Ad hoc girl patrols formed and compete in camporee

[RememberSchiff]

As I understand two patrols of girls age 11 to 14, the Blue Jays and Eddie Spaghetti, were formed and competed.

A little history was made at the Boy Scouts’ 2018 Camporee. The first two-man saw race was not won by men nor boys.

It was an all-girls patrol unit called the Blue Jays, formed solely for the weekend, who rocked a bucksaw fastest through a fir log outside of Fort Vancouver.

The fact that the Boy Scouts of America six months ago reversed a century-old policy that prevented girls from joining as Scouts was not lost on people nearby, who turned to watch the girls shear off a victory. Then they cheered.

So went the first full day of the camporee, a weekend camping event where Scouts compete in activities like saw racing, building a fire, throwing tomahawks and navigation.

And it was the first year that the Cowlitz Tribe participated, providing drum ceremonies and raising a flag to harken back to the fort’s earliest days as a trading post. Cowlitz tribal members taught Scouts the Chinook trade jargon known as Chinuk Wawa.

Part of the history, too, was a new push for female involvement. Among the 300 Scouts in attendance, just over a dozen were girls who local organizers hoped would take interest in leading programs that are still taking shape.

Dakota Monro, a 14-year-old Portland resident, wants to help lead the first cohort of girls. She said these new groups will help correct the convention that girls won’t leave the comfort of indoors.

“There are a lot of girls I know that want to be outside and generally people think it’s only the boys,” she said. “I’d love to see how girls learn to be leaders in this community.”

Girls have been able to join coed programs within the Boy Scouts organizations for decades, but their roles have been secondary to boys’ — as have the privileges.

The Cascade Pacific Council, an umbrella organization for 20,000 young members in Oregon and Southwest Washington, recently received a $25,000 donation to help pay for older girls to attend a youth leadership training course in the summer.

“How do we develop girl leaders for the program and prepare them to lead?” asked Cathy Sbur, a troop leader.

Organizers said they have not heard many concerns about recruiting more girls, but they know they exist. But Filbin said this is part of the Boy Scouts “evolution.” Plus, it could help, given that membership has dropped by 45 percent since its peak in the 1980s.

Monro was optimistic, as she watched an all-girls patrol try to hoist a flag as fast as possible. They put it on upside-down, struggled and laughed as they reconfigured it.

“After (next year) I think there will be a ton of girls that join,” she said.

source with photos

http://www.columbian.com/news/2018/apr/28/all-girls-unit-joins-in-on-boy-scouts-camporee-fun/

[ItsBrian]

20 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

Monro was optimistic, as she watched an all-girls patrol try to hoist a flag as fast as possible. They put it on upside-down, struggled and laughed as they reconfigured it.

I’m confused, so is this article positive or negative? It starts out positive and then led to this.

[RememberSchiff]

32 minutes ago, ItsBrian said:

I’m confused, so is this article positive or negative? It starts out positive and then led to this.

Nothing negative about that. That's Scouting - being allowed to fail and cheerfully learn and correct your mistakes.

Edited April 29, 2018 by RememberSchiff

[NJCubScouter]

How does such a patrol even exist, yet?  There is not yet a program for girls 11-17.  It doesn't have a name.  What program are these girls registered with?  What unit are they part of?

[PACAN]

They can't "officially".  

Remember National has no real say in Council operations as we have seen where councils have thumbed their noses at National policies with no penalty. 

Councils are their own feifdoms who do what they want

Units thumb their noses at the council and national as we see here.   Watch all the pencil whipping  of requirements occur.   

[NJCubScouter]

You are probably correct that these girls are not actually registered with the BSA.

One therefore wonders what the insurance situation would be - at an event that involved throwing tomahawks and sawing through logs.  That would almost be funny if it weren't so scary.

[T2Eagle]

28 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

You are probably correct that these girls are not actually registered with the BSA.

One therefore wonders what the insurance situation would be - at an event that involved throwing tomahawks and sawing through logs.  That would almost be funny if it weren't so scary.

The insurance would be the same for this event as for virtually any event a council puts on.  Non registered folks, kids and adults, come to virtually every event of any size that any council puts on, insurance policies are purchased to cover that.  Very few, if any, individual events involve their own policy or rider.  A council insures against all the things that might happen in the course of their operations.  There's virtually no difference in the risk to council between a registered or non registered youth getting hurt during an activity.  It would cost the council the same amount to pay for an injured 12 year old girl as a 12 year old boy during a sawing contest.  Whether the council would be liable wouldn't change based on registration --- either you're negligent or you're not, and therefore liable or not.

[NJCubScouter]

11 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

The insurance would be the same for this event as for virtually any event a council puts on.  Non registered folks, kids and adults, come to virtually every event of any size that any council puts on, insurance policies are purchased to cover that.  Very few, if any, individual events involve their own policy or rider.  A council insures against all the things that might happen in the course of their operations.  There's virtually no difference in the risk to council between a registered or non registered youth getting hurt during an activity.  It would cost the council the same amount to pay for an injured 12 year old girl as a 12 year old boy during a sawing contest.  Whether the council would be liable wouldn't change based on registration --- either you're negligent or you're not, and therefore liable or not.

Well, you may be right.  I have never actually studied a council insurance policy.  But a career of dealing with insurance companies makes me believe that if one of those tomahawks took an unfortunate course, and one of the persons at either end of the trajectory was a member of a "patrol" in a program that does not yet exist, the carrier would figure out a way to deny coverage.  Admittedly I am a major cynic on the subject of insurance companies.

[qwazse]

Rogue troops.

'Nuff said.

[oldbuzzard]

To quote the "Guide to Safe Scouting"

Quote

Scouts and guests who are being encouraged to become registered Scouts and volunteers are automatically insured while in attendance at a scheduled activity. Other guests are not covered. Each council also will be able to elect to cover family members of registered Scouts while these family members are in attendance at BSA-sponsored events. This is optional coverage.

It seems clear to me that as potential recruits both generally and for the special Summer leadership clinic these girls would be covered under national and council insurance just like any other kid who filled out a waiver and attended with a troop.

[Tampa Turtle]

I spend too much time on this Forum and forget that there are many other Scouters who just do not follow these things so closely. Recently I was helping out at my church with a stalwart Scouter who has for years spent many hours every week supporting the Troop as an ASM. He is pretty liberal though he was opposed to going co-ed but moved on once the decision was made. I mentioned the coming date for Girls in Boy Scouts, how some rogue troops probably already probably have started, and the whole 'Linked Troop' thing. His reaction:

He laughed incredulously at how much of a botch up this is going to be. He just assumed when BSA made the announcement Girls could just start joining then. And the linked Troop think was just going to add chaos and confusion on who is responsible for what scout when the typical foul-up at Council on the way to Eagle progresses. He had no idea that National had a 'Separate but Equal' policy that will crumble shortly at the 1st legal challenge because of the bad publicity. He said on the basis of the bad planning he might ease out of his Troop role next year and he was one of the ones we were counting on staying.

[NJCubScouter]

10 hours ago, oldbuzzard said:

To quote the "Guide to Safe Scouting"

It seems clear to me that as potential recruits both generally and for the special Summer leadership clinic these girls would be covered under national and council insurance just like any other kid who filled out a waiver and attended with a troop.

Well, ok, I'll buy that, and I hope the insurance companies would too, if there was an incident.  This isn't exactly the same as an age-eligible male non-Scout going on a camping trip to see whether he wants to join the troop.  He can join, right now.  The girls can't, yet.  But since this is happening, people might as well have an answer ready if and when the problem arises.  It just kind of strikes me as funny, in a dark-humor sort of way, that the first time I am hearing of a "girl patrol" going on a camping trip, it involves tomahawk-throwing and sawing lumber.

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I spend too much time on this Forum and forget that there are many other Scouters who just do not follow these things so closely. Recently I was helping out at my church with a stalwart Scouter who has for years spent many hours every week supporting the Troop as an ASM. He is pretty liberal though he was opposed to going co-ed but moved on once the decision was made. I mentioned the coming date for Girls in Boy Scouts, how some rogue troops probably already probably have started, and the whole 'Linked Troop' thing. His reaction:

He laughed incredulously at how much of a botch up this is going to be. He just assumed when BSA made the announcement Girls could just start joining then. And the linked Troop think was just going to add chaos and confusion on who is responsible for what scout when the typical foul-up at Council on the way to Eagle progresses. He had no idea that National had a 'Separate but Equal' policy that will crumble shortly at the 1st legal challenge because of the bad publicity. He said on the basis of the bad planning he might ease out of his Troop role next year and he was one of the ones we were counting on staying.

Yes. We are students of minutiae on this blog. That's mainly because most of us have taken flack for one thing or another by someone making up rules on the fly, and we found here the support for a breadth of reasonable ideas ... and correction for some stupid ones.

As far as linked troops being a "botch up", I'm keeping an open mind. Although our friends in Western Europe have "anything goes" way of incorporating girls in their units, I've met scouts from other countries who've work with more segregated models. Although the one-off girl who tags along with her brother makes splashier headlines,  the girls who've formed their own patrols and asked to be recognized as a unit ... that's a very classic model of growth.

The scouter who you mentioned, was his troop looking forward to welcoming girls?

[Jameson76]

33 minutes ago, qwazse said:

As far as linked troops being a "botch up", I'm keeping an open mind.

Concern is that the "Linked Troops" is (was) a new term maybe 60 days ago.  It speaks to the evolving and somewhat confusing rollout for the Girls into Scouts.

National and professionals are digging their own holes on this.  At an annual program rollout for local council the presenting teams discussed name change (yes / no / maybe / not sure); how will summer camps handle girls (Oh we've had Co-Ed Venture groups at camp so we have great experience) which is not really true and over the last 5 years maybe 2% of the total campers and only in later less filled weeks; and that adding girls in general will have no impact and everyone (I mean everyone) is supportive of this.

When the first announcement was made it was to be a parallel program (not a great term - separate but equal) then that has morphed to Linked troops.  Which are NOT (hear me) CoEd even though they meet at the same CO, share a committee, meet at the same time, go on the same outing, have the same unit number, but they are separate...right???

As a unit our goal (hope) is to stay as we are and provide the program and outdoor experience to the young men in our community.  The concern is whether we will be allowed to maintain that course.  Current input is yes we will, but the track record from National speaks differently as what is good today, may not be tomorrow.  While within uncertainty there is always opportunity, there is also unease.

[Hawkwin]

2 hours ago, Tampa Turtle said:

 'Separate but Equal' policy that will crumble shortly at the 1st legal challenge because of the bad publicity.

On what basis? BSA can now legally completely exclude girls. We are both legally separate and legally unequal. Allowing girls to join and have their own program doesn't open us to any more liability on that issue than we have today (which is none). If girls have their own program and can be in OA (or a female version of such) as well as obtain Eagle, then what do you think is not equal about that? I don't see any court trying to tell BSA that they "have to be completely coed" and I also don't see BSA simply rolling over on their back at the first sign that someone wants otherwise. BSA has too many religious COs that simply would not be onboard with such forced inclusion.