yknot

3 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

To save the polar bears, we need to restore their habitat - the sea ice. They are dependent on the sea ice for hunting their food - no sea ice, no polar bear food. Many other arctic animals are struggling to adjust, but none as hard as the polar bear because restoring that ice is... Challenging. I won't spell it out but we all know the only way to make more ice.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146023/polar-bears-struggle-as-sea-ice-declines

I'll also note there are only an estimated 450 Arctic foxes left, meaning that there are way more pieces of outdoor clothing and gear with logos of arctic foxes than actual arctic foxes. But there are more things we can do to help them with the increased encroachment from the red fox into their habitats at least.

https://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/artiklar/lar-dig-mer-om-fjallraven/

I think the arctic fox numbers you cite are for parts of Scandinavia where they are doing poorly. Elsewhere they are doing OK. My oldest son went to Svalbard on spring break hoping to see polar bear among other things, which supposedly outnumber the human population there, and saw not a one although conditions were not optimal -- near whiteout most of the time. 

When I'm discussing this issue I prefer to frame it as habitat loss. Climate change can be endlessly debatable. What is a much more concrete and obvious threat is that with 8 billion of us on the planet and at least three billion more to come before things supposedly level out, we are not facing a survivable future without behavioral changes. Even if climate change didn't exist, our destruction of livable habitat around the globe is turning many species into token fringe survival groups. People crow success when there are 30,000 of a species that used to number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. At those population levels, they are already functionally extinct. It doesn't take debatable climate change to destroy them; one bad weather event can wipe them out. Surely we can be more thoughtful than this. 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

One could argue that reducing CO2 is very much in line with leave no trace and the outdoor code. 

Kind of how I see it. Maintaining a livable planet isn't political it's survival. 

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Yep.  And I strongly suspect the first officials notified were either the principal or the psychologist.  The teacher would have been in big trouble if a police car showed up at school without the administration knowing first. 

Who knows if the teacher had that challenge or not, the point is that her horror led her to report it immediately and she got results. My aunt was attached to the court system, not a district employee. It's a relevant contrast to the 1935 article detailing BSA's already long history dating back to the 1920s with moral perversion and degenerate behavior in scouting. I don't understand the prevalence nor the persistence in perpetuating the idea that BSA was simply dealt a wrong hand by the rest of the world and not a victim of its own actions. It met a moral challenge of its times and fell short, decade after decade. This kind of perspective allows organizational moral failings to continue at a time when I really wish it could overcome them and move on. 

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

That is an overly simplistic statement.  

About what?  Child Abuse in 1970s was about Battered Child Syndrome; CSA was not the focus until 1990s.  Teachers were looking for bruises and physical signs of abuse.  

To whom?  School administration is a government entity hired and paid for by the tax payer.  

Half the states.  

In my school district in the 1970s a teacher reported a suspected case of sexual abuse by a parent. My aunt was the child psychologist involved with the court system and delivered expert testimony in the case. People were plenty aware of CSA well, well before that. BSA certainly was --  it kept "red" files as far back as the 1920s where it documented moral perversion and degenerate cases in it's "red" files, as James West detailed in a 1935 New York Times article which you can easily google. 

17 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Serious question, can you show me the source where you got that?

I ask because the research I've done showed that the first mandatory reporter laws were for physicians only, and started in late 1960s. CA was the first state to enact these laws, and gradually they expanded who was a mandatory reporter, and the idea spread to other states. The next group was nurses, then other healthcare providers. Teachers started to be come mandatory reports in the late 1970s/early 1980s (again CA started it if memory serves) and that too expanded to other states over time. Youth group volunteers started in the late 1980s, and some states didn't make youth group volunteers mandatory reporters, with libel and slander protections if the  accusation was false, until the late 1990s/early 2000s.

Here's one retrospective that was written after the Sandusky case:

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3262&context=vlr

This recounts teachers being added to the list in many states by the 1970s. To me what's more relevant than the  state laws -- because BSA was and is a national entity -- is that there was growing awareness of these issues and high profile discussions in youth settings from the 1960s forward, unlike what BSA seems to continually claim. As perhaps the nation's leading youth organization, with it's own long history of abuse incidents dating to the 1920s, it's impossible that its awareness would have been so low, and that it couldn't have looked to these sources as a guide on how to formulate a more proactive response of its own. Many voices in youth settings on state and national levels were pushing for mandatory reporting and greater awareness of these issues throughout many of the decades when BSA stayed mute. 

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

"there are ads all over the internet for some very small system.($100 to 200) "

Even less than that.

"...a foreign exchange student and aspiring actress ...alleges that while staying in a West Virginia home and still a child she was surreptitiously recorded in the bathroom using a camera disguised as a clothes hook, which she says was purchased on Amazon.

The man alleged to have been responsible is facing trial."

Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67652317

Additionally, the victim is suing the seller Amazon and manufacturer "John Doe".  There is some description of the Amazon process towards becoming an Amazon Prime item - Product Safety Team,  Dangerous Goods Team, Amazon Fulfillment Centers,...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvsd.235914/gov.uscourts.wvsd.235914.10.0.pdf

Amazon's failed dismissal attempt.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/west-virginia/wvsdce/3:2023cv00046/235914/24/

There are two similar cases involving scouting within the past year in my area. In one case it was youth. 

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

That was the standard of practice across all organizations I knew.  I'm sure teachers even in the 1990s were told to first talk to the principal before calling authorities to report abuse.

In about half of states, teachers were mandatory reporters by the mid 1970s, so... no.

12 hours ago, Ojoman said:

What bothers me more than National raising their fees are all the councils that are tacking on 'service and insurance' fees. First it was the national charter fee, then a council insurance fee, (the insurance fee I understand because years ago units had to carry their own accident and illness coverage until councils took it over) and then they started with the services fee. I never worked in a council that charged a 'services' fee. We (the professional staff) raised funds through the product sale, the family and community friends of scouting campaign and major gifts or events. In my later years I generally had all my finance goals met by June so I could focus on the summer camping duties. I was generally the only one that consistently did that. To this day I feel that the board and professional staff supported by district volunteers should raise those funds and the units only pay the national fees. My council basically doubles the fee with their surcharges. Not a good thing. A neighboring council only charges a small insurance fee. I could live with that. 

To be honest, scouting has been mismanaged, both organizationally and financially, for decades. Better management could have resulted in better cost efficiencies, but the reality is that scouting has long had an over reliance on volunteers and families paying the way with no real back up plan in place. With membership declining, volunteerism interests shifting, fundraising become more difficult to do in general, and families less willing to contribute to FOS, scouting's old staffing and financial structures no longer work and the only real viable short term plan to survive is to raise fees. The liability insurance market impact and fall out from the bankruptcy has yet to be fully felt from the national down to the CO level and this will likelydrive yet higher fees in years ahead. The only good news I've heard is a rumor that BSA is piloting a new online fundraising platform but trying to run an organization in 2023 off fundraising is still a tough challenge even with better options available. 

2 hours ago, Ojoman said:

Fee increases were built into the settlement along with a projected increase in membership. I suspect that if membership does not grow as projected that the fee increases may be even more. It appears that our council will end the year down in membership. In two months we should have a new Scout Exec and we'll see if that makes a difference. 

That's why I'm certain fees will have to rise -- I can't recall where the settlement plan is but I think we were supposed to see a modest gain of around 1.2 million by now. There was a modest national annual fee increase attached to that plan so if the numbers are lower, the projected increase will likely be higher unless another revenue stream has developed. 

6 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

With our Council's new service fee of $80/year, our Council will no longer do FOS at the unit level.  Prior to this, I had my 2 units (a Troop and a Ship) make an annual unit contribution to the Council to offset our not participating in Council-organized fundraising.  We will discontinue this annual unit contribution practice as a result of the new fee.  It would be difficult for conduct a unit FOS and charge a service fee, because the FOS solicitation was always presented as a way to pay for the things the service fee now handles. 

Ours said the same thing when it increased council fees but never really actually stopped soliciting for FOS, it just became somewhat more low key about it for awhile. You'll have to see what yours does going forward. It's pretty certain that national fees are going to continue to increase. 

6 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Understand your need. Rain gear.  After all my time, I just don't have a good plan.  I have various rain coats.  Currently REi coats, but an ideal rain coat should cover to mid thigh.  So you can sit down on a log in a torrent, and have your Gluteus Maximus covered. Even better would be a raincoat that allowed you to cover your knees to mid calf when sitting.  And I know of NO company which makes such a garment.

I don't know what you're looking for but there are ranch and riding outfitters that make rain proof dusters that cover your back and near full leg on or off a horse. I think they'd do what you want. I had an old oilcloth Jackaroo duster I wore for 20 years and kept rewaxing. I think you can still find them but I replaced it with a regular raincoat duster. These are a lot lighter and they pack up nicely when not needed. 

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

82,000 is a paperwork number and still an unproven number.  That is the number of claims submitted, but was a surprise number by everyone from all sides.   We will never really know the real number

Since 1960s, BSA has had tens of millions of youth members.  I would not be surprised if 100 million plus.  So, is it a high level or not.  And then compare it to number of youth benefiting from scouting.  

If we argue on emotions, any single injury is bad.  Period. 

If we argue on numbers, then there is a real question if BSA better or worse than other organizations.  

Arguing on the numbers it seems far worse. The next most egregious offender, the US Catholic Church, has had about 10,000 claims.  

3 hours ago, malraux said:

Sorry, I don't check this forum as often. There are some wild variations in numbers between councils, with some being up 30% and others down similarly. Not sure if the official numbers will hit 1mil by year end.

Thank you, Malraux. Interesting, because those numbers include rolling vs. old prorated new fall recruitment numbers that will remain valid even if they have dropped out before the end of the year.  If you think of it, would love to see this chart again in January or February to see where everything lands. 

1 hour ago, Ojoman said:

I think we can all agree that the BSA at every level needs to be able to pay its bills. That includes year round capital and program expenses including salaries and related costs. District professional staff do have to generate a part of that but there ought to be ample time spent on membership recruitment/retention, unit support and cultivation of district and council level volunteers. In my council in the last half dozen years we have gone from 7,000+ volunteers to less than 1,000. It is insane to think that with that kind of a loss that you can even maintain, let alone grow the program. There are a lot of problems/issues and no EZ or quick fixes. 

There's a difference between competently managing an organization to maintain a healthy balance sheet while still  effectively delivering your product, and propping up institutionalized dysfunction when you can't deliver your product. Our product isn't fundraising. If the results of fundraising in a nonprofit aren't being applied mostly to the product -- the unit level program -- then something is wrong. 

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

I know locally that seems to be how they raise the money to keep the professionals being paid, you focus on the history and the nostalgic thoughts of the BSA.  No mention of current operations, more "Follow Me Boys" than actually what is happening.

Local council has 40%+ of the staff either directly or tangentially involved with fundraising.  The DE's, who are supposed to be building scouting locally, are primarily charged with leading FOS, popcorn sales, camp cards ..... oh and maybe if time building units in the area.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but I think we agree. BSA is largely built around fundraising support, even to the local (council and unit) levels. It is not built around volunteer and unit support.  Even the local fundraising model is failing, but I'm not sure BSA is too focused on fixing it beyond trying to recruit membership. I think they are more concerned with overall survival -- the survival of the national Congressionally chartered entity -- and have priorities elsewhere. If you look at where the bulk of its money has been invested, it is in Summit. 

47 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

This should not be underscored.  BSA spent close to $1B on the Summit when there was no need and no real overall plan to fully utilize.  Well, there was / is a plan, just not a realistic plan.  Look over the original presentations, it is smoke, mirrors, and hope.  They could easily have setup a home for the Jamboree at a much smaller area and at a much lower costs.

Why they keep pouring cash into the vanity project that is the "Summit" baffles me.  Sell the place and walk away.

Personally I think their end game or at least back up plan is that Summit and Philmont are going to be the Disney Land and Disney World of scouting. Scouting will largely become a nostalgic activity at marquee regional destinations with some limited local units as satellites around whatever regional hubs are worth retaining. Easier to manage and monetize. BSA is not built around local scouting and really doesn't show any signs of changing that. 

I don't know that you could have kids under 18 do much of anything that is actually hands on with animals because of liability issues but maybe if there was some kind of certification program that could qualify them or it could become an aspect of the pet care merit badge. I know the VMAT personnel generally have some specialized training in their roles. It's more likely that youth could assist with set up/custodial/close up type tasks. It's also not just small animals, many regions need to identify large animal facilities and a lot of help is required to prepare those more sprawling facilities during a disaster or event. 

Part of the reason packs are down is because during the pandemic other organizations stepped up to the plate with outdoor programming while scouting mostly shut down. Participation has remained high because parents saw that those programs are easier to participate in for a day or a season, cheaper, more focused, and generally led by more knowledgeable people. It also doesn't require fundraising or for parents to pay to volunteer. Scouters habitually gripe about youth sports, but the outdoors used to be scouting's turf and others have moved in very effectively. It's perhaps not as recognized because it's not as organized or monolithic as say Little League or Pop Warner. 

Perhaps @malrauxwill be kind enough to post an updated number for us. I don't remember if they can do a cub breakdown, but I think they can see overall recruitment.

1 hour ago, AltadenaCraig said:

I won't disagree that 5.5 has been too long of an expansion; however, the alternative allows youngsters to be captured by alternative programs (Y-guides, AYSO soccer, etc.), which all have programs for small-fry.  Without a BSA small-fry program, a youngster's life would already be full with alternatives before a BSA program ever gets a chance at him/her.

I think it's a mistake to look at cubs that way. Some things are just different. Nature centers do a far better job with pre-school level programming than scouts ever can, or should. It's far easier for parents to just plunk down a few dollars and show up for a few sessions with the naturalist. Youth sports is similar. Young kids mostly sample -- they'll play soccer in fall, basketball in winter, T ball in spring -- and cubs is not a sampling program. I don't think we so much as lose kids to other activites, I think some activities are better suited to kids at these younger ages. A lot of parents want their 5 and 6 year olds running around the field or the court; they don't want more sitting and paying attention or wearing uncomfortable, expensive uniforms. 

6 hours ago, DannyG said:

I understand. However, AOL is meant to be the culmination of the Cub Scout program. These are the skills they need to complete Cub Scouts and continue Scouts BSA. Really though, as a cub scout grows through the younger ranks, a lot of the skills are repeated and built upon as they grow older. For instance Wolf learns square knot. Bear adds two-half hitches and taut-line hitch. To earn Arrow of Light they have to learn square knot, two-half hitches, taut-line hitch, and bowline. It is the same requirement whether they joined in 2nd grade or 5th grade. The difference is were they able to practice knots over 4 years, or  did they cram them all into the last year? Surely the scout that joined earlier is going to have a wealth more experience. The AOL award is going to mean more to them. Not only in skills, but all the activities and experiences along the way. While the new scout may wonder what the big deal is.  You can't turn back the clock and send a newly joined 5th grader back to Lions. There isn't room in the program to hold them back. So you give them the award for completing AOL "the 5th grade rank" and wish them luck as they grow older. The flipside is to send off all AOLs with no recognition for completing Cub Scouts highest rank. It's just the "5th grade rank".

One of the things to consider is that a 10 year old has a much easier time learning all the knots than a six or seven year old. They aren't cramming anything -- they are simply mostly more capable of it by that age.

3 hours ago, CubHerder said:

I agree that AOL can be a lot of work, and it should be, they are 5th graders. My issue with treating it as a BIG DEAL is that you get the same award if you have been in Cub Scouts for six months or for six years. We have scouts who have attended every meeting, since Lions, for six years. We have other scouts that joined Cub Scouts late in 4th grade (too late to earn Webelos rank), and will most likely earn AOL by March. It is fine that they get the "5th grade rank" which is what the new program seems to imply, but personally I don't think the latter deserve the "Highest Award in Cub Scouting" compared to what the former put in. 

I think it's easy to get way too carried away with awards. While some things in cub scouting may take some perserverence, nothing is hard. It is no more difficult for a 10 year old to earn AOL than it is for a six year old to earn Tiger because it's an age appropriate progression and the skills are easily attainable by the particular age. This seems to be reaching for ways to make certain groups of kids seem more worthy than another. Cubs simply isn't built that way. 

11 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2023/11/06/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-roger-krone-the-bsas-incoming-president-and-ceo/

Eagling, planning, budgeting, having everyone remind you for the rest of your life that you screwed up one meal -- these are the kinds of things adults think are great but are not what kids will think are great. It's also kind of weird that a new leader would come out the starting box making somewhat dated anti sports comments.  Youth sports is not the reason why scouting is in trouble but it seems to be a perennially popular dog whistle for people who like to deflect blame there. There's more to be gained by a positive collaborative attitude with some of the nation's other youth organizations vs. a negative one -- BSA could actually learn some things.  A willingness to communicate directly with the troops, though, would be one major immediate plus. 

Most schools and even COs have adopted a fee structure based on economics so the fee isn't the issue. What I agree with the Girl Scouts on is that the fee structure is odd. The districts I dealt with had a formula that computed fees on three elements: space requested, frequency, and profit/nonprofit status. There was also a fourth 'soft' element which was whether or not the entity involved offered something of use to the district's school children. So a classroom rental had a more minimal rental fee than the gymnasium or auditorium; if you met regularly once or twice a month vs. a one off event there was a frequency discount; and higher fees were charged for profit vs. nonprofit groups. If there was a conflict, student centered organizations were given priority. All organizations were subject to approval by the board of ed. A $30 fee per kid seems ridiculous. As cited above though no matter what condition they leave the room, the district still incurs expenses in allowing them access to the building that must be recouped.