Krampus

When you live in a place where silly rules govern the fun you can have, then yeah, again. Ask your kids how they'd feel if adults wouldn't let them use squirt guns, water balloons, drive go carts, use certain kinds of knives, only climb using certain techniques and gear, only use certain tools, etc, then talk to me. It's easy to shake your head when you don't have such limitations on what your kids can do. Makes planning so much harder....not to mention retention.

@@HICO_Eagle, curious but was the reaction of the Scoutmasters?

@@TAHAWK most units in my area are like this. They are not that close with the CO despite being "part of the church" for 15-20 years. Most are seen as tenants, nothing more.

@@Peregrinator Kamen's account is disputed. Barber, Smith and Maden have different numbers vastly higher. Even MotherJones who quoted the 6000 ISIS number says it's impossible to say how many people ISIS has killed. So how can we trust one source using second and third hand material going back 700+ years? http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/isis-syria-death-casualty-count

I think you didn't read far enough: "At our summer 2013 meeting with the BSA, we were assured that changes concerning adult leadership would not be on the table, but that was not the case. We are now being told that the LGBT agenda, even with the most recent change, won’t affect the content of Scouting or the BSA experience, but we do not believe that will be the case. Having the MOU no longer seems tenable."

I worked with Sen. Simpson from 1987-1992. Had occasion to work with Mr. Mineta. Both great human beings.

Right. Which means you have a board, must submit your own tax and finance records and there's company and personal liability for anything that happens. That's way more exposure than a volunteer needs.

Self-charter? Take the personal liability? As Bill Cosby might have said, "Riiight!"

Actually, the donation of the full $12m came from one place. One person. His request was to use the money to "upgrade the camps as the council sees fit." The discussions and suggestions from the districts and units were to use it for the purposes I have enumerated. Council, as they do in most things lately, went their own route rather than to listen to the membership.

@@John-in-KC, so the $12m in direct funding for capital improvements for camps-only should cover it, don't ya think? 4 camps x 15 latrines each means they could use $3m to upgrade all camps with plenty to spare. But I can see how the power-to-be wanted that cherry training center. They've not spent a summer at camp (or weekend at camp) in 20 years.

Here's my problem: Page 36 asks all these questions that are additional requirements to get elected to the OA. They have nothing to do with camping. They have nothing to do with service. All those questions from "Member C" ask questions unrelated to the requirements. If I were SM and had to judge who was eligible based on all those questions I would probably nominate 1-3 scouts instead of 8-10. Worse: Most scouts I have seen make OA meet few of those requirements asked by "Member C". I'm not talking just my unit. I am talking about the current generation of scouts I have seen over the last 12-15 years. If OA wants to live up to all those ideals spouted out by "Member C", they should be requirements listed as part of being eligible for OA membership, from which the SM can use as quantitative guidelines for accepting or rejecting a scout for OA. Lastly, these should be on-going criteria for staying in OA. Many scouts and adults I see around scouting wear the flap, but do not walk the walk outlined on page 36.

There's "glamping" and then there's extreme sanitation concerns. Like I said, if anyone here feels this is overblown I'm happy to personally escort you to the camps in questions and watch you spend a week in 103F heat (during the day), 98F (at night), with water temps in the mid- to high- 80s. You'll eat in an open-air dinning hall with questionable sanitation that circulates the air with ceiling fans, most of which have 1 or 2 blades left on them from the 5 originals. At the end of camp, I will gladly accept your check for $200 to go to our council to pay for the built-in ice cream bar they're putting in the training center. Then I will take your reservation for 2017 too.

No one said there were no differences. But overall the level of risk to the units is similar. Source?

They are the worst facilities I have used in a loooong while. I camp in national parks, state parks, scout camps across the country as well as back country camping. Sadly the pictures do not do the facilities justice. They are actually worse than the pics show. The point of my original post was this: I would not complain about the facilities if my council were some poor, cash-strapped group that had to choose between supporting our youth or making our constitutionals a bit less barbaric. But my council has MILLIONS in the bank. They received a HUGE amount of money specifically for camp upgrades. Instead of choosing to fix basic needs (food, water, shelter, sanitation) they opted for creature comforts for the elite of the council. And then they want to FORCE my unit to participate in funding MORE???!!!! It is not so much that I want greater comfort for my posterior; rather, I would appreciate the right to choose for myself where my money goes without the Council/District Goodfellas shaking me down for more.

It takes a while for lawsuits to be submitted. Troops/Crews recruited in the fall for new applications this spring, so any potential discrimination will not have happened yet. Then you need time for the lawsuits to be investigated and filed. Probably won't be a year or so until we see any of these. The Inquisitions killed a fair number of people, but yes, I was being sarcastic.

When you have a greater exposure to law suits and higher likelihood of losing your CO, I personally call that risk. No need to sugar-coat or make it politically correct.

In reading the LCMS letter, it appears that 1) the governing body is dissolving the MOU, 2) they are leaving continued support of the BSA up to individual congregations, and 3) the LCMS is seeking to work with Trail Life to develop a relationship. Simply put, the local churches can decide what they want to do, but proceed without the umbrella of the governing body (and their insurance). It also means the LCMS is looking to substitute BSA with Trail Life. That's nearly 4,000 units now at risk. At least, that's my reading.

KoC told units, go to your parish and get sponsorship. The parishes will make a determination if they want to sponsor or not. So there's still a chance (and a good one) that the parishes will take them in. In my areas the issue is already settled; they've been taken in. The KoC will still support Scouting but at the parish level, not directly. This impacts 1000 units give or take. The LCMS told units they no longer have an MOU with Scouting and that, as a result, individual churches now have the liability. We have yet to see what the individual churches/congregations will do, so there's also a chance that these units will need to find a new CO. The LCMS is also looking in to a direct relationship with Trail Life. This impacts nearly 3800 units. How are these situations NOT similar? Both have uncertain futures. Both impact the long-term future of units.

I think many of the posts support what @@JoeBob stated. Scout-made shelters, igloos, tee-pees, hammocks, lean-to, bivouacs, tents, etc., should count. Ready-made shelters (except summer camp tents) or cabins or lock-ins, or sleeping on a ship (unless on deck under the stars) and anything that would hardly be considered "roughing it" should not. Only one long-term should count, not more.

Moving to England...they get to use Super Soakers.

Also added that they hope to sign an MOU with Trail Life for their 20% of members who are affected by this.

@@Peregrinator things go away in a reorg. Sometimes a lot. Sometimes a few. Sometimes nothing. It is not like the KoC and the Catholic church pulled support entirely from their units the like LCMS; so in that comparison it is a simple reorg. Now, if 30% of the units don't find new homes, that's a problem. If, however, 30% of the units consolidate and find new homes, that's not a problem. That would be a good thing because you are making weak units stronger. In my district nearly 20% of units had to find new homes or had their relationship with their CO drastically altered by the 2013 membership change. Another 10% lost their charter with this year's change. Many are still looking for homes but may have to fold.

I wonder if the activist board members who voted for the two membership policy changes got a vote on this new language.

Perhaps not in the charter. But there has always been a prohibition of scouts participating in such events or activities while in uniform.

Hasn't this always be a condition of charter?