yknot

The larger property management issues you raise like logging and just general poor stewardship of scout lands is another crazy disconnect. As far as Jamborees, I mispoke. I meant all the local scout jam type gatherings and what have you. They are almost always high stress on local resources and often planned without consideration as to impact. A 50 acre field mowed at the wrong time of year can be disastrous for grassland breeding birds for example but a Council that logs isn't going to be at all concerned about a bunch of fledglings. It's sadly funny that in some places you will have greedy corporate campuses sporting pollinator gardens, wood duck boxes and swales of special grasses to filter nonpoint source polluntants out of stormwater runoff. Then, next door, is the supposedly conservation minded scout reservation buzzing with chainsaws and spouting muddy runoff from the weekend's noncancelled bad weather camp out.

LNT Minimize Campfires -- Cooking MB and extensive cooking rank requirements. In many places this becomes tail gating in the woods. LNT Respect Wildlife -- Any requirement that involves collection of animals from the wild or creating artificial congregation points or food sources. For example, Fishing Derbies -- throwing a dying or dead fish back into water is not LNT and kind of a blind spot in cubs. Jamborees? Maybe when they are in a parking lot but not at most sites I've seen them at. There are more -- easy enough to find if you look yourself. BSA has cleaned up some of it over the past decade -- it's not as bad as when they had requirements that were illegal in many states -- but it's still behind the times. These are just conservation components of the program. Many, many of the badges in a number of fields are out of date as well. The whole program needs an overhaul and going forward a way to update in real time. Some of these should be partnered with expert source organizations to ensure that.

That's interesting, although I have to say it is hard to make the out of doors seem boring, but LNT gives a really good try. It's important stuff, but instead of teaching it in context with anything else, it's just presented as a dry list. I'm thinking more of BSA modifying program components in ways that would lead to partnerships or at least synergies. There are 5 animal rank names and yet nothing specifically linked to study or conservation in the ranks for any of those animals. Bears and Eagles are two head scratching omissions. The National Park Service offers a free annual pass to all fourth graders. It wouldn't cost any money to put something in the Webelos rank about learning about or visiting a National Park. LL Bean just launched an outdoors initiative with Boys and Girls Clubs. What's also head scratching are instances where Merit Badges and rank requirements are in conflict with LNT. Another thing that needs to be updated.

It ought to be every participatory parent (meaning you attend things with your kid) takes YPT, submits to a background check, and the parent pays the (typically nominal) fee. If you want to go on and be a volunteer leader, you pay the higher fee to register. Every parent should be able to observe any aspect of the program. I have no idea why BSA wants to charge all parents $45.

What a shame both Cynical Scouter and ThenNow are gone. Their commentary on something like this would have been insightful and likely provided more context.

Sadly, it has missed a great opportunity to be the nation's guide to the outdoors, most tragically during the pandemic. There are so many partnerships that could have been leveraged with NPS, conservation groups, and reimagining the outdoors as the scouting world's classroom. So many struggling scout camps that could have become scouting branded community outdoor resources for recreation and learning.

That study has some strange omissions, like the fact that the Amazon has also lost 20% of its acreage/habitat in the past 30 years or so, but the Bird Study badge, along with many badges and rank requirements, are desperately in need of updating and revamping. We truly do need more outdoors in scouting, and what is offered needs to be more relevant, up to date, and field oriented.

It's interesting you think someone who walked away from signing an NDA and as a result left a significant amount of money on the table has credibility issues. I can't come up with any other senior BSA executive who has done anything like that in recent memory. Further, he was an expert in youth protection before he was hired, for ten years he was the first and looks like only BSA senior executive focusing soley on youth protection, and he's still a nationally recognized expert in the field. For those reasons, his assessments about BSA youth protection policies will have credibility to the wider world in whatever venue he is asked to appear. His comments on COs and the lack of oversight and gaps in youth protection are not wild claims -- those problems have been an open secret. What is wild are the extreme differences in how the BSA program is carried out, from optimal to abysmal, depending on region, council, CO, and unit. He is the first senior executive to publicly acknowledge that problem and its effect on child safety. Scouting is in this mess because of longstanding dysfunction in the CO/BSA relationship structure and he's right when he says nothing has materially changed present day.

On youth protection, maybe start with what the former BSA director of youth protection Michael Johnson had to say on the subject: 1) Recognize that scouting is a high risk perhaps the highest risk youth activity as far as youth protection and other aspects. 2) Recognize that a significant percentage of current abuse cases are youth on youth. Older youth supervision of younger youth is a problem. 3) Remove NDAs that prevent other youth protection experts who have contracted with the BSA from speaking out. 4) The CO structure is dysfunctional as far as supervision of units and scouts. Some COs still allow known perpetrators to have access to youth. 5) Release files that have names of perpetrators who have not yet been reported by BSA. 6) BSA's focus is more on protecting the brand and protecting the COs that are at the core of its business model and not on youth protection.

I have never known a CO or a COR that isn't absentee or at very least hands off and I have been involved with two councils that would never force the issue for fear of losing units, membership, or FOS dollars. In many of the units, the COR is just a name on paper -- they do not belong to or represent the CO because there is no one available at the CO. Many COs around here are smaller churches with declining, elderly leadership. I think this is very different depending on what council you are in or part of the country. This is a problem BSA has ignored or played footsie with for years. The CO model has not worked at all in many places.

I was also absolutely unclear to what our moderator was referring and I am neither an attorney, a client, or a victim. I'm just interested in trying to keep track of what is going on and who all the different players are. I went back and reviewed all of the recent posts including ThenNow's and could find nothing that seemed remotely commercial. It was a long thread of logistical discussions similar to you can buy tents at Walmart, Costco, or REI. With all due respect, this was a pilot error, not a passenger problem.

They said they were doing that at the last TCC town hall that Michael Johnson spoke at.

That disqualifier makes absolutley no sense. Certainly a thousand other review or oversight bodies aren't formed that way, whether it's sports injuries, accessibility, drunk driving, etc. If you want to fix something, you want people who are passionate critics and advocates involved. Otherwise you get lip service.

While I empathize with our volunteer moderators who may have felt they had to uncross swords 24/7, it did seem like people were continually baiting Cynical Scouter. Some of it was unwitting -- they were often newly arrived to the discussion -- but others seemed to enjoy poking the tiger knowing full well he would swat. I miss his analysis. I hope he comes back.

That's what I'm talking about with this badge as well as the disability badge. I really think those requirements should come out.

Just FYI some packs are completely pay as you go -- so you pay for your own expenses including advancements. Any fundraising would go toward pack expenses that everyone would use -- like camp stoves or meeting facility fees or web hosting.

I've been trying to keep up but my son just told me about another one -- A for Ally, not Asexual. His definition is that an Ally is someone who is either a friend or supportive of anyone who is one of the other letters or symbols, which basically means pretty much everyone is in the acronym. I've been trying to think and anticipate what the next one could be but I think the double AA along with plus might just cover it all?

One of the minor problems I have with this badge, which is the same issue I have with the disability badge, is the requirement to find and talk with someone who is disabled or, in this case, different from you. This kind of turns different scouts, as it does with disabled scouts, into unwitting and perhaps in some cases unwilling "specimens" for investigation to get a badge. We've all had scout who are pretty zealous in their pursuit of knocking off a merit badge requirement. I hope counselors for this badge will talk about tact when seeking out someone to talk to. Not every disabled kid wants to be thought of as disabled and many in fact actively push back against that idea. I imagine it could be similar for kids who may be taken aback or even offended to learn that they are thought of as different when perhaps they themselves don't think so or are fighting that label.

There are always rules.. I think the last time this was done by me it was joint councils. I think it was both by patrol and unit. In looking through some old stuff, before my time there was also something called a Mountain Man event that was a competition and there was also some kind of soap box derby race although that might have been cubs. At the cub level the Klondike around here is called The Yukon. I think it's more participatory than competitive.

What, do you mean like a Klondike? I think that's allowed.

You do see that you are doing the exact same thing? You are unilaterally making up language on your own here that is not in this article. I quoted the article exactly, aside from punctuation, in my comment. You are claiming because the statement disagrees with what your interpretation of what one on one means that it must be... wrong? ... So this article is somehow wrong on that but right on other things that agree with what you think? The below statement, also from the same article, contradicts your interpretation of alone: Question: One adult with two or more scouts. BOS response: That depends on the situation. For example, traveling to and from program activity, scouting meetings, and especially outside of scouting it is not a good practice to have one adult with two scouts, as the sexual abuser can and will use this as an opportunity to have singular access to scouts. Clearly, BOS considers travel, scout meetings, and outside of scouting situations in which an adult can be considered "alone" with a scout even if another scout is present. Clearly, BSA seems to contradict itself. But if you don't go with the most definitive language on the topic, that's an awful lot like a loophole.

One adult leading multiple scouts on a hike IS breaking the rule. This is what I'm reading in this article: "While similar to two deep leadership in some ways, "no one on one" specifically states that adult/youth interaction is not appropriate without another adult -- preferably a youth protection trained leader -- being present." Obviously, this article predates the registered leader requirement. There is also this from the FAQs on scouting.org: "Adults should not be alone with scouts who are not their children." There is also this under the Adult Supervision section of the Youth Protection guidelines: "Notwithstanding the minimum leadership requirements, age and program appropriate supervision must always be provided." Program appropriate is two deep and no one on one. It is impossible to provide two deep and no one on one unless two adults are in the same physical proximity as a scout or scouts. There is also just the common sense aspect of it. How is the convention of a second adult going to protect a child from abuse if they are not ... present?

Thank you. That is how I interpret as well although useful to note that even that is now out of date in some aspects.

Ditto

Where I am no one on one means no one adult with any amount of scouts, unless driving with at least one other scout. I'm not sure everyone interprets the policies the way you two are. Certainly you can have a one on one with a scout in a corner of a room in view of others but another adult has to be in the room, not somewhere in the building. I'm not clear at all how the interpretation you follow provides either no one on one or two deep youth protection.