yknot

That's only true in about 40% of the cases and in those cases the abusers are predominately male. Additionally, most of those cases are connected to adolescent exploration of sexuality and there is not the same threat/power/victim factors involved. However you bring up a really good point because that is why BSA instituted the two year tent camping rule. Older children can victimize younger children. However, it still certainly occurs among children who are of the same calendar age but have developed and grown differently.

OK I think I get what you are saying. You are talking about some of the research that shows that boys learn better from male teachers? As a parent of two boys I would agree there is something to that. However, there is also research showing that women are far less likely to abuse children and abuse has a tremendously negative effect on ability to learn in both genders. There is also the teacher gene at play. Some people are inherently good at teaching and managing children. Others, despite whatever degrees or training they have, are not. There are also teachers, male or female, who seem to be better at teaching either boys or girls and it doesn't track at all by gender. And I use teacher loosely here -- I mean anyone who takes on the responsibility to interact with children in an extramural role. I think these kinds of studies are worth noting and keeping under the belt, but I think we have to be careful of lasering in too tightly on one consideration because producing decent young human beings is tremendously complex and what works or doesn't work is multifactorial.

To elaborate on this, I learned archery, and many other things, with scouts. That was back in the day when the local troop did archery in the local park. My love for scouting is based on how kind and patient my older neighbors were in letting me tagalong and do what they did.

Careful there. Some of us were tagalongs or grew up in families with scouting dads, brothers, cousins, etc. The full experience? No. Exposure to components and the process and some experiences? Yes.

Boy, Eagle Dad, once again you've stopped me in my tracks. I literally do not know how to take your comments. When you combine the words you just did in a single paragraph, it is inherently sexist. How does quality of growth not implicate sexism when you are talking about natural youth brains? I think you may have misspoke. Or at least I hope you did.

I understand your point to some degree but it doesn't take much browsing on this forum to find comments from posters who take issue with the inclusion of women and later girls to the program. It's also a pretty ubiquitous opinion still expressed sotto voce at the unit through council levels. If the vast majority of complaints about women joining scouting truly were based solely on the challenges that were faced by having to do a lot of remedial training at the time, I wouldn't expect to still hear and read so many negatives today. Maybe this would be a good discussion thread. At some point I'll review some of the comments I've noted on the topic and repost them and maybe a better understanding could be reached by all. I do believe that a majority of men in scouting today, especially the ones of my generation and younger (with one personal exception who unfortunately is our Unit Commissioner) are gender blind when it comes to ability and skills. When you've got a job to do all you care about is who can help you do the job. I can't seem to figure out how to requote your quote on the other part of my post but I will figure that out and respond to your equally thoughtful comments there.

There can be no doubt that BSA refusal to include homosexuals or girls until forced to do so due to social and financial pressure has had an impact on membership. It might not have affected it in terms of scouts immediately withdrawing, but it has definitely had an impact on recruitment and image. Its recalcitrance definitely cost BSA financial support from such high profile donors as the United Way to Levi Strauss. Why would that happen if not a reflection of increasingly negative public opinion? In the nearly 20 years I've been involved in scouting, I've seen schools gradually cut involvement due to BSA's perceived discriminatory policies, had recruitment signs stolen and defaced, been honked and yelled at while setting them out, and have had scouts who wore their uniforms to school ridiculed to the point where parents refused to participate in uniform spirit days. Those are all anecdotal points, I admit, but times are different and BSA's actions, as well as the abuse scandal, have materially changed how we are viewed. I'm not exactly clear on what is being argued here but if there is any doubt about that being the case, it's hard to understand how that could be a realistic viewpoint. BSA's traditional image has perhaps been fatally damaged. The only way to survive may be to completely redesign and reposition it. I don't say that because I dismiss the impact that traditional scouting has had on many lives. To the contrary, I say that because I recognize the positive impacts and support many aspects of scouting. I would rather adapt and have some version of it survive rather than cling stubbornly to the past and see it serve fewer and fewer youth and ultimately die. It also seems unrealistic not to understand that the piggy bank is broken and the pieces are never going to go back together the same way. Whatever entity that comes out of the bankruptcy case is going to be vastly different than what is still operating now. I can appreciate the history that is often presented here of how the program has been subject to changes and the skepticism that long time scouters have developed. However, the difference is that, whether those changes were good or bad, they have cumulatively resulted in our being where we are now: possibly on the verge of becoming extinct. Many parts of our future are largely out of BSA control. The upcoming bankruptcy trial will also likely result in another wave of truly bad publicity. Most of the parents in my unit are only dimly aware that BSA has declared bankruptcy and are being reassured by council and district missives that if they will only help pay their share via the new council fee, scouting will remain strong and be better than ever! No problems here!... Within a year or two, though, a generation of Americans are going to read about the BSA having to pay out millions if not billions to abuse victims; they are likely going to read about the sale of summer camps and possibly high profile legacy HA properties; in a worst case scenario, they may also read about their local churches and community organizations being sued because of "us"; even worse, although far fewer, despite all the measures, a handful of scouting child abuse cases are still occurring in real time and being reported upon. We can't expect to present ourselves as anything at all like the "old" BSA under such a scenario. It might not be as dire as I've projected here, but no matter what it is not going to be a good look. To a limited degree, going back in time -- truly back in time, not the 1970s -- could be part of the answer. BSA's relentless corporatization of scouts, with its focus on marketing, has driven the organization away from its roots. In the early handbooks, scouting was much more outdoors and action based, not deliberately controversial in a social sense, with minimal focus on advancement, costly uniform bling, and religion. One of the big problems with scouting is that is has suffered from perhaps well intentioned but certainly poor management over decades and this has negatively affected aspects of the program both big and small. I've listed most of these things continually in various posts, but to consolidate, here are some things I think would change it for the better or help it survive. I don't have a clue whether they are specific enough or wildly offensive or at all helpful or insightful. I am throwing them out based on my experiences with multiple youth organizations, nearly 20 years in scouting in almost every unit role there is as well as with some district and council experience, and as a parent of two sons who have been scouts for the purpose of rational discussion. I hope that those who disagree will do so civilly and not result to another round of belittling comments: - Restructure the organization. National's silo based, top down organizational structure is dysfunctional and is inherently not built to support the end customer -- scouts, units, and COs. Like other organizations, BSA needs to not only recruit managerial talent from within but from without in order to update its practices and perceptions. Throughout its history BSA has been insular to the point where there is a large degree of organizational arrogance. This has resulted in top management that has been inexplicably blind to pit falls that other organizations, including other youth organizations, routinely avoid. Some PR blunders have been self inflicted. These problems have affected recruitment. - Any restructuring needs to include the CO model, which is also dysfunctional. Part of the reason why BSA was so vulnerable to predators was because of the unclear chain of responsibility between COs and BSA. BSAs expected COs to "own" their unit but without a functional oversight mechanism to ensure that they indeed were doing so, responsibility gaps were created. Some COs assumed complete control to the point where they became territorial fiefdoms or extensions of the CO and did scouting "their" way and created a program within a program. LDS units are one large example. Other COs wanted nothing to do with ownership other than offering space and benign support. BSA also had no effective mechanism to monitor these "absentee" COs who were not paying attention to what was going on in a unit. Being marketing and membership driven, BSA, through Councils and Districts, have always been reluctant to push back in any way on COs that could result in a loss of units or membership. One of the other problems this dysfunctional model has created is wildly different experiences by unit across the scouting universe. BSA has described scouting and the CO model as a quasi franchise arrangement. However, there is little to no enforcement of franchise expectations. If you walk into a McDonald's it shouldn't feel like a Wendy's. Conversely, in a truly national organization, if you join a Troop in Maine it should function basically the same as a Troop in New Mexico. In most other youth organizations that don't have to deal with such a muddled structure, that's largely true -- but not in scouts. This Forum is Exhibit A on how different we all are. This is something that confounds many prospective families. - A broadly functional IT platform that would streamline and standardize administrative functions and volunteer roles as well as facilitate collaboration across units, districts, and even councils. The BSA structure has developed around too much redundant and unnecessary bureaucracy, positions, and volunteer roles. Common sense efficiencies, like national group purchasing programs that could save money for camps who wanted to utilize such a service, have never been developed despite BSA becoming a fairly large corporate entity. We've had to endure all the negatives of being part of a corporation without any of the benefits. The pool of volunteers is declining. We need to make the roles easier, not harder. This could also help make scouting more portable. Rather than being so completely attached to specific units, it could be easier for scouts to temporarily hook up with units for a high adventure trip or an advancement opportunity. - Develop social media platforms that can be used as public relations/information, recruitment, training tools. - Cost efficiency is also one of our current challenges. At a time when other youth organizations provided refunds or discounts, BSA has actually increased fees. An IT platform could also offer central purchasing options. Scout gear, uniforms, bling, also need to be streamlined with a focus on function and reasonable cost. What we have now is market driven rather than function driven. Every uniform change or enhancement is meant to raise more money for BSA and yet the traditionalists buy it. Scouting has to find ways to become more cost efficient to appeal to more families. - Reposition ourselves as the nation's premiere outdoors resource for scouts. We missed a huge opportunity this summer to offer home based outdoor programming opportunities to the nation's youth during Covid. Some Councils/Districts/Units did a great job, but it was localized and focused on kids already in scouting, not prospective scouts. Nothing driven by National. Incorporate more outdoors skills into the main program. Too much outdoors curriculum has been outsourced to Merit badges. Every scout should learn more about things like tracking, birding, fishing, canoeing, endangered species, adverse weather, wildlife encounters and dangers, etc. Some of this exists but it is very topical. Develop partnerships with other outdoors related organizations to provide content and add interest. I tried to develop a local relationship between the Sierra Club and our Pack's Wolf Dens. Most young kids love animals and so do their parents. Why don't we capitalize on that within the various ranks? There are so many useful conservation lessons that are lost. The outdoors, unlike religion and social issues, is almost universally appealing and without controversy with Millennial and Gen X and soon Gen Z parents as long as you don't get into Climate Change. We could better align with the Parks Service, Outdoors Outfitters, Conservation Organizations of all types like Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Audubon, etc., etc. There are so many possibilities out there.The reality is even amongst our most experienced outdoors leaders the curriculum is really limited. Also jettison JTE, which is pointless and toothless, and instead require a minimal number of outdoor activities to be held in order to recharter or else be put on provisional status. And why are there so few COs who are conservation centers? - De emphasize advancement and the push to Eagle. In its most traditional sense, scouting is supposed to be fun -- a game with a purpose. Yet too many units don't do anything that isn't linked to advancement. For example, my son's Troop repeats the same hiking loops every year because they dovetail perfectly with the hiking merit badge and hiking requirements in the program. We live in an area where there are literally hundreds of cool places to hike, but there's no time to explore them because everyone is pushing for Eagle and needs to do the hikes that fit into the formula. Where is the sense of fun and adventure? Don't get me wrong, they still have fun, but this isn't the highest experience that scouting can offer them. - De emphasize religion. It's too much and just gets us into trouble. No one should be using scouting as an extension of their Sunday school or Hebrew school or whatever. BSA should never have allowed LDS to create a program within a program. The scouting program should be available to all who are interested, but since a scout is courteous and kind it should never have allowed itself to be used by organizations who wanted to exclude people. - Find new ways to provide training. Whether traditionalists like it or not it's clear that Millennial, Gen X and soon Gen Z adults are less interested in investing endless hours in training, volunteering or spending time away from their kids and families even though it is needed more than ever. I read one post on this thread recapping some proposed training scheme and my first thought was that none of the parents in my unit would ever do this. We'll have to innovate ways to build skills. Campouts may need to become family affairs where parents are still with their kids and also possibly getting some chunks of training themselves. - If District Executive positions survive post bankruptcy this needs to become more of a unit support and resource role than a fund raising one. This position may need to make up for training gaps among unit volunteers and be a source of expertise for outdoor activities. - Leadership. I think we need to give up on positioning BSA as a Civic Leadership experience. I personally think we no longer do a good job with it. From the general public perspective, our organization is not well led. Leadership approaches that worked 50 years ago are different today. Scouts is very top down and militaristic in its approach but leadership models are becoming much more collaborative and organic. Kids today are much more individualistic and their parents encourage that. The Patrol method works, but it needs some updating. Kids are not coming to scouts with some of the conflict resolution skills they had 50 years ago and it is a problem whether you are trying to develop peer to peer leadership or older scouts leading younger scouts. There needs to be some stepped path to leadership because throwing a bunch of kids into a group and expecting them to be able to sort it out and emerge as leaders is becoming more problematic. Many schools no longer have students work in group projects because of this. - Consider advancement tracking. Families today increasingly want experiences that are specific to their needs. Many other youth organizations have adopted this. By this I mean STEM Emphasis Eagle track, Outdoors Emphasis Eagle track, Citizenship Emphasis Eagle track. Have a common core but let kids specialize based on their interests. What I want for scouts is to survive in some fashion. I want it to be relevant for more families. I want it to be more outdoors oriented. I want it to have more competent leadership that is more outwards and forwards looking and be more scandal proof. I want the organization as a whole to reorient around the scout and the units. I want to get rid of crippling disconnects and conflicts of purpose between the tiers of National, Council, District, Units and COs who all seem to have different missions and marching plans. What I also want is more research, conducted by an independent source. There is a ton of general research about Millennials and Gen X's and Gen Z's that support what we are seeing across the country with trends regarding all youth organizations, not just scouts, but it would be helpful to have something specific to us.

Where's a moderator when you need one, LOL?

I sense we are not communicating effectively here on some very basic level and you're descending once again into questionable territory with comments that sound more like insults than discussion. I am not insulting you. I am merely disagreeing with you. You somehow interpret that as being offensive. I've given reams of facts and research. I can't help it if you don't want hear what I have to say.

Camping rates are actually slightly down and flat but what has increased exponentially is spending on gear. Exhibit A: Boy's Life. I am a practical person, so if your goal is try to return to some version of scouting from 1970 or 1990 or even 2010, I personally don't think there is much point in discussing that much because it won't happen. Thinking we know best what people need vs. what they want is by definition bound for failure. History is always good for context but there is a reason why buggy whip manufacturers went out of business after the Model T. I have advocated in multiple places for BSA to reposition itself as the premiere outdoors resource for the nation's youth. It's something we've moved away from while increasing emphasis on advancement and religion and adding an awful lot of things that feel more like school homework than the game with a purpose. We can stick with the past and serve an increasingly small number of kids -- which to me is the iceberg -- or we can try and figure out a way to reinvent scouting to be more relevant to current families and what they want, because what they want is what they will do. With all due respect, I'm not trying to be negative or freak anyone out, I just firmly believe that this is the reality that we need to wrap our minds around. As the very thoughtful ParkMan said, try to do it while still preserving some of the most essential pieces. I think that's where folks with decades of experience could offer some helpful advice but it's hard to parse anything useful out when the comments are so outraged and reactionary.

It's called disagreeing, not bias. I am disagreeing with you.

I absolutely agree. And if I'm wrong, please correct me, but it seems like the answers that keep being delivered up on this site are connected to returning to or at least harkening back to practices from decades ago. I've been on this forum for years and have yet to see many threads truly examine what modern families and scouters need or want. Every time the topics come up, people freak out. I've read some of the long posts on this particular thread about training and traditional organizational structure and I feel like it is so disconnected from what modern day families are interested in or willing to spend their time on. I realize we're often weaving in two discussions -- how to deal with the bankruptcy with how to survive post bankruptcy -- and if I've confused that I apologize.

Look, the stuff you and some others are talking about from 30, 40, 50 years ago is just not terribly relevant today. The comments you process as negative really are not. Scouting is the Titanic and some people like me for years have been shouting iceberg dead ahead. Maybe try listening instead of getting perpetually offended?

I feel that to some degree we are discussing things that are wishful thinking and not reality. Yes, it would be helpful if some higher power swooped in and absolved BSA of responsibility for questionable or unprovable claims from 60 years ago. However, in the current environment where we literally have states and some national voices considering how to assess reparations for events that happened 200 to 400 years ago, I would not hold my breath over expecting anyone on the federal level to get involved in reducing statutes of limitations. Or, in legislating some good will measure that exonerates a group like BSA because it performs some beneficial role in society. As I also outlined earlier, we really can't claim to perform an essential service for the nation's youth. We serve a diminishingly small slice of it and have had to deal with some explosive social issues while doing so and are now facing a raft of bad publicity with the bankruptcy case. I can't picture the champion for that fight so I'm not sure what we are really trying to hash out here. Should the BSA shoulder its responsibility to victims? Yes. Is it fair for the current scouting community to shoulder that burden? No. Will it likely happen anyway? I fear that, yes, it will.

Your comment raises an interesting question. Any work I've ever done for federal or state government has had to meet all sorts of standards for non discrimination. Even though it's pretty much unlikely, If Congress were to actually examine the charter, how would BSA fair? Until recently, the organization has not exactly been welcoming to large and politically important categories of the nation's youth. And while girls are now allowed, they are still segregated into separate dens/troops,. There is also the problem of church involvement and the fact that atheists are not welcome. There have been a few recent reports about historic churches having trouble with National Historic Trust applications because they are churches, and the HT is another Congressional Charter so you can kind of see where the pendulum is swinging. Instead of Congress helping BSA, I'm wondering in today's environment if we should instead be worried about them possibly revoking it?

The old animal trainer I worked for trained the MGM lions and he taught them to snarl and roar on cue. Here's a fun commercial with the Mercury kitty.

I remember that cat. I would have loved to have met him. He had a fabulous snarl.

Congress will only do something if it is connected with votes or hot button issues but the numbers just aren't there for us. We're too small, on the politically wrong side of most issues and have no common core. A couple decades ago you might have been able to rely on support from a conservative Christian voting bloc but today the religious aspects of scouting are too fragmented and miniscule. LDS has pulled out. Catholics oppose LGBTQ issues. Methodists endorse LGBTQ issue, etc., etc. Congressional leaders will never step into that. This past decade, BSA should have been burnishing a less controversial linkage to being the premiere outdoor resource for the nation's youth, but too many entrenched interests have kept us stuck in the mud. That would have crossed religious, social and political lines. I keep hoping they'll wake up and stake out that territory but no movement so far.

Momma was not happy lol. Back in the days when parents were less concerned about childhood death and dismemberment, I worked for a guy who had exotic animals for the movies, including big cats. I definitely learned some interesting things that are not in G2SS.

Refreshing and much appreciated.

The guy was right to stare the cat in the face and back up. You should never turn and run. You should never break eye contact. You should never bend down and make yourself smaller unless you've really got some distance. Once they've decided you are a target you have the unfortunate task of trying to both de-escalate the situation while at the same time also convincing them you are too big, bad and tough to tangle with. What he should have done was put the phone away. He was obviously aiming the camera at that supremely ticked off cat -- otherwise we wouldn't have had the great footage, which I am thankful for from an instructional standpoint, but critical of from a survival standpoint. Both hands should have been wide and high over his head. If he had put the phone away, he also would have had plenty of opportunity to grab and shake any branches at arm height while walking backwards. No animal likes that because they don't know whether that's you doing it or another large predator that they now also have to contend with. It's good to use a calming, conversational voice while the animal is thinking and deciding whether you are a threat. Once it is actively pursuing or charging, however, you need to be louder and more forceful than this guy. Last comment: This video did not include this information but one of the original news reports noted that he saw the cat's kittens crossing the trail and stopped to take some video. So the last bit of advice is if you see any kind of wild young, don't stop to take pictures because they are cute but leave or else Momma may get upset as she did in this incident and she will not be cute. People today seem to think wild animals are stuffed animals and are there to enhance their selfies.

I don't think enthusiasm is the issue. I think the issue is that fully entrenched scouters perhaps are not as cognizant of how the child abuse scandals have affected the way the general public views scouting and has created a perception that we are out of touch. I have literally sat through that song at least a dozen times. Maybe it's just our Council but those darn WB'ers bust it out at holiday meetings and COHs and Roundtables. I actually don't mind the Council events because everyone there is used to it. I don't like it at the unit level because many of our families have this image of scouters as being impressive LEOs or Corporate Execs or Vets but when they start singing that song, it's as if they've suddenly sprouted mouse ears.

Hurt? I'm flat out annoyed. Our current situation establishes just how unreliable and arbitrary internal BSA research and data is, because it's usually self validating and self congratulating. Who cares what BSA thought in the 1970s? Over decades, it has routinely manipulated data to reinforce already presumed positions and initiatives and that has resulted in one of the most poorly managed nonprofits in existence. Does anyone seriously think more girl dads are somehow bad for the future of scouting? Why would that even be relevant when you are looking at upcoming generational cohorts that, until Covid, almost never went outdoors in any substantive sense? I can't see the logic -- it's not like the apparently less desirable girl dads will somehow be replacing more desirable boy dads because the reality is there just aren't a lot of dads of any progeny type out there who are interested in scouting for their kids. That's the problem that needs focus and has to be fixed. I'm annoyed, because attitudes like yours misdirect attention and try to scapegoat more rallying emotional targets, like girls and women in scouting, over more reality based ones. It prevents us from addressing root reasons why fewer kids and families choose scouting today.

Wow. I don't think the problem is girls or girl parents at all. The problem is that not enough kids are interested in the program to begin with and that not enough people of any kind are growing up with meaningful outdoor experience and common sense. The leader pool with those skills is shrinking. Franky, I'm a little insulted by this attitude. I'm a girl, and I know at least as much and to be honest probably quite a bit more about outdoor skills than any "boy" in my Troop. But your opinion explains a lot.

It was about a 10 to 15 minute ceremony -- not bad and that part was all fine. There were a bunch of WB people in attendance however from our local troops as well as guests of the person who had earned his wood badge and they all got up to sing the song that talks about what animal they are. I didn't want to say this in my original post because it is harsh but that song does not play well in this day and age with some folks. It makes scouters seem very odd to some and reinforces the perception that some have that there are some very odd, out of the mainstream folks involved in scouting. If it had been one or two people I think it would have been fine but the new parents' reactions were that there didn't seem to be one normal adult in the troop that they would trust around their kid -- the ones who were singing it and the rest of the folks who seemed to think it was a normal thing to do.