BadenP

It isn't that scouting has become too prissy but that the lazy, fat , scout leaders whose idea of the outdoor experience is driving to a local beach or park and sitting on their padded camping lounge chairs guzzling down soda chips coffee while the boys run wild with no agenda to follow. This was the case at a district camporee our crew was asked to help out with, all but two SM's sat around and did NOTHING, all of them 300 lbs or more while the crew and the two SM's created an activities schedule for them while I talked to the SM's sitting around about their responsibilities to the boys and giving them heck for their laziness and sloth. It is the quality of the current troop leaders, their lack of useful training, and that the outdoors to most of them is to go find a place to hang out and plan or do nothing . Online training for the most part a joke when it comes to preparing a new leader to lead a unit of boys down the scouting trail. That's why the BSA membership will continue to shrink, units will fold, and the demise of scouting will be imminent . Time for a radical change of direction for scouting starting with National. The BSA needs to develop high quality leaders and programs if they hope to compete with all the other youth organizations available today.

This site needs some real work done, unable to post due to errors that are not even applicable. What is going on Terry? Are you selectively preventing certain members from posting on this site? My last three posts would not post due to a image error, what the heck is that? Fix this already Please!!!

How could anyone hate the Boy Scout programs??? You can be upset with all the political BS you have to put up with from National and Council so you give those two as little attention/participation as possible. But the youth programs themselves are second to none. This poll is poorly conceived and irrelevant. Run a fun and challenging program for your youth and ignore what National does. You design the quality, content, and challenges of your units program with over 100 years of past experiences and activities to support you. Think outside the box for a change, build it and they will come. Our crew is over 80 youth and 25 adult leaders and still growing.

The Pack is self-chartered by the parents of the Scouts.

 

If there are no Scouts, and the parents you do have no longer care, why should you?

 

yeah I'm trying to figure out if I care ENOUGH to do this again.

 

My boys are off to the troop, they are 13 and 17 now. I don't need a pack.

Existing boys except 1 have never been in a large pack. closest other packs are 50-80 scouts. There is benefit in a bit smaller pack being available for some scouts. IF we kept all 7 and got the new 5 who are interested in joining, we'd have 3 in each den with 4 in webelos.

 

So.

1. We could fold now and not recruit in August. That is super duper negative thinking and is just giving up. I hate to just give up after putting in so much time to the pack, buying camping gear, building up a small bank balance, and such.

2. I could do recruiting in August with help of my troop friends and then if we don't get enough bodies to do all the jobs, and then send everyone on their merry way. This is at least "do my best" kind of thinking and then if it doesn't work at least we tried.

or 3. I could do recruiting in August with help of my troop friends, might keep a few people who didn't answer the negative den leader guy who tried to call everyone, and find there are enough new people to make it a go. We went from 3 in July2005 to 16 in Sept 2005, and then double the next year and then staying at around 8-9 in each of 5 dens every year after that tile I left. so I know it is possible.

But is it naive to be that positive thinking? Do I really want to try that hard? Would you try that hard?

 

Which one would you do?

5 year, If I am not mistaken National passed a charter rule 2 years back stating parent groups were no longer allowed to be a CO because of all the legal hassles councils had to deal with when unit fights broke out and distribution of assets of the unit. In my own council and the three adjoining ones it has been mandated by the council via National that All Friends of troop xyz type of units had to secure a new CO via churches ,civil clubs, etc. by recharter time 2011 or the unit would not be registered. We were told this is Nationals new policy, and ten of these parent units disappeared in our council the rest chartered with American Legion, Kiwanis, etc.

The main problem with being a UC is that it is a thankless position where unit leaders look at you as a spy for the DE and council. As a DE I heard stories from UC's where they were asked to leave as soon as they showed up to a meeting. When they tried to explain what they were there for some were forcefully removed by unit leaders before they could finish, while others were told never to come back again for any reason. So it really isn't a mystery to me why no one wants the job. As a DE I used part of a roundtable to introduce the UC staff to the unit leaders with the DC explaining the role the UC plays in scouting. Afterwards things were better, more open and congenial but there was still tension. Part of the problem I think is that some UC's overstep their boundaries or are not very tactful with new ideas they present to the unit leaders leading to them being banned from that unit. Sad that we all can not work as a team instead of adversaries.

Well, some of this is hype built on a simple formula: youth + one location + scouting = fun.

So, what's different?

 

- Youth. For the first time, co-ed BSA units (i.e. Venturers) were a part of this Jamboree. This is no big deal in the rest of the world, in fact, co-ed units from other countries have attended for decades. But, the general thinking was that Jambo was never meant for venturers, so the was a "there's nothing interesting for you here" attitude. Now for a lot of crews, there's still nothing interesting! (Lot's of venturers occupy their time organizing their own weekend summits for their area every year.) But for many, it was an opportunity to connect with the BSA at large and learn where they fit in!

 

- Location. As nice as AP Hill was, it was designed for training young men and women for the machines of war. Once every four years it got re-purposed. But then it snapped back to its original purpose once the last scouter left. This new location is literally a "home" for scouting. It's setting is intended to provide wilderness training year 'round. Thus, this jambo was more of an "open house" as opposed to "convention."

 

- Scouting. Certain aspects of scouting got short-shrift at AP Hill. Some examples were aquatics, and some Venturing-specific activities. Also, taking a play from the world jamboree's book, a Day of Service was instituted. Each day, 1/5 of the participants went to serve the West-Virginian community. Before, barring some emergency, you were stuck on base for 10 days.

 

The other gee-wiz stuff (big ticket activities, flashy shows, speeches, patch-trading), that was kinda expected. (There's always a gimmick. And long lines for it, too.) But I think the three items above represent true "tweaks" in the core formula that most of us have been talking about.

qwazse, Our crew after seeing the activities available at the Summit want to do a trip there next summer. From what I could see on BSA.org it looks like a fantastic facility with a lot of diverse outdoor activities. What always surprises me is just how little publicity the Jamboree gets on the National news, especially with the new site I guess they are too busy following Kim Kardassian and Snooky's new look. The Summit looks like fun and if our crew goes I am going to find a way to join them, especially for the whitewater kayaking and the big zipline.

Technically all religious medals are counseled and awarded by the priest, minister or rabbi of the religious institution the boy attends. He needs to make an appointment with his religious leader to start the process. A unit position for this purpose is unnecessary. Some denominations have training for unit leaders to counsel boys in obtaining their medals, however it is not the parents or unit leaders who decide if the boy has earned the medal it is up to the pastor/minister/rabbi or his designate to make that decision.

Actually 14 is the minimum age for Venturing' date=' grade is not a factor, male or female especially with a young girl in a crew of boys and girls averaging 15-20 years of age. A 13 yo would feel out of place and probably still be too immature to function well in a crew, and would most likely drop out in a few months. Our high adventure crew is made up of mainly experienced former boy and girl scouts or youth who have had a lot of outdoor experiences. I have not heard of remote venturing especially since the program is not designed for a solo Venturer .[/quote']

 

BP, this was changed a few years back to address the issue of some 9th graders that did not meet the age requirement.

 

From the Youth Application:

"Venturing Crew/Sea Scout Ship (Coeducational)- I submit my $15 registration fee for one year. I am at least 13 years of age and have completed the eighth grade or am 14 years of age and not yet 21. Must have parent/guardian approval if under 18 years of age."

 

As far as Lone Venturing, from the Guide to Advancement; "Lone Scouts is limited to Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting. Varsity Scouting, Venturing, and Sea Scouts do not offer equivalent experiences."

click,

That maybe the case however when National makes changes to Venturing it usually is not from an expertise point of view rather than bending to outside pressure from those few making a lot of noise. In our own crew which is a very physically demanding high pressure high adventure program we do not accept anyone under 14 based on advice we received from experts on youth and with intensive outdoor programs. The council SE who knows our program well agrees with this policy. Everyone who joins our crew is on a 3 month probation to insure that they are a good fit for the crew and vice versa. We have 80+ active youth right now and will probably have to create another crew because of all the inquiries we continue to receive.

When are you guys going to correct my ranking to Senior Member, with over 2600 posts and this site should have most of the bugs worked out by now. Terry are you using the IT staff from National to correct all the bugs, lol. Seriously though this site should be almost bug free by now.

Well qwasze I thought I would have little time after taking over as Sr. Pastor however with a great staff and volunteers and a reorganization of the way things get done things are getting done better and faster than ever before so I have more time to dabble in the forums than I thought I would. I like your member emeritus classification however since I am already Advisor Emeritus for the crew I started at the church 12+ years ago.

When are you guys going to correct my ranking to Senior Member, with over 2600 posts and this site should have most of the bugs worked out by now. Terry are you using the IT staff from National to correct all the bugs, lol. Seriously though this site should be almost bug free by now.

Actually 14 is the minimum age for Venturing, grade is not a factor, male or female especially with a young girl in a crew of boys and girls averaging 15-20 years of age. A 13 yo would feel out of place and probably still be too immature to function well in a crew, and would most likely drop out in a few months. Our high adventure crew is made up of mainly experienced former boy and girl scouts or youth who have had a lot of outdoor experiences. I have not heard of remote venturing especially since the program is not designed for a solo Venturer .

The reality is most strong units with great programs can pretty much stand alone without council interference or those bozos at National who really think the membership change they construed and shoved down everyone's throats is really going to have real impact on the program or getting back corporate sponsors they have lost. Boy scouting is still IMHO the best youth program out there and the political game playing by National does absolutely NOTHING to improve, promote, or solidify scouting's reputation or credibility or program.

As a former DE for five years in the same council and for the same two districts I can tell you that the re-shifting of priorities by National for the DE has led many of the good ones to abandon ship and take on a more regular job with realistic and obtainable goals, less hours, and better pay. The National BSA is currently like a boat heading up the river without a paddle or direction which will end up sinking along the way. The animosity between professional scouters and the volunteers continues to get worse and worse and many unit leaders now just ignore council and FOS campaigns. When will they ever learn you can't beat your volunteers into submission. Many of the DE's they are hiring these days have had fairly unsuccessful careers, little commitment to making the scouting program successful in their districts, and their only goal is to get promoted to a position at National ASAP.

STATUES! Unbelievable, whatever happened to just naming buildings or campsites?

 

http://www.register-herald.com/jamboree/x316296927/Let-the-Jamboree-begin

 

The statues are Bob Mazzuca, Jack Furst, Wayne Perry, former Gov. Joe Manchin

Schiff, Are you kidding statues as memorials to these guys. It fits perfectly for these egomaniacs who contributed so little to the BSA and asked so much from everyone else in scouting. I guess Mazzuca's large retirement package wasn't enough of a tribute to him. Now you know another reason why jamboree prices soared up for this years jamboree

Brian- As Basement said there is no official policy regarding crew dating. In our large crew we have several couples however the crew policy is that on official crew outings no PDA's or other innappropriate behavior. Our crew is over 12 years old and we have never had a problem yet, if the teens know what is expected of them and you treat them like adults with respect you will be surprised at their response.

An interesting twist to this whole Wood Badge thingy... If the 21st Century program is so much better than the "old stuff" why aren't the old-timers beating down the door to get into the program? For a while, the council was pushing the 21st program to the old-timers telling them that they needed to update in order to be on staff, eligible for Jambo staff, etc. etc. The impression was the "old stuff" wasn't going to be "valid" anymore. There were a few who even subtly threatened to require the re-training in order to keep the beads.

 

The conclusion for most was, well then, where do we drop off the beads.....

 

Somehow I keep thinking in the back of my mind, if the program is so much better, why isn't everyone, including "old stuff" Wood Badgers beating down the door to get into the program?

 

And that begs the second question, why after 13 years people are still asking the same question: "Why Woodbadge?"

 

Sometimes the track record speaks for itself.

 

Stosh

Stosh I took both the old WB course and WB21C and they were like night and day. The original course had a great well trained and knowledgeable staff that made the experience worthwhile and fun, while WB21C had a staff who basically read from scripts, were not very knowledgeable at all and made it a horrendeously boring and tedious endeavor. I tell new scouters that before signing up check to see who is on staff and if they are experienced and knowlegeable by asking around and if they are newbies or 70% Cub leaders check out other councils in your area for a better staff BEFORE you commit. IMHO integrating Cub leaders into WoodBadge has diluted the purpose and quality of WB.

It's safe to say that the resolution should pass today, and I hope it does. Here is why:

 

- It reflects current practice in a majority of Scouting Units. I have observed, in my decades of Scouting, that good Scouting leaders put their Scouts first in every case. This includes homosexual youth. A good Scoutmaster or Crew Adviser will make it a priority to ensure a homosexual Scout understands not to let it become an open distraction, and suppresses the culture that can lead to bullying of a homosexual youth, instead fostering a more mature acceptance, aid, and understanding. This is very similar to units which include youth with disabilities. This is very similar to youth of a severe minority (think multiracial family in 99% white area). The potential distraction is maturely overcome by the team coming together to help everyone achieve in the way a Troop should.

 

- It prioritizes sexual acts at an age of minority (18 as law, 21 as public consensus, 27 in Obamacare) as something all Scouts should be ashamed of, not their identity.

 

- It realizes that sex as a topic should be defused, not recurring or educational. A minority identity brings great diversity of knowledge and experience, and as such presents a constant opportunity for learning. This is why we seek out Plumbers for Plumbing Merit Badge, Liaison Officers or Counselors to present "A Time to Tell", and Pastors for Religious Awards. Coming together with people of these defining minority identities help us learn in Scouting. When the adult in question has a defining minority identity inextricable from sex, someone of that identity is presenting a constant distraction. Leaders who defuse that identity themselves by not openly identifying sexually are obviously, then, not distracting. While there may be youth that identify as homosexual, they are by no means authoritative on the subject, being completely bound by the fact that no Scout should be discussing sexual activity.

 

- It allows the distinction to be made for youth that attraction does not equal activity. Open courtship is not tolerated in Venturing and so would not be in Troops.

 

 

- It acknowledges that this membership policy is necessary because sexuality is not appropriate in Scouting and this change reflects a larger consensus to ensure that it is less of a distraction. It simultaneously iterates that Reverence IS appropriate to Scouting, and a personally defined Duty to God is entirely a function of Scouting that will never be questioned and will continue to be championed. This means that sex should always be defused as an issue and personally defined Reverence should always be promoted.

 

 

I do have one issue...

 

It is seemingly derailed by how to handle quarters. Current policy relies on assumptions of sexual activity and exploitation. There is a heterosexual assumption for youth, and an exploitative assumption for adults and so policy reflects this by separating quarters between male and female, youth and adult to prevent sexual and exploitative opportunity. This does not prevent all sexual activity or exploitation. Youth that are bound and determined to create an opportunity for a sexual encounter together will always find a way, and the policies of keeping them separate and having an understanding that the activity is un-Scoutlike are about as far as we can go as an organization to prevent it in a uniformly enforceable way. Youth on youth exploitation is much the same. Our responsibility is to prevent it uniformly, but those youth bent on taking advantage of another youth will make an active effort to do so, and will always be removed from Scouting.

 

The problem is in the open knowledge of homosexual youth. If we assume a male and female heterosexual youth who have no interest in each other cannot quarter together, it would seem that we'd have to have the assumption that two homosexual Boy Scouts with no interest in each other cannot quarter together. If a heterosexual male youth cannot shower in a group with females he's not attracted to nor they to him, how should a homosexual Boy Scout be allowed to a group shower with his patrol who he is not attracted to nor they to him? I understand that almost every facility now has separate showers, making that a non-issue. However, does this mean tent assignments will necessarily go the same individual way? We cannot be in the business of telling kids they have to be treated different because they're a minority, that would make us incredible bullies. If I'm missing another solution that can be made a rule to ensure uniform enforcement, please let me know.

 

Some of the best experiences I've had in Scouting was sharing a tent with a good buddy or even someone new. It's privacy for a conversation that may have otherwise never been possible. Will we have to lose this because of this policy change, and is it worth it? If it's necessary to remain consistent as a rule, probably (though sadly).

 

I want wholeheartedly for homosexual youth to finally no longer feel that the organization they love and enjoy is forcing them into a secret identity or forcing them out.

The sad part is that this compromise solution will not be enough to satisfy the demands of corporate sponsors, United Way in order to bring back the big dollars to the BSA. The parents of the scouts will now be forced to decide whether or not the BSA meets their own values or to pull their kids out of the program. The CO's will be upset they do not have any say in this matter. Bottom line this is a no win solution that shows National is trying to appease certain groups without really directly dealing with the issue as a whole. Just another Poorly thought out and hypocritical solution that will wind up hurting the BSA as a whole.

What I found interesting after watching the video conference on National's website is that allowing gay scouts will be all inclusive and not be at the discretion of any CO. That means that if if gay boy wants to join an LDS troop, a Catholic troop or any other conservative groups troop the CO will be unable to deny him membership with the current wording of the proposal. IMHO I do not see the LDS and many other CO's with an anti gay position remaining in scouting. I think the BSA shot themselves in the foot once again by not giving the CO the option based on their religious principles. If this passes on May 23rd we all may be witnessing the beginning of the demise of boy scouting. Yet another case of National trying to mandate to the CO's an unenforceable policy. Maybe it is time to bring back Woodcraft Rangers, Sons of Daniel Boone, etc.

qwase

 

I think your idea about the crew is really outdated in todays world. Parents dont want to shuffle their kids to different meetings if they could all belong to one group. The GSUSA is losing members even faster then the BSA, no outdoor activities is the main reason my Venturing girls tell me, who were former girl scouts. The BSA is also losing membership at an alarming rate especially in troops and crews. If the current trend continues both BSA and GSUSA will be gone in another decade. It is time the BSA does what its European and South American counterparts have done and make the programs coed otherwise we will see the final demise of the BSA in our lifetimes.

I think all you naysayers better look at some hard facts, the BSA being a "male" group which is not entirely true is NOT a valid argument to support your objections. Your idea of only male role models in scouts is an antiquated idea which is no longer valid in todays society, like it or not. The fact is most of you old time scouters are rapidly aging out of the program and the younger replacements coming on board are much more open to the idea of coed units. The other fact is that the BSA continues to lose members and community/corporate support at an ever increasing rate each year and if National has any idea of how to survive, which I seriously doubt they do, scouting will have to evolve and change to reflect the ideology and needs of the current and future crop of parents and society whether you agree or not otherwise scouting will wither away as an irrelevant and outdated organization. The future is here now, it is time to get on board or be left behind.

Twocub, I actually agree with most of your post. This new policy is like a waterballoon about to burst, all it will do is get everyone wet and mad. National has once again proven they do not have the ability or guts to come up with a viable and workable policy. Giving this decision to the CO's to decide is the only way it will work. With the way it stands now the BSA will continue to see corporate money givers continue to diminish and more CO's decide to look for alternative youth programs. Time for a restructure of the National Office starting with the CSE and giving the power back to the CO's.

The saddest part of all of this is that the National leadership is incapable of taking and holding a firm stance on this issue/policy. The May policy change on their site is so wishy washy and hypocritical that all it will do is alienate all sides in this debate. In my area three churches ,long time active scouting supporters have suspended all scouting until National comes to some kind of supportable solution to this issue. In our communty the BSA has become the butt of anger, indecisiveness, and a "bad influence on the youth". Parents have been pulling their kids out in droves. Even in my church the parents have begun asking me about alternatives to scouting for our church youth. Bottom line it is time for National to put up and deal with the ramifications or leave the decision entirely to the CO's. Their current methodology will do nothing but lead scouting to a slow agonizing death.

When are you going to get the membership status thing straightened out Terry??? I and many senior members are still being listed as junior members why is that???

 

Secondly with all these older topics still being posted on the site it is a real hassle navigating through the mass and maze of information. Just curious is all because of the old adage "newer is always better" doesn't seem to apply here, and that many regular old time posters seem to have disappeared from the forum. alltogether.

Man I will truly miss OGE and his posts. Even when we disagreed he always made me smile. He was a man who dearly loved scouting and will surely be missed by all who knew him. He was a great and very fair moderator here in this forum. OGE I know you are with the great Almighty now enjoying your eternal reward. Blessings and comfort to your family and friends, you will indeed be missed.

BD

 

I understand your feelings and it really is sad that certain parents rather destroy an entire unit then to just move to another one that fits their own narrow views. IMO scouting would run a whole lot better without parents who feel they are allowed to be real PIA's just to get their own way.