Sentinel947

On 10/6/2020 at 11:26 AM, Eagle94-A1 said:

The entire OPERATION FIRST CLASS program uses faulty methodology. The premise is that if a Scout get's First Class in a year, they stay longer in Scouting. Two things that skewed the data is the former LDS Church model and the activity level of units.

From talking to LDS Scouters, overserving their program, and LDS membership requirements,  LDS troops segregated their 11 year olds in a separate patrol and focused on getting them to First Class by the time they turn twelve. The 11 year old Patrol was more of a Webelos program with the ASM really acting like a DL, and the Troop Guide acting more like a DC. And of course, LDS automatically registered all youth regardless if they attended meetings and events or not. With 1/5 of the membership being LDS, that heavily influences the stats.

As a 15 year old Life Scout, who was one of the Guinea pigs that tested the New Scout Patrol prior to it becoming the recommendation in 1989, I noticed that everything BSA came up with to support NSPs and OPERATION FIRST CLASS was focused solely on advancement. There was no mention of how active the troops were, i.e. how often were they hiking, camping, meeting, doing activities, etc. None of the stuff that really attracts youth to the program was mentioned in the literature. And of course an active troop will retain Scouts.

 

 

There's also another statistical force at play here. Correlation does not equal causation. 

The BSA noticed that Scouts who earned first class in one year are more likely to continue in Scouting long term. Scout retention and First class rank in a year are probably correlated, but that doesn't mean earning first class in one year causes or influences Scout retention by itself. 

Without the BSA's data to run analysis on, I hypothesize that Scouts who earned first class in one year before Operation First Class are/were typically in very active troops with lots of opportunities to go on activities. Rather than push the Units to get Scouts to first class in a year, the key to scout retention is an active and engaging unit program. This isn't a surprise to any of us on this forum. Maybe pushing units to advance Scouts to first class in one year is easier than getting units to run a good program? 
 

Your council or National may be able to provide clarity. As written, my guess is that the issue has to effect more than one country, but the project only has to benefit one country. IE Deforestation is a problem in many countries. 

1 hour ago, jpb6583 said:

What would be even worse is if his claim is valid and was a factor in how his life has played out.

People always have choices, regardless of their life circumstances. 

Reread, deleted question. 

52 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I simply want to know if this is the original Beavah posting?  If so, great to see you are still keeping the eye on things.  

 

It's a quote of a comment from 2010. Where ever @Beavah is, I hope he's well. 

29 minutes ago, SemperParatus said:

When the BSA is no more...units will no longer exist.  Heck, units are disbanding right and left around the country as CO's are compelled to disassociate themselves from the BSA. Why invest energy into an activity that has a very good chance of shutting down in the not too distant future? Fond memories of scouting will not save the BSA (and units).

@SemperParatus you've got quite the tenure here! Thanks for your service to Scouting, past or present. 

That being said, you clearly aren't happy with the BSA for untold reasons. So why are you still participating here? Don't you have something better to do? 

My understanding is that family members are always ok in regards to the one on one rule. So siblings or parent-child are fine. 

The rule is not terribly new. No one on one contact is at least as old as my time as a youth member 2005-2011. Sometime around 2012-2013 I became aware of the application of the one on one rules to outside of Scouting, but it probably predates that. 

My question, what in the Guide to Safe Scouting/ YPT training has you convinced it applies between family members? 

1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

Things have changed in many ways, especially what is legal on the books. What is legal and what is part of the system are two different things.  While no longer legal, much has not changed in the system. As just a singular example he consequences of red-lining are still a reality in many places. Entire communities exist as a result of said red-lining and in a lot of cases are unwelcoming to say the least of "others" moving into the neighborhoods. The police still treat minorities in these neighborhoods differently. At the minimum is the assumption they must be from somewhere else and therefore suspect. This is just a simplistic example. While this is a far cry from the lynchings of the past, much of the country still has a long long way to go. While I disagree with the younger generation stating "nothing has changed" I also disagree with the older generation stating words to the effect, "we fixed it years ago, so racism is not systemic". The reality is in middle.

De facto vs de jure. De facto discrimination is alive and well. De jure discrimination is mostly gone, although there are some places where laws are passed because they disproportionately effect people in one group or another. Discrimination today is typically much more subtle and less overt than in the 1960's, making it easier for people to pretend it doesn't exist. 

3 minutes ago, David CO said:

There is definitely a feeling of aristocracy amongst the crowd that sits on most of these boards.  They feel entitled.  I think this is part of the reason why the millennials don't like joining service clubs.  They are more than willing to help out, for a good cause, but they aren't willing to put up with all of this elitism nonsense.  

It's the same way in the Corporate Sector. Lots of people sitting on multiple boards, whether it's for profit or non-profit orgs. 

34 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Don't know about where you live, but eight buddies pitching in $15 can get a kid to some very sweet campsites in Western, PA. That includes filling their bellies with some quality ingredients -- possibly fresh eggs and milk if you're willing to pitch in and help the farmer/ranger with a project or two.

So, the calculus has become: pay BSA registration vs. go camping once a month.

I am honestly astounded that the parents in my troop think it's worth the price of admission.

I mean, yea. I paid $17.5 for one night at Pickett State park in Tennessee, + $5 for a backcountry permit in the Big South Fork National Park. Overall it was $21.50 for 4 people for 4 nights. 

Monthly BSA dues are starting to become as expensive as the outing itself. 

14 minutes ago, MattR said:

I came to this conclusion a long time ago. Pine trees make lousy bear bag trees and that's what I hike near. One problem with canisters is they don't work well with packs unless the pack is huge. 

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but the only times I've had bears in my camp is when I camp in well established sites. Bears make rounds. So I try to stay out of their rotation.

I could see youth packs having issues fitting bear canisters, but I have a 55 liter adult pack (Osprey Exos) and I can fit a bear canister inside of it with 4-5 days of food and gear. I've gone pretty far down the ultralight, minimalist rabbit hole, so that may not be everybody's experience. I included a picture from my 2019 Lost Creek Wilderness Trip. I'm the one with the black and green pack.

Certainly in late spring, summer, and early fall when extra clothing needs are limited, fitting a bear canister in a pack has a higher chance of success. I'm not an expert on bears, but in late fall, winter, early spring, depending on local bear hibernation patterns, going back to a sub optimal food hang is probably just fine. 

Another option for the canister is that while hiking it can be emptied out and lashed to the outside of the pack, and the food can be carried in stuff sacks inside the pack. That helps work around the dead zones inside the pack that the inflexible canister creates. 

I've almost broken down and started just using a bear canister on every trip. I hate the weight and bulk, but the more I've backpacked, the more I hate hanging bear bags. That seems to be the conclusion Skurka has already come to. 

On 9/5/2020 at 5:36 PM, Sentinel947 said:

I actually drove through Burnside on my way to Cumberland Gap National Park a few week ago. Myself and a few buddies, all former Scouts, had never heard of Burnside's Scouting's connection and..... we didn't even consider stopping. Only thing we saw was a sign. That being said, that area is a hotbed of Southern KY tourism.. The Red River Gorge/Daniel Boone National Forest is nearby, as is the Big South Fork, and Lake Cumberland. 


 

Can't make an edit, this isn't close to Cumberland Gap, was actually going to Big South Fork National Park..

1 minute ago, jpb6583 said:

Active participation within the troop merely means national has your membership dues for the year. Some of you sound like you've forgotten this.

That's not entirely correct unless something has changed since 2013.  https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2012/04/30/active/#:~:text=The Scout must meet the unit's reasonable expectations for activity.&text=noteworthy circumstances that have prevented,taken hold and been exhibited.

If the unit fails to uphold a consistent standard then yes, the default is effectively, "Dues paying"= Active. 

I actually drove through Burnside on my way to Cumberland Gap National Park a few week ago. Myself and a few buddies, all former Scouts, had never heard of Burnside's Scouting's connection and..... we didn't even consider stopping. Only thing we saw was a sign. That being said, that area is a hotbed of Southern KY tourism.. The Red River Gorge/Daniel Boone National Forest is nearby, as is the Big South Fork, and Lake Cumberland. 


 

2 hours ago, DuctTape said:

My wandering mind...

One of the difficulties over the last decades has been the increase in other options; whether it be youth sports, theater, clubs, etc... Scouts has pretty much said "we understand your other things, so show up when you can". I wonder if this has had a cascading effect over time. Regardless, what if... and I am just spitballing an idea here... what if the structure of scouting was changed from " once/week meeting and 1 weekend/month campout for the whole year" to "a single season; meetings 3x/week, 1 day every weekend for "day activity" and 1 long weekend campout/month". Initially thinking is that a scout  signs up and commits to the season just like they do for soccer or the school play. Scouts becomes an equal choice to commit to like their sports, etc... and doesn't take the entire year. Imagine a kid doing scouts in the fall, the school play in winter,  baseball in the spring. Over the summer he goes to baseball camp and summer camp. Imagine the intense experience he could have focusing on scouts for the season. Add to this, the scout can still "show up when he can" during his off-season. An older scout can help as an instructor, or just go on a campout. Some scouts would choose multiple seasons (like they do for soccer). I am not suggesting this structure replace all of scouting just pondering if this type of structure could benefit some scouts if they choose. I can see serious difficulties in organizing, volunteers, etc... but if this structure as an option has enough appeal the difficulties can be solved with even more creative thinking beyond just the initial thought.

Clarke Green at ScoutmasterCG had a similar solution. I cannot find the Podcast/Blog Post that had it, you're welcome to look: https://scoutmastercg.com/

More or less, he had patrols in his troop sign up in 3 month increments. Still one meeting a week, one outing a month. Patrols would form based on attendance, interest and availability for outings. This would ensure that the active scouts always had a cohesive patrol to participate in. Scouts who needed to be away from the Troop for sports or another activity would be in a "inactive" patrol. His troop had modeled this based off the academic/sports calendar for the local school system. I don't recall if he kept the usual 6 month terms, or went to 3 month terms for other Troop PORs. 

It's a great idea, and I'd encourage my Scouts to adopt a system like that if I was a Scoutmaster/still involved in a troop. 

17 hours ago, David CO said:

Where did you ever get that idea?  You certainly haven't heard anything like that from me.  
 

Unless you were a Scout in 1915-1924, you weren't involved in the original Lone Scouts program before it merged with the BSA. What you participated in was either a modern regional/local variation, whether BSA official or unofficial. Not sure, maybe you can tell us more about how you got involved in it. 

Based one what I've read, heard from older Scout volunteers, and what's supporting materials available from the BSA, what you participated in is not the typical Lone Scouts Program. You are in a sense, contradicting all other known sources of information, and making claims I am unable to verify. Your Lone Scouts experience is likely truthful, but that doesn't mean I should take it as representative of how Lone Scouting works everywhere, particularly when it contradicts every other source of information I have on the program. 

Your points about the program being for rural as well as urban youth is spot on. 

Therefore no, I haven't heard anything like that from you, and I didn't claim that I did, nor did I quote you, or use any of your comments in mine. 

The 6th edition is highly regarded. I'm also partial to the ninth edition since I have a copy signed by the author. Wish the original owner hadn't drawn on it. 

You can also find the 1st edition BSA book or Baden Powells original "Scouting for Boys" online for free if you want a good peek at Scouting and life in pre WWI period.  

@dkurtenbachs post brings up an interesting question to me. 

What are our goals for Scouting? What do we want youth to get out of Scouting?

Lone Scouting and the Scouts BSA program have different outcomes based on their structure. Lone Scouting is more about individual growth in the context of youth to parent activities. Mainstream Scouting's outcomes are based mostly on individual growth in the context of peer to peer involvement, with some youth to adult interactions. There's pros and cons to each and these are fundamental differences.

As mentioned, Scouts BSA involves heavy volunteer support, and units either fail to recruit volunteers, or quality volunteers are not interested or not available. Beyond a lack of interested youth, a lack of qualified, quality volunteers is the Achilles heel of the Scouts BSA program. Units with strong adult volunteer groups will run attractive growth filled programs, and will have plenty of youth and adult volunteers. As the adult leadership decays, so does the Troop program, and so does the interest of youth joining. 

I personally have no need for lone Scouting if I have kids. It's the same reason I'd have no need for "Family Scouting." I can get them in the outdoors, learning new things and experiencing cool places, without paying the BSA anything. I'd put them in Scouting because I want them to have that involvement with other youth, and to benefit from the mentorship of other adult volunteers. I'm willing to pay for that, the same way I'd be willing to pay for Band, theater, sports, or church youth group. I'm entirely unwilling to pay for something that I can do myself for free. 

I can see where some Scouts and some parents, Lone Scouting would meet their needs and goals and that's fine. A significant chunk of the Scouting program (IE, what's in the Scout Handbook and Merit Badge program) can be delivered by just the parents to their Scout. When I reflect on my Scouting experiences from my youth, I don't often think about what I learned in my merit badges, or what I did for rank advancement. I think about time spent with my friends, in my patrol, practicing teamwork and leadership. Those shared experiences with my friends is the true value in Scouting for me.

Seriously offering Lone Scouting is a neat option, and it'd be low overhead for national to run, so why not give it a shot? It wouldn't cost much, would appeal to Homeschooling Families or people in areas not served by Scouting.  

Most of us here think that Scouting offers something to young people (socialization, leadership skills, conservation ethics, outdoor skills, life skills). Our goal should be to bring a high quality  Scouting experience to as many youth as possible. For better or worse, the BSA is the vehicle we are stuck with if we want to fulfill the "as many as possible" part. Lone Scouting doesn't check all those boxes, but it's definitely something. 

As for the success or failure of the BSA I always go to the mission statement. "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."  This is extremely hard to measure quantitatively, but not all things worth doing can be measured by quantitative metrics. 

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I'm not a NRA fan, but the charges seem reasonable, ... BUT ... 

Dissolving the non-profit (aka NRA)?  If the top officers of a non-profit are effectively embezzling funds for their own purpose, then it's right to prosecute.  BUT, the original non-profit has been around for almost 148 years.  The intention of donors / members is well understood.  So, the result of successful prosecution should be the returning of the funds to the non-profit for their original non-profit purpose. 

Even the idea of returning money?  Much of the money has been legitimately spent or won't be recoverable.  Every member gets $10 back of their original $45 membership fee?  I seem to remember that the intention of the donor (aka member) is to be honored when it's difficult to resolve such complexities.  So, if NRA can't be fixed, another 2nd amendment defending non-profit should be funded as honoring the donor intentions.  Or, simply replace the top NRA leadership and keep the long-standing non-profit running.

 

 

I don't disagree. I'm sure the AG thinks that she's going to strike a big blow against 2A advocacy, but that money is just going to move to other 2A orgs if she dissolves the NRA. Modern day Pyrrhus. Accidentally, she's doing Gun Owners a favor, because that money is currently being blown on expensive suits and vacations, rather than campaigning for gun rights, or paying lawyers to find solid cases to challenge laws. 

On 8/6/2020 at 8:52 PM, Navybone said:

But if BLM or PP were accused of the same crimes, it would be ok to go after them.  Sorry, but The NRA puts itself out there as defending our most valued right in the the second amendment.  But that is wrong, the most valued right is the first amendment, which BLM and PP both try to protect.  

PP and Abortion are protected by the courts interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Not the 1st. 

The AG of NY looking into the NRA may be politically motivated, but the charges are not. It's been well known among NRA members for a long time that LaPierre has been helping himself to donor funds, which is illegal. Maybe all charities do this, and just don't get caught, but I find that unlikely. Wayne gets paid a nice salary, and felt the need to help himself to even more NRA member money, money that WE NRA members pay so that they'll challenge unconstitutional gun laws. Then the NRA comes back crying poor. Many gun owners are disgusted and have found better run 2A advocacy groups to support with their money. 

I remember seeing similar articles about Sex abuse in LA schools. Seems like the Lawyers are all over them. https://www.taylorring.com/practice-areas/sexual-abuse-sexual-assault/sexual-abuse-in-schools/sex-abuse-in-lausd/#:~:text=Over the past few years,other LAUSD employees and contractors.

Seriously, this whole situation stinks. There's a balancing act between compensating victims, prosecuting abusers, and holding institutions accountable. It's a terrible tragedy, and nobody is going to come away from it happy. The victims can't get their lives back no matter how much money they get, the people who rely on the institutions have lost trust and tax money/donations. It's harsh stuff. 

4 hours ago, elitts said:

That would probably have worked 5 years ago, but now?  I think those same legislators that are passing these laws due to political pressure would get absolutely lambasted in the media if they tried that.

Depends on the state. New York's is at least consistent, in that it allows public as well as private entities to be sued, but as they were debating the statue change, public organizations were exempt to start. They were lambasted and relented, but that won't always be the case. 

49 minutes ago, elitts said:

Honestly, I hope that in one of these states that stupidly removes the Statute of Limitations they get such a massive response of people suing schools and government sponsored youth groups/programs that the rest of the states around the country learn their lesson and a decide not to make such stupid choices.

I'm sure there is plenty of liability out there just waiting with: schools, local recreational sports leagues, former Juvenile detention inmates, children in foster care, juveniles held in adult prisons,

They'll just exempt government entities.