Jump to content

New to the Forum?

Tell us a bit about yourself so we can welcome you to the Virtual Roundtable

1123 topics in this forum

    • 9 replies
    • 226 views
    • 35 replies
    • 1635 views
    • 4 replies
    • 334 views
    • 8 replies
    • 229 views
    • 6 replies
    • 155 views
  1. Avatars

    • 3 replies
    • 342 views
  2. Awards/Fundraising

    • 2 replies
    • 149 views
  3. Ay-up from the UK

    • 1 reply
    • 228 views
  4. back again

    • 1 reply
    • 357 views
  5. back again

    • 1 reply
    • 197 views
  6. Back again to scouting

    • 2 replies
    • 133 views
  7. Back In It!

    • 4 replies
    • 1055 views
  8. Back in RI scouting

    • 5 replies
    • 183 views
    • 8 replies
    • 297 views
    • 2 replies
    • 448 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Where I am, adult interference under the guise of Family Scouting is already being implemented. Even before "Family Scouting" was announced, some adults were bringing non-Boy Scout children to events. Now that Family Scouting being announced and promoted, those adults are emboldened. Some of you have read my posts about the family with the Second Class Scout sneaking into the parents tent. The troop officially didn't do a camp out this month. 4 families within the troop went whitewater rafting, and just happen to use troop gear and work on advancement in addition to the rafting. Already have been told by the ASM heading it up that the 4 families liked it so much, that it is being scheduled for next year again. My older two sons are getting fed up. They don't want to transfer to another troop because of their friends though. That and they are trying to change it from inside. But I think they realize that the adults are the ones making the decisions, and not the Scouts. Especially since both are PLs and are on the PLC. Best example, troop did not have a September camp out planned. PLC came up with 2 choices for a camp out. #1 was a 3 day, 2 night at a place they never went to before. #2 was a 2 day 1 night backpacking trip. #1 is full. SM overuled #2 because he wants a 3 day 2 night camp out. So they are going to a place they have already been to this year. Good news is that the Scouts were allowed hammocks there in the past, and I do not see a reason for banning them. At the moment we will not be a linked troop with a girls' troop. Not only do we no space for another meeting at our CO, the poll we took was that 1/2 the troop would quit or transfer if we started meeting and camping with the girls. But two things about the decision. 1) the IH stated if the girls' troop is not working out, he will revisit the decision. He has already come out in favor of "Linked Troops," but realizes losing 50% of the membership, and probably that many of the active and experienced Scouters would destroy the troop.2) the SM and his ASM heir apparent both have daughters and both want them in Scouts BSA. SM realizes what would happen with 50% loss and is in agreement with a separate girls' troop. The ASM however is ticked at the decision. He wants "linked troops," or as he calls it a coed troop, so that his daughter can be both an Eagle Scout and Gold Award recipient. He doesn't care if 1/2 the troop quits as a result. And he has already worked out a way to allow girls to camp without female Scouters: since the troop is "family friendly," if dad goes the girl can go since it is "family camping." But I see the writing on the wall regarding national .I am on several Scouting related Facebook groups.  @gblotter is correct in that volunteers who bring up valid concerns about Family Scouting are being bullied and labeled. People do not want to recognize there are difference between boys and girls, everyone must be equal. And concerns that Scouts have are ignored. Folks are saying that they are only stating what they hear at home, or they are not getting accurate information on the changes, they need to go to XYZ website to get the correct information and see the charts. Sadly they don't believe that Scouts can think for themselves. They don't realize that they may have actually read the official documents, but either hypothesize the reality that will occur, or actually base their decisions on what they see is actually happening on the Cub level and how packs and dens are ignoring guidelines and rules to get girls in Cub Scouts. Don't believe they have seen what some councils are doing to give girls a head start: using Explorer Clubs for the 11- 13 year olds and Explorer Posts and Venturing Crews for the 14-16 year olds.  https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/08/historic_oregon_boy_scout_camp.html
    • Agreed. Admittedly, individual viewpoints shape our overall vision of future trends. I personally see a large number of Scouts who plan to complete their march to Eagle and then quit BSA altogether. Many folks are in denial about the impacts of co-ed Scouting on existing boy membership. Boys are not stupid and they will easily discern that the program focus has shifted away from them and their needs. BSA can't bully and shame people into staying with labels like "unScoutlike" and "conditional Scouter". Most who leave will walk away in silence rather than loud protest. The "get done and get out" mentality will accelerate next summer when boys are faced with the reality of co-ed BSA summer camps. But you are absolutely correct - only time will tell. However, we can rely on BSA National leadership to deflect blame and responsibility about the true reasons for any membership losses.
    • Increase that mileage as your year progresses. My experience is that our 1st years are fine with hiking in 3-6 miles (again, depends on terrain) with full packs. It's the 13 year-olds who gripe about anything more than a mile! However, those distances are a wake-up call for some adults to quit the cigarettes, get on a diet and hike every day. So, gradually building up the distance is a good strategy for all involved. Which reminds me, I''d better get going if I'm gonna make my 2K walk to my coffee shop!
    • I support requiring adults who are supervising scouts to take the online YPT. There will be many who don't understand the importance of looking out for situations where a predator is seeking to get a scout alone. Looking at what the Catholic Church is going through again, I don't think this requirement should be ignored. The training is not that difficult or time consuming to do once a year. You can disagree with aspects in the training, but completing it is not a hardship. The rules that are idiotic to me are allowing 2 female adult leaders for an all boy group, but not allowing 2 male adult leaders if there's even 1 girl. There was a troop at summer camp this year that only had female adult leaders and I had zero problems with that. It's the double standard that bothers me. The 72 hour rule is also idiotic. Do they think the 73rd is the witching hour when people turn into predators? Is this like feeding a gremlin after midnight? Either you trust them or you don't. Nothing changes in that 73rd hour. This sounds like some compromise that came out of a committee of lawyers.  
    • Will be hard to measure due to LDS exit.  You’ll have to look at councils with little to no LDS to see real impact.  Note that BSA has been losing boys for 30 years.  The real question is if the rate of loss of boys increases in non LDS councils.  I’m not sure if it will and if that rate of loss increase will exceed the rate of additional girls. I also wonder, as @Eagledad mentioned,if the girls/parents who initially join now may push through program issues while eventually everything settles back on the actual program performance.  It may take several years to really see the impact of all recent changes (YPT, G2SS, girls, etc).  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×