yknot

I had chickens once. Somehow in my head I had this painting-like image of a rambling farmstead with county fair worthy chickens free ranging around the place. I've had a lot of livestock but never chickens. Finally got them and after a few months of careful husbandry set my prize flock free in the front yard for some hours of eye candy viewing. Knowing that we have predators galore I kept a close watch while doing chores. But the phone rang. I went inside and I swear I was not gone more than 5 minutes. I came out to piles of feathers exploded all over the yard and not one bird left. Same thing happened to my neighbor. The electric fence kept the bear, fox, opossum and coyotes out but not the Cooper's hawks which we have in abundance.

The things I thought I'd be doing at this point before random parts started breaking or old injuries made me realize what I thought was healed was just physiological MacGyvering... still trying to get back there, or at least somewhere.

Give up on scouting then maybe, not getting kids off their phones or outside. Kid participation in a lot of outdoor activities is way up -- fishing, birding, horseback riding, organized biking. The scouting program in some ways and in some places has become an impediment to getting kids outdoors. And phones and devices are not all bad. There are apps and features that can be fun to use outdoors. Edit: For example, I'm doing Cornell's Great Backyard Bird Count this weekend with my teenage son. He's using Merlin on his phone; I'm reporting via ebird. This is the kind of outdoors thing he likes to do.

This is a great recap of so many obvious problems in scouting today. I think you've hit so many nails right on the head here. Many aspects of the program are disconnected from the day to day realities and perspectives of an increasing number of families and kids, but there is a lot of resistance to acknowledging that. Anyone who tries to point out problems like these is simply told "You're doing it wrong" but I don't think these are issues or problems that are going to be fixed by adhering to existing program. I think program, as well as the whole scout mindset, needs to change. At least if scouting is going to continue in any signficant form or fashion. I'm not sure bankruptcy is the biggest threat to scouting. I think it's more the resistance to reimagining scouting into something that is more accessible, understandable, interesting, and doable for a greater number of current day families and kids. I laughed when I got to the part of your comments about giving roles to parents with no experience with kids or scouting. No parent today would dream of sending their little 6 or 7 year old off onto a field with a coach who has no idea what they are doing, either with kids or a sport, and yet that is exactly what scouting does. And it continues up the chain.

Those are all defenses of the status quo. Status quo isn't working on multiple levels. It enabled a tragic level of child abuse. It has fostered a steep decline in membership. You can keep saying what you are saying, but it's not a path forward, it's a path toward continued decline.

I think CynicalScouter was the one who used to dig out the real membership reports for us. Sure do miss him. My understanding is that the numbers aren't solid until after the recharter grace period is over, which I think is March/three months? Whatever numbers we are looking at now are likely subject to change downward and then possibly again depending on what happens with the UMC extensions in June. I think one of the big issues with membership going forward is going to be COs. As this process continues, some of the smaller CO groups that have been out of the loop have seemed to catch up and are developing cold feet. A number of units who were dropped by their church based COs shifted over to Elks for example. Elks were initially very welcoming but there were rumors of a change of heart and now actual letters have been posted advising Elk Lodges not to charter scout units next year. If BSA survives bankruptcy it is going to have to fix the CO model both to address membership as well as be able to ensure any kind of real oversight of the program going forward. The current structure doesn't work. In my local neck of the woods I have not seen data on any of the nearby councils but can report similar results. Troop level units had slight losses but are hanging on. Packs have imploded -- closed or lost significant membership. Our home Troop has no cubs crossing over for the first time in memory. One of the issues at the cub level is adult volunteers. Parents during the pandemic have been pulled in nine directions trying to cope with school closures, quarantines, child care, etc. They seem to have no bandwidth for anything as involved as scouting. I'm involved in a number of youth and community organizations and have observed that while scout numbers have dropped, nature center youth programs, horseback riding programs, golf and tennis programs, ad hoc rec sports programs, have record participation and in some cases months long waiting lists.

Declining membership over the years, which predates the LDS departure and Covid, is a pretty precise argument that the BSA program has not been syncing well with what kids and families want nationwide. What you or I see locally or even regionally varies greatly across the country. There is no BSA oversight to ensure consistency in program delivery. That's part of the problem. And while there is a grain of truth in your deflection that many problematic issues are not in the handbook, BSA's standard operating procedure has been to overlook or enable local interpretations of the handbook. BSA purposefully leaves many areas open to council or unit policy.

I feel like I've been writing the same things over and over again for years. Scouting has become way too complicated and too much like homework. It is very adult driven despite what people say about their units being scout led. If our report card is membership then the program has been failing to grab the interest of an awful lot of kids. Adults drive so many of the impediments. Take a recent discussion on mountain biking on another thread. Apparently mountain biking requires special bikes, special trails, specific terrain. I know a lot of kids who think they do mountain biking because they've got a bike and a mountain. To a city kid, biking through a local park is mountain biking. We make things so difficult some times and so not fun and often with the absolute best of intentions but with sad results.

A lot of kids don't have any interest in getting to First Class and yet a lot of troops push hard for kids to get it done in the first year.

I think BSA needs to do what other youth organizations have done and let kids follow a track that matches their interests. Love camping? Work towards the Outdoors Eagle. Love science? Work towards the STEM Eagle. There aren't enough troops around to find one that matches interests -- the kids ought to be able to control their own destiny a little more within a troop I think. For all our talk about scout run, there are an awful lot of troops that instead reflect adult opinions on what a 'true' scout is or does. You could come up with a common core but then let them branch out in tracks. Or at least that's one idea. Scouting needs to really take a good hard look at what kids want to do because while these declining turnouts are sad they are also sort of a report card on the traditional scout program and BSA should be paying attention. Better marketing isn't going to get kids to like cold weather camping more. .

We can't get kids (or parents) to devote any time to anything that isn't directly related to Eagle. The only way would be to make this the Eagle Scout advancement path instead. Which I would wholeheartedly support.

I've been hearing rumors that the Elks were also dropping chartering scouts but saw nothing to substantiate it. There was a post today on one of the cub scout sites today however with a letter. Anyone else see it or have any involvement with Elks?

That's how I'm feeling. So it sounds in essence that we relied on LCs and SEs to vet claim forms? I guess I'm wondering was it in their interest to be diligent in that process, or not? I started thinking about this when people on this thread or another started saying that their council has no or few claims as if they are now completely in the clear. Is the list that definitive a document? If claims can be ruled out as being invalid or low level due to missing information, can other claimslater be ruled in if it's later found the proper information was on the form but overlooked? All I know is I don't think any CO or LC should feel "safe" just because so far they haven't been linked to a claim. Seems like there are still some i's and t's to dot and cross to me...

Coincidentally I was driving my son and his friend home from school today. My son left scouts this year; his friend stayed and is about to Eagle. His older brother made Eagle last year and is now out. My son liked to camp, hike, hang with friends, and do outdoors stuff. He was not at all interested in meetings and merit badges. His friend is the same, but his family has made both him and his brother stay in. They, like most of the parents in the unit, are focused on Eagle to put on college applications, which is why they both need to be done with it by sophomore year. He's not having fun and can't wait to be done. I think the Eagle Scout rank has been both a blessing and a curse for scouts.

For starters for me, I'd just like to know what happened to data that was entered in the wrong place. Was it corrected before the list was published? Were any claims sent back to the claimant for clarification in such cases? I'm assuming nothing was rejected but I would like to know how many claims would appear more complete if at least a minimal effort was made to correctly capture stray information.

I'm not exactly clear on the process but I would assume that no one should use this list to rule their CO, Council, or unit in or out for a claim just yet. I think it was noted earlier that in many cases information regarding unit numbers or Council or CO names or locations was sometimes included but listed in the wrong section of the form and so was not captured for this list. I have not heard that any kind of vetting of the claims has been done although maybe someone here knows more than me. Regardless, a certain degree of forensics on these claims could very possibly identify additional COs or Councils as the process unfolds.

I had my head bashed in by an older scout and the only thing I remember is the where. Not when. Not who. Not why. I just remember having my head slammed into a brick wall and waking up on the ground. I didn't tell my parents. I didn't tell teachers. The only person who knew it happened other than the scouts who did it was a friend who was in the school yard with me when it happened and I don't remember who they were. Memory is very individual and situation specific. I had another incident of attempted sexual abuse in broad daylight in a ditch walking home from school. The mud is all I remember.

I've worked in media. You cannot publish a photo of a minor in many cases without a written parental photo release. Protecting youth extends beyond protecting their corporeal presence, it includes protecting their imagery as well. For most situations it has nothing to do with compensation, it's about protecting the privacy of a minor. The only way of working around that is to go back and get a photo release after the fact. If someone from BSA is feeding you information counter to that they are wrong. If it's a private photo on a private facebook page or a fair use photo taken in a public setting, that's one thing, but if you post it on Troop X or Pack Y site or you took it in a private setting, you'd better have a photo release.

I hope that is not a real practice because it would be yet another way that youth protection in the organization is being subverted.

It depends on who is taking the picture, where, and why. If you are taking photos of your friends' kids and post on your own facebook page, there is little someone can do. If, however, you take a picture of your friends' kids and then put it on an organization site, like a troop or pack site, that's a different matter. It also matters whether the photo was taken in public -- such as at a Main Street parade -- or in private, such as a privately owned scout camp or someone's backyard.

Would it be, or is it just forestalling the inevitable? I've seen little in the plan that constitutes any kind of a real restructuring of the organization. The only strategies for future success are lasered in on yet more marketing and reliance on membership increases. There is a lack any kind of independent, outside or even introspective review of how scouting is going to survive beyond the 2020s. The CO and volunteer issues are huge. Would it be better for the survivors for BSA to fail and take their chances with LCs and COs? Or, if BSA goes through Ch. 11 only to wind up in Ch. 7 a few years from now, where would those remaining assets go? To the Trust? Would that be an additional potential beneft to survivors? Or would any remaining assets go to a whole new list of creditors? I would think that would be the ultimate tragedy for survivors if they get a pittance now, and then get cut out yet once again if/when BSA goes Ch. 7 at a future date.

I can't add much to this other than to say make sure you read A Walk in the Woods if you haven't already.

That is a whole unclear area that was a subject of at least one contentious thread a year or so ago. Mandatory reporting varies by state. It would seem the BSA policy ought to be report to police first, BSA second, but in some places it was BSA first. Hopefully new YP guidelines will clarify that if it still needs clarifying but more importantly publicize it. It's not clear, or at least it wasn't the last time I went through YPT.

I've read through this once and my initial reaction is that there are some good elements to it and I like some of the additional oversight and transparency. Some of the specifics I'm interested in I assume would be addressed later as part of the general statements about reviewing procedures and policies with other best practices and experts. At this point, we also kind of don't know where we've been without access to data (other than the claims and anecdotal reports) so it hard to be sure we are targeting the right things. Certainly the addition of SWG individuals to the process will be extraordinarily helpful going forward. There is a missing piece here unless I've skipped over it and that's consquences. It isn't clear how YP will be integrated with operations. It can't be just a committee or department that, however buffed up, is still to the side. I want to know what will happen when there are incidents - what will an incident trigger? Hopefully, a mandatory review process that could ultimately lead to revocation of charters for units or even councils if necessary. One of the things that has driven abuse in BSA in my opinion has been the overwhelming focus on membership at all costs. If membership is still allowed to smudge youth safety in any way, we are still in the same place with just more bells and whistles. We need to make sure YP has teeth. I particularly like the provisions increasing the data flow to parents in individual troops. Parents should be able to get a "report card" on the unit they are placing their children in . I would hope that report would also be available for the district and council as well.

At this point, I don't think you should be lashing out at me. You would have to be a cult member not to question this drumbeat of poor decision making and lack of oversight. You can be bright and lack common sense. You can be hard working, but be working at the wrong things. You can be both honorable and incompetent. I can no longer buy into the idea that hundreds of people in National leadership have been completely vicitimized and outwitted over the years by chartering organizations and insurance companies and wiley predators and uncooperative parents and police officers and pesky donors with agendas and now... Some dastardly file clerk at a calendar company who hid an agreement? I think a lot of people who truly loved scouting once want better.