ScouterNorth

With Scouts Canada background checks are required every 3 years.  Now that all registration etc. is online, an adult's status changes as soon as their record check expires and I think that generates a flurry of automated emails.

Record checks are free for adults volunteering with any organization (eg. scouting, sports etc.).  All that is required is a letter from said organization to accompany your background check request and the usual fee is waived.  It is up to the individual leader to make sure their background check is current and to seek out a new one when required.  Scouts Canada, other than generating the volunteer letter, is not involved with the background check.  If you need your check RIGHT NOW, then you can pay $35 or something like that to get it done on the spot.  Most organizations will not cover this additional fee.

The only thing that's a drag is that you have to have a separate check for every organization you volunteer with, so it's not uncommon to submit multiple requests to the police at the same time.  

The system seems to work pretty well in terms of making sure background checks are current.  

13 hours ago, Rick_in_CA said:

 

One that was common in my pack for a short time: "The Announcement Song", which the cubs would sing whenever the word "announcement" was spoken. I disliked it because it was an interruption, and slowed the administration stuff down so it took longer (which took time away from the fun stuff).

"The Announcement Song"...it was funny at first when I was a kid, but then it became way overused and now I can't stand it.  The cross-over point for me was when an adult, in the interest of expediency, deliberately did not say the word.  After which another ADULT said "Wait, don't you have any more ANNOUNCEMENTS?"  Cue song, mostly sung by the other adults.

When I became a leader, this was still happening on a regular basis to the point where the kids were getting sick of it.  Timing is everything in comedy and most cornball hilarity is ill-timed and the kids cringe at it.

Not all campfires are Campfires.  We only usually did one or two formal Campfires per year - a scheduled event with an "agenda" (ie. group 1 shall sing a song, group 2 shall now do a skit, group 3 to provide a cheer for that skit etc.).   All other fires at camp were completely informal, chatting it up, the occasional song for kicks, etc.

I've found that the modern internal frame packs work very well if you have exactly the correct type of gear that will fit inside it.  The moment you have something that's an odd shape or is too big, you carrying options become quite limited.

Back in the day, you could plop a 4 man tent on top of your external frame pack, secure it with bungee cords and you were off to the races.  It's pretty difficult to do that with the current crop of packs.

I also do not like top load packs at all.  After my first external frame pack, I had an internal frame from Camp Trails that was panel load and had plenty of D-rings and compression straps that you could barnacle on just about anything.  It finally fell apart after 20 years of service.

My current pack is a gen 1, J51 Warhammer pack from Eberlestock (ALICE frame, not the new Intex-II frame) with a Superspike duffel.  When fully loaded it looks a little weird as it is fairly wide, but the setup is so easy to configure for all kinds of stuff that I don't care about the width.  Even when bushwhacking I've never had a problem getting snagged etc.  It might be a little too on the tacti-cool side for some though.

If there is one thing I'm a stickler for, it's standards and requirements.

" I did all the things you're supposed to do to become an Eagle."

No you didn't.  Plain and simple.

Perhaps someone should ask this scout which other requirements he feels are optional, or how comfortable he would feel if someone else was awarded the rank having not completed a requirement that he did.  Eagle project?  Number of merit badges?

44 minutes ago, TMSM said:

FYI - Illinois does have a handgun season for deer and when you hunt quail you do move quite a bit.

Thanks for the information.  It's always good to learn something new.

I'm in Canada where pistols are considered a Restricted Firearm which means that a) they are very difficult to get and b) their legal usage is severely restricted.  Hunting is not a legal usage for a Restricted Firearm.  Hence my previous ignorance on the subject.

Thanks again!

On 7/10/2018 at 10:19 AM, CalicoPenn said:

I watched that video.  Not impressed.  In fact, it's a bit disturbing to me.  Nothing in the practice shooting (which isn't much different than many of the shooting games in a video arcade) suggests hunting at all.  Instead, it looks more like an assault course for law enforcement set in a "rural" environment.

Fair warning - I am not a hunter but have friends who are.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...

Is a pistol even a viable hunting firearm?

I'm pretty sure hunting does not involve running around shooting at things that pop-up.  Speed is not an asset.

From what my friends have told me hunting is essentially either sitting quietly in one spot waiting for the animals to come to you after which you get one shot, or walking around very slowly and quietly after which you get one shot.   The only real exception is duck hunting, where you sit very quietly in one spot but you do get multiple shots as the ducks fly away.

As Calico said, nothing in the video shows training that would necessarily apply to the above scenarios.  If you want to inject a "cool" factor, then sniper type scenarios would be far more applicable.

Or am I way out in left (ha!) field?

Q: What research did the BSA conduct that informed this decision? 
To inform this decision, the Boy Scouts of America conducted extensive research. 

You hear that?  Not just research, but Extensive Research.

I bet they have Top Men working on this as we speak:  

31 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I think he is right. I believe it will be the best program for the families that want the kind of scouting that is coming. No program can be all things to all people. National is changing the filter of the kind of membership they want for their future. A pretty good comparison is the Canadian Scouts. Their program is no longer the world renown premier youth scouting program that it was 30 years ago, but it is attractive to a lot of members.  

Barry

This is the best summary I've seen so far.

Yes the program will survive in some form, but it will not be the same and actually cannot possibly stay the same.  When you change who you are marketing to then your membership will change and what they want in a program will change.

I came up during the program of Boy Scouts Canada 30 years ago.   I've since participated in the roll out of the new program of Scouts Canada.  The two can't even be compared as they are so incredibly different.  

The BSA's program will change.  Maybe not abruptly, but it will change and 10-15 years I'm guessing that  kids who are near 14-15 now will scarcely recognize it.

Whether that's or good or bad will be up to debate, but in the end only one metric will indicate success or failure from the Administration's point of view - Membership Numbers.

1 hour ago, gblotter said:

 

Yes - everything seems to point in the direction that BSA wants to emulate the UK Scouting program. With Irving's track record, I personally think they will end up emulating the Canada Scouting program instead. BSA National just doesn't have the wisdom and competence.

You do not want to emulate Scouts Canada's new program.  It's a couple of years in and there is still quite a bit of confusion as to how it is all supposed to work.

For starters, imagine taking most of your merit badges and making them optional for the program. Then have each Scout come up with his/her own requirements to get the badge.  http://www.scouts.ca/wp-content/uploads/s/s-pab-guide.pdf

They have opted for a more "Choose your own Adventure" style of requirements for the top awards so now you can get every top section award (equivalent to Life, Eagle etc) without spending a single night camping.

"If the Boy Scouts want to attract a new generation of members, they’ll need to stand for something more than inclusion. "

Standing for something by definition means you are going to leave someone out.  If you include everything, then you stand for nothing.

Over the years I've noticed that standards of all kinds have slowly changed.  Not so much the standards themselves, but what are actually considered to be standards.  The Personal Fitness badge (Scouts Canada) is a great example.  One requirement involved six events (pushups, shuttle run, situps, standing long jump, 50m sprint, 1600-2400m endurance run) and there were firm targets to meet.  I'll call this an "group objective standard".

Then it moved to "do your best" in the six events.  This is a subjective standard, but everyone still had to complete the same events.  I'll call this a "group subjective standard".

Now with the revamped program, Scouts are permitted to formulate their own requirements for the Personal Fitness badge.  This means that one Scout may do/perform/accomplish far less or far more than other Scouts yet still wear the same badge.   I would call this an "individual subjective standard", but in reality it is "no standard at all".

One can also note that the Personal Fitness badge has also steadily become more and more inclusive and now is so inclusive that anyone who bothers to scratch together a few requirements can have it even if their physical fitness is bordering on theoretical.

In terms of safety, while I've definitely noticed thicker red tape on the admin side, I've also noticed that a big part of the "safety push" has come from the parents who, for the most part, have never spent any real time in the outdoors and put "slight discomfort from being wet and cold" on the same level as "bleeding out in the forest somewhere".  

It's now "don't do that because someone might get hurt" whereas it used to be "go ahead and do that until someone gets hurt". The latter always let me as a kid have more fun, do more things and learn a thing or two about evaluating risk.

“This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."

- Sir Winston Churchill

I'm also partial to his "We shall fight on the beaches" speech although it's a bit long to be used as a quick quote.

Along the lines of experience...

"Good judgement comes from experience.  Experience comes from poor judgement."

A Canadian perspective...

Our Troop is roughly 1/3 girls and we don't have any female leaders.  As far as I know there is no Scouts Canada policy requiring female leaders if girls are present, however, I have had the occasional parent say that although they trust us completely they would still like to see at least one female leader.   We do have plenty of female leaders at the Cub and Beaver level, so I expect those ones will eventually percolate up to the Scout level.

We enforce separate accommodations when possible but if we have to share a cabin, we make sure there are separate changing areas.  The camps we typically use have single stall outhouses, so that is not a problem.

Some general observations based on our Troop (your Troop is, of course, completely different so YMMV):

In terms of day to day interactions among the kids, the girls are definitely more organized and will often get selected for leadership tasks because of that.  However, they seem to often get into a "consensus trap" where they will spend way too much time trying to get unanimous approval for each decision.  This can lead to things taking much longer than needed.  In these situations the boys quickly become bored and will either just start with their first idea or be generally disruptive.

With the boys decisions are often made quickly, usually by some kind of vote or "I've done this before, so we'll do it like this" and they will go charging off.  If that idea doesn't work they quickly backtrack and try the next idea.  The process often looks like complete chaos especially since they are often laughing, ribbing each other etc. but then all of a sudden, they've completed their task.  Girls in this environment seem to get frustrated at the impulsiveness of decision making especially when a little analysis up front would prevent a few false starts.

At camps, regardless of how patrols are organized, during free time the girls and boys drift apart and do their own things.

When I was a Scout, it was still Boy Scouts in Canada and I have to admit that I liked having the time away from girls and we could all let loose without fear of embarrassment.   I'm disappointed that my son is not able to have that same experience.

With any change you are going to lose members plain and simple.  The hope is the change brings in more than you lose but I would say it is very difficult to predict how many and who you're going to lose, especially when looking at men who have been in the program a long, long time.  Actually, I would say those guys are the ones you are most likely to lose.

Canadian Scouts just rolled out an overhauled program.  My son looked at it on paper, looked at his experience with it (our Troop were early adopters), compared it to two previous versions of the program and found that with the changes Scouts was no longer a good fit for him.  After talking to me about it, he discovered that I shared his concerns and it turned out to be an simple decision for both of us - we're out.

Scouts is not the only game in town and with so many other things to choose from nobody has to stay in Scouts.  You will be surprised at what people will not put up with when there are other options available.

A few observations from a Canadian perspective...

Our Troop is roughly 1/3 girls, 2/3 boys.  

On camps, there is a strict policy of separation when it comes to sleeping arrangements and no mixed "but we're just hanging out" in tents.  When given free time they tend to self-segregate anyway.  The boys and girls are simply interested in different things.  Even with mixed patrols, given the chance they will naturally separate.  Of the four patrols, 3 are mixed and one is boys only.  It just ended up that way when they were picking and we have had girl only patrols in the past.

Some observations:

- single sex patrols bond better as they more readily agree on which activities to pursue

- the bathroom thing hasn't been a problem so far that I can see.  At camps that have bathrooms/outhouses they are either permanently marked or we decide that weekend which is which.  Single outhouses are mixed although if there is more than one we try to designate one for girls and one for boys. This is more to do with some boys needing better markmanship skills...

- at the closest big camp to us, other than separate flush toilets/showers for the adult staff there has been no specific construction of extra outhouses etc. to accommodate girls

- I have heard boys mention on many occasions that they wish they could have a single sex environment, especially at camp.  I haven't heard this from the girls, although there is the occasional eyeroll and "(sigh)....BOYS...."

- boys and girls ARE different and they enjoy different activities and/or different intensities of the same activity.  

- almost all the girls in our Troop have tried Girl Guides at some point and they universally agree that it "sucks".  It's too "girly girl" and "they never go camping".

So there is clearly a segment of girls who would rather do the Scouting as opposed to Guiding program, but I've found that in terms of programming they seem to do better when in single sex groups.

Our (Canadian) Troop provides tents.  We currently supply Eureka El Capitan and MacKenzie tents for Scouts.   

In general I've found that the Scouts take good care of the tents and repairs have been few and far between.  Most repairs have been due to general wear and tear rather than specific incidents or negligence.  Typically we put 2 Scouts to a tent, 3 at the most.  Girls separate from boys at all times and we just let the kids pick who they want their tent mate(s) to be.

As a Canadian Scouter, I'll jump in to clarify a few things...

The Canadian Path is the brand new, redesigned program that has the goal of stopping, and hopefully reversing, the current decline in membership.

Under this new system each section (Beavers, Cubs, Scouts, Venturers, Rovers) now has their own Top Section Award.

Beavers = North Star Award (new)

Cubs = Seeonee Award (new)

Scouts = Chief Scout Award

Venturers = Queen's Venturer Award

Rovers = Canadian Rover Scout Award (new)

For the Chief Scout Award specifically, the requirements have been greatly reduced and given a large degree of flexibility.  So much flexibility in fact, that you can achieve this award without spending a single night at camp or hiking a single mile on the trail.  In fact you can get all the top section awards without camping.  That being said, in order to do that you will have to become quite skilled in another outdoor skill (paddling, SCUBA, First Aid, Rock Climbing etc.)

With regards to the original topic of the thread, co-ed Scouting, I'm of two minds.   On one hand I think it's important for girls to learn outdoor skills and the Canadian Girl Guide program is not good at this.  Our group has a steady stream of girls making the transition because in their own words "The Guide program sucks.  It's too girly-girl".  I'm happy to teach them what I know.

On the other hand, the boys definitely behave differently around the girls.  They take fewer risks, do fewer foolish things (and therefore learn less) and their rough-housing and good natured ribbing of each other definitely gets toned down.  I have had some of the boys say that it would be nice if they could have a "boys only" camp where they could let loose.

It's important for boys to have their own spaces and we've been losing some to sports teams where they are guaranteed to be boys only.  As far as I can tell, sports teams are the only place left where boys can be guaranteed to have their own space.