The Time Has Come To Stand On Your Own Two Feet.

[DDHII]

Even though many of you disagree with the Venturing program please remember: kids vote with their feet, as our past national commissioner would say. Many troops do not offer a program that many older youth can relate to. Most older Scouts feel bored teaching and coaching without participating in activities tailored for them. If units cannot meet the needs of older youth, they will walkout and leave Scouting. National statistics show a serious decline in scouts ages 15-18 and very few adult leaders under 21 years of age. Dont worry about Venturing stealing your older youth. What good does it bring if they quit and leave Scouting anyways? And besides if a crew wants to start an Elvis fan club, let them. You could consider it an Arts & Hobbies crew.

 

Venturing is not diminishing the value of Boy Scouting. Effective program is important for retaining youth, and those youth can show leadership in your troops. Ask any Venturing-aged youth what is easier, showing leadership to younger scouts or showing leadership to their same aged peers and older Venturers (i.e. college aged). Why should youth leadership in a crew be any different than the leadership found in a troop?

 

Dale

 

[Eamonn]

Dale

Maybe we have not made it clear.

WE LOVE VENTURING.

There is nothing wrong with the program.

The Program can and will work.

However taking a bored Scout from a boring troop and selecting the ASM from the boring troop to be a boring do nothing Crew Leader and keeping the bored Scout on both the Boring Troop Charter and the Boring Crew Charter is in no way going to solve the problem.

Yes if the Crew is doing stuff that will hold the interest of this young Lad we are 100% for him joining the Crew. More power to him.

Eamonn.

PS

My reference to the Elvis Fan Club was to do with Councils that have gone into schools and signed up entire grades as "Venturers."

I don't have any problem with a real crew doing it. It sure beats Country and Western!!

(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[CaveEagle]

Re: "to the others who have posted that Venturing is little more than a partol that can go hunting and use pistols -- I suggest you spend a few moments reading the Quest or Ranger requirements."

 

 

I have already stated that I think the Venturing program has a lot of potential. My only criticism is the motives and the execution being presented in my unit / council.

 

During a recent Univ. of Scouting, I attended a "Venturing for Scoutmasters" class. I was urged to concider a Venturing Crew "for our troop". We had been concidering the idea of a Venturing patrol, but were strongly urged to move toward the Crew route. We were told "there is no good reason not to have a Venturing Crew".

 

In our unit, some of the older (14-15) are into the idea of a Venturing crew, because percieve it to be a more "elite" level of scouting. It seems attractive to some boys to separate themselves from the younger scouts for whatever reason. This is not a healthy reason to start a crew.

 

I have an incredible amount of respect for the Venturers out there that are independant and are recruiting kids into the scouting program. The prospect of "adding on" a venturing crew to a relatively new troop (

[BadenP]

Wow, I didn't expect all of these replies, and I did not mean the term crybaby applied to all of you, my apologies. In my district I have seen too many new crews fail due to "red-coat-itis", and good Venture leaders ostracized for so called stealing the older boy scouts, 15 yrs and up. The point I was trying to make is that Venture is very capable of standing on its own, and that scoutmasters need to look at these crews as potential partners rather than adversaries. TwoCub is right when he stated that older boy scouts are disappearing more each year if Venture brings them back, then great. I also agree that a Venture crew inside a troop is a self defeating measure, however an alliance with a seperate Crew could be of great benefit and could be an incentive for the boys as they get older to stay connected to Scouting. As all of you have seen recently Scouting has been diminishing these last 15-20 years. Councils are folding or being absorbed, and the services from Dist. Execs. and councils seem non exsistant. I was a DE for three years and I was always at every district event and Eagle Board of Review and Ceremony representing the council. Nowadays most units don't even know who their DE is or what they do. It saddens me that all DE's do now is raise money and try to keep units from folding, many of them with no experience in scouting or understanding of the programs.

 

To all of you leaders in Scouting you are to be commended on keeping Scouting alive. We are all the glue that holds the program together. We should all be united as one in the spirit of BP himself.

[Bob White]

BP writes

"As all of you have seen recently Scouting has been diminishing these last 15-20 years."

 

Nationally the traditional programs of the BSA diminished by a mere 2% in 2004 compared to its 2003 stats. But isn't this largely a local problem? Many councils in the coumtry are thriving. The council I am in for instance had a 16% increase in membership this year. And there were other Councils that had even larger increases.

 

Councils are folding or being absorbed, and the services from Dist. Execs. and councils seem non exsistant.

 

Again localized problems. Financial problems of councils are more likely caused by the financial woes of a community and seldom related to the Scouting program itself. The fact that adjoining councils are able to expand their service, often taking on and satisfying the other councils debt shows that this is a localized situation and not program related.

 

I was a DE for three years and I was always at every district event and Eagle Board of Review and Ceremony representing the council. Nowadays most units don't even know who their DE is or what they do.

 

Thats a shame, and it speaks more to the lack of training than to the condition of the professional services. How can you attend New Leader essentials and not know what a DE does? Also I would love to see the statistics you base that conclusion on. There are well over a quarter of a million units in the BSA, how could you possibly know that most do not know their DE?

 

"It saddens me that all DE's do now is raise money and try to keep units from folding, many of them with no experience in scouting or understanding of the programs.

 

As a DE, certainly you were taught the 3-Ms of professional scouting? Isn't it Money, Manpower and Membership? That is their job, and has been since 1916, why be sorry about that?

 

Why should they not know the program? They get training. And again, this is a local program, many professionals as you know were scouts and scout leaders, including you. The three pros in the district I serve for instance are all Eagle Scouts.

 

As far as membership there are over 110-million youth who have been in scouting and currently there are over 3.2 million being served (not counting Learning for Life and Exploring), by nearly 1.5 million volunteers. You would be hard pressed to find other organizations serving as many youth each week all year long as the BSA does. The 4-H Clubs come the closest and their membership has decline more over the past ten years than the BSA has.

[dsteele]

BadenP:

 

My DE is a great guy! He knows the program, is an Eagle Scout, and has been a Scoutmaster. He knows better than to spend his time at Eagle Boards of Review, but is at every district activity and meeting.

 

He raises his share of money and lets the volunteers do their jobs. He serves as "coach-counselor" to the district. I know because mine shared his position description with me.

 

The DE is an important part of the program in a given area, I'll give you that. But the DE is nothing without the volunteers backing him or her up.

 

Whether there is a rise or fall in quality or quantity of membership is dependant on all of us doing our part.

 

Unc.

[BadenP]

This is to specifically you Bob White. You are wrong on most of your rebuttals to my letter. First, since its beginnings to the late sixties scouting was at a national high of over 5 million, since the 1970's the numbers of scouts has dropped by more than half and the movement has never been that high again. National figures are usually overinflated to present a better picture, I know this since I helped work them up one year. More than twenty five percent reported are only paper units put in to make the council look better, this is a fact from personal experience with National stat dept.

 

Second, the reason councils are going out is because funds being collected on financial campaigns have been dropping dramatically over the last five years because of the economy, and overall decreasing numbers of scouts. Another reason is that the council programs being provided are decreasing or non exsistant, many units in my area have more of an adversarial relationship. Case in point the council in Seattle is taking 15% of the income from Sea Scout Regattas, etc. to cover their administative costs, even though these events are held off council property and there are no council reps at any of these events. The result is the Sea Scout units are holding all events away from Seattle in another council and reducing their contributions to FOS by 15%.

 

Thirdly, let me tell you what DE's at National are taught, how to "squeeze prominent business people in your district to get them to give up the most money possible", how to "manipulate volunteers to get them to do what you want", and "how to create units quickly", without securing the necessary leaders or number of scouts for a viable unit. Then they told us that it is policy for DE's to be transferred to new councils every three years because they will usually wind up being unsucessful after that time ,their district resources will be all dried up and a new DE has to develop new sources since the prior ones are left feeling used and angry. I am here to tell you that National cares less about program, and only about money and whatever unit growth they can get. Mr. White you do not know of what you speak concerning National or any of your stats, a 15% growth in one unit is insignificant in the big picture. If you think that National has the best interest of the boys, I tell you now from personal experience IT IS NOT TRUE. My friends still in the profession tell me it keeps getting worse every year, the demands National puts on the councils. One last point Mr. White most councils go under because they stop delivering program and the parents pull their kids, and the scouters in a council stop supporting it financially. I could tell you a lot more stories that would change your opinions, if you want to debate this further, but your facts and stats are just wrong.

[Bob White]

BP

First, since its beginnings to the late sixties scouting was at a national high of over 5 million, since the 1970's the numbers of scouts has dropped by more than half and the movement has never been that high again.

 

Oh yes, the magic of math. The numbers pre-1970 include Exploring, a program that is no longer counted in the tradition statistics of the BSA today, yet those youth still exist, but are counted in Learning For Life. The other problem is population density. The peak years included the Baby Boomer crowd who are now all adult leader age. Care to look at the number of available youth today compared to 1970 and then add in Learning for Life? You will see that the BSA on average actually serves as large or larger percentage of available youth. Could we be bigger? I think so, if more units offered the program promised the youth in the Boy Scout Handbook.

 

Check out the figures compiled on scouting programs around the world by WOSM. Except for Indonesia where the program membership, as it was explained to me, is a part of the school system, so every eligible youth is a scout, the BSA leads the worls in percentage of available youth in Scouting. And except for Indonesia the BSA has had the most consistantly strong membership of any country. As a professional or even as an experienced scouter you would also know that many countries (especially in former soviet territories and third world countries) depend on the BSA for financial support and resources in order to continue to provide scouting.

 

"Second, the reason councils are going out is because funds being collected on financial campaigns have been dropping dramatically over the last five years"

 

Once again a local problem. Many councils including this one is raising more money than ever before.

 

"Case in point the council in Seattle is taking 15% of the income from Sea Scout Regattas, etc. to cover their administative costs"

 

Wait a minute...I thought you said you had been a professional. If that is true you would know that is a common practice in all councils, and you would understand why that budget item exists and what it accounts for.

 

" Thirdly, let me tell you what DE's at National are taught, how to "squeeze prominent business people in your district to get them to give up the most money possible", how to "manipulate volunteers to get them to do what you want", and "how to create units quickly", without securing the necessary leaders or number of scouts for a viable unit. Then they told us that it is policy for DE's to be transferred to new councils every three years because they will usually wind up being unsucessful after that time ,their district resources will be all dried up and a new DE has to develop new sources since the prior ones are left feeling used and angry."

 

Well that explains two things.

1. You might have been an employee of the BSA, MAYBE! But you sure weren't a professional.

2. It explains why you "used to be" with the BSA.

 

"most councils go under because they stop delivering program and the parents pull their kids, and the scouters in a council stop supporting it financially."

 

So you think that volunteers did such a bad job of delivering the program that they stopped donating money to their organization for them to use themselves to deliver a better program?

 

Now you have me convinced that you are not a unit volunteer, or a professional, because you do not understand either side of the program.

 

Which specific stats that I have presented do you challenge? Because I would be happy to send you to any number of resources to back them up.

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[dsteele]

Mr. P:

 

It seems, by your handle, that you have a strong attitude about your position in Scouting.

 

I don't agree with your attitudes about national. In fact, I like our DE and the direction the council in which I am honored to participate is going.

 

I see nothing wrong with getting more kids in the program through new units. I don't know about the numbers you or Bob White posted. I was a kid in the program at the time and not privy to the membershp figures.

 

I believe in the Boy Scouts of America and it's volunteer and professional leaders. If you do not believe in them, I suggest you go elsewhere.

 

I do believe that you were once a DE, but I also believe you when you say you are no longer employed.

 

I'll leave it at that.

 

Unc.

[Eamonn]

As part of a Key3 I just can't say enough good things about our DE.

I know for a fact that we don't have any "Paper Units" in our District.

In the past eight years we have seen growth in our Boy Scout Membership.

We didn't hit the mark last year in Cub Scouts.

We have seen an overall growth in Membership of about 20% over the past five years.

This can all be attributed to having a good looking District Chairman and a hard working DE.

Well - A hard working DE is true!!

Eamonn.

[BadenP]

Bob White, your reply shows a high degree of insults and immaturity. While I was a DE my districts and council were the highest in numbers and money raised in its entire history. For your information I had no less than five offers to return to my position, but I turned them down because of my current lucrative position. Next unless you have been to the National Professional Training Center you should keep your ignorant comments to yourself. I won't lower myself as to tell you what kind of Scouter you are, even though it was probably many years ago. Finally to silence you ill informed critics I will have you know that I have been offered a position at the National Scout Center in Texas. If I was so unprofessional why is it they want me back? I was relating my personal story and experience, but I will always feel that Scouting is by far the best youth program there is and I am proud of my time as a scout, as a DE ,and curently as a scouter.Mr White I believe your attitude encompasses all that is wrong with a minority of scouters who can only view things with a narrow tunnel vision, and prevented Venturing from coming into exsistence a long time ago. Your insults to me show that you are a small man with a small mind,

 

[boleta]

I encourage all in this thread to read "SCOUT'S HONOR a father's unlikely foray into the woods" by Peter Applebome. This is a well researched book by a non-scouter whose son liked Scouts better than sports. It was written in 2003. Part of the book addresses many of the inflated numbers that were used by National in the 80's.

I am very active at District and Council levels. I see some attempts to activate new units before they are ready by the DE. But the number of scouts registered seems to be very accurate. I don't think the professional side should be criticised for trying to fund their activities. Obviously they get the volunteers to help in this endeavor with FOS and other programs.

[Bob White]

Yeah, and I'm the Duke of York.

 

Let's understand each other BP, I posted very politely, even complimenting you on your successes. Then you made some very misleading statements that are not supported by the facts, you took unwarranted cheap shots at the program and its professionals with broad generalizations that you have no way of statistically supporting. You claim that my actual numbers were wrong but gave no specifics as to what was wrong or what the right numbers were or what your sources are.

 

Then you write me and threaten me with banishment from the board.

 

You will learn I do not cave to verbal bullies nor do I suppose that the person who barks the loudest is in the right. If you cannot present some facts then your are just howling in the wind and I for one am not impressed.

 

Eamonn identified the problem quite well. The Venturing program is fine in theory but has not been implemented well in any instance that I have seen so far. It relies too much on dual applications. Scout leaders who should have started Venture Patrols, instead started Venturing crews, dual registered their own scouts and created two weak units in place of one weak unit. I have talked with professionals and volunteers in several councils, the story changes very little.

 

If BP you feel unable to discuss this topic without having a temper-tantrum and name calling then I think perhaps the problem is not sitting at my keyboard.

 

And just to tie up any loose ends, Venturing didn't come a long time ago because we had Exploring, a nearly identical program that was removed from the traditional program venue and moved to the Learning for Life program. Venturing then replaced it so that we would have a coed program for older scouts in the traditional program grouping. And any professional in the BSA would have known that.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[BadenP]

Mr. White after reading your last two insulting letters I am not going to get into verbal wars with you. Suffice it to say that in your last letter to me your opinion on Venturing is totally false, it did not replace Exploring but is a totally seperate program. Just because a few people you know tried to implement the program incorrectly does not mean the program is flawed. I did not read any compliments to me in your last letter, just a vicious attack about my professionalism. Your statements on National are based on the limited information you have heard from others, whereas I spent three months training and working there, and another three years as a DE in a council. I do not hate the National office on the contrary, but what I explained was information that we are told never to share with volunteers. It was for those ideas that I sadly left the profession, as I never wanted to manipulate my volunteers or do anything I considered immoral or improper, but money is King to National over everything else.

 

Mr. White, I have said my last to you since I believe as I said before you epitomize to me the kind of volunteer the BSA does NOT NEED. So please go cast your verbal poison on someone else, I wash my hands of you.

[LovetoCamp]

WOW What a crybaby!!!