Breaking Point

[HashTagScouts]

 

34 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Hey, as long as "nearby" can be at the other end of an eight mile trail, we're in agreement.

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

I would not have a problem with that at all. I also know that if I talked to my DE (he is one of the good ones) he'd encourage it.

The problem, as I see it, has two parts. The first is a really vague description of what is allowed. The second is that parents interpret it to mean the scouts can't ever be on their own. I do understand where it's coming from. Vague used to be fine because all kids did things on their own. And I have no doubt that there were times when they got into trouble. No doubt because I got into trouble. The glue that can hold things together is good training. Again, none of this is mentioned. So it can still work.

<moderator hat> The only solution is to get more adults reading this forum. </moderator hat>

I am in agreement to that- what I want, and @MattR is getting there, is some true, honest-to-goodness-in-writing documentation of it in a handbook, training module, etc. so that we have something to point to so that the helicopters can be instructed and know when to buzz off.   

Edited June 12, 2018 by HashTagScouts

[walk in the woods]

54 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

And they still can - 100%. 

According to the G2SS, (Effective October 1, 2018) Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings.  So in a couple of months it is effectively against scouting rules for a patrol to get together to plan anything unless 2 adults are present.  Adding the registered adult supervision absolutely changes the value proposition of the PM.  

For example, when #1 son was working on the FC cooking requirement (maybe 6 years ago) he went over to another scout's house after school to plan menus and equipment and such.  There were zero registered leaders present and likely only one adult.  Doing the planning on their own was the entire point.  By the letter of the new law, that meeting would be prohibited.  So, not even close to 100%.

 

[walk in the woods]

1 hour ago, FireStone said:

Breakdown of the intent and spirit of the Patrol Method was happening 20+ years ago by my memory, probably longer really. I don't think it's fair to try and pin any of that on the recent changes. 

Yep, you can probably go all the way back to the ISP.  Until recently however, unsupervised patrol activities were still allowed.  The recent changes prescribe they are no longer allowed.  

[qwazse]

30 minutes ago, Terasec said:

this has me thinking of legal issues

aside from BSA guidelines and PM,

cant find specifics in my state regs

but curious, can minor hike/camp alone in various state/fed lands?

developed campgrounds require an adult+18 to sign,

permits for large groups +10 or more and for stays longer than 3 nights require a permit and adult in my state lands (NY and PA)

I'm pretty sure that for a weekend camp-out in non-developed grounds, older teens can stay. Older teens who check in with the ranger and ask if there's any service project to do for a couple of hours might find a chord of cut firewood delivered to their site.

 

8 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

... For example, when #1 son was working on the FC cooking requirement (maybe 6 years ago) he went over to another scout's house after school to plan menus and equipment and such.  There were zero registered leaders present and likely only one adult.  Doing the planning on their own was the entire point.  By the letter of the new law, that meeting would be prohibited.  So, not even close to 100%.

Life skills: Son #2 had all manner of fine young women in our kitchen because of he could cook up any variety of breakfasts. He also got his fill of invites to hunting camps.

[NJCubScouter]

11 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

According to the G2SS, (Effective October 1, 2018) Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings.  So in a couple of months it is effectively against scouting rules for a patrol to get together to plan anything unless 2 adults are present.  Adding the registered adult supervision absolutely changes the value proposition of the PM.  

For example, when #1 son was working on the FC cooking requirement (maybe 6 years ago) he went over to another scout's house after school to plan menus and equipment and such.  There were zero registered leaders present and likely only one adult.  Doing the planning on their own was the entire point.  By the letter of the new law, that meeting would be prohibited.  So, not even close to 100%.

 

For awhile, the PLC in our troop was meeting at the SPL's home, after school, on a schedule that they determined.  (Without the SM, but that's another subject.)  There were no adult leaders there.  For part of this time the SPL happened to be the son of the CC, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any parent was home while they were meeting.  This was not just a group of friends meeting; they were planning future troop meetings and camping trips, which suggests to me that this was an "official" unit function.  Is THAT now going to be prohibited?

[ParkMan]

21 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

According to the G2SS, (Effective October 1, 2018) Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings.  So in a couple of months it is effectively against scouting rules for a patrol to get together to plan anything unless 2 adults are present.  Adding the registered adult supervision absolutely changes the value proposition of the PM.  

For example, when #1 son was working on the FC cooking requirement (maybe 6 years ago) he went over to another scout's house after school to plan menus and equipment and such.  There were zero registered leaders present and likely only one adult.  Doing the planning on their own was the entire point.  By the letter of the new law, that meeting would be prohibited.  So, not even close to 100%.

 

Per the other line of conversation.  Adult leadership doesn't mean adult involvement.  It just means you be got adults nearby to make sure there are no health and safety issues.

It doesn't have to prevent a patrol from being a patrol or doing what they would normally.

[NJCubScouter]

6 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Per the other line of conversation.  Adult leadership doesn't mean adult involvement.  It just means you be got adults nearby to make sure there are no health and safety issues.

It doesn't have to prevent a patrol from being a patrol or doing what they would normally.

That might be true in some situations, but not others.  If the patrol is going on a day hike, for the adults to be "nearby" also means thrat they are "involved."  In other words they are on the hike along with the patrol.  I was trying to come up with a way to avoid this, but all I get are jokes.  The two adults flying overhead in a helicopter?  The patrol is hiking a trail along a riverbank and the two leaders happen to be rowing down the river at the same speed and direction?  Nothing serious suggests itself.

Edited June 12, 2018 by NJCubScouter

[Kryten]

but it will.

i have a small troop

where am i to get the all the adult leaders from to make it work? i can no longer use the 18 to 20  ASM'S . (no longer  count for 2 deep leadership)

most patrol activities and meetings happen during the week  when leaders are working.

i

 

 

 

[Terasec]

9 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Per the other line of conversation.  Adult leadership doesn't mean adult involvement.  It just means you be got adults nearby to make sure there are no health and safety issues.

It doesn't have to prevent a patrol from being a patrol or doing what they would normally.

I disagree 

the mere presence of adults changes a groups dynamics and how they interact

everyones an angel when mom and dads around

its how they act when they are not around that determines their character

 

[Eagledad]

2 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Per the other line of conversation.  Adult leadership doesn't mean adult involvement.  It just means you be got adults nearby to make sure there are no health and safety issues.

It doesn't have to prevent a patrol from being a patrol or doing what they would normally.

I still don't think the attitude thing I was talking about is coming across in the discussion.

I witnessed the adults setting the camp on fire by doing something very stupid. The scouts were participating in a different activity on the other side of camp, so they didn't see it. When the scouts learned how the fire was started, "stupid" was mumbled through the group. If the adults are around for the health and safety issues of the scouts, who is there for the adults? 

The health and safety justification is overused to the point of diluting the real reason adult method is even part of the program.  What do you need to personally feel comfortable letting a patrol hike without the presences of adult leaders? If training adults the values of patrol method are to be effective, "safety" has to be at the bottom of list. If that is a challenge, then you aren't ready for a patrol method program.

Barry

[ParkMan]

10 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

That might be true in some situations, but not others.  If the patrol is going on a day hike, for the adults to be "nearby" also means thrat they are "involved."  In other words they are on the hike along with the patrol.  I was trying to come up with a way to avoid this, but all I get are jokes.  The two adults flying overhead in a helicopter?  The patrol is hiking a trail along a riverbank and the two leaders happen to be rowing down the river at the same speed and direction?  Nothing serious suggests itself.

I think we may need to figure out what supervision means.  If I think about all kinds of common sense activites, scouts are not watched 100% of the time.  But, now that I see this bit where they've added meetings to this - that too might be changing.  

I'm not sure if they are trying to fix the case of Scouts getting in over their heads on a camping trips or if it's an abuse prevention measure.  I'm starting to think it's the latter. If that's what it is - then yes, they don't want us to leave scouts unattended.  I hope it's not that.

[Kryten]

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I still don't think the attitude thing I was talking about is coming across in the discussion.

I witnessed the adults setting the camp on fire by doing something very stupid. The scouts were participating in a different activity on the other side of camp, so they didn't see it. When the scouts learned how the fire was started, "stupid" was mumbled through the group. If the adults are around for the health and safety issues of the scouts, who is there for the adults? 

The health and safety justification is overused to the point of diluting the real reason adult method is even part of the program.  What do you need to personally feel comfortable letting a patrol hike without the presences of adult leaders? If training adults the values of patrol method are to be effective, "safety" has to be at the bottom of list. If that is a challenge, then you aren't ready for a patrol method program.

Barry

I agree

[Kryten]

16 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I think we may need to figure out what supervision means.  If I think about all kinds of common sense activites, scouts are not watched 100% of the time.  But, now that I see this bit where they've added meetings to this - that too might be changing.  

I'm not sure if they are trying to fix the case of Scouts getting in over their heads on a camping trips or if it's an abuse prevention measure.  I'm starting to think it's the latter. If that's what it is - then yes, they don't want us to leave scouts unattended.  I hope it's not that.

It is the latter.

other changes to G2SS

no registered scout leader will have one on one contact with a scout both inside and outside of scouting

all adult registered leaders must follow the G2SS outside of scouting.

trying to get clarification from my district and council. they had no idea of any changes to the G2SS. 

said they get back to me. still waiting( wont hold my breath)

Edited June 12, 2018 by Kryten
update

[NJCubScouter]

16 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I'm not sure if they are trying to fix the case of Scouts getting in over their heads on a camping trips or if it's an abuse prevention measure.  I'm starting to think it's the latter. If that's what it is - then yes, they don't want us to leave scouts unattended.  I hope it's not that.

Or if it's the BSA's insurance company saying, "Your rates are going up 40% (or whatever) unless you require two adults to be at every activity, including meetings."  I don't know that to be true, but it's certainly within the realm of plausibility.

[Kryten]

11 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Or if it's the BSA's insurance company saying, "Your rates are going up 40% (or whatever) unless you require two adults to be at every activity, including meetings."  I don't know that to be true, but it's certainly within the realm of plausibility.

I might be wrong, but i think the BSA is self insured.

Either way its all run and decided by the lawyers now. no thought given to how it will effect how the program is delivered at the local level.