since you are the guy who publishes it, would you care to edify us on the thought behind it, given the situation posed? Here's a hypothetical to help view the policy gap more clearly: Twin 11-year-old brothers arrive at our Troop. They are looking for a Troop to join. Their parents asks if their twins may attend a camping trip before deciding on whether to commit to joining. "Sure!" We say, as this is allowed under current policies, and they are covered by BSA insurance as outlined in the G2SS. "Scouts and guests who are being encouraged to become registered Scouts and volunteers are automatically insured while in attendance at a scheduled activity." https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss10/ 1) We ask the parents for an AHMR A&B. We discuss any potential medical constraints... (required by BSA) 2) We get signed permission slips. (Not required by BSA, but by us...) 3) We have two leaders have a discussion on behavior expectations with the youth and parents. 4) The parents agree to pick up the youth from our event if they do not hold to those expectations. We guide them through some gear recommendations, and get them plugged into patrols with their buddies. Before they leave that meeting, the parents say, "We really hope this works out. Jimmy has not had a good experience in his Cub Scout pack. His brother Johnny never joined because of that. We really want them to be in a good unit that is a good fit." Are you telling me we have to tell the parents Johnny can go, but Jimmy cannot, because Jimmy is registered as a Cub Scout?

I do not recall seeing this one in scoutshop.org. Might be a custom job?

And yet, when you point out gaps in BSA policy like this, you get the stink eye. But, we can have an effect! I am convinced @RichardB got hold of people to make this change due to our conversations here! https://www.scouter.com/topic/33455-concerns-for-bsas-future/?tab=comments#comment-549021 And the result generated: "Cub Scout pack unit coordinated camping is limited to no more than two consecutive nights. " https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss03/#a Thanks, @RichardB!! I do wish they recognized and appreciated the brain trust we have here, to bat around policies in a collaborative environment to help provide clear and definitive guidance...

No... he is inactive because the den has not completed AOL, and has no definitive plan to do so. So, he (his parent really) is wanting to ditch Cub Scouts, and they are looking for a Troop. The parent (I guess after their experience with an under-performing den?) wants to make sure they avoid a similar situation, and wants to find a quality program for their son. "Try it before you buy it." The crux of the question is, why would we impose a handicap on a youth who meets the criteria to join Scouts BSA, that he would not otherwise have, simply because he is registered as a Cub Scout?

Yes, our Registrar confirms they are covered by our Accident and Insurance policy, per "Scouts and guests who are being encouraged to become registered Scouts and volunteers are automatically insured while in attendance at a scheduled activity." https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss10/

LOL, thanks. You see the logic trap, therefore avoid answering the question. I will appeal to Caesar, and hold hope that common sense still reigns. @qwazse, you are once again proven correct! Rule #1 (Don’t ask for a rule, you’ll live to regret it.) Not regretting it yet, but getting there 😜

A youth cannot be registered in both programs. They are mutually exclusive. I looked in the Registration Guidebook, but could not find this specific prohibition. But, I do know the electronic systems do not allow this status. So, your Registrar would not do it. In implementation, yes: A youth is unable to earn the AOL once he joins Scouts, BSA.

OK, so what's the difference in that Scout having "joined". Your insurance coverage was exactly the same. And you haven't really done anything to prevent exactly what you have outlined from happening again, have you? Are you saying that, once having "joined", you still do not allow a Scout to camp, until you feel comfortable that the parent has filled out the medical form correctly and sends the Scout with his meds? How do you know when you have reached that point? BTW, we require the medical form, a signed permission slip, and have that conversation with the parents in the presence of a witness. If the parent misrepresents and something happens, then that is on them. P.S. That conversation includes behavior expectations, and that a parent must always be available to come pick them up during the weekend.

Just curious... What do you mean by "too much liability"?? Would you specify, please?

But if he was not already registered, at 11 years old, he would be OK? Can you see the incongruity in your interpretation of that policy? This youth has already met two of the three existing criteria to join. But because he is registered already, you impose only the third criterion? And... to take that to its logical extreme... because he cannot withdraw his membership, on what date would he be relieved of your policy burden, if he chooses not to finish his AOL?