NJCubScouter

So what you are saying is that LDS boys do not procrastinate in their path to Eagle? Maybe they publish something that my son could have read when it mattered. (If it isn't 100% clear, all of this post is meant to be humorous.)

And even when they do update them, old documents have a way of hanging around on the Internet until the end of time. When I look for things online like the Guide to Advancement or Troop Committee Guidebook, I tend to find multiple versions from various years and have to figure out which is the (or at least, "a") more recent version. You can even find, if you want to, the publication on advancement that pre-dated the Guide to Advancement. And then of course there are publications which apparently aren't even supposed to be on the Internet (because the BSA charges money for them) but which some unit or individual Scouter has scanned and posted. All of which creates a great deal of confusion for people trying to find up-to-date information. I can understand that the BSA does not want to do paper printings of documents "ahead of schedule" due to the cost, but there is no reason why there cannot be a specific online repository of all BSA documents (including those that currently cost money - yeah, sure) that is updated whenever a major change needs to be made - and I think the elimination of the tour permit/plan falls into that category.

Yes, stone tablets, they are a very, very, very, very early version of the iPad.

Well David, if this means you are leaving Scouting, I am sad to hear it. Although it seems that you and I disagree about... well, just about everything (both in and out of Scouting), it is clear from your posts that you genuinely care about the young people in your unit and that you do your best to provide them with a good and meaningful Scouting experience. And I also hope that a place can be found for your troop within your school and/or parish so that the boys can have continuity in their Scouting experience.

I agree, and I had wondered about that in this thread a few pages ago. But the Commissioner's statement seems to contradict this idea. If all (or almost all) LDS over-14 male youth are now (and remain) registered in a troop, as the Commissioner suggests, and if the same fee is being paid, then this does not seem like it would affect the BSA at all. And I know I may be hung up on the "fee" issue, but I think that's the element that makes this event a "BSA issue" rather than just a "LDS issue", and it is raised in the very first post in this thread.

Well, the same section of the GTA says: "Some leaders hold more than one along the way, and the Scout must be allowed to count any of them toward the requirement." Which I think is kind of confusing. Does it mean, for example, that if a Scout turns Second Class and then the SM has a conference with him, and then a few months later when the Scout is ready for his First Class BOR the SM says he wants another conference, the Scout can refuse to have the conference? I don't know of any Scout who would refuse, but the language makes me wonder whether that is possible. What probably happened is that in some troop somewhere, the SM asked a Scout for an excessive number of conferences for the same rank, and the Scout complained about it, so now we have a provision in the GTA that any SM conference may count toward the requirement.

Yeah, yeah, if I had thought about it for another second that's probably what I would have said. Although I think the former SM may have been referring to a bag that was not really meant for outdoor use, regardless of season. I always assumed, by the way he said it, that he had actually once seen a kid show up on a camping trip with an actual Sesame Street sleeping bag, although one time he also referred to a "Spongebob sleeping bag." Maybe he had seen both.

That is true, but I think most troops do them as the last requirement before the BOR. I hate quoting the Guide to Advancement because I hate the bureaucratic numbering system, but section 4.2.3.5 includes the following: "Ultimately, conference timing is up to the unit." As a separate issue, on the Scout rank, I think it should be remembered that the "new" requirements for Scout have been significantly expanded. They go beyond what used to be considered "joining requirements." I believe that almost of all of the expanded requirements are also included in the "Scouting Adventure" requirement for the Arrow of Light Award, so a crossover may be ready to pass Scout within 2 or 3 weeks. On the other hand, someone who is joining a troop without having been a Webelos may need a substantial amount of time to pass the Scout requirements.

A good first step might be to go to beascout.org which will at least indicate what other troops are available in the same area. Of course that will not tell Phrogger anything about the quality of the units, but at least it will indicate what the options are. Then, my suggestion would be that rather than trying to figure out whether the DE, UC or someone else is the best person to call, I would simply call the council office and tell the person who answers the phone what you are looking for, and perhaps he/she will direct you to the right person. This will not necessarily work, but I think it is probably the easiest option for a parent who is fairly new to Scouting. Just as an aside, it seems that every time a question comes up in this forum as to who in a district to ask for advice, there is an debate about whether it should be the DE, UC or someone else. Putting myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't know the "structure" above the troop level, and is just learning from us what the acronyms even stand for, I suspect that the discussion only creates more confusion.

I suspect that from the perspective of BSA National, the main question is whether a registration fee is being paid. The statement I quoted above from the National Commissioner suggests that the Varsity/Venture members whose units are being dropped will remain as members of a Boy Scout troop. (Presumably an LDS-chartered troop.) If that's the case, then "counting" these activities should be something that can be worked out. Again, this assumes that I am interpreting the statement correctly.

I agree that this is what the BSA should be focusing on. Interestingly, I came across this statement by the current BSA National Commissioner (who is also an "LDS Scouter" and former official of the LDS Church in connection with youth/Scouting program) commenting on the church's recent announcement, http://scoutingwire.org/charles-dahlquist-bsa-lds-relationship/, and it includes this statement: I bolded the word "registered" because it is bolded in the original. I am not sure whether it changes the meaning of the sentence. It was my undertanding that all LDS male youth are automatically registered in a unit at the appropropriate age level. Unless I am reading that statement incorrectly, it means that the Varsity and Venturing youth members are also registered as Boy Scouts. (Which they certainly can be, we had a Venture crew at our CO and almost all of the male members of the crew were simultaneously registered with our troop, until they turned 18 at which time some became ASM's or College Reserve and some didn't, but they remained as participants in the crew.) If that is true, what is the big issue here? If "nearly all" of the 185,000 are also registered as Boy Scouts, very few actual members are being lost. Right? And a dual-registered youth only pays one fee, right? (Right?) So that would mean that very little revenue would be lost. Or am I reading that statement wrong?

No, I did not see "In school Scouting" literature in the 80's, and I was not involved with Scouting during that decade. More generally, I do not pretend to have seen every pamphlet or brochure ever published by the BSA, even those from today. But I also have never seen any BSA publication that suggests that a Boy Scout troop does not need to offer the advancement program and the activities required to advance, and I think the Charter Agreement at least strongly implies otherwise. I haven't seen those either. Essentially all I know about STEM Scouts is what I have read in this forum and a few documents that have been linked here. STEM Scouts is not being piloted in my council. But I do know that a "STEM Scout Lab" is not the same thing as a Boy Scout troop. I do not even know whether advancement is a "method" for STEM Scouting, as it is for Boy Scouting. That would make a difference. Most of the times I have heard someone use the term "die-hard scouter" it was meant as a compliment, but that does not seem to be the case here. I am not sure what make one a "die-hard scouter" or whether I fall into that category. I do think that there are certain basics that one should expect to see in a Boy Scout troop, such as at least making an effort to use all the methods of Boy Scouting - not necessarily succeeding, since none of us are perfect. Exactly where that line is, I am not sure, but I think that, to use one of the examples you used, a Boy Scout troop that does not go on camping trips at all due to a decision by the CO, is not delivering the Boy Scouting program.

Our former SM used to call that (a 40F bag or similar, basically made for sleepovers in a house) a "Sesame Street sleeping bag," as in "all new Scouts bring in your camping gear to next week's meeting so I can see it before the camping trip, and I don't want to see any Sesame Street sleeping bags!"

I didn't do that.

I just wanted to address this general concept, without beating the "POR issue" to death any more than it has been already. The Annual Unit Charter Agreement (http://scoutingwire.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Annual-Chartered-Agreement_English.pdf) lists what the CO is agreeing to, including the following: "Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies." What is the "program"? In a Boy Scout troop, the Scouting program includes the advancement requirements. (No, it doesn't actually say that. Maybe it should, but I think the BSA was trying to keep this document very short and simple. Maybe that is no longer possible in this day and age, where are arguments seem to crop up over everything.) So I think that if a CO decides to omit portions of the Scouting program and the omissions make it impossible (or even very difficult) for a Scout to meet the advancement requirements, the CO is not complying with its charter agreement with the BSA.

I think this is getting a little too "personal". For example, there is no need to put labels on other posters, nor should we be speculating about what a particular poster might say in a different situation. Let's please stick to the issues.

No, I just don't see any difference between the two in this context. And for whatever it's worth, the BSA's preferred term seems to have been "membership standards". See http://www.scouting.org/filestore/training/membership/pdf/Unit_Implementation_FAQ.pdf

Whatever. You don't need to tell me what you think the difference is.

Well, all I said was, "I would argue..." I have now stopped arguing, because now I know the geniuses in Irving TX have decided that 10 nights in different locations in a vast mountainous Scout reservation is considered "long-term camping." And who am I to argue with that kind of logic? ((Sarcasm off)) But I still think that if you have not spent 20 nights in a tent or under the stars since joining Scouting, you really should not be going on a Philmont trek yet. I am not aware of anyone who ever has.

It doesn't, but I think that's what a "long-term camping experience" is. It's just one possible interpretation. And the requirement doesn't say "Scouting events", it says "Scouting activities and events." The trek could just as easily be a series of camping experiences that are part of "Scouting activities." But as I said, it's never going to matter so nobody is ever going to have to decide which is the correct interpretation.

Which is one of the things that makes our democracy great, if somewhat annoying sometimes, especially when the same issue is raised repeatedly and you (the generic you) happen to not be on the side that is raising it. And I think we can expect that every time some CO somewhere decides to drop its BSA units, or even some of its units as the LDS Church has, someone in this forum will blame the decisions on "membership standards", whether it is accurate or not.

If it made a difference, I would argue that a Philmont trek does not count as a "long-term camping experience" as that term is used in the Camping MB requirements. I believe "long-term camping experience" means that you sleep in the SAME PLACE for 5 or 6 nights. At Philmont I think each individual night in a different place, in a tent you have pitched, could count separately. Except that I doubt it would ever make a difference. I cannot imagine a Scout going to Philmont who does not already have 20 nights camping that satisfy the MB requirements. I have never heard of the issue coming up. A week-long NYLT, at least in my council, would be counted as if it were a week of "regular" summer camp. But again it doesn't really matter because nobody goes to youth leader training as their FIRST week of "long-term" camping, so by the time you get to NYLT (or TLD as it was in my day, 1973, Ten Mile River Scout Reservation) you have already had your 6 nights of "long term" so the NYLT does not count toward the merit badge.

Well... I am going to take a wild guess here that somewhere in the BSA's confusing and self-contradictory literature there is a definition of Cub Scout Day Camp that says that it runs a full week, so the three days/two nights may not make it.

Gwaihir, it occurs to me that in our council at least, the "Cubelos" weekend camping trips are considered "family camping." Maybe they distinguish between "resident camp" and "family camping"? Of course in your council "Cubelos" may mean something different.

jeanvaljean, FIrst of all the requirement allows the Scout to count six consecutive nights of "long-term camping" (which is usually summer camp) toward the 20 nights, period. Even if you go to a different summer camp the following year or any other year, those nights (after the first six) do not count for the merit badge. Here is the requirement: As for why nights at summer camp are limited to one week, the BSA does not publish their reasoning for the requirements (as far as I know), but my guess is: (1) They want the Scout to have a variety of camping experiences, including overnight/weekend camping, and in different places. After deducting the six, that leaves 14, which means somewhere between seven and 14 different trips, depending on whether the trips are one night or two. That allows for a pretty good variety, and of course the Scout must also meet the other subsections of that requirement, i.e. hiking, backpacking, traveling on water, cycling etc. (must do two of them) and a conservation project. (2) As others have pointed out, many summer camps have tents already set up, and the requirement allows for that. However, I have never been on a weekend camping trip where tents were already set up; the troop bring its own tents and they are pitched by the Scouts and adults who are using them. So part of the intent of the requirement also seems to be that for at least 14 of the camping nights, the Scout has pitched his own tent. (I see my post "crossed in the mail" with perdidochas's, who managed to say basically the same thing in three sentences.)