yknot

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.

I've heard that explanation before from some in scouting but every other youth organization that employs two deep leadership does so for youth protection reasons, not merely safety as you describe. It's to have two adults present as a check and balance against one another and thus protect the child. I think these are the kinds of issues that Michael Johnson was referring to. No one on one requires that two adults be present. If safety alone was the consideration, then being alone in an open door room with a scout or scouts in a building where other scout activities are taking place would not violate YP, but it does. Furthermore, from a liability standpoint, it seems more than problematic.

That's the loophole that people use. I think some common sense has to apply when you have an individual adult walking over to the health office or some other such task. On the other hand, people use that loophole to have only one adult in the camp site or to go off on a hike or take a bunch of kids to a swimming hole, etc., The rationale will be that there are "dozens" of registered adults present and the entire camp facility is the activity. The issue with the 72 hour rule is that it can inadvertently result in an unregistered adult being that sole individual supervising the camp site. I think if you are engaged in any kid related task, you need two adults. Not glimpsed walking through the trees or somewhere in the vicinity but where the kids and other adult are. Most abuse happens at either summer camp or on camp outs so if you want to apply stringent YPT where it will do the most good, do it there. I am frequently incredulous at the people who will leap out of an open door troop meeting if they find themselves 50 feet away but alone with a scout or two in a room for 30 seconds, but will be belligerent about taking a group of scouts for a day hike at summer camp because "camp is the activity". If YPT is supposed to be based on actual safety measures, the logic in those situations does not track. Then we are simply doing YPT for show, not effect, if it's somehow OK to be hiking alone with kids at summer camp. IMO.

I'm talking about leaving only one adult in the camp site with one bunch of scouts while the other adult goes off for a hike or something with a different bunch. That kind of thing. That's been discussed on this forum and people do report doing that.

What you see as a dream is the only way we attend camp. A lot of units somehow don't follow the two adult rule at summer camp, I think because it is not expressly ordered by BSA, which is to my mind a problem. Perhaps it's no coincidence that many of the abuse cases seem to be linked to summer camps.

In our case our unit was much more meticulous than our council. I am sure this is no longer the case, but within my recent memory the council did not perform background checks to save money. Their rationale was that people who had something to hide would refuse to agree to a background check and self screen anyway so why spend the money. At least that was the rumor. It's possible it simply happenened by default. We, like many councils, had a dearth of administrative support and paperwork processing was often late, incomplete, nonexistent, etc. They may simply have sat on a shelf so long, someone said why bother let's wait until next year and when no one came asking about it the practice perpetuated. To me that's a loophole. It might no longer exist, but it did and there are other ways the system is massaged. We've talked about a lot of them on this forum over the past year.

You made off cheap. My neighbor's free fuel enterprise ended with a helicopter ride. He's back to using heating oil now.