Eagle94-A1

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.

@fred8033, I hear ya. During that period I first joined a Sea Scout ship, after hearing the adventures one SM had when he was one. Sadly it was a non-traditional ship, and not very good. I lasted long enough to get Ordinary. Then I got reinvolved with the OA and BOOM I went. The Scouter Reserve was suppose to fill the wish you have, but it was not widely used until folks became obsessed with training requirements and JTE. But as I said, the 18-20 year olds I have spoken to feel both disrespected by National's pollicy that they no longer count towards YP requirements, and that National is oblivious to the fact that 18-20 year olds do indeed have friends and classmates under 17, and some YP policies prevent them from being with their friends. They would rather get out of Scouting, only attending the occasional Eagle Court of Honor than losing their friendships. To quote Col. Sherman T. Potter, US Army Medical Corps, "HORSEHOCKEY!" I have seen first hand a Venturing Crew completely and totally set up and run by 16 to 20 year olds, and a few younger ones.. In 1998 when Venturing first split from Exploring, there was a lot, and i mean a LOT of confusion between Venture Crews/Patrols in troops and Venturing. Long story short, when one motivated young man of 16 found out he was ineligible for the Venturing Awards because it was a completely separate program, he went to work and got it all done. He was the one who went to the Field Director to get the info about Venturing, he recruited other Scouts to be part of the new crew, he recruited adults to serve, and he submitted the paperwork. As for my non-interest in Venturing, in my neck of the woods Scouting is dying. I have not had a real, unit serving DE dedicated to my district since 2012. We have not been able to get into the schools for so long I cannot remember when the last Round Up was. And the DEs we shared with another district were no help. My old pack went from almost 100 Cubs in about 8 dens back in 2009 to less than 30 Cub Scouts total. We have lost 4 non LDS packs, and are on the verge of losing more. My Troop was one that lost the feeder pack, and it is all I can do to keep the troop alive. It is not that I am apathetic about Venturing, far from it. It is that I need to focus my limited time and resources on what will make the most impact on youth. And until BSA starts acknowledging reality and respecting 18-20 year olds, I do not see Venturing, at least in my area, growing. I know the 2018 YP rules are based upon data, that I have serious questions about because I have not seen the situations they say are happening in my 30 years as a Scouter.

For Venturing Advisers, I would say go after the 21+ years olds who aged out of the program. Some do remain in the area, and others who are addicted to Scouting in general, and Venturing in particular do volunteer wherever they move. Hard part now will be finding them. Sadly every single EBOR I have sat in on since 2018, the Eagles say they will stay active until aging out. Reminder that 2018 was when National said 18-20 year olds not only do not count for YP purposes, but also must essentially give up friends and/or classmates who are involved in Scouting who are under 18 because of YP rules that they must follow, but again do not count towards. And if anyone says, "but 50% of the abuse is youth on youth now," I say show me the RAW data. Mark Twain said it best. "There are lies. there are d@&*ed lies. Then there are statistics."

Respectfully disagree. The best leaders for Venturing are the 18-20 year olds who are craving HA, but also are giving back to the troop as well. Sadly because BSA no longer gives the 18-20 year olds the respect they deserve, i.e. they no longer count towards 2 deep leadership, needs 2 registered adults over 21 when teaching a MB or 1 over 21 registered adult and 1 parent with them when teaching a MB, making them choose between Scout friends and schoolmates since they have to apply YPT policies to non-Scout life, but again they do not count towards 2 deep leadership, We are losing a lot of experienced folks. I would rather have a 18-20 y.o. ASM who grew up in the program, and has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to work a successful program, than 30+ year old who just crossed over from Cub Scouts and has no idea what Scouts BSA truly is like.

Most definitely. I would add that the TG gets overwhelmed working with all of the new Scouts simultaneously. In a Traditional Patrol, older Scouts buddy up with the younger ones and work with them. Again concur. When I was a TG, if I was not actively working with someone, they were clueless as to what to do, even if I gave them specific instructions. And I was overwhelmed. In my case, adults did not get involved because we were an old fashioned Scout-led troop, unless it was disciplinary. After a year of trying, and also losing some scouts, we went back to Traditional Patrols. HOWEVER, Every time I have seen NSPs since I was a TG, including my own troop when we tried it again in 1990 when a new troop merged with us, Adults jump in and take over. And it turns into Webelos 3, or AOL 2 I guess since the 2015 CS changes . Again SPOT ON! One of the problems is that TG is an appointed position. Because of that usually the Scouts who have lost elections, but need a POR to advance get appointed TG. Hence they may not be the best choice for the POR. In only 1 case did I see someone actively pursue TG, and this was after he served a term as SPL. And he was overwhelmed. That is when that troop went back to Traditional Patrols. Absolutely correct. I have never in 36 years seen a true Scout-run NSP. And that includes the one I was in. Instead of being called a troop guide, I was appointed Patrol Leader. And let's face it, the new Scouts may elect one of their own as patrol leader, but the Troop Guide is the one running the patrol if you attempt to have it Scout run. Otherwise the den leader NSP ASM is running things. And neither an appointed TG or adult is true Patrol Method.

I wonder if SEs will be able to raid those unit accounts. Sadly i saw a SE raid the OA lodge's account that was to be used for camp improvements for conclave. When all the bills started arriving, there was no money to pay them.

I know in the early to late 1980s, 1982 - 1989 to be exact, Webelos were coming over as full dens. I do not know when the NSP was officially piloted, but in 1986, my troop was asked to pilot it. IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE and we went back to Traditional Patrols a year later. Imagine everyone's surprise when NSPs became a recommended model in August 1989

My thoughts. 1. Sea Scouts has been the exception to the Older Scout problem because they have customs and traditions dating back to 1912. Even when Sea Scouts turned into Sea Exploring, and you had traditional and non traditional ships, those traditional ships survived and thrived. 2. regarding advancement, that was NEVER meant to be a focus for Venturing, hence the original 5 Bronze in specialties, Gold, and Silver Awards. They were optional items. 3. Regarding the term Venture Scout, that term was already in use to those Scouts in Venture crews within troops. When Venturing came out in 1998, they took over the term crew, and caused Venture crews to be renamed Venture patrols. Now that Venture Patrols are dead, I see no reason to not to rename Venturers to Venture Scouts since they already appropriated the unit designation. 4. While I love the concept of Venturing, heck I would have loved an active HA Exploring Post back in the day, the biggest challenge is adult volunteers. Sadly you a need number of dedicated, adventurous adults willing to work with the young adults. 5. Why is talk about increasing Venturing membership coming up when I though the Churchill Plan looked at maximizing the age for all BSA programs at 18? I know that fact motivated some Venturing folks, and 99.9999999% of the Sea Scout Community to save the programs, FOR THE MOMENT. I emphasize FOR THE MOMENT because if you remember the response to the Churchill leak DID state they leave the 18-20 year old question open to future shutdown discussion. Yes, I remember the national Sea Scout commodore, being taken completely by surprise by that. The topic of shutting out 18-20 year old Sea Scouts had never been discussed with him, and he was the national volunteer in charge of Sea Scouts.

I think "expensive" may be relative. The troop paying $120 for 3 vehicles to park 2 nights plus over $300 for gas for a weekend backpacking trip on the AT is expensive. But I know compared to Philmont, it is dirt cheap.

First I hard of this. Didn't National try this in the 1950s, and it flopped? I've heard stories that folks were automatically enrolled as Explorers, but still remained with the troop. That is a great question. I know it is more expensive to do HA activities, but it is possible. But we are an "old school" troop not focused on advancement, but instead on fun and adventure. If it takes 4.5 year to get First Class, so be it.

A few reasons for Venture crew/patrols demise. 1. Not really popular outside of LDS units, and then it was those units that did not focus on sports. When the old Leadership Corps was turned into Venture Crews in 1989 (although some units like mine continued using Leadership Corps until we ran out of patches circa 1995), it did not have a huge following. I was hired in 1996 to create a high adventure program based upon the activity pins that were associated with the program, we had 0 interest, and I ended up doing COPE instead of because NO ONE signed up for it. 2. Varsity Teams and Venture Crews for all practical purposes merged, sometime after 1996 (want to say 1998). Prior to 1996, Varsity Team members could only earn the Varsity pins, and Venture crew members could only earn the Venture pins. While the letter for the sash, from 1983 to 1989 called the Varsity Letter and after 1989 the Varsity/Venture Letter, could be worn by members of both groups, they could only earn and wear the pins for their specific group. Sometime after 1996, that policy changed. 3. Confusion with Venturing did in fact happen, and still happens to this day. Venturing appropriated the Venture program's designation, CREW, for their units. This caused Venture crews to be renamed Venture patrols. Venture's color was maroon, and was almost appropriated for Venturing. I have official clip art with maroon Venturing logos. And Venturers are still called 'Venture Scouts," which is what members of Venuture crews/patrols were called. I would not use old Venturing insignia for Scouts as it is a separate program. As for old Venture pins, if memory serves they were restricted items. Now Venture patches, I see no issue with. Once uniform, always uniform. Even after Venture's demise, I wore a ASM Venture patch.

Fixed that for you. Let's face it, National is the one setting the tone on this. National is producing training material that promotes advancement above all things, and positions of responsibility is part of that.

Depending upon who is taking care of them, I can see that. We had an former US Army armorer taking care of our day camp BB guns. He turned a bunch of abused and poorly taken care of BB guns, and turned them into competition quality bb guns. Sadly council found out about him, and recruited him for summer camp staff where he was the shooting sports director. Unless policy has changed since I went to camp school, or a council has figured out a way to get around the rules, National has prohibited packs from running their own shooting sports events. Cub Scout shooting sports are restricted to district/council events.

I know the camp I went to in the 1980s and worked at in the 1990s was mixed. With the exception of 2 classes ( Astronomy and Journalism) all MB classes were during the day. They did have "extras" at night time, i.e. First Aid and CPR certification, Hunter Safety, etc, one or two nites. Also some classes did have a 1 night program, i.e. Wilderness Survival, Camping, etc. While we wanted MBs, we wanted fun more. In fact we were told never to take more than 5 classes so that we could have at least last period with free swimming, boating, and shooting sports, so we can have fun. Night time had a mix of campwide activities: campfires, campwide manhunt games, camp carnival, troop and/or campsite own, etc. When i organized our COVID-19 summer camp, I used the European model of troops picking their own program as a model. I talked to the PLC, got their input for activities, and organized it. But we were flexible. we moved activities around based upon weather and the conditions the kids were in (the morning bike ride turned into a morning and afternoon bike ride exhausting everyone.) The only Set activity we would not change was the BORs. We had 4 or 5 BORs scheduled for the last nite, and had the committee driving in to do them. Could not be rude to the committee. Everyone had a blast at it, but many do not want to do it again because they want MBs. I personally hope that next year, whatever camp the Scouts decide on, has a high adventure program my younger two would be interested in. But I think Youngest will want MBs. Middle only needs Cooking now.

I wish we could get back to patrol method summer camps. Sadly I do not see this happening as the current structure is too ingrained in parents, Scouts, and many, many Scouters. I have had parents tell me that if they are paying for camp they will be picking the classes that he can get the MB at camp, otherwise it is not worth it. I have Scouts who enjoyed their COVID-19 summer camp, which used the patrol method, tell me they do not want to do to again because of the limited MB we worked on. And I had a scout retake a MB because it was fun, and another Scouter told me he was wasting his time.

We have not had a dull time DE in my district prior to merger for at least 9 years, always having to share one with another district. Since the merger in 2021, we have had 2 DEs. One didn't even attend the district camporee. The other didn't attend the council camporee, although she was brand new and I will cut her some slack. We have hand delivered advancement paperwork only to be be told "It was never turned in" (despite having a photo taken of the paperwork in fact being turned in because of previous issues). We needed professional help trying to get into the schools for recruiting, to no avail. When asked to focus membership recruitment on struggling units instead of starting new units, was told point blank they would start new units where "needed." And prices to use facilities and attend events have skyrocketed with no announcement. In fact prices went up, but the prices listed on the website are the old ones.

Part of the reason BSA kept those files for so long is that folks in them could still be alive, and a danger to youth, decades after being put into them. The SM who abused my 2 friends is still alive. While a criminal background check would show his conviction for CSA (their mom did press charges), Others in the IVF were NOT convicted, and the IVF prevents them from re-enrolling. One victim posted their abusers case file on a previous thread. They were never charged with a crime, and only the IVF prevented them from rejoining. Grant you they attempted to rejoin within 2 years of being kicked out, but others may try years later.

Unless they go to that camp, and take all the equipment that has been donated to maintain it. Yes that happened. They even took some personal gear that volunteers left because they were doing multi-weekend projects. Agree. 33% of COUNCIL Fundraisers is the norm. Unit fundraisers are for the unit. What's a Unit Earning Application? :) Seriously, I have turned in some, and never got them back. Quit filling it out. Sometimes the volunteer IS following the directions of the professional. Some Pros are jerks.

December 2016 is when National watered down the 2015 Cub Scout program, changing requirements mid year. My pack decided to ignore the December 2016 Update and continue with what they planned, and then synced everything with National in June 2017. BUT books still had the 2015 requirements, and some of those books were still floating in stores as late as 2018/19. And it wasn't just Webelos, it was the entire Cub Scout program that was revamped. The reason for the watering down of the Cub Scout Program in December 2016 is due to complaints. People were so use to everythign being completed by February for Blue and Gold, and with the 2015 Program, that was not the case. It was designed to take 7 full months to advance each rank Tiger through Webelos, and 5 full months for AOL. Plus the advancement was a lot more challenging and planning intensive with the 2015 program. Those packs that went to roundtable had no problem with the changes inmy neck of the woods.

When Webelos went from a 9-12 month program to an 18-24 month program in the 1990s, the purpose was to move the Cross Overs from May/June time frame to February/March time frame in order to get the new Scouts, and adults, acclimated with Scouts BSA. I know that when I crossed over in May under the older program, I had less than 3 weeks to come up with the money to go to camp, and attend. My family could not afford it at the 'last minute," and I did not go with my troop the first summer I was in Scouts. I missed out on a lot by not going. That is what we essentially did with youngest. He and one other finished AOL right before Christmas. They started going to Troop meetings in January, but the formal Cross Over was in February. Normally the pack did cross over in December/January, but because for several reasons it was delayed until February so everyone could cross over at once. I think it depends upon the pack and it's program. I know my pack followed the traditional Webelos Program, i.e. preparing them for Scouts by using the patrol method and start the transitioning as soon as they become 4th graders, i.e. the summer between 3rd and 4th grade. Those guys were chomping at the bit to become Scouts in December/January. Other packs waited to transition until 5th grade, if then (more on that in a minute). Those folks were not prepared for Scouts BSA, and the quit within weeks. Sadly I have reviewed some of the new July 2015 Cub Scout Program Webelos literature, and there are MAJOR issues with it. The advancement section, which used to talk about the differences between the Wolf and Bear Program, and the Webelos Program, are not mentioned. In fact the advancement section is cut an pasted from the Wolf and Bear DL books.

I had one of those, but in reverse. SM wanted a name removed after he approved the Scout for election, and he got in. He was pressuring the election team, and when I intervened tried pressuring me. When I refused to cave, he started yelling at me. That is when I decided to leave , and he followed me into the parking lot and cursed me out. AND NOW I REMEMBER, he was the one who the following year told his troop h ow to vote so everyone could get in ( this was when there were election limits). Glad yours went well. That happened in my troop in the 1980s, back when there were election limits, and it did not end well at all. The Den Chief of that group was the only one who had enough ballots to get elected. Irony is he told all the old Scouts he was not interested in OA and not to vote for him. No one realized until the election team stated that the new Scouts could vote, even if this as their first meeting. Regarding why the OA is what it is today, I blame it on a variety of factors. Biggest thing was back in the day, it was truly an honor society. There were election limits or ratios that only allowed so many folks to get elected. So the best of the best would get in, and it may take 2, 3 or even 4 election cycles before getting in. When they got rid of the election ratios, allowing everyone to get in, a lot of folks predicted the decline of the OA. Another factor is the rise of 'One and Done" that is the current standard of advancement. Once upon a time, Scouts had to "Master the skills" to advance. Then the "Badge represents what the Scout can do, not what he was done." Today it is "...more about the learning experience than it is about the specific skills learned." A third factor in some places is summer camp. Some camps have weak staff, lousy program, and major challenges. Back in the day, your best and brightest, usually your OA members, were your summer camp staffers, and you gave back to camp. I am a Vigil, I have fought the decline of the OA tooth and nail the best I could for as long as I could. But Scouting overall is in decline, especially in my neck of the woods. I need to pick my battles and focusing on my sons, and my troop, is priority #1.

One of the biggest issues I just recently found out is that since at least 2015, the Webelos Den Leader Book, or whatever it is called, has sections cut and pasted from the Cub Scout Leader Section, specifically how advancement is suppose to work. NONE of the information that was in older Webelos leader literature and training is in it. So instead of telling Wbeelos den leaders they and "activity badge counselor" sign off instead of parents, parents till sign off as it is done. And another issue I have is training. I admit I hate online training. BUT one of the complaints I am hearing about the online training is that 75%+ of the different den leader trainings is identical, so it is BORING (emphasis)! I know people will have other windows open and multitask. BSA may have "experts," but they may not have Scouting experts. Best example is Training. Do not know if they are still in charge, but the national director of training had a PhD in childhood education, but NO EXPERIENCE in the Scouting program, whether as a Scout or an Adult. And while William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt did not have a PhD in Childhood education as his doctorate was in pharmacology (DPharm), he not only had a ton of Scouting expereince from his youth and as a Scouter, but also he experimented with his ideas with an actual troop to test them out before publishing. From personal experience with National Supply, I had an expert sales consultant, who had never worked at a Scout summer camp before, try to tell me how the summer camp trading post should operate. I had 4 years of summer camp experience, working in various areas including helping in the trading post. This person was telling me the layout, inventory to have, hours of operation. NONE OF THEIR IDEAS WOULD HAVE WORKED! (major emphasis). I was able to compromise on some things, and other things I had to do. End of that summer, I was able to prove using various reports that everything the "expert" wanted done did not work. From the number of special food deliveries we needed because we ran out snack items, to going over budget on shipping costs because we did not have enough items in stock, to the times sales occurred ( expert wanted us closed during the day, and open during camp wide activities), Everything they wanted was wrong.

When i ran CS day camp, irregardless of who owned the property, NCAP applied.