FireStone

On 6/14/2019 at 8:25 AM, karunamom3 said:

I have a friend that runs both BSA units and a GSUSA unit.  When her GS unit arrived at a camp owned by GS, she was told that the girls could enter if they had enough adult leaders but that the head of the unit, my friend, was banned because she also ran BSA units. Just horrible.

That is indeed horrible.

If, hypothetically, the tables were turned and the BSA was suing GSUSA and advising BSA volunteers to shun GSUSA, I wouldn't do it. I certainly could not ever imagine turning away a unit leader because she was affiliated with GSUSA. That's insane.

Is there anything in the BSA first-aid materials about self-treatment? At a glance most of the rank-related first-aid stuff is practical application of skills/techniques to others in need of help, but I don't know if it is ever mentioned anywhere what to do with a self-treated injury/wound.

Short of anything in the books about this, I'd say a general unit rule about "all injuries involving use of first aid supplies must be reported to an adult."

Aside from the obvious need for this kind of reporting in this case, it's also a practical matter of maintaining the troop first aid kit. If scouts are taking stuff from the kit and no one else knows, stuff could be depleted when it is needed next time.

Maybe I'm naive about the court system, plea deals, etc... but this seems like an open-and-shut case to me. They have a blood test that shows the driver was drunk, more than double the legal limit. He's given statements admitting his role in the accident and resulting injuries and death. And yet despite his claims that he won't prolong the family's suffering, he is pleading not-guilty, going to trial, and trying (unsuccessfully) to suppress other evidence. Kind of hard to believe that he's truly remorseful when his actions since the accident contradict what he says.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

I fully agree.  I do believe there is a difference between packs and troops though.  I think Packs have an easier job keeping the focus on the kid's view of scouting.  I've been in many pack committee meetings and there's always "oh the kids would love that" or "that would be cool".  Cub scouts are energetic and so are the parents.  They are fresh to the program.  So they keep the program focused on interesting things.  

When we get to troops, it's like we forget the fun and friendship.  It becomes "leadership" and "boy run"...

There is a difference, but not in what the scouts want to do. It should always be about the adventure of scouting, at any age and level. But you're right, the focus shifts at the troop level to leadership development and patrol method.

It's almost like at the Cub level we're playing a game and not keeping score, so the focus is always on fun. We have advancement, but it's not as strict and serious as Scouts BSA advancement. We go from not keeping score to telling kids that in a troop they have to make sure they check every box, and we're definitely keeping score then.

I don't know what the solution is, but I know the challenge in cubs is delivering on that promise of adventure and it looks like it only gets harder to keep that promise the older the kids get.

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

... It's always been in the back of my head.  "the promise of scouting".  I fear we, as adults leaders, get so focused and passionate about the BSA aims and goals that we forget why the scouts choose to be in scouting.  Personally, I think it's ridiculous to think scouts show up to scout meetings to learn leadership, develop character or become better citizens.  Even to learn skills is a big stretch.   

BSA's "Why scouting?" talks to parents and charter org representatives, but it does not talk to the scouts who are the main audience of the program.   https://www.scouting.org/discover/why-scouting/    I fear that we also forget the why of scouting....

I think the Cub program actually gets it down to simplest terms in their marketing materials. "Build your Adventure." Pretty simple. I think that's why kids want to join. They see these posters and fliers we put out there showing pictures of kids their age camping, hiking, building PWD cars, firing off model rockets, etc. It's an adventure, that's what kids want.

One of the things that frequently comes up at our committee meetings is the challenge to deliver on the promise of adventure. I actually make it a point in my presentations to the Pack on recruiting that our single greatest asset for recruiting is that promise, and our single greatest asset for retention is repeated delivery of that promise.

It's also one of the hardest things to do.

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Better than tweezers: thumb and forefinger. Squeeze, pull. You know when you've got the whole critter -- you can almost feel its pincers releasing, and you'll never over squeeze because your digits are optimized for picking all sorts of things.

For the $ save, you can buy some stranger on the internet his coffee when he passes through your town!

You can get deer ticks this way? My fat fingers can't. I'll stick with the kit.

3 hours ago, mrkstvns said:

Low unit numbers are cool.  They imply permanence and solid roots. The low number says you have identity, while the high number says you're just another cog in the machine.

My unit is 76 years old, all 76 years chartered with the same church. Some of the names on our original charter are family of current members. Permanence and solid roots are in our DNA, despite our 3-digit unit number that we got saddled with because of multiple Council mergers.

I really dislike the notion that our 3-digits say anything about how we stack up to single-digit units. It's just a number, and Packs/Troops come by their numbers in a variety of ways. It's not just a "roots" thing.

Whatever you pick, just own it and be consistent. I inherited a mess of a Pack number, with a 3-digit number used some places, single-digit used elsewhere. Our Pack flag had 3 digits, uniforms 1 digit, Pack website URL 3 digits, Pack fliers 1 digit. For recruiting and promotional purposes it was a mess, we looked like 2 completely different Packs. 

I know a lot of units use the "unofficial" number, and that's fine as long as you're consistent with it. Don't jump around with the public use of the number so that people know how to identify you. 

36 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Put differently, you join to do fun stuff, not wear a uniform.  So, why remind all the prospective members about the uniform when it's not a big sales point and may even detract.

I don't disagree, this is just counter to what I hear locally. There's a lot of local emphasis on the uniform, badges, etc., especially at the Cub level, and definitely at the recruiting level. Our Council encourages us to talk about the uniform at recruiting events, we've even set up displays of the uniform, badges, etc., as a sort of "look and see" to get kids excited about the badges they'll earn.

I try to "sell the fun" in recruiting materials. And the materials using the BSA imagery are great for that, but they also mostly leave out the uniform, and that makes for a sort of weird image based on the local culture here of pushing the uniform. Maybe that's where this whole discussion came from for me. What National puts out there visually isn't so weird for many units, but for me it's jarringly different from what I see and hear locally. National seems to favor t-shirts for photos, whereas when my Pack knows we're going to be somewhere that photos will be taken, it's more like "You better show up in full uniform for those photos!" 😀

8 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I would imagine this is what is happening.  The BSA marketing department realizes what we all do - good program sells.  So rather than a bunch of pictures of kids in uniforms, they are showing pictures of kids doing fun things.

It seems odd to me, though. Especially the photos of girls, after all we've seen and heard about girls being so proud to join and wear the uniform, wouldn't that be an angle the BSA would want to emphasize? I'm not sure there's a better image of the BSA being fully open to girls than a photo of a girl in a BSA uniform.

I know marketing materials aren't policy, and neither is the examples set by various folks from National and around the national organization, it just seems to me like another point of conflict between what local folks say and what National shows us by example. I've even heard from a parent in our unit that they are upset that we don't enforce uniform policy more. They force their kid to wear the uniform at every activity and event, and they say we should require all scouts to do the same. That's a tough sell already, when our Pack just spent a bunch of money on nice Class B t-shirts. Now we've got fliers going out to all the schools showing kids in t-shirts, but I'm supposed to enforce stricter uniform standards? If I go by what National is giving us, I would think it should be the opposite, de-emphasizing the uniform.

I've heard a local scouter refer to the uniform as a "field uniform", and say that it should be worn at all Scouting functions, by all scouts and scouters. "There is no Class B", he says, adding "You're either in uniform or you're not."

I'm the recruitment coordinator for my Pack, and I frequently browse the BSA Brand Center for interesting photos to use in marketing materials. Not every parent wants photos of their kids used in promotional materials, fliers we distribute around town, etc., so I find the stock BSA photos to be useful for this.

Browsing the latest batches of photos, I'm finding a very noticeable lack of uniform present. Under the "camping" image category for Scouts BSA, there are 52 photos, not one of them showing a Scout in uniform in the field. In fact, as best I can tell, in the entire Scouts BSA photo collection there are only 5 photos that show Scouts in uniform, and they are older images, likely to be phased out some time soon (as it seems to happen with the Brand Center, new images in, old stuff out).

It's the same under Cub Scouts, most photos show scouts out of uniform, in Class B t-shirts. Under "Top Picks" for Cub Scout photos, 1 of the 19 photos shows a scout in uniform, in the background of the photo.

I work in marketing, and one of the things we often say around the office is that marketing is aspirational. You don't show your potential customers what you do right now, you show them your higher view of what you do, your more aspirational ideas of where you'd like to be. One of my food science clients doesn't show photos of their actual dirty labs and equipment in their marketing materials, they show photos of super clean labs, stuff that was cleaned up just for that photo and that we then Photoshopped even further to look spectacular. Facilities are immaculate, workers are smiling, the grass outside the building is always bright green and the sun is always shining. It's a depiction of what the company wants to be, not what they actually are day-to-day.

If I were to judge the aspirations of the BSA based on what they are putting out in their marketing resources, the photos they create and distribute, my conclusion would be that the scout uniform has been killed off. If these photos are any indication of what the BSA hopes we'll look like in the near future, it's a future without uniforms.

Emphasis on the uniform in the BSA from the National perspective has seemed to ease up in recent years. I've even noticed the adoption of some more European trends in uniforming becoming popular at the National level in the BSA in their marketing and promotional efforts. Videos from events sometimes show scouts and scouters in casual clothing with a loosely fitted neckerchief on, tied in a friendship knot (picture how Bear Grylls typically looks in a hoodie and neckerchief).

I wouldn't begrudge the BSA for killing off the uniform. I'd probably applaud the move, actually. Kids don't like the uniform (ask your kids if they'd be willing to wear their uniform to school before telling me I'm wrong about this and that they actually really love the uniform), Scouts tend to wear Class B every chance they get, sometimes even when we say Class A is required. I've actually had parents ask me, "Do they really need to wear the uniform? My son says he feels dorky in it."

I love the uniform, personally, although I think it could do with a design update and modernization. But more than that, I love delivering an enjoyable program for scouts and if the uniform is something that makes them unhappy, I would be all for National doing what I think they are already doing and downplaying the importance of the uniform in most activities, or doing away with it completely.

If this truly is the direction we're headed in, if BSA marketing photos are any kind of look inside the mind of National and their vision for the future, I think I'm ok with how it looks.

On 5/31/2019 at 9:17 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

No, to much like GSUSA. One of the loudest complaints I hear from old Girl Scouts is that they don't have a uniform and the only way to tell someone is a Girl Scout is by the cookies. Besides red has never been associated with Cubs, only Explorers up to 1980, and Boy Scouts from 1980 - 2009. The blue uniform has a long history, and easily identifies someone as a Cub Scout.

Girl Scouts might wish they had more of a uniform in theory, but in practice I'm not so sure they'd really like it or that what we have is the best option. Kids generally don't like the BSA uniforms. Try getting scouts at pretty much any age/rank beyond Tiger to wear a uniform to school. My son hates going out in public in-uniform. We went out for ice cream after a recent scout activity and he wanted to go home first to get changed (I didn't let him).

I've debated a local scouter on the uniform, he thinks it should be worn always, no exceptions, because it's a "field uniform suitable for any activity." I've argued that the various complaints and problems with the uniform prove how unsuited it really is for youth field use.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I've long admired the more European standard of limited uniform use in the field in favor of a necker over whatever clothing a scout is wearing (Bear Grylls style). Not as a replacement for the uniform but just as a more welcome option to it for activities. Maybe there's a way to simplify uniforms. It's all of the moving parts that seem to be most problematic and easily lost.

I don't know how accurate the earlier claim of 5 cases of sexual abuse in the BSA in 2018 is, but assuming for a minute that it's in the ballpark of accurate, can we just acknowledge the immense progress the BSA has made in curbing abuse? If we go by the available data from these articles, 12,254 victims of sexual abuse in the BSA have been reported since 1944. On average, that's about 163 per year. And surely the rate of abuse has diminished over time, likely with recent years tapering off and years further back having significantly greater numbers of abuses per year. We've gone from hundreds, sometimes several hundred, per year, potentially down to 5 reported cases in 2018. That's incredible.

I know it's not zero, and let's not get back into the discussion about any abuse is one too many. We all agree on that. I think it's just worth saying, and I wish these articles would say it too, that the BSA has made incredible strides in drastically reducing incidents of sexual abuse.

14 hours ago, yknot said:

Frankly, right now, it has to be zero and there is no reason why it shouldn't be. If anyone has a qualm about an SM, an ASM, a unit, they/it should be shut down for review. We have almost zero public confidence.  The days of covering for folks has to be over. Can you not see the headlines? No one will care about statistics. All they will see is that another scout has been abused despite our assurances otherwise. 

The goal is certainly always zero. Without question. But that's a goal. Realistically, I don't see a way to ensure 100% success in stopping abuse from happening.

We hope that all of the measures we put in place make it likely that we would catch a predator before they are able to abuse a scout. YPT shows us what to look for, how to spot grooming and precursors to potentially abuse before it happens. But there is nothing that can be done to ensure that 100% of our membership adheres to 100% of the policies and best practices 100% of the time. We can't track what every adult volunteer is doing 100% of the time, especially outside of official scouting activities.

I would venture a guess that there isn't a unit in the country that is 100% YPT compliant 100% of the time. Mistakes happen. We see things sometimes and say "That was a YTP violation" and we correct it and prevent it from happening again, but it still happens.

I'm a YPT nut, I constantly harp on it in my Pack, probably to a level of annoyance for some folks. But I can't control what everyone else does. I needed a fundraiser form from a scout and called his dad, who said he'd bring it right over (he lives a block away). My doorbell rings and it's the scout, not the dad, standing at my door, alone. Obviously not ok, and I immediately called the dad to tell him that his son was on his way back home and they he could not send his scout to an adult leader's home alone ever again.

So to me, 100% success in stopping abuse across the entire BSA would mean that there are no holes in YPT, 100% compliance in all units. And at the unit level that's just not realistic. I can correct people every time, but in the fall I've got a whole new crop of scouts and parents who, like the dad mentioned above, don't know the rules, forget the rules, or just make a mistake sometimes.

The BSA has done a good job of closing up the gaps in protection. YPT does a lot to make the BSA much safer. We can say "zero" is the goal, but it's not realistic to think we'll ever get to zero. Similarly I'd love to see the BSA get to zero incidents of injury or death during scouting activities, but again, zero incidence of anything just isn't realistic.

11 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

On my news feed today from time.com

These Men Say the Boy Scouts’ Sex Abuse Problem Is Worse Than Anyone Knew.
http://time.com/longform/boy-scouts-sex-abuse/

I'm struggling with this, the wording of this. Saying the "problem is worse than anyone knew", it sounds like it's ongoing, like the high levels of abuse are a current problem.

And maybe, admittedly very selfishly, I'm a little more concerned about the future of the program than the past. I have sympathy for the men in this article and the countless many more who have secretly carried the burden of their abuse by scout leaders for decades. But to me that's just it... decades, not a fair reflection of abuse today.

I'm sure it still happens today, I'm not naive enough to think that our YPT program has eradicated sexual abuse. But surely it's not as prevalent as it was in the past, is it? The culture today around abuse prevention is entirely different that it was 40 years ago, when many of the men in this article were abused. Abuse prevention culture barely even existed back then. The notion of a scout going to a SM's house alone wouldn't have raised many eyebrows. Today that would be a huge red flag. And kids today are far more conditioned to report abuse. Sure it's still hard to do, and many are persuaded by abusers to remain silent. But still, I struggle to believe that the problem is still an "is", rather than a "was". Again, I'm not saying it's over and abuse is down to zero. But to suggest that things are as bad (or worse) today just seems entirely unfair to the program of today and the many leaders and parents who work diligently to make the BSA far safer than it has ever been (in my estimation and belief). 

I'm the recruiting chair for my Pack. I can't help wondering how much stuff like this hurts our recruiting efforts, when news articles like this seem to imply in just a few words that the past abuses by scout leaders of previous generations of leaders are still the norm in this organization. And I know that's a very selfish viewpoint, but I'm just being honest here. I really don't believe that the BSA of today deserves to be destroyed by the abuses of the past. At the very least I wish the BSA got some credit for how they do things today, and the very deliberate efforts that are made throughout the organization to combat abuse for the current and future generations of scouts.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

...Personally, I have never understood the reasoning of recruiting youth who are too young to dream of adventure and lack the understanding of patience. Second grade is when boys start to see the world from reading books. Second grade is also the youngest age for youth to understand the discipline of waiting, and at least grasp the discipline of respecting another persons time...

Agreed 110%. I run a Wolf Den, and at this age they've just started to be able to handle the den meeting structure. And not all of them, but I'm seeing the shift happening. As Tigers, forget it, it was a mess. And from what I hear from our Lions parents, that's an even bigger mess. My daughter is going to skip the Lion year, no way I'm subjecting her (or myself) to that.

We're also seeing issues with bringing in kids that young and the expectations of parents. Cub Scouts sells the idea of adventure, "Build Your Adventure" and all that. It's a huge let-down for some parents to join and not see any of what they expected "adventure" to be until 2 or 3 years into it. It hurts retention.

I know the BSA sees Lions as a way to add another dues-paying year to Cub Scouts. But long-term I wonder if it's going to negatively impact retention in later years.

Terrible news. Sad to hear this.

I'm far from any kind of watercraft expert, so I'll defer to the folks here who know more... but in looking at that photo of the accident scene, it looks pretty sketchy to me. Lots of downed limbs, plenty of stuff to get tangled up in if someone is in the water.

What a cool story!

I also advise parents that if they prefer to buy a metal neckerchief slide, buy the Scouts BSA version. It's not rank-specific and can be used all throughout Cubs and Scouts BSA. 

Also not "official", I know, but if a scout can opt to use pretty much anything they want as a slide, I see no reason why the Scouts BSA slide isn't a suitable option too. 

We made universal neckerchiefs and paracord slides for our Pack. I know that's not officially allowed, but whatever, we got tired of the nickel-and-dime routine too. Our neckers are really sharp, with a custom embroidered patch on them. Cost $12 but last all throughout their Cub years.

It is ridiculous. Why on earth there are 3 different belt buckles is beyond me. It really is set up to just sell us more stuff. Not at all thrifty.

15 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I cannot seem to find a reference where she filed any lawsuits to become an Eagle Scout.  I cannot even seem to find a reference that she filed a lawsuit ot become a member of the Boy Scouts...

Strange that her father's law firm website seems to suggest they were involved, then.

15 hours ago, ParkMan said:

...How is pushing for Scouting credit that she honestly believes she earned prioritizing herself over others?  Again, isn't fighting for something you believe is right a sign of a strong leader?  Why would we want any Scout to just sit down and be quiet in a situation like that?  

Her fight and determination are what I always liked about her. Her involvement in getting the BSA to change the policy on girls is an example of bravery that few adults could ever muster. I wouldn't want that spotlight, that attention, that pressure. 

I don't want scouts to be quiet in the face of something they believe should be different. But there's a right and wrong way to approach those issues. My support for Sydney ceased when she got what she wanted and it still wasn't good enough because it wasn't on her terms. The BSA gave her a path to Eagle. She wanted something different. 

While I would encourage any scout to speak up for something they believe in, I would also have to encourage them to accept the outcome if they try to change something and it doesn't go exactly as they would like it to. They can't always win. Sometimes you fight and lose, or fight and get something a little different than what you wanted, and sometimes that's as far as the fight should go. 

Sydney fought hard and won a huge victory for girls in the BSA. She should be proud of that. What I find disrespectful about her actions now is that she has essentially decided to just do things her way regardless of what the BSA says. She put that Life rank on even though the BSA specifically outlined what she would have to do to earn it, and that past activities would not be credited. They didn't say she can't be an Eagle Scout. They outlined what she would have to do to earn the rank, and she said no, I'll do it my own way.

I admire her determination, I really do. I wrote letters to BSA National in support of her. But I greatly dislike what has transpired since the policy change, and her refusal to accept fair terms from the BSA on how she could reach her goal. 

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

I keep coming back to the same thought.  Why on earth would she waste all this energy - being a tagalong, joining Scouts Canada, lobbying for grls in the BSA, just so that she could become the first female Eagle Scout.  Achieving that gets her a cloth patch and maybe 15 minutes of fame.  Whatever benefit she derives from being the first Eagle Scout is completly eclipsed by her actions in helping to bring about Scouts BSA for girls.

Over 100 years later we still talk about Arthur Eldred. It would be a lot more than 15 minutes of fame and she knows it.

13 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

There's never an exact number of patches produced.  Email or call the headquarters in Irving TX, somebody will be able to scare one up for you.

There was an email address with the patch notification email, I replied but nothing back yet.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

..Maybe I've got a soft spot for those people with heart and spirit, but this seems like a pretty fair & creative solution. 

I'd be with you on this if it really was just about credit for past scouting work completed and she would join that inaugural class of Eagles. But my feeling (from what I've read and heard from this scout and her family) is that this may have more to do with her wanting to be "the first". She isn't content with credit for the work. She has specifically asked for the "immediate granting" of the rank of Eagle Scout.

My son completed the recent Boys' Life Magic Treehouse Reading Warrior promotion and qualified for the patch. The email to order the patch sat in my Inbox for 3 days too long and I missed the deadline to get one for him. 

Anyone have any extras? I'd happily buy one, pay for shipping, etc. Or trade for some local CSPs. 

Here's the original promotion with a photo of the patch: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2019/01/31/magic-tree-house-reading-warrior/