qwazse

@gblotter, not trying to poke the bear. Just want to have know the range of what scouters are planning to do. Suppose your father-in-law stumbles across a CO that says, "Great, but we also have these five girls and a teachable Mom ..." Will he flex for them? Or, will he move on to the next CO? Are you enthused about the new LDS offerings? The global focus impresses me. Looks good on paper -- like something I try to arrange for my church's youth. But I'm getting an apprehensive vibe from folks at street level. I have a friend who is in the LDS church and he always touches base with me about scouting. Even though his son never was involved in it much, he seems a little disappointed about his church loosing the scouting program. On the other hand, they've always had a tough time garnering the leadership to make a great troop. (This probably explains why his son was more involved in soccer than scouts.) I haven't had a chance to talk to LDS kids (scouts or otherwise) to hear what they think. My guess is if even 10,000 of them nationwide want to join a troop -- for whatever reason -- we volunteers will have to scramble to make it work for them. Part of that would indeed include making sure they get their Sabbath fulfilled in an honorable fashion. I could imagine some troops hosting a patrol of LDS 1st-years that would go easy on the camping requirements so that the boys' could fulfill their religious duties.

From the aquatics safety https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss02/regarding supervisory personnel Not sure how much of this quote could apply to YPT. But, none of us should be strangers to BSA telling us "At the end of the day, your judgment is needed to make this work."

?? show me where in it explicitly states that as a condition for starting an Eagle project.

@carebear3895, ground truth: which group has opportunities varies by location and has nothing to do with a nationally recognized rank. BSA lost two of my young relatives because their SM refused to make good on the promise of scouting by overriding youth leadership frequently and often, and scheduled outings as a second priority to MB weekends. The boys visited TLUSA which seemed to be enjoyable, but there were other problems ... specifically, I don't think their sisters would ever be invited on activities. (Pity, because one can start a fire in a rainstorm with natural materials. Good to have around.) National rules about air-soft battles and height limits on pioneering towers didn't help.

Wow! Folks are a bit on edge. Remember, that chances are that by virtue of being scouters we would probably enjoy each others company around a campfire. The truth is, a troop/pack who never worked with young women before (be they tag-alongs, venturers, rogue GS/USA troops, etc ...) may disappoint parents who thought that was the unit's best feature for their boy(s). Parents had some frank conversations with me last year over this very hypothetical ... and our boys have been exposed to venturers and female scouts from abroad, attended weekend camps with girl scouts, etc ... What looks to some of us like a long climb, looks to others like a slippery slope. As to 'Skip's reference about big-ticket scouting, keep in mind that Jamborees are attended by <2% of registered scouts, HA's by <5%. There are scads of other youth conventions in the country -- especially Christian ones that would appeal to TLUSA -- and some of those have worldwide gatherings.

@DeanRx thinks this is hard. @Hawkwin thinks it's easy. The truth is probably somewhere in between. One solution -- if mom's are slow joining -- is to have one of your leaders become a trainer, and figure out how to deliver YPT training and accept registrations in the field.

@jsychk, welcome! And thanks for all you do for our boys. I've heard lots of positives about TLUSA from boots-on-the-ground. Their professional leadership -- some of them former BSA pros and well-versed in competitive marketing -- has allowed doublespeak to promulgate without retraction (latest example: allowing the implication of a "two week sex party" in reference to the World Scout Jamboree to stand). The world needs more good scouters who will stand up for one another, even across organizational boundaries. Like in "good old days" when boy scouts and girl scouts or campfire girls (at lest in these parts) camped together from time to time. Tip from an old fart: If you all are in it for the Eagle, move on sooner rather than later. The national recognition that comes with all the hype is simply not worth it. Whatever club your boys join, challenge them, "If you never earn the recognition that they offer, will you still be happy you joined?" That's the first sign that they're gonna garner fun memories!

Welcome! And thanks in advance for your service to the boys (and girls?)!

Let's not lose sight that "family scouting" remains pure and the unadulterated double-speak of promoters too chicken to say "BSA 4 girls in its 4th generation." As a result, we become the beneficiaries of unintended consequence -- like this back and forth about who gets invited to what activities. Is "linked troops" a buzzword for coed? Some troops will take it that way. National is still keeping up appearances that CoEd is not an option for troops. How that holds up will depend on how we on the ground react when one of us has a tight-nit patrol of sharply uniformed boys and girls wanting to stick together.

WiW, the old days aren't gone. My venturers had plenty of opportunities to "load balance" packs because some enthusiastic lodge chief overloaded his sister with gear. (Or, some crazy old crew advisor brought too many comfort items!) Around here, our boys ask other boys if they need help and are waved off regularly. That has been going on for as long as I can remember, and the potential recipient of help doesn't get a talking to about accepting help unless we see him having real safety issues or getting really frustrated! To round-off Daughter's story, when we repeated it to other friends, one southerner (an Aggie), pointed out that, "He probably liked her and was just trying to be a gentleman." I respect in the kid. I really do. His real problem is that this wasn't a barn dance. And she wasn't in heels. So, presuming a properly geared hiking partner would need a hand based on sex doesn't necessarily fly in the wild -- especially if you need to keep an eye out for the guy who came in sandals!* Now, when there are real doors, and a person is in heels or a hijab, I am quick to hold it for them. Looking sharp just seems to be so much harder for ladies, and figure I owe them respect for that. That leaves a lot of middle ground. (This is after all, the worst dressed city in the country.) I generally err on the side of getting hash-tag-me-too'ed by some post-modern nomad. *P.S. - The sandals bit is a subtle dig at a Pakistani friend who was a scout. It takes a lot to convince him to at least put on sneakers for our hikes.

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!

Once again, this reveals how risk assessment only goes so far. Although the infamous "perversion files" seem to have been built up meticulously, they are not the stuff for good criminology. We know nothing of "minimum exposure time" before a child is groomed for assault or before an adult attempts his/her first predatory act. If YPT and comprehensive registration feels like a "dragnet", it's because it is formed out of that ignorance. There is a belief in the inherent risk to females of all-male leadership (relative to the risk to males of all-female leadership) ... that two-deep leadership will not be sufficient in that context. It really doesn't matter how valid that belief is. Proof to the contrary is non-existent. Agressively litigation thrives in that domain.

We've done older and younger contingents. Older are dropped at a trailhead 7-14 miles from rendezvous (depending on activities/challenges on their trail), younger (with maybe an SPL/TG/ASPL) insert at trailhead where the vehicles can be parked park 3-5 miles from rendezvous. Groups may take separate 3-5 mile trails to the extraction point(s). It's a really good idea for the younger scouts to see the older ones at the end of the day. Won't work for every hike the Philmont boys will condition for (fact is, some of those hikes will be crammed in Saturday mornings or Sunday afternoons at local parks when the troop and most everyone's sports team is taking a break), but you want that example of preparation (including various foibles) to be observed on as many as possible troop outings. The various ATCs are awesome! Some of the older scouts will enjoy getting in on cleanup days.

Philmont bound? Welcome to the "hike a month" club! There is precious little that is more fulfilling than sitting on a rock some distance from your crew and watching them, after an arduous treck through a land of rocks and bogs, settle on a poncho between two large hemlocks and break out the deck of cards for a game of spoons (sporks?). A ten point buck who had not yet dropped his antlers for summer wandered in to check out their shenanigans. On last year's wilderness hike, the boys built a "fort" with parachord and tarps on night 1, and waded in a stream until they found a pool where we could set up a safe swim area on night 2. Most wilderness areas require contingents no greater than 10, so have your SPL work with each patrol to make a hike plan where they wil have different insertions and trails and a common rendevous. Try to find a big field for your destination and have the adults on one corner and ech patrol 100 yards from the adults and each other. Big field = wide games. At night, I may join the older scouts at their campfire and help them identify constellations. (Most of our have lived under light pollution so the galaxy is a stranger to them.) In the morning, the SM may try to call in turkey. Scouts making hen clucks are a riot! Some sites are only a few miles in, so after setting up camp, we plan a day hike along a trail that may have an old-growth destination, berry fields, or geocaches, or a good spring/seep for water collection. Scouts can take their pick. Or, if we are by a nice stream, they might try to niggle a few trout on some bail or twine. For a couple of scouts who just like to slum at camp, you might want to teach them to play mumbly peg. Carving walking sticks or fallen antlers is always fun. (Pro tip: certain scouts will need to know where the first aid kit is packed.) Some other scouts would like to engineer a campfire circle (including lounge chairs) or build a fish trap. Other scouts will want to bake cookies after rigging a reflector oven with foil and cardboard. That's the fun in backpacking, with just the stuff they're carrying, each scout learns how he can contribute something fun to the larger group.

Good news. BSA addressed inflatable safety bubbles last year ...

This happened to Daughter, not in venturing, but when she was on a college youth outing. A young man, bless his little Oklahoman heart, reached out to help her jump a set of boulders that she had no trouble handling. In East Coast fashion she declined and skipped right past the poor guy. No idea whose message is being enforced in those kinds of exchanges. But, the boulders certainly didn't care.

Registrations come in continuously, not just in the fall. This probably the case with Packs whose tag-alongs have been chomping at the bit to be official. On the flip side, since attrition really is tallied until rechartering, that hasn't been counted, so BSA is playing a little fast-and-loose with the stats. I got a new tent and I don't care who borrows it. How's that for infrastructure?

Feel confirmed! Advancement milestones and terms in PoRs don't have to line up. Actually, a lot of our scouts have PoRs since year 1. So they often might be wrapping up the last two months of one and starting another at the beginning of their time as a first class scout. Those scouted will be ready for Star after their time in a PoR -- any of them covers 4 months. So, a First Class scout who started a year commitment as a DC could use that position for Star and Life ranks and part of Eagle if he's diligent with the MBs and pedagogy requirements. Since many of our scouts take a few years to achieve 1st class, they often have the requisite number of MBs, and achieving Star and Life that way is pretty common.

@Hawkwin, I might be missing your point, and here's why: the requirements for advancement never let up. Fine, a scout knocks of four months as a DC for Star, my working assumption that time in a PoR was all he needed for that rank. He earns the rank, then he needs a PoR for another 6 months to earn Life, then another PoR for 6 months to earn Eagle, then for each Palm, another 3 months in which a scout will in accordance with requirement 3 "Continue to set a satisfactory example of accepting responsibility or demonstrating leadership ability. Same for every Palm after that." If a scout hustles on all other requirements, that's more than two years of responsibility just to get that first Silver Palm (or whatever third one he could earn beyond any insta-palms). Are you thinking about a star scout who works his position diligently for 122 days, then ditches the DL on day 123 thinking that he won't "need" a PoR until he earns Life? For a scout like that I underlined the word continue. Sure, that word is not used in Life or Eagle Rank, but by virtue of it being in the requirements for Palms it is implied. In other words, those four months are a minimum. I've seen committee members reject a Star Scout's position as den chief for roughly that reason. That and other corner-cutting made for a Life BoR that was protracted over a few weeks. I have a reputation for pushing older scouts into challenging leadership positions. I've never held their next rank over their heads. I've simply said, "Your a [insert current rank] scout, this is what we do." For a Star, Life, or Eagle scout there is simply no break in being responsible. Finally, in a properly boy-led troop, and SPL would be very slow to give a PoR to any Life scout who made such a poor showing while a Star scout.

I've had plenty of application of this issue with venturers who were working on a boy scout rank with their troop while their leadership was in my crew. Also, I was a DC of a den who, to my knowledge, sent no cubs to the troop. Same strategy applies to both types of positions, as their tenure may be used for multiple ranks if they are disciplined with advancement. Quite simply. At the SM conference and BoR, the scout should be able to describe what he did in that position. What went well, what didn't go so well, what he'd do differently. Early in a scout's tenure as an officer in my crew, I encouraged his SM and CC to ask those questions. When they did, it helped the scout get a dose of accountability for his office, and it helped share ideas between youth in different units. Pro tip: where should an SM look for "demonstration" of a DC fulfilling his duties? Talk to the cubs in the den. Ask one simple question: "What's the name of your Den Chief?" In addition to hearing your scout's name, check for smiles on the boys faces as they say it. At round-table talk to the Cubmaster (and, if possible the Den Leader). Same question, but rephrased. "Which of my guys is your Den Cheif?" Listen for the answer, check for a smile. If you see an eye-roll, frown, or the slightest ambiguity in those responses, it's time to have an impromptu conference with your scout. Training benchmarks and attendance check-lists are nice, but they can be deceiving. For example, a busy den might meet too frequently for a DC to keep up, but if he makes a point to show up when the DL's gonna need him the most, the DL will literally worship the ground he walks on.

As you all know, I'd have no problem with an adult completing his term in leadership (or any other requirement) while serving as a fully trained ASM. I think there would be slightly fewer helicoptered scouts that way. There might actually be slightly fewer Eagles as some of the procrastinators who think they have forever would actually take that long. The advantage for older girls joining next year (or any adult female) is they could then still have a crack at Eagle if they continue as an ASM for units who need one. That's not making an exception. That's removing an ageist policy that preceded the advent of bookwork MBs and gradual membership decline. But those aren't the rules. Agism rules the day. Does it stink? I don't think so. I see advantages to removing ageist policies, but it doesn't stink that boys come up against an age deadline. The is no shame in ending tenure as a Life scout. The best scout I ever met aged out at 2nd class. All such scouts have good memories and great friendships under their belt.

Getting back on my agism soabox ... how much worse would it have been to tell, the kid "Thanks for the 4 months leading our troop as a Life Scout. To round out your requirements Eagle, simply complete the requisite training for ASM and serve the remaining two months of your tenure serving our troop or one near your college."?

Yes, it is an Eagle project. The requirement does not specify "while a Life Scout who has made rank by age 17.51..." Personally, I would not want to go through the hassle of the project workbook just to do a service project. However, for a scout with aspirations to be an engineer, it might be a worthwhile exercise. My kids (all chemical engineers -- not a creative bone in the lot of them) spend a lot of time filling out specs and tracking sheets and chasing approvals. The article seems to indicate that the scout did the math. But, anybody who gives $ to a scout because they think he'll get a medal out of it should be flogged. Either the project is worthy, and we should contribute to it, or it's just for bling, in which case we should give the kid a shovel and tell him to dig for silver.

Any life scout who wants to do an Eagle project may do so. There is no reason deny him that privilege. I certainly would never say to a boy, "You can't do a project. You earned Life rank at age 17.51." I might say, "You know that no matter how awesome this project is, you will not qualify for Eagle rank. But, you'll have something awesome to be proud of. And, if this is a conservation project and you think you'd like to do four more of these, come talk to me about the Hornaday award." Nobody besides the scout needs to pay attention. Nobody should. Even if nobody else is paying attention, he should read his Handbook.

Ageism raises its ugly head again. But, some pro's should grow a pair, and speak plainly with a sentence like, "He didn't meet the requirements for Eagle, but he's a fine Life scout." No passing the buck to National. Call a spade a spade and then give the reporter your FOS speech and a pledge card. Don't feel bad for any Life scout. Ever. This scout could proudly announce that on any resume or bio sketch. I disagree. Always encourage a boy at any rank to take on any service project he desires. It's a pity this fella didn't donate twice as much and take on two service projects in the spring. I hope that now that he doesn't have the burden of that ungainly Eagle workbook, he and his fellow freshmen will do another one this fall. A scout who holds a position of responsibility in his troop, for any period of time, should be respected. Especially when he is at the end of his tenure and it would get him any bling.