Eagle94-A1

The reason why it is so large is that they combined 3 different sets of guidelines into 1 document. CSDC use to have a separate set of guidelines. Ditto BS resident camp and HA bases. I do not know about CS Resident camp as I was never involved with them. But National created "one book to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them." I actually staffed a camp that did not meet criteria, but was "conditionally accredited." They did not have a 2nd NCS certified person as PD because the PD had a family emergency at the last minute.

I like how they are using a Thai Scout association hat and necker.

What NCAP needs to do IMHO is the following: 1. Go back to 3 different standards: Day Camps, Resident Camps, and HA Bases. I know trying to implement stuff for resident camps and HA bases in my one week a year day camp was a major P.IT.B. Does a day camp really need an alumni association, trading post? 2. Get rid of the "one size fits all" aka "let's make all Scout camps look alike" aka "Scout Brand" for building and structures. Every camp is different, and every state has different standards. We currently have a campsite that is unusable because the NCAP standards will not allow us to rebuild the destroyed structures to their original dimensions. Also we have had some local contractors complain about NCAP guidelines because they are designed for built up camps and not primitive camps. If a simple structure is needed, they have to build it to national's standards, which add to the cost. Or in one case, completely ban building since what national wants built will not comply with local environmental standards.

I saw what happened when 1 Scout brought a GO bug to camp: Over 200 people infected and it lasted about 2 weeks. We were almost shut down.

Sadly, in my experience that is the exact opposite from what I am seeing. And adults are not helping with the matter either. I had a scout who took a MB class a 2nd time for fun. When another troop's SM found out about it, he said the Scout was wasting his time. I have seen too many Scouts just want the badge and don't care about anything else. I have had SMs upset with me because I would not give their Scouts MBs that they did not earn at summer camp and the 2 MB Colleges I taught at. I am told that is one reason why I have not been asked to teach the MB again, I give out partials.

I have not taught the new BALOO course yet; the one I was suppose to help teach was cancelled due to the pandemic. As stated above, to cut down on time in the field, some of the stuff that use to be done at camp, is now done online. Hopefully it is the planning and paperwork aspect. But the council I cited is doing BOTH ( emphasis) BALOO ( which now includes WeLOT) and ItOLS, which national does not want us combining, into a completely online course, which national has prohibited. Further If I understand the council correctly, you get certified for BALOO and ItOLS in 6 hours?!?!?!?!?

Sadly that is not the case everywhere. I was working with a group on Citizenship in the Nation MB. All of the Scouts had Civics in School. I also had a 5th grade Webelos with me, my son, who had a US History class that went over the Constitution as part of the class. NONE OF THE SCOUTS COULD DO THAT PART OF THE MB! (emphasis). The Webelos knew it well. When I asked the Scouts what they learned in school, they told me the teacher told them to use their laptops, and didn't really do anything.

Here's the deal, National has already stated online outdoor training is not allowed, yet A) they are jumping into it and B) People are ecstatic about it.

Apparently the Great Rivers Council has decided to do online outdoor training that covers BALOO, WeLOT ( which is now combined with BALOO) and ItOLS. This is too far.

Can I wear a black bull on my jacket if I take the tour?

Sadly, many at national, and in councils, view the movement as a job, and have little to no experience with the program. They know the program benefits the youth, but they can not fathom how. They do not realize the damage they are doing with their decisions because they are lacking knowledge.

If you are referring to some parents, oh yes some are that smart. Some parents will do anything for their Scout to receive a badge, and will attempt to use any and all policies and procedures to get their child the rank. These parents will see an small, temporary opening, a try to drive a M1A2 thought it with all guns blazing, taking out any adult who gets in their child's way. If you are referring to the folks at national, the majority have little to no experience in the program. Again out of the 5 full timers I worked with at a national Scout shop, I was the only one who had experience in the program, whether it was youth or adult.

This "temporary program" is the camel's nose under the tent flap.

I don't know about now since over half the workforce has been furloughed, but if my Scout Shop represented national as a whole, then out of the 5 full timers, 1 had experience with the program or 20% And those who should know how the program works have been away from the field for so long, they don't remember.

Sorry, no. Families are not surrogate patrols. Not only in my last troop, but in other troops throughout the years, I have seen parents try and take over signing stuff for their Scout. Newly crossed over Cub Scout parents are bad at it, but the worst are the former Cub Scout leaders. They are indoctrinated to be in charge as Cub Scout leaders, that they forget they have to let go as Scouters. Even I had difficulties at times I see a lot of Tenderfoot through First Class BORs in the future, and the Scouts will be clueless when it comes to the outdoors. I assume you are a big fan of FIRST CLASS: FIRST YEAR? You do know that the 1980s data that developed this plan is skewed right? First and foremost,. it was heavily influenced by LDS troops which kept their 11 years olds separate from everyone else. The other factor is that it did not take into how active troops were. The more active the troop is, the more Scouts want to stay in. I give you an example, with the exception of December and February, until COVID-19 came along, we camped every month. December is a service project and Christmas party, and February is Scouting for Food (2 weekends), Scout Sunday, and court of honor. Yet half the kids who have been a year or longer are Second Class or lower. They are staying because the program is fun. I want to add, I think this is setting a precedent that will cause issues in the future. I am willing to bet people wil want this to become the norm, not the exception.

Day camp.

My understanding is we have to allow it. What i find ironic is that they first stated camping requirements would not be altered, yhen the next thing they do is alter the requirements. Edited: INTERESTING. I went to the link posted, AND IT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE I READ YESTERDAY MORNING! (emphasis) The one originally posted not only contradicted itself, but also did not post the exact requirements altered. And did anyone note that these modified requirements are in effect to August or September?

One of our folks is taking a correspondence NCS course. He got the work sent to him and is doing it from home. Forgot to add, he was suppose to go in March and it was cancelled at the last minute.

One of the challenges with going to strictly online training, those areas of the country where dial up internet is the only thing available. There are large areas in my council where dial up and satellite (if you can afford it) are the only things available for homes. many of my friends use their cell phones for internet. But not everyone has smartphones, and somethings cannot be done on a cell phone. That's one reason why the many school systems in my area are leaving wifi on, so students are going there to do work. Heck my library is open only for the computer lab because we do have students with poor and no access.

Sadly you are correct. Last time I was an MBC at camp, I taught Lifesaving MB. I had between 25 and 30 students, and I was by myself. A lot of the skills for Lifesaving MBC at the time were skills I taught as a YMCA Lifeguard Instructor, and had a minimum of 2 instructors and a ratio of student to instructors to follow. I want to say the ratio was 6:1. So I should have had more instructors. I also had some discipline issues the first day. Constantly not paying attention, disrupting class, etc. I kicked them out of the class. Later that evening, the CD tell me he heard from the SM that I kicked out his Scouts, and that I needed to let them back in as I cannot kick out Scouts. When I informed him of the problems these Scouts were causing and how it was interfering with the other Scouts, he did not care. Long story short, NO ONE completed the MB that week because I had to deal with problems and I could not meet all the requirements as a result. Of course I had a bunch of angry SMs to deal with, and the angriest and most obnoxious was the SM of the Scouts who caused the problems.

Reviving this one. I found out the other day what my council plans on doing if summer camp cannot be live: going virtual. The powers that be figured out what MB instruction be done online, and will offer only those MBs. Max class size will be 30 Scouts, and the cost will be 1/3 of the normal cost of summer camp. " I got a bad feeling about this." My experiences with this camp have not been positive in the past few years. My sons were given merit badges they did not fully complete because they ran out of supplies. Oldest got a kit from Hobby Lobby to actually earn it. Youngest is waiting to get a kit to finish it up. (mea culpa I kept putting it off until the store closed.) I over heard a MB counselor state his class had earned the MB in 2 days, and they could goof off. There is no way everyone can earn Canoeing in just two days, especially when only 1/2 the class is on the water at a time due to not enough canoes and aquatics staff. It showed when the troop did a canoe trip, and B at that camp could handle the trip on calm, easy water. I would hate to have seen what would happen if they encountered serious weather like I did on my 50 miler in Canada. This is also the camp that did not have enough shooting sports folks, and did not provide outsidentime for Archery folks to practice outside of class.

My thoughts. 1) Officially, Cubs are suppose to go to council approved camps that meet certain criteria. Some councils have specifically stated only council owned camps are allowed. This essentially forces packs to use council owned facilities. The you have the opposite extreme, my council. Because of the "Cubs don't need to camp" attitude of many older, long time volunteers, there is NO approved Cub Scout camp ground list. Further the specialized training needed to run district and council level Cub Scout camping events has not been offered in a number of years, yet these activities continue. The closest item to an "approved" campground list that packs use is the Where to Go Camping guide the OA puts out. When my council eventually merges into the other 4 councils (see my other posts on that matter) many will see how truely screwed up we were on a lot of things. 2. And you know who mandated all of the infrastructure? When NCAP first came out, I was a CSDC program director. A lot of the stuff in it a CSDC didn't need to worry about to have an effective program. But we were told we needed to have it anyway as it was the new rules. And part of NCAP is infrastructure. We use a relatively primitive camp. Most of the structures were built by individual troops and the OA over the years. Many of the structures do not meet NCAP standards because they are not the official, predesigned, one-size-fits-all structures national wants everyone to use. Unless we can build to NCAP standards, we are not allowed to rebuild destroyed structures So now we have an entire empty campsite. with nothing there but cement pads where the Adirondack shelters were. And because the original shelters sis not have the mandated square footage, they cannot be rebuilt.

Troop camping may not suffer. Troops, unlike CS packs, are not limited to approve campgrounds. If a troop wants to camp somewhere without showers, it is allowed. Troop wants to camp at a national forest, they can do it.

Regarding virus/disease naming protocols, up until May 8, 2015, the use of countries and/or geographical regions, as well as animals and people's names were the norm. As all of you know, it takes time for populations to get use to new terms. best example of that would be Venture Crews and Venture Scouts for Venturing Crews and Venturers, after 22 years of the former terms were discounted. So naming the disease after the 2 cops is also prohibited by the WHO. https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2015/naming-new-diseases/en/

I don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Although I have been on the charter as a district committee member for a while now, we have not had a chairman for several years. They either quit because of BSA membership policy changes, family issues, or professional interference. You cannot yell demands at volunteers, especially if you have never visited the territory. As for a DE we have not had a dedicated one in about 6-7 years, either having a FD working with us, or sharing a DE. And our DE is not around much either. Someone commented that the dissolution of the council may be a good thing as we may get better service being in another council. But looking at a map, I have serous doubts. my district is lucky, we border 2 counties of one council, and a sliver of us the district borders a metro county. But other parts of the council are aways from anyone, and are extremely rural in nature. The bulk of the counties average below the poverty line, so I do not see why anyone would want them in their council.