HashTagScouts

58 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I’m not so sure. The way I understood it, at least in my council, the people still had to “reup” or not. It was only the $75 (now $100) charter that was extended. So, they dropped or not already. At least in my council. 

Same here. Charters were extended, but the annual participant registration fee was not given extension.

On 10/19/2022 at 1:52 AM, jscouter1 said:

Hello forum! It’s been a while since I have posted on here but a lot has happened since then and I am again faced with a dilemma that I can not figure out myself. As a preface for this you should know my troop does things a little differently and (among other things) runs their own high adventure programs, this means we will never use a BSA high adventure like Philmont or Northern Tier. It has come to my realization that I would like to visit Philmont in the short amount of time I have left as a scout ( 4-6 years depending on how you look at it). Now the reason I am posting on here is that when November rolls around enrollment for NAYLE at Philmont starts, while NAYLE sounds amazing a Rayado trek does as well. Any input helps!

If you are a member of the OA, check out the opportunities available to only OA members at each of the HA bases. Special pricing, and special programs available only to youth OA members.

I have a friend who ran into as issue a few years ago on a boat trailer that someone gave to him that had been sitting in their yard for years. He had to pay for a title search, which takes time, and then once that was completed the state issued a new VIN and title with that VIN. Different states have different rules, so a trip to your RMV might be the best way to get all the answers you need and save you a whole lot of headache. An hour of your time and an extra $75 spent that saves you hours of dead-ends might be the better value for you.     

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Scouting ought to be a sampling menu at kindergarten and maybe even first grade levels. It ought to be a spring or summer program where you attend a couple of den or pack activities and culminates in being able to attend a pack or district event like a special overnight camp out or fishing derby or something fun. Most other youth activities at that age are very basic, very low key, and cost practically nothing. They run for a short session and generally culminate in some big hoorah. BSA says it relied on research when formulating the Lions program but that is always suspect. It doesn't seem to be well thought out but more a knee jerk way of trying to bring in more membership money. 

When New England Base Camp began in earnest, bullet points would get whispered about how much interest there was from young boys and girls and their parents about "what Scouting had to offer", and how much the BSA should be learning from the feedback. I'm sure those kids, both boys and girls, did and do like a half day of lighting fires, throwing tomahawks, shooting BB guns, having chicken nuggets/tater tots cooked for them at the kitchen, moving from one program area to another with their parent when they are ready to move on, etc. Does any of that actually translate to whether they would have enjoyment when you put it into a larger program that involves full day or weekends at camp, pack meetings, weekly den meetings (and not necessarily on the afternoon/evening that is best/most convenient for the parent), having to memorize oaths, wearing uniforms, doing fundraisers, and generally not getting to move about as individuals but as groups? Not particularly. There are many elements within Scouting that can have appeal to a great number of youth, but when all packaged together, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, and trying to continually tinker with how we can make it so seems to bring in as many numbers equal to those it pushes out is my observation from the last decade+. Heck, we're at a place in time where there are actual conversations happening that could be implemented to no longer require an individual to go through Ordeal for membership in the Order of the Arrow, because it seems to exclude some who might not enjoy the activities that happen during the Ordeal.

Last I checked, Friendly/Courteous/Kind are still three points of the Scout Law. If you can't sit and have a civil conversation with someone you disagree or see eye-to-eye with, you really are not following the Scout Law. That's the point I would emphasize.

31 minutes ago, yknot said:

There's plenty of other research that says kids get burned out. There's also plenty of research that says kids at that age are sampling, not staying. Also, BSA has a long history of using, quote-unquote "Research", to justify marketing and financial goals. If someone on top of the food chain decided that recruiting another younger rank of cubs would increase membership and revenues, then I'm sure they were able to find the necessary research to support it. 

Based on the membership crashes of the past several years, that doesn't seem to be bearing up. During the pandemic, local nature centers, parks departments, etc., reported significant participation increases for elementary age nature programming. Many had waiting lists for programs. 

It's very easy for kids to move in and out of other activities as their interests change or their time limitations vary. There really is no reason why membership in scouting has to be so linked to a unit, council, or in some cases rank. It is truly an impediment to retention and recruitment. One of my nephews joined a troop late in high school simply because he wanted to go camping with some of his friends who he enjoyed other outdoor activities with.  Unfortunately, the troop leadership just did not know what to do with him and he only lasted a few camp outs. 

This is the reality- we became so focused on advancement as program, the organization became less about time spent in the outdoors. The skills learned were of practical nature to the environment we were in. As a youth in Scouts, I slept in a cabin maybe three times. I slept more times in a tent on top of snow than that. We didn't have "trail to First Class" at summer camp. The Troop only had two stoves, so cooking over the fire was the norm. We had a blast, and were dog tired by the end of our weekends. Checking off the boxes in the handbook was the last thing on our minds.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in New England, seems every council is now running weekends at  council camp that are open to the public, no Scouting membership required. And most of the attendees are not registered in Scouting nor have interest in joining. Cost seems less of the issue from the parent comments shared to me, it's the time commitment- they perceive that Scouting has to be full-time thing, or the kid will "fall behind". I recognize the dilemma for many leaders- if they didn't focus on advancement, they are going to deal with parents upset their kid is not advancing. I've been there. I know of far too many units that can't get enough leaders to spend the whole week at summer camp, so they have to do a rotation. 

Spirit of Adventure Council in MA did not offer summer camp at one of their camps this year. They give a long-term lease to a group of Scouting-affilited individuals to one of their camps, and that group ran a coed camp that wasn't about a Scouting advancement program. They didn't have a great deal of difficulty in getting attendees, and it cost a lot more than a week of Scout camp does. 

35 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

@HashTagScouts  Even if the is not a new Scout Patrol, the older girl or boy will be learning skills with younger youth while their friends are doing more advanced activities.  To adults, the distinctions are small but for youth, they can be substantial.  I have seen this many times, but others may have seen such situations evolve differently.  

Sorry, but I would never agree you must use that structure. 

My son had zero desire to be in Cubs. He observed the Den of his school friends in Cubs, and saw it of no interest. First troop he joined, SM (who had never been in the program, he took what he learned from the BSA training and what his wife, who had been a Cub leader told him) wouldn't let my kid go to summer camp (assumed it wouldn't be enough time for my son to prepare between when school was over and my son could officially join the troop and when camp began). My son spent the summer reading the BS handbook, learned the Law and Oath, and having a father who had been a Scout he had learned fire-building and appropriate pocket-knife handling, etc. from our father-son outdoor experiences. When the summer was over, my son was was handled differently than the kids his same age who had earned AoL. SM (and his wife), couldn't reconcile that a kid could learn the actual relevant things that Cubs is intended to teach in a matter of a few months. 80% of the Cub program is repetitive from one year to the next. After only a few months, my son was ready to quit the troop, it had become boring, the troop/SM was intent on trying to teach him skills he already knew, rather than letting him go with his age-appropriate peers that were AoL. 

The whole intent of the Scouts BSA program is kids teaching kids. If your 12 year old First Class Scout can't teach another 12 year old the Tenderfoot requirements, you may want to re-evaluate what your 12 year First Class Scout learned getting to that rank.   

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If we could likewise make Scouts BSA friendlier for coming and going, it might help us to inculcate the values of the Scout Oath and Law into many more children and youth.  Scouts BSA is harder to make it friendly and it has a nearly singular access point at about age 11.  A girl or boy who join much after age 11 could find themselves in a patrol of 11 & 12 year olds that teens usually do not like.

In my opinion, it is critical for growth of the movement to make it easier for youth to join whenever they wish and then to find the program accepting of them at whatever their age.

If you assume all troops place all newly joined Scouts into a "New Scout Patrol", then you might be right. I have never been in a unit that would take a newly-joined 14 year old and put them into a NSP. Frankly, with the current YP tenting age requirements, you really can't. We'd always put them into the age appropriate patrol they joined, and it was up to the other kids in that patrol to "bring them up to speed" and teach them. If the kid wanted to advance, the PL and other patrol members helped to teach them skills.

I don't agree it is inherently difficult for a kid to join at a later age due to limitations of the program. Limitations of the troop, possibly. Scouts BSA is not supposed to be an Advancement-above-all-else program, as has been discussed many times on the forum- Advancement is a method, not an aim. Realistically a kid joining at 14 has plenty of time to advance to Eagle, if they desired to. I'd rather focus far more on the fun aspect, and always keep the focus on getting kids to First Class by the time they are done, as those are the skills that really are not learned at school or really have an easy outlet to learn through other organizations. Time-management and service-project participation can be learned at a later point in life, the Star-
Eagle track is ultimately all about giving youth an earlier exposure to it to try and help jump-start them over their peers for readiness as adults. If a troop is too fixated on regimented structure, then it is really not going to be an ultimately welcoming place- to a newbie, nor to a transfer.

3 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Bad wording on my part. Chapter 7 would end the corporation and IMHO, the Congressional Charter for a specific, non-existent entity would be...moot?

If new Scouting organizations rose, would the BSA Congressional Charter automatically transfer to any of them? IMHO no. Whatever the name, it/they would be a different corporations and I doubt any new Congressional Charters would be approved. The 1992 debate of ending Congressional Charters might resume in Congress.

Not a lawyer, just another $0.01.

Considering the cloud under which the dissolution would occur, I couldn't see it gaining massive support to give CC recognition to a new organization(s) immediately. I think you'd have to see the new organization(s) prove themselves over several years to get to a CC stage.

I personally don't think we'd see just one cohesive organization rise from the ashes. I think tribalism will direct there being multiple. Those who don't agree with there being a faith requirement could splinter, those who still don't agree with girls and boys being in the same organization could splinter, those who believe there should be mostly outdoor program/requirements versus those who don't potentially splinter, etc. The other scouting organizations out there today would likely receive marginal gains from BSA demise. I think they have not grown significantly to this point because the BSA name has been more recognizable, and Eagle Scout has certainly been more recognizable. Many not involved in Scouting have at least a basic positive reaction to hearing someone say they are an Eagle Scout. How many even know what the top award in TrailLife is called?   

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

There has got to be more to this story.

Barry

I don't have anything to add on the specific cases, but that was the prompt to change that NYLT courses are required to have a two SMs now, one male and one female.

52 minutes ago, curious_scouter said:

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33066/33066_Official_Policy_WEB.pdf

Official policy even states wearing the uniform is not mandatory and to "promote the wearing of the correct complete uniform on all suitable occasions."

I think this is intentional and works.  At least in our troop we expect for meetings shirts, jeans, or scout pants/shorts.  For Court of Honor and Board of Review full uniform to the extent you own (even BoR rules state something about only having to wear the parts you own).  Etc.  Our troop has policies on what to wear when, the Scouts follow it, we have no issue.

There is no official uniform policy demanding full dress uniform every week at a scout meeting.  Much is left to the unit, I believe this is by design. 

My sons unit allowed any type of green pants/shorts, so if the parent bought a pair of "no-name" or designer name pair of dark green pants, those were perfectly fine. They did not require the actual BSA pants at $50. With Cubs, being navy blue as the color, I would never ask a parent to spend the money for the official shorts, I'd tell them to go to Walmart and buy the $15 navy blue cargo shorts.

41 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Had several meetings this week about what is going on in Scouting. . Apparently I am spreading rumors since I keep up with the bankruptcy , state what is being told in court (via this site and others), and ask questions that the PTB either do not want to answer, or do not know the answer because they are not informed.

I asked about council mergers since BSA plans to downsize the number. Answer is council mergers wont be happening if goals are met. I asked about why we are investing in a camp, when the merger possibility exists and the camp will get sold. Told again no mergers are going to happen if goals are met. Asked about when the changes to YPT will occur, and was told  I am spreading rumors.

Sad thing is I find out more here and on other sites, than I do from my council.

Sadly, I have great concerns on the future, because I don't for a second believe the institution of the BSA is truly going to learn anything from what we are currently going through and change itself. They had significant staff reductions, but the moment they have the chance, I believe they will begin increasing staff again- and not always for what the volunteers/units need, but for what National wants. My own council began hiring again late last year, but not to place individuals in the four open DE positions, but in "membership"- which mostly consists of individuals at the council level that now email and brow beat units on what they are doing to increase membership numbers. I won't at all be surprised if thy go back to allowing professional staff to fly first class, spend large sums on "capital improvements" at the HABs, etc. They live far too much in the "if goals are met" dystopia that somehow we are going to obtain pre-1980 membership levels again. How many more years can the organization stand to sit on that hill and wait for that ship to come in?    

7 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

I am confident that if one of our election teams was told "we do not allow anyone who does not have 10 days and nights of camping along with a summer camp to vote"; that unit would be informed that that is not how elections are  conducted.  (not to mention that those requirements to vote are more stringent than those to be elected).

I do sometimes wish that lodges or chapters would not encourage units to elect everyone who meets the minimum requirements, and that there was once again a max number of people who could be elected from the unit each year.

Correct. You can't exclude any active Scout from participating in the election. Official rules: "In Scouts BSA troops, Venturing crews, and Sea Scout ships, every registered active member of the unit under age 21 at the time of election is eligible to vote in an Order of the Arrow unit election; this includes assistant Scoutmasters who are 18, 19 or 20 years old." Our elections teams are instructed to use some judgement on suggesting that Scouts can not turn in a ballot if they desire- aimed for the first year youth, so long as they make up a small fraction of the eligible youth that are present so that it wouldn't be detrimental to the results. A youth has to receive votes from at least 50% of those who turn in ballots to be elected. 

Alas, I don't see the maximum # per unit coming back. What I would like to see is that we not just require First Class Rank, but also that the Scout has not just achieved a minimum # of nights under canvas, but has actually completed Camping Merit Badge. That, to me, would bring back some of the "master camper" element. In the age of "First Class, First Year" I see far too many 12 year old Scouts at Ordeals. A few are exceptional, but most are just not even really aware of what the OA is and are fish out of water. 

3 hours ago, curious_scouter said:

FOS is down a bit but nothing like the camping revenue tanking.  FOS being down is not surprising.  Who contributes to that?  The most passionate and invested people.  They are still here, so the revenue should be strong-ish still.  But... we all have limits.  When I was paying $48 a year for my two scouts, it was very easy to open up the checkbook when the FOS people came around.  Now that it's $300 a year... I mean... what do you expect?  You're getting what I can reasonable contribute from mandatory fees now.  Sorry... nothing left to give when FOS comes around and zero excitement to see them come around and ask families for more money when they've already increased the base cost of scouting to them by 5 orders of magnitude in the past 3 years without any objective improvement of a similar magnitude to the program or experience for the scouts.  It should embarrass them honestly.

I stopped giving anything to FOS years ago. If a Scout needs a new handbook, I'm happy to pick one up for them on my trip to the Scout Shop. Kid needs $10 to buy a leather working kit at camp, I'm cool with reaching into my wallet. Camp needs brake cleaner and lubricant at the rifle range? Check, I'll pick some up and bring it down. Sports needs new soccer balls that will actually hold air? Check, I can help. But, give $ direct to FOS? Nope. Its whole premise was to get contributions from those OUTSIDE of Scouting. 

21 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

The council call out I went to had no regalia.  Apparently a local tribe objected when asked.  They still put on a good ceremony. I personally liked what an older scouter said before we headed to the OA call out.  He emphasized cheerful service and that it was an honor to be elected to the OA.  That OA represents the best of scouting and those chosen for the honor should continue their cheerful service.  

OA seems to be in serious trouble and I question it's long term viability.  Our council OA meetings are an hour away.  Our council camp doesn't have a Scouts BSA program and is over an hour away.  Building a service organization that does anything more than 1-2 events a year is tough as council camps are sold off and councils merge, expanding OA lodges across wide expanses of the state.

Most of my scouts preferred OA call outs to not have regalia.  They seemed open to if if a tribe was partnered with the lodge ... but several compared prior (regalia based) OA callouts to minstrel shows.

First ... I think OA needs to figure out the 1 lodge/council situation.  When we go to 80 councils (or there abouts) post bankruptcy ... 1 lodge/council doesn't work.  I almost think we should have a lodge per district.

Second ... Perhaps OA isn't just or primarily dedicated to service of council camps.  That worked when councils have several camps, many of which within a short drive.  Council camps are being sold off left/right ... OA should broaden their service.

Third ... If there is a tribe that works closely with the lodge, great.  Otherwise, figure out a non NA version of ceremonies.  Don't just copy the NA version without regalia.  Use it as an opportunity to use scouting history ... referencing great scouts of the past.  Dress in full Class A uniforms.  I could imagine some impressive ceremonies that are based on scouting history.

Finally ... Make OA more visible during camporees and other council/district activities.  It seems like I only hear of OA during election & callouts.

Hopefully OA adjusts.  They are a great organization, but have a lot of headwinds.  We will see...

How the Lodge functions operationally can vary, and a lot can depend on the "human capital" factor - though a lot can depend on being stuck in the "we've always done it this way" mode. With your first point, if the Lodge truly has embraced the Chapter usage, it is perfectly fine for Chapters to function fairly independent and recruit their own Chapter ceremonies team, conduct induction weekends themselves (or team up with another Chapter to conduct a joint weekend). Greater Tampa Council is just one example I am aware of that does this.

The OA Lodge is supposed to give "service" by "camp promotion". We've had some spirited debates on what exactly that means. There've been "Beaver days", and some disappointed that the attendance wasn't very big. I just don't think it is terribly realistic that parents are going to drive their kid an hour+ each way to for a four hour workday doing trail maintenance or setting up/taking down canvas. The majority of parents are not in the OA, so their commitment to service isn't the same as the youth. It's been slow getting the other adults in our Lodge to come around to understanding that.    

The directive we have been given is that there needs to be an OA "presence" at every Council event. I don't give our SE credit for being the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I have to believe that is something that he got from above him as a directive. If your Lodge isn't at least working with your Council/District to assist in some way (and it really not need to be more than "any youth working staff for the Camporee is encouraged to wear their OA sash"), I'd have that conversation with your Lodge leadership. Our philosophy is the sash should be bright white when it is given to the individual, but it shouldn't remain that way- the dirtier and grungier the sash is, the more we know that individual has taken the commitment to service to heart.  

On 7/10/2022 at 9:52 AM, ThenNow said:

I suppose I read that IVF from across town and unfairly assumed someone would’ve had the forethought and decency to come tell parents at a Troop 2 miles away to ask their boys if they were being given pornography or booze or other such. Maybe I am asking too much as I look at the Fb pages of my SM abuser, see his life set beside photos of me when I was 14, and wonder how he was allowed to have what he has and why so many boys were left with the dregs of his dark not so secret secrets. Dunno. I think too much.

It has been the toughest part for me to reconcile throughout this, and left me entirely questioning if I should continue to stay involved, is knowing that the BSA was not requiring disclosure to law enforcement in most cases when a credible incident was reported to them, nor notifying other parents of kids in those units. Leave No Trace was uncomfortable to watch, and hearing the very person who was in the position that received those reports for decades say the organization didn't want to have a part in damaging these men's careers or personal lives made me yelp. 

1 hour ago, clivusmultrum said:

For all the good the organization has done in fostering my interest in First Nations it baffles me that they can’t come up with an approach that honors their contribution and incorporates their interests. I suppose we could ask. Maybe we are afraid of receiving a Cease and Desist.

There is no official Call-out ceremony script produced by the OA. That is Lodge specific if it is being done. Not all Lodges do call-out at summer camp- honestly, it is not at all the majority that do. The "unit election" period is also set by the individual Lodge. I've seen quite a few Lodges outside of the Northeast that run their Lodge on a calendar year basis (new officers start in January, elections occur January-March, induction weekends in April and fall). 

As to regalia, each Lodge is supposed to get approval from the Native American tribes in the Council locality, and if they don't approve, the Lodge is supposed to cease using regalia. There was never an official pack-to-troop crossover script, but after years of complaints, the OA had to step in and create one (the text of which has absolutely nothing to do with OA or Native Americans) for National. Regalia cannot be worn by OA members participating in those. I'm an Associate Lodge Adviser, and I can tell you we get complaints every year from parents who were in attendance at Blue & Gold ceremonies where a crossover is done that involves regalia and Native American themes (put on by the pack/troop, so doesn't involve us), so it is not at all just Native Americans who are not thrilled by the appropriation. I'm also in part Native American, so I can speak on behalf of myself and say honoring is great, but involves obtaining knowledge, much of which you aren't going to pick up by osmosis. I welcome folks to get to really understand NA cultures, but learning about one tribe in PA doesn't really translate to knowing anything about a tribe in CA. And, there is really the rub for the OA. If we went to "keep it entirely local", then all of the current tradition and ceremony of the OA doesn't hold up unless you are local to the Lenni Lenape.  

They have in the past, on certain days/times. I would keep checking the website- once the final schedule for participants is published, they should have the visitor information available as well.

https://jamboree.scouting.org/

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

As I recall, and unless it's changed, there is only one position on the Committee, that being "MC" or "Member of Committee".  The tasks assigned to those members are at the discretion of the CC, Committee Chair.  The SM and ASM(s) execute the program as approved by the Committee.  The Committee handles the admin tasks such as record-keeeping.

In the "by-the-letter-of-the-manuals" world, bear in mind that the members of the Committee are not expected to have any involvement with the outdoor program of the troop, and have exceptionally little direct Scout interaction beyond BORs. Everything about the program delivery and supervision of the Scouts is intended to be by the SM/ASM, with the Committee having oversight by meeting with the SM (and ASM corps, if including them is desired).

Committee is expected to have the Chair, who can appoint an Advancement Coordinator that handles the record-keeping on Scout advancement and recruiting Committee members to conduct a BOR. The Chair can also appoint a Fundraiser Coordinator. The last re-charter I did for our Crew, I had to name someone from the Committee as "New Member Coordinator" to file the re-charter, but curiously I did not have to do that for the Troop- though National does want every unit to have one.

When I took the Scoutmaster Specific training, our trainer presented our group a few "org charts" that showed some suggested ASM make-up for troops, depending on their size and adult engagement levels (I have no idea if the online training does this, or if they were really "official" materials that were blessed by National). Some of those suggestions were:

ASM- New Patrol   works with the Troop Guide to aide them to develop program for the new Scouts

ASM- Quartermaster  works with the Troop Quartermaster to oversee care/maintenance of troop equipment

ASM- Advancement  works with the Patrol Leaders to encourage advancement (I have seen this in a large troop, where basically the "SM" role of signing-off advancement/blue cards is delegated to a specific ASM)

ASM- Order of the Arrow Troop Rep Adviser  works with the OA Troop Rep to encourage OA involvement (even has a specific ASM patch with the OA arrow on it)

At the end of the day, ASMs are really about helping to take some burden off the SM. If you have a troop of 15 Scouts, it may not be necessary to detail the specific role is to each individual ASM, but with a troop of 90 Scouts a more detailed structure may be necessary to help everyone (including the ASMs) from tripping over each other. 

https://www.scouting.org/about/faq/question19/

The Guide to Advancement best elaborates on the MBC position - it is a Council approved position (some Councils may delegate District committees to facilitate approval). MBC is not a unit leader position, thus they are not intended to be a part of the unit outdoor program or unit committee. If an individual wishes to serve as both a MBC and in a unit position, two applications are needed, and yes, they would pay the registration fee for the unit level position. I do know some units will register adults as MBCs only to avoid paying fees- my former unit did this. There were 7 ASMs, but, really, only one because the other 6 were registered as MBCs. I don't agree with it being done, seems a bit of a break from the SL to me. 

Doesn't have to be just one person, it can be many who are willing to be "brand ambassadors" of a sort. How many police officers, firefighters, professional athletes, etc. have been Scouts? Not just Eagles - and not even just in BSA. Let them tell their stories of what Scouting meant/means to them. it may not be their time at Philmont, it may be their time they worked on service project, or the times they spent replacing flags on the graves of veterans each year. There are two things that my son will talk about with anyone who will listen that are the highlights of his time in Scouting- the first was attending NOAC, the second was being present for a horse-drawn funeral procession that he witnessed during a troop trip to Arlington (he recalls that whole trip to DC, but that one experience is always the first thing he brings up talking about that trip).  Scouting can be a large, big world, and I think most of us like that it is. Do i want the outdoor experience (the "traditional scouting") part to be at the core for every youth that participates? Yes, I do. Will it be the most remarkable part for every youth? Not necessarily. Do I want every youth to obtain Eagle? Yes, I do. Has Scouting been a failure for them if they don't? No.

One thing I have kicked around at times when looking at BSA and how do we help improve the program through our adults is to look at the training. The BSA could do much better with this. In many parts of the world - and any of our Scouts UK folks, please tell me if I am off on this, but I believe this does apply in Scouts UK- at least one unit leader must have formal first aid training certification, and there are continuing education requirements. why do we not have this in the US? Seems logical we should want this required. When WFA became a requirement for units to conduct HA activities, I heard gasps at roundtable about it. I look around my council over the past decade (and, it vey well may not be the experience of everyone and their council), and we've had more individuals go through Wood Badge in that time than have completed IOLS training- far more. I'm not knocking WB, but if we can't get adults to go through the rudimentary outdoor training for the program, we are in real trouble of ever keeping a focus on the outdoor element of the program. 

Now, I've heard just about every excuse from adults on why they can't make it to the trainings. Keeping tabs on training requirements was always a headache as CC. I staffed training for my district/council, and felt guilty as heck whenever I had to say I wasn't available to help because something else on my calendar conflicted. But I also lamented why we can't have more individuals become trainers. Carving additional time into personal calendars is a real and credible excuse for folks not attending a training session- especially if they have to drive 3 hours one-way to the council camp that offers IOLS only two weekends a year. IOLS isn't some great mystical experience. and, many adult leaders that actively attend outdoor outings with their unit certainly can learn much of those skills that are learned through IOLS naturally, but why can't we have unit trainers? An individual from the unit attends IOLS as a participant, serves on staff for one district/councilwide IOLS weekend, and they have a knot to be an IOLS trainer.  

Just one suggestion for a random Friday, not a panacea. There isn't only one suggestion that exists that will keep the program flourishing for the next century. As one well-respected scouter mentor said to me year ago "There are three things that anyone outside of Scouting expects every kid who has been a Scout will know: how to perform first aid, how to start a fire, and how to fold a flag". I'm good if we all just got even half of the youth in the US to be able to fulfill even those things.   

21 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

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.

Some nostalgia in the green though, from the Explorer BSA  days that some of us were apart of. I have never met anyone that was involved in the Varsity program, but I believe maroon was used in that program with the "blaze" loops on the tan uniform.

18 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

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

 

Sorry, yes I meant Quartermaster. I used advancement more for those who aren't familiar with the program, but everything from 1998-2014 was indeed basically "award". You are correct, advancement as is used in a Troop context was not directly in the program as a method. Arguably, it still isn't as many Crews don't put any emphasis on advancement. My Council had awarded only one Silver award prior to the change over, and has only awarded two Summit since. 

From conversations had over the past four years with then current and former National VOA members, when the BSA put forward changing to end all programs at age 18, it was a surprise to those in the higher levels of both Venturing and Sea Scouts. not to go back and re-hash all of that, but the Commodore of the Sea Scouts program came out very hot against the idea, and the big change was not made. There was some mish-mash of wording to attempt to tighten the classification of participants in both programs (and the OA) ages 18-20. While Sea Scouts and Venturing are separate programs (fairly complicated history in the BSA on how they have been conjoined and separate at different points in time) they are fairly collaborative in governance due to their similarities.

Prior to the release of the details of the Churchill recommendations, it had been an ongoing discussion within Venturing to make some tweaks to the Venturing advancement program. For those not intimately aware of the Venturing program, when it officially launched in 1998, the advancement program was modeled on past senior Scout attempts, with Bronze, Gold, Silver awards. In 2014, a change was made to the advancement program to what is used currently- Venturing, Discovery, Pathfinder, and Summit ranks- which is based off of the four rank structure in Sea Scouts. The desire has been for years to give Venturing Summit and Sea Scout Ordinary the same weight and measure as Eagle. The tweaks that were being proposed that I was made aware of were really about taking some of the personal goal/time-management/personal code of conduct requirements to a more blanketed undercurrent of the program (think of the things you try to teach within Scouts BSA and how you try to communicate with a youth during a SM conference/BOR- keeping in mind, that a BOR in Venturing today is run by the Crew members, not the adults) and add more outdoor focused rank requirements. Currently, the "adventures" part of the Venturing program is not nearly as structured on how the activities operate as they are for say Camping MB- Venturing adventures can be run strictly using cabins or even motels, and eating meals at restaurants if you really wanted to. The concept was to give Venturers a program that encouraged some of the same Scout-skill learning as Scouts BSA, keeping some of the traditional Scouting in the program. All had intent to keep the program from just being a social club of older Scouts that just didn't want to be in Troop environment with younger kids mixed with some other teens that didn't come up through Scouting and thus didn't have any of that traditional Scouting exposure. 

Ultimately, the question of what to do with both Sea Scouts and Venturing today is worthy of discussion, and I am certain it is consuming a lot of time at the higher levels. Allowing girls into Scouting at the lower levels very much should shape what is done with both going forward. The Sea Scout program, because it has a history as long as the BSA, will likely find a way forward that is uniquely set to their needs as has always been the case for their program. For Venturing, if the desire is not to bring it back as a logical step in the senior Scout journey (for many, but not all- don't want anyone to forget that not every 17 year old became part of Leadership corps or Explorer Scouts in their day either), then indeed letting it become just another fashion of Exploring may make the most sense: a club formed to fulfill one-specific purpose of outdoor activity, without all the "trappings" of an advancement program.

However, from my own experiences, there is a lot of hand-wringing by the BSA over the idea of a program that doesn't have all those "trappings"- it just might be more attractive as it can be less stress and far easier to run than a Scouts BSA unit (for both youth/young adults and adults). No JTE to worry about, no Committee to deal with, no DE/Commissioners to appease. None of that would at all be good for the BSA Corporation in the long-term if it just meant bleeding their already existing membership base into another program after age 14. I had several SMs very much refuse to allow me to talk to them about asking their older Scouts if they wanted to join our Crew, and I understood where they were coming from. They feared those kids finding Venturing to be fulfilling without all the instruction and mentoring of the younger youth, which was already a struggle at times to get them to do, and the Troops would fall flat if they lost more older kids. 

Also, FWIW, in the BSA a Venturing participant is called a Venturer. when participants from Venturing and Scouts BSA (or Cub Scouts) are together, it is appropriate to refer to the Venturer as a Scout like the others, but we are not supposed to use the term Venturer Scout. However, in most of the few Scouting orgs around the world that have a Venturer program (such as Canada and New Zealand), they are referred to as Venturer Scouts. Just one little thing that the BSA has made more complicated than it needed to be IMO.         

6 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

I just received a somewhat desperate request for help from a neighboring chapter  in my lodge.  Chapters actually.  It seems that three of them have teamed up to hold a joint Ordeal but can only find enough ceremonialists for 6 of the 12 speaking parts.    Now assuming no one is performing multiple roles, that is only two per chapter!  And here I thought we were horribly low at 5. Half our preCovid numbers.  I am wondering if this decline is widespread or just a local thing?  How are the numbers in your neck of the woods?

I'm going to say it is not just you, and probably a good number of us in the same boat. In years past, we typically have one team that handles Pre-O, and that same team handles one Ordeal ceremony, then another team that handles up to 2 other Ordeal ceremonies, as necessary, and then one team that handles just Brotherhood. Pre-pandemic, we struggled to field out 2 full teams, with maybe one "alternate" that could sub in for a ceremony. Our two Ordeals this fall, we struggled to even get 4 ceremonialists for the first (and we ended up not offering Brotherhood at that one, to not over-burden them), and the second we had only 6 ceremonialists that had to do Pre-O, 2 Ordeal, and 1 Brotherhood ceremonies.  We had reached out to neighboring Lodges to try and gauge if we could get two ceremonialists from their teams to come just to fill out the Brotherhood ceremony, and they all expressed that they have struggled to get enough youth to fill two teams.

The pandemic really left an all around struggle on keeping our youth active. A number of them went away to college this fall, or off to the military, etc. and we had few step up to take their place (lack of opportunity for anything other than Zoom engagement certainly didn't help). We've not had a Chief for 2 of the 5 Chapters for two years, and at least a few of the others for the past two years have been "on paper" only.  We've struggled to fill out the Lodge officer positions as well, and at our election this fall it was a slate election, as no positions had more than one youth running for it. Thankfully, induction was good, and I'm encouraged we'll see things at least revive to an extent this spring. However, some of our adults seem hell-bent on just increasing the number of Ordeal weekends or monthly activities, thinking "if we build it, they will come"- except it is burning out the few youth we have that are active, they only can take on so much.