Eagle94-A1

Concur with @Eagledad. While it is easier to start a Venturing Crew within a Scouts BSA Troop, in the long term they fold. The initial group of Venturers leave, Scouters get burned out, or the troop starts suffering and all hands are needed to support the troop.

So that is what the Baden-Powell Service Association is calling themselves these days. No experience with them whatsoever. Nearest group is over 3 hours away.

First warning sign that this is not a good troop is that they stop meeting for the summer. Summer is the absolute best time to do stuff because you don't have school and extracurriculars to deal with. Second, Agree with @MattR. Talking to another adult may help. If that doesn't work, another troop.

THIS. IS. THE. WAY!

Don't I know it. In 1994 I was a YMCA Lifeguard Instructor, who also worked and trained with ARC Lifeguards, and a 3rd national organization's lifeguards that I cannot remember, at the college pool. I took BSA Lifegaurd in 1994, and it was the hardest, most demanding lifeguard course because it not only covered pools, but also lakes , rivers, and open water. It started before 2013. One reason why I never went for BSA Lifeguard as a youth was because A) I did not have Rowing MB, which was a prerequisite along with Swimming, Lifesaving, and Canoeing MBs and B) I was working summers as a YMCA Lifeguard and needed to earn money. When I first became a BSA Lifeguard in 1994, those merit badges were no longer perquisites, although you still had to demonstrate the skills in the requirements.

As a former BSA Lifeguard, I can tell you it is 99.98% ARC to the point that the books and videos used in the class was ARC. In fact if you were willing to pay an extra $20 and take the ARC exam, you would be dual certified. the .02% difference was BSA's Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat. So BSA Lifeguard is not a good example of BSA going their own way.

BSA is to blame. I remember as a 18-20 year old ASM, I was treated as an adult by my troop, and most other adults on the district/council level. Yes, some folks looked at my age and lack of Wood Badge and ignored me, denigrated me, etc. But for the most part I was treated as an equal. I maintained friends in the troop, and hung out with them at school and outside of Scouting. But at Scouting activities, I was treated like any other adult by them. I was able to do Swimming and Lifesaving MB sessions at the pool I worked at with just a parent present. I was even the acting SM one summer since no other adults could attend the entire week. The CC and a MC switched off until Friday when the SM showed up. It was me and one other adult. Flash forward to today. I have an Eagle who if he was to be an ASM would have to give up friends in Scouting who are under 18. Another Eagle, if he was an ASM, would be unable to do school work with several classmates because he is 18, and they are under 18. The 18-20 year olds no longer count towards 2 deep leadership. So if they are a MB counselor, they need 2 registered adults over 21, or one registered adult over 21 and a parent, to be at their MB sessions. As for summer camp, there is no reason for them to be there since A. they are not counting towards YP, and B. Taking tenting space, an C. costing money. Until I see the raw data to support this decision, it it the stupidest one ever.

Tell me about it. I remember the first time I was eligible, and I didn't vote for myself because the other three candidates were better Scouts than me, AND I HAD A DIFFICULT TIME PICKING THE 2 I DID! It was rough. Under the old rules, it was possible to get everyone elected under the right circumstances, i.e. odd number of eligible Scouts. I had a SM tell his Scouts how to vote so that the three scouts had 2/3s of the ballots each. Found this out after the fact and it infuriated me. Now it is common.

No clue. I am an old fogey and what I wanted at that age may be completely different from what folks today want. But I would start with with following. 1. Get input on what the young adults want. Not just the various VOAs, but also rank and file members. A. Have actual town halls and various meetings where the members, not the advisors, have input. B. AND HAVE THE MEETING BE REAL AND NOT A COVER UP FOR PREARRANGED CHANGES, I.E. THE MEMBERSHIP TOWN HALLS. Let's face it from everything I have heard from pros, the timing of the town halls, read i.e. gender neutral language on applications prior to the changes, and the fact that the membership polls have never been published, the membership town halls were just a cover. C. Have open ended survey questions instead of the leading questions like the membership survey. If you want to know what the members want, you got to be open to both what you want to hear and what you DO NOT want to hear. D. ACTUALLY DO WHAT THE YOUTH WANT! If 94% of folks are against something, YOU DO NOT DO IT! 2. Have more national resources available to support them. And if you cannot support them, empower the members and volunteers to support themselves. One of the reasons why Sea Scouts is successful is that for the longest time, National had little to do with them. Sea Scouts and Volunteers provided their own support.

Tell me about it. We have folks who not only know school board members, but some who have been friends with them since elementary school. We have folks who work in the school system, are part of PTOs, various parents' booster clubs, etc. But council does not want us doign anything.,

As I stated, this council does not want units contacting anyone the school system and it has been like this since before I got here. As for outside groups, I will repeat, NO OUTSIDE GROUPS are allowed. This law was brought up once or twice when we had a DE, and this is what he was told. And from what I get from the Sxcouts, it is enforced. Trust me we had relationships prior to the current superintendent. Now everything needs to be focused on "teaching time."

1. I have deleted texts and emails. And I cannot find the letter I sent to a SE selection committee about one of the potential candidates. 2. For me the OA lost its uniqueness when they changed their election policies. At the time, I said it would be a slow death. I admit I was wrong as it is taking longer to die than I thought. But I also know a lot of folks are fighting tooth and nail, to preserve the OA. I was in that number until unit responsibilities took over. From the outside looking in, OA is a pale shadow of itself. 3. The Venture Patrol concept has been tried in one shape of form multiple times. If memory serves, at 14 you automatically became an Explorer in the 1950s, and troops had an explorer patrol. You had the Leadership Corps in the 1970s and 80s. Then the Venture Crew/Patrol in the 1990s to sometime in the 2000s. I can speak only for Leadership Corps and Venture crew/patrols as I have experience with those. If you read the literature, they were suppose to be able to do things separate from the troop. In reality they didn't AND THIS WAS WHEN PATROLS COULD CAMP WITHOUT ADULTS! ( emphasis). Unless you have a large troop with lots of willing adults, I cannot see folks doing 2 camp outs a month. Also something would need to get the Scouts interested. The Venture Pins idea didn't work.

"OUTING is three-fourths of ScOUTING." William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt, 3rd ed. SMHB "SCOUTING IS OUTING!" William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt

I agree completely. But when you are not allowed in the schools to recruit, eventually your pack ages out or moves to a thriving one when they get too few to recharter. Depends upon the council as I have found out. Some councils, for whatever reason, do NOT want units doing their own recruiting and round ups. Instead they set up everything, and tell us when they want us to be at the round up. And in other councils each unit has assigned schools, usually to get Scouts int eh same neighborhood to be together, because of bussing, multiple packs recruit form the same school. It is crazy. If the school system allows NO ONE to come in, then Scouts can't recruit either. Yep, that is system policy as outside groups take away form "teaching time."

I have mixed emotions on this one. One one hand I fully understand the rationale. It is a lot of work to support a struggling unit. On the other hand, i am in a struggling troop. Our pack folded about 10 years ago when we stopped having a DE that would get us into the school system to do round ups. The troop has dwindled, and was on the verge of folding. Work of mouth has been our best recruiting over the years. Almost have the troop have transferred from another, larger troop, that on paper is "more successful" but is actually not doing much. One large troop locally had a strong pack preCOVID, and folks automatically went tho them because they didn't know better. On paper that troop is strong, but they don't camp much, their SM appoints PORs, and they focus only on advancement. had one of their Eagles who NEVER went to summer camp, earning all of his MBs at the MB weekends and one day MBUs. That unit did a lot of virtual stuff during COVID, i.e. MB classes. While we did some virtual meetings, as soon as we were able to, we were meeting outside and doing day trips, mostly bike rides. We even put on our own summer camp within COVID restrictions. Tell me which troop is better?

If i have not deleted them, i will share the emails and texts.

Are you serious? Several years ago BSA had a poll in which 94% of the respondents were either against (18%) or strongly against (76%) the proposal, yet BSA did it anyway. 94% OPPOSED AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY! (emphasis). National has repeatedly announced membership increases AT THE LAST MINUTE. One year they even told units to hold off on rechartering until they finalized the price. People repeatedly complained because units had already created budgets, and round ups were going on. Again, National was told repeatedly to give more notice to help the boots on the ground prepare, especially the lower socio-economic families. Have they listened? No. The Churchill Plan came completely out of the blue, with some elements shocking National level volunteers who should have been part of the conversation. Ditto with mortgaging Philmont. Friend of mine worked his way up from local Scouter, to district/council Scouter, to being on the National 411 committee for Cub Scouts. He had a hand in the June 2015- December 2016 Cub Scout Program. He got input from local Cub Scouters for ideas, and one of my ideas made it into advancement. But National changed the program mid year and without talking to members of the 411 committee who created the program. So no, National professionals ARE NOT listening to volunteers. In my council, we have longtime, dedicated volunteers quitting because they have been ignored by, yelled at, cursed out by professionals. Worse, we have volunteers being removed from positions because they are raising questions and concerns that folks in the field are having, and the professionals do not like it one bit. And this has been going on since before I joined the council way back when as a DE. One of the many reasons why I left the profession was because of the attitude towards volunteers. So no, council professionals ARE NOT listening to volunteers. As for my background, it is extensive. I too am "known as a person who performs." Last district camporee ALMOST had as many folks at it as the last council camporee. Only reason it was not larger was because we reached capacity and had to shut down registration 3 weeks earlier than anticipated. When I was doing Cub Scout day camp, I doubled attendance within 2 years. I have restarted OA chapters, and lodges AIA committees. My record is one of the reasons why I have been repeatedly asked to become the district commissioner, recruited to run district and council events, and was even asked to return to the profession as a DE. But having been yelled at, cursed out at, and ignored, I only go above unit level, especially now as SM, when my boys ask me to. They were the ones who asked me to run district camporee.

Ah, another Sea Explorer . Agree that the constant rewrites to the Exploring and Venturing programs over the years have severely hurt the program. And the lack of professional support also hurts, because most execs are clueless as professional training is focused on Cubs Scouts and Scouts. In all my time in Scouting, I have only ran into 2 dedicated Exploring/Venturing execs, and one of them was put in the position and had to teach herself about Exploring/Venturing. When I went thru PDL-1, everyone was suppose to go through either the Exploring Leader Basic Training or the Exploring Leader Basic Training Self Study. I think I was the only one who actually did the training because the instructor said "as long as you read the info, your good, we don't need to go over it." We only spoke to the National Venturing Director for about 30 minutes the entire 2 weeks, and it was about the program that was coming out in August. On the local level, I wore a Sea Scout uniform to an event, and the SE wanted to know what I was wearing. At least in my area, there is no interest by volunteers to jumpstart Venturing because our foundation, Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA are in desperate need. We are down to 3 packs in my old district, and none of them have over 30 members. When I left my old pack 4+ years ago, we had over 70 members. I too was involved in Exploring/Venturing as a volunteer. I hate to see the program as it is today, but I have to focus my energy on keeping the troop alive.

To clarify, the Venturing logo is green, white, and gold with green lettering. BUT I have clip art with the logo in maroon, white, and gold with maroon lettering. The solid maroon golf shirt was the Venture Crew/Patrol Activity Uniform shirt from 1989 onwards. Venturing had a maroon, white, and green golf shirt, that was an activity shirt. Varsity had a tan golf activity shirt with blaze writing. See below.

Forgot to add, maroon was the Venture crew/patrol signature color, and it almost became Venturing signature color. I have clip art with the Venturing Logo in maroon, gold, and white as well as green gold, and white. In fact, the Venturing golf shirt was maroon.

Actually Venturing did not have advancement, but "Recognitions" back in 1998, and there were 5 different Bronze Awards: Outdoors, Sea Scout, Sports, Arts& Crafts, and Youth Ministries/ Religious Life. It may sound like semantics, but it was emphasized that Venturing Did not use advancement as a method, and did not have ranks. You also had the Ranger Award as well. 2014 was when Advancement was incorporated into Venturing. I think you meant Sea Scout Quartermaster, as the Ordinary rank corresponded to the Sea Scout Bronze Award. The 1998 National Venturing Director actually stated the Venturing Silver Award was Higher than Eagle Scout and Quartermaster Awards. He was quickly put in his place by a bunch of angry new professionals, and that was never mentioned again. Since that meeting, it has always been "Equal to...." Yes, he ticked off a lot of us in that meeting. The challenge is between 1989 and some time in the 2000s, Venture Scouts was the term used for older Scouts in a troop's Venture crew (1989-1998) / Venture patrol (1998 - ???? ; anyone have an idea when Venture patrols officially died?) Trust me every person in the meeting with the 1998 National Venturing Director said the terminology would cause headaches, and we were right. As I stated previously, Venturing appropriated the term 'crew," might as well appropriate the term "Venture Scouts" as well

I admit our legal environment plays a part, but BSA gave a stat on peer-on-peer abuse, without citing the sources and/or showing the evidence, in the YPT 2.1 training I took. The 50% peer-on-peer abuse is what Michael Johnson has stated without showing the data.

My comments. 1. If memory serves, BSA tried that in the 1950s or 60s, and it didn't work out. 2. BSA tried it again from 1989 to sometime in the 2000s/2010s, again with no success. 3. Very few current Scouters are familiar enough with Venturing to make it work properly. Heck it is hard enough to get Troops working properly as many adults do not get how Scouting sis suppose to work, even with training. You can see that on all the various comments and questions on social media. 4. The demographic that other countries use to support this range, 21-30 year olds, have usually been out of Scouting for a few years and have moved on. I blame current BSA YP policies forcing 18-20 YOs to abandon their <17 yo friends outside of Scouting. Plus their is a feeling of disrespect from National since they do not count towards 2 Deep Leadership, and if they have Scouts working on MBs with them, 2 additional registered adults over 21 are needed (or a parent and 1 additional registered adult over 21). These folks have the knowledge, skills, abilities, and time to do the HA stuff. 5. I believe that despite efforts by the Sea Scouting and OA communities to keep 18- 20 active in the program, the CHURCHILL PLAN's goal to limit programs up to age 18 is still being considered as they stated that the issue will be revaluated. As much as I am for Venturing, I think it is on life support and will die after the reorg.

For reasons beyond my control, I have an ASM who is a helicopter grandparent. Good news is that at meetings I have a CC who will ride herd on them when I supervise the Scouts. And they are limiting the number of camp outs they go on since the adults sleep in tents, or hammocks, just like the youth, and he likes his comforts. But at home it is a different situation. The Scout may be packing his own gear, but grandparent is telling him what to bring and not bring. It is obvious extremely obvious when the Scout was doing a shakedown and kept asking the grandparent what a piece of gear is that he packed. The Scout has been in a year and a half now, and almost 13, but is essentially still a Webelos because of the handholding. Compare this almost 13 year old Scout who has had his hands held to the 11 year old SPL I mentioned above who did not have his hands held, and you see how detrimental to development it is.

Great question. Quick and easy answer is : IT. IS. NOT. SCOUTING! (bold and cap for major emphasis and not shouting) Detailed Answer. I do not know when exactly the shift occurred, But when I took Cub Scout Basic Leader Training way back in the day, and when I taught Webelos Den Leader Specific Training, there was an emphasis on transitioning from Cub Scouts to then Boy Scouts. The syllabi discussed how you needed to give them more and more responsibility, start letting them do things for themselves, and getting away from parents signing off on advancement. That is when the "whispering in the ear" is supposed to occur so they can get used to Scouting, not as Scouts BSA troop members. Scouts BSA is when they are suppose to come up with their own plans, create their own program, and do what they want with adult supervision and guidance. They do the planning, teaching, organizing, etc because it allows them to grow, make mistakes and learn from the,m and gain experience. Adults doing stuff for Scouts really hurts the Scouts in the long term. Sadly your experience regarding new troops is all to common nowadays because it is what is coming out of National. The problem is adults either tend to keep power, or the Scouts rely too much on the adults and never grow up.. Also another problem is we have more and more Scouters with 0 experience as a Youth, and all their scouting experience is as Cub Scout leaders. Several units I have been in over the years had a 1 to 2 year "deprogramming" policy that basically said you had to serve on the unit committee and learn how Scouts operates and you understand the differences between Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA. To many times I have had to deal with interfering adults. And in one instance, I had enough of my sons complaining about the interference and we switched troops. Best material for starting new troops is anything written by William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt, especially his 3rd edition SM handbook, volumes one and two. If I recall correctly, he had a 6 week plan to start a new troop, or reinvigorating an existing troop, that moved from adult led to youth led. Sadly i lent my copy of the book to a SCOUTREACH SM who started 4 troops using Hillcourt's methodology. Despite a lot of disadvantages, they were outstanding troops. And when he moved I never got it back. As for the comment "Heck, even in established troops it can work that way if the older Scouts have gone inactive or aged out and younger Scouts are leading the troop," I quote Col. Sherman T. Potter, "HORSEHOCKEY!" One of the best SPLs I had the pleasure to work with was an 11 year old Second Class Scout who was in the troop 1 year, and had served 6 months as PL. He beat out 2 older, and former SPLs. He took his training to heart, and ran the troop like he was suppose to. One fo the guys he beat even commented at the next election that the 11 Year old did a great job and set the bar high for his successor. Bill Hillcourt had a saying about Scouts: "Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!" (sic). If you have high expectations, and give them responsibility, even the younger Scouts can do a great job. Now is the situation difficult? Yes. Is it chaotic at times? Yes. Will Scouts screw up and not do what they are suppose to do? Yes. Will you feel like pulling out your hair, or being stressed out, or being depressed about the situation? ABSOLUTELY! When my sons and I transferred, we transferred into a troop that was in that exact situation. We are going on 4 years, but the troop is getting better all the time. I have had to deal with Scouts not wanting to do their jobs, or not preparing properly to teach, or not following directions causing unneeded repetition at meetings. But it is improving. So yes, it is a major problem because adult interference holds back the Scouts from growing.