NJCubScouter

There has been so much conflicting information coming from council people (as reported by various people in this forum) that I would not believe anything other than an official statement from National. And I think that when that happens, we'll all know it.

It doesn't provide any "assurance." None of the YP rules provide any "assurance" of anything, ever, and as far as I know the BSA has never claimed that they do. They use the term "barriers to abuse" and that is what they are. Barriers that, unfortunately, can be overcome if a person has a combination of determination and luck in overcoming them. The rules make things more difficult for someone who wants to do something wrong, and the hope is that the person won't take the chance, but there are no guarantees.

Here is the announcement: https://ppcbsa.org/2017/09/19/special-announcement-sabattis-adventure-camp/ As with many statements by National and councils, this could be a little clearer, but they seem to be saying that the camp will close at the end of the summer in 2019.

The article isn't clear on exactly when the meeting is, but it does say there will be a protest at council hq on Sept. 18 at 6 p.m., which is about 10 minutes from now, and is about 10 minutes from where I sit at the moment. (But I'm not going.) I guess that implies that the council executive board meeting is at the same time.

Every time I see "WSJ" in this thread I have to remind myself that it does not stand for the Wall Street Journal, which is what it has stood for almost every other time I have seen it in my life.

Follow-up: At last week's troop meeting I spoke with the Scouter I mentioned above, who has actually been to Sabattis, unlike every other active adult (or Scout) in the troop. He doesn't think there is much chance of that property being developed. He said it is located in the middle of a state park and that there is really no "infrastructure" that would support any kind of development. He said it is "in the middle of nowhere", which I guess is a relative term, but as I said, he is my best available source of information about the camp. He also said that rumors about closing Sabattis come up every 3-5 years and this is probably more of the same.

Maybe I am naive, but would an American Scout really go to a World Jamboree, or any large gathering of Scouts, without a neckerchief? All the kids in my troop wear neckerchiefs, it is considered part of a complete uniform. I believe the same is true for all troops in my area, though admittedly it has been awhile since I attended a Camporee or other district-wide event with Scouts. On occasion a Scout will forget his neckerchief at home, but I can't imagine one of our Scouts not taking a neckerchief to a National or World Jamboree. I think for the 2013 Jamboree, our one Scout who went was provided by the council with a special council-specific neckerchief.

Is this for interviewing Scouts, or staff? A good question is always "Why do you want to go?" There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer, it's mainly to see if they have a reason and are able to articulate it. I think anyone, whether youth or staff, will get more out of an experience if they know what it is they are looking for from the experience.

Good question, but @@RichardB seems to think the "burden of proof" goes the other way: That if you can't find specific SUPPORT for an activity or practice in BSA literature, it isn't permitted. Others think the opposite. Others are somewhere in the middle, believing that if something isn't specifically approved or banned, common sense should determine the issue. This has come up a few times before.

The "nuns" thing took me aback as well. Recently I accompanied my wife to her high school reunion (the number is classified.) She went to a Catholic high school. At dinner, I think I was the only person at the table who went to a public high school. I heard a lot of stories about nuns, some of which I had heard from my wife. None (if you'll pardon the expression) were about nuns going camping.

I don't recall doing that.

Calling a single person's attention to something can be done in a private message.

Col. Flagg, I realize that you think there is a connection here, but please don't raise issues that are being discussed in "Issues and Politics" in threads in other parts of the forum, unless it is absolutely necessary. And it isn't, in this case. (And some would say it never is.) I really don't want to have to move a thread about registrations for a Cub Scout event into Issues and Politics.

No argument there. This reminds me of the old joke, How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one, but the lightbulb has to really WANT to change.

Who is "we"? It is the BSA that has apparently decided to make a change. As for the GSUSA, you can ask them whatever you want. The BSA does not "have to" change to meet the needs of girls. It apparently WANTS to change.

I think that what girls are actually "told" by society is that they have the choice to be one or the other, or anything in between. Besides, what's wrong with Rey? (Well, we may find out in a few months or a couple of years. So far she is on the Light Side of the Force, but they are hinting at a major plot twist, so who knows?) Girls can be warriors too. Are you talking about the fans, or the characters, or both? Either way, I don't see it. I am a Star Wars fan (if you can't already tell) and I don't see it really skewing toward one gender or another. Character-wise, it is still mostly male, with each trilogy's major characters being a bunch of guys and one (1) "girl" - Leia, then Padme, now Rey. Even most of the minor and background characters are men. Even most of the puppets/CGI's are men. Are you one of those people who was upset that they remade "Ghostbusters" with an all-female main cast? Apparently that was a big deal with some men. I actually wanted that to be a great movie, because the first two were great. Unfortunately, it was just not funny. It had nothing to do with the gender of the Ghostbusters. It was just a lousy movie.

Well, that's the big question. It can't really be done "officially," but some packs seem to be doing this sort of "quasi-officially" or whatever term you'd like to use. In this forum we have had what by now adds up to a fairly large and growing number of units (mostly packs) that seem to have added girls to their units in one way or another. What I wonder about (as does ItsBrian) is, do the councils know about this? When it was one or two packs in the country doing this, maybe not, but it seems unlikely at this point that the councils do not know this is going on, and there is no indication that they are revoking anyone's charter over it (as someone suggested in another thread.) It may be a wink-and-a-nod kind of thing, but I am not sure what the councils' motivation(s) are. As we all know, the councils (and national) are always looking at the bottom line. If the name on the application form is Sally, I don't see how the councils can process it and then include it on the roster that goes to national (unless Sally is short for Salvatore, as in "The Godfather"). Meaning that they cannot collect a registration fee for Sally. So what would motivate the wink-and-a-nod, if they're not getting any $$ for Sally's participation? Is it that the council believes (as does National, now, apparently) that if Sally is not allowed to participate, her parents might not have Sally's brother (for whom they do collect a registration fee) join either? Is that enough, at least until National allows them to make it official and start raking in the dough? (If that really happens.) I find that interesting. GSUSA National is very upset about this, but maybe on the local level some units of each organization can work out a beneficial relationship in which what you really end up with is a coed pack, but "on paper" the pack has only boys and the Girl Scout troop(s) (of the same age as Cub Scouts) has only girls. That way everybody's happy... well, not everybody. Presumably BSA National wouldn't like it because they're not getting the registration fees and the membership numbers. (It always seems to come down to numbers and money with me, doesn't it? I guess that is because I think that's what it always comes down to for National.) I also notice that when we are talking only about girls in Cub Scouts (as opposed to Boy Scouts) people in this forum (including me, to some degree), seem to get a little less... what's the word? Distraught? Angry? Upset? Somewhere in there.

I agree with Col. Flagg except that I've never seen the term "sheepeople" before. I have heard "sheeple" which I am pretty sure is the same thing. The other thing that caught my eye, and sorry for the off-topic... are you talking about a drive-in movie theater? Do such things still exist somewhere? When I was growing up there were drive-in theaters all over the place in New Jersey. Now they are all housing developments, shopping centers or whatever. I think it is mostly that the land got too valuable to remain as what was basically a parking lot. Maybe they still do exist in places that are not the most densely-populated state in the country.

Congratulations and good luck, Loomie!

Funny you should mention Pop Tarts. In my troop they have been banned as a camping trip menu item for many years - since before my time.

It makes sense in light of the LDS decision. I would still like to know how many non-LDS Varsity Teams there are, but the impression I get is that the number is so low, the termination of the program after LDS stops using it is really just recognizing what has already happened.

Well... I don't think they would close a camp due to difficulty in finding a director. If they want to fill the position, they can find someone to fill the position. Or to put it another way, if the camp was meeting the financial "bottom line" set by the council and/or National, the camp would remain open and they would hire a new director. There are promotions and personnel shifts and people coming and going from the professional staff all the time. I think the financial issue is the real motivating factor in considering closing the camp.

I have not received the email but I see what you are talking about on the scoutstuff homepage. The so-called "Family Camping Events" are really just days that they are promoting for the sale of camping equipment under the guise of "family camping." They call it "GET READY FOR FAMILY CAMPING DAY", which I interpret to mean "GET READY FOR FAMILY CAMPING" day, as opposed to Get Ready for "FAMILY CAMPING DAY". In other words its just a gimmick to sell more camping stuff,* and also to get you to physically go to the National Scout Shops (as opposed to just buying online) where they hope they can sell you even more stuff. I don't necessarily see a programmatic aspect to it, unless I missed something. * I almost called it a "sale", but a "sale" is where you can buy something for less than is usually charged, and I see no indication of that here.

Interesting, so you are actually going further to get there than our troop would be, and you are coming from out of council. So there must be something there that some troops find attractive (including patrol cooking.) I am not surprised to hear that the summer has been getting shorter there; that's usually the point at which councils start talking about closing an "extra" camp, especially when there is a developer waving piles of cash at them.

It was a secret until now. I think the real master-stroke was getting Bergen County to buy the land and make it part of their park system. But you are also correct, forming the organization made up mostly of Scouters who had been there, to run the place under contract with the county, was a good move too. I've never been there. Hope you have a great time!