yknot

When I was a kid I was fascinated by Indians. I loved Westerns. I spent hours looking for arrowheads. I wanted a Mustang. I completely get the sense of wonder and nostalgia and tradition. However, I think it's past time to let things like this go. Kids today are not much interested in it and few parents today are going to look at that aspect of BSA and think, gee, that's what I want my kid to be doing. Most that I know find it cringe worthy. We've had a drop off of interest in OA partly because of it.

We surely do disagree. I think there are a lot of people who have underestimated the inherent risks of group activities during a pandemic. They underestimated those risks all late spring and summer and now instead of the country heading into fall with the pandemic largely quelled it is as bad now as it's ever been. Underestimating the pandemic has only prolonged its negative effects. That's what's making it hard to re-open schools, not closed summer camps. I live in one of the few areas of the country where schools can probably safely reopen in a couple weeks, but that's only because we didn't underestimate risks of exposure and transmission.

It's possible but is likely very problematic. Organizations that mess up and declare bankruptcy can still get insurance, but it's generally expensive and comes with lots of strings and BSA's fall has been so public. But anything local not under at least that wide national umbrella still trying to affiliate with scouts might not be able to afford or get any kind of insurance at all. The local solution you cite depends on an individual being willing to assume all that risk personally. This is all open water.

No one is debating the potential interest of Summit as a scout destination. The problem is accessibility. As you stated, it worked out for your unit. Mine would also probably have no problem finding the funds if they wanted to attend. The issue is when units do not have the level of support your unit or mine enjoys. Or when units run by working parent volunteers can't consider a camp more than a hour away so that they can trade days off and still get back home to get to work. I believe likely that describes a big part of the country, especially during and, hopefully, post Covid.

In other posts you have pointedly suggested that councils should close under performing local camps and funnel scouts to Summit. My Council will be fine, thank you. It is thankfully fairly well run despite the usual National on down nonsense, and the camps are well supported although of course always in need of something. What I'm worried about, however, are kids outside my regions.

There's no doubt that Summit attempted to do the best it could and in fact, based on reports so far, exceeds what local school districts have been able to accomplish. However, that still doesn't address whether it should have been done at all. From my view of scout law, it has been a foolhardy risk. The ecumenical churches I am involved with are not meeting in person because it is counter to their imperative to do no harm. Could we be meeting? Yes. Is it likely we would be safe? Yes. Should we do it? We all decided no.

I am not so sure that it will become that de-centralized because of liability insurance. Anything that runs under a surviving BSA banner will need to closely follow policies and procedures in line with what insurers require, and those requirements are almost certain to become more stringent post bankruptcy. There are a lot of folks on this forum who believe scouting is a movement that requires only a handbook, volunteers, and scouts, but you would still need to be incorporated in some way and carry insurance. Outside of very affluent areas that's a tall order. In the units I'm familiar with in my area, they can meet for a hike in any park on an ad hoc basis like any other citizen, but if you want to rent a campground or reserve a pavilion or do fundraising in front of a store, you've got to have a COI. Someone could also do some of that individually, but then if something happens you are personally liable and your assets are at risk.

This is just absolutely the opposite of what scouting is supposed to be about. I am terrifically glad that the summer at Summit has so far continued apace without incident, but it was a foolhardy and ridiculous risk to import youth from all over into West Virginia and local folks were and are understandably upset. I've got family in the area so I know this is not at all as bucolic a situation as is presented here. Furthermore, it's appalling that certain people keep pushing the idea that it is acceptable that local and regional camps will fold and that Summit should become the fall back. That might get us through a few years but it is not a long term solution. Scouting must be local. The scenario you are outlining is a parallel to the elite travel sports teams that many on this forum mock and who have the money to travel to exotic locations like Disney or Europe. There are some favored urban areas where moneyed interests are available to make such things happen for disadvantaged youth, but in the full breadth of America, this is not the fortunate case for most scouts.

This is so disheartening. There was a Washington Post piece the other day about the Portland protesters that was illustrated like a fashion photo shoot with all these protesters vamping for the camera in their cool grunge SJW outfits. It made them look like some new kind of super heroes. Awful. How I wish they would do the same kind of feature of scouts in their uniforms -- class A or class B -- out doing community service work. Instead we glorify these misguided youth who think it's OK to barricade a building and set fire to it with people inside.

I agree about the self motivated part to certain degree. However, I have also seen scouts and units get stuck in a rut, doing the same thing year after year. Service projects for the same community organization simply because it's easy, regardless of whether or not they really need more aid; camping at the same campgrounds just because they are part of the known universe and not because anyone thinks they are particularly fun. I think adults have an obligation to help scouts brainstorm and think outside the box. That doesn't mean doing research for them, but it does mean making sure they realize all that's possible, even if it's just asking the simple question, "Have you ever thought of...?" And during this situation with Covid, where there are restrictions or opportunities that youth may not even comprehend, I think some adult input might be helpful. No one has ever lived through this before.

That link reminds me that I come to this discussion from a different place than those who have only experienced the uniform method through scouting. When I was a kid, I participated in a youth sports related organization with military roots that performed formal uniform inspections of the candidate whether for advancement or competition. White glove, fingernail scratch, see your face in the shine type inspections.The formal inspection at heart was a safety inspection, but you were expected to present yourself with military precision. There was purpose to that because the sport was inherently dangerous and required attention to detail to manage risks and prevent injury. Almost every component of the uniform,and associated equipment, while looking neat, was a function of safety or minimizing risk. There was no marketing behind it because the organization did not sell the uniform it only set standards regarding function. As a result, the uniform was both functional and economical. I was not a rich kid but I was easily able to meet this standard. As an older youth member and then later as an adult, I became an advancement examiner and competition official. I conducted many of these inspections as part of my duty to assess whether youth were safe to advance to a higher level of training and competition. Because of the reasons outlined above I never had an issue with those uniform requirements because they made sense, were functional, and were never a barrier for youth. When I started with scouting, however, I saw uniforms used in a different way-- almost as a tool for punishment. I could not understand this. In the other organization, it made sense to me if youth were prevented from participating if they lacked an essential safety item. In scouts, it did not make sense to me if scouts were prevented from participating if they wore the wrong color shirt.. It had nothing to do with function. It also made no sense that uniform components had to be discarded, not because they were unsafe or worn out, but because they were the wrong ... color? The uniform in the early guidebooks makes the most sense to me because it is based on function and not marketing. All the language associated with uniforming in the early guidebooks is connected to function. In my opinion, if scouting survives bankruptcy, we need to revise this.

We are indeed discussing personal ideals. You just disagree with them so you prefer to denigrate them rather than discuss. My definition of weak leadership is someone who is more concerned about uniform inspections than whether scouts are, say, camping. I've been in that kind of unit, so that's why I hold that opinion. To me a perfect uniform is aspirational, not something that becomes a barrier that prevents youth from participating.

I'm not sure what we're discussing here, or what the point is. A priest can deliver sacraments without a collar. A doctor can save lives without a lab coat. A scout can be a scout without a uniform. We are not a military organization. A uniform is nice but not required. Is the uniform an extension of your own ego as far as how you believe scouts should appear or behave? Does that have any place in scouting? I'm on board with the idea that it is a tool to encourage personal presentation skills and pride in membership. Beyond that, if it gets in the way of delivering program or scouts accessing program, I'm not on board.

Uniforms are a tool to engage scouts in the program. They are important. They are not the program though. Latin Scot, the last word in your commentary was "change". We are all facing this because we all have to adapt to new times. The current uniforming scheme in scouting is not thrifty. It's the by product of a marketing philosophy meant to sell more uniform components and accoutrements to a captive market--us. Somewhere, at some point before the 2018 change requiring Webelos to wear a tan shirt, some number person at national realized BSA could sell more shirts if they made that change. In this time of Covid, I don't think anyone should be worried about a Webelos scout showing up in a blue shirt. In my opinion.

I don't know what to say to your post other than scout uniforms are worn on the inside and not the outside. Uniforms can be a useful tool like many others, I will not disagree, but it's hardly the cornerstone that the scouting program turns upon. There is so much else to worry about right now this should not be one of them.

I know there are some people who put a premium on having perfectly turned out scouts. In the current environment, though, I would say the focus needs to be on thrift. value, and safety. Thrift -- We should not be asking families to spend a single cent that isn't related to delivering an engaging program. Value -- BSA , Councils, and Units are raising fees at a time when other youth activities have refunded fees because activities have been cancelled or limited to online only and/or are offering discounts. We should be reducing the need for uniform idiosyncrasies and be more cognizant of the need to deliver value. Safety -- Most clothing collection missions near me have been suspended both to cut down on interpersonal contact that is not essential as well as due to the fact that people do not want to bring unnecessary items into their home. It's hard enough to have to have to sanitize groceries with scarce disinfecting products. I would not participate in any kind of hand me down/uniform exchange/thrift shop visits just to try to put together a cheap or free uniform for scouts.

A local report seemed to indicate it was a YMCA camp but I don't think that's going to matter much as most of the state regs I've seen talk about day camps vs. sleepover camps They don't put much of a fine point on any of it beyond that. The parts that give me pause are the asymptomatic infection rate and the age ranges. This is some useful data because one of problems with youth infection rates is that relatively few in these age ranges have been tested vs. adults.

I'm not so sure, because the lens of the country is on whatever we do in scouting. I have no connection to OA. My kids weren't in it, so I am speaking as an outsider so take that into consideration. But in a way I think that gives me some legitimacy to comment. I want to see scouting survive. This is one of the things, though, that I think is not well received in the wider world and is it really worth dying on that hill. Even with the endorsement of a local tribe, it is simply not something that plays well. Fifteen years ago when we had dancers come to one of my son's first pack meetings as a Tiger, I cringed as did many parents. Is poncing about in outdated regalia really that important? Are the important qualities of OA really that invested in what you are wearing and not what you are doing? Do you really need that to be OA?

I have to second Eagle 94. Doesn't matter if parents are there, if it's a scout trip -- meaning the troop is in any way involved with this event happening -- you have to follow BSA guidelines. I think the only way to get around it would be to switch it to a two person canoe or kayak trip and then if I recall you can pair a nonswimmer -- meaning non tested -- with someone who has passed the BSA swim test. Someone here will correct me if I'm wrong on that. Interestingly, on another thread we've just had a long discussion about where and under what conditions the BSA swimmer test can be administered.

What I hope these discussions do is just keep kids safer. From this discussion you can see that you can insist tests only be conducted in an Olympic sized 50 meter pool and believe that is the highest safety standard. On the other hand, just because a scout can swim 100 meters in flat, temperature controlled water doesn't at all mean he or she will be safe on your canoe trip in river currents or at Sea Base in ocean water with riptides or at some northern camp where the water temps are frigid until August. I knew a child who drowned in a water bucket, so I don't think the size of the water body is really that relevant when assessing water safety. There is a lot of practical commonsense stuff that the BSA swimmer test leaves out . For example, jump into 7 feet of water? Sure, if you're at the country club pool. If you're swimming in a farm pond or a river, that would be stupid. I don't really have answers here I just hope we'll do our best to make sure kids aren't prevented from doing stuff just because they don't have access to a country club pool and yet whoever is assessing them will remember the commonsense aspects of trying to figure out if they will be safe.

This reminds me of some of the issues we've had with swim tests and swimming. We had a bunch fail one year because the camp pool water was cold. Some of them couldn't breathe after they jumped in, even after a rest and a second try. They were retested when they got to camp when the water warmed up some and passed. Since some of the kids who initially failed were competitive swimmers, we had a lot of parent noise and verbal threats of a lawsuit. Fun times.

It seems what you're saying is that aside from a very small backyard pool of 20 feet or less, which is very, very small (there are above ground pools bigger than that in my neighborhood), backyard pools are allowed as swim test facilities under the source you cite? Personally, I want kids to be safe in water. Stringent requirements are good. My only points are that 1) if it isn't in the requirement, we can't add it, and 2) access to ideal facilities shouldn't limit a scout's ability to meet requirements.

That's exactly how I've seen tests done in our area. The rental or camp pool sizes are generally 25 yards although at times the test has also been conducted in other facilities of different sizes. The size of the pool or the number of turns required has never been raised as an issue, it's always been the total yardage and that no matter where the test is conducted that the scout doesn't "cheat" as you delineated.

I think we just get myopic sometimes on how we think things should be done vs. what is required. If we want to recruit and advance scouts, we can't let affluence or location dictate who gets to do or achieve what. You've got to work with what you have. It's not realistic for some units to be able to afford to rent out an Olympic sized pool facility in order to administer the swim test. If you can afford that, great. If you can't, it's probably far easier to find someone with a workable backyard pool. As more and more Council camp properties with swim facilities disappear, this is also going to get harder. If this involved circumventing some aspect of the requirement, I could see holding the line. However, as written I don't see where it does.

Water body size is not stated anywhere in those requirements. Requiring scouts to swim 100 or even 75 yards in a straight shot would be a barrier for an awful lot of scouts who don't have access to large facilities or large bodies of water. If, as you state, the purpose of the test is to assess stamina, then that can only truly be assessed in open water conditions, because that's the only situation in which that kind of stamina for rescue or survival would be required. A pool test, in flat, temperature controlled static water, would be useless. Otherwise, any body of water where the scout can fulfill the yardage requirements while also initially jumping into water over their heads meets the requirement. If you apply other restrictions then you are adding to the requirement, which is not allowed. To compare, there are other requirements with such stipulations as "run a mile." It does not say run a mile on a regulation track or on a professionally marked course, so why would someone assume that a regulation pool is also required. Some of these things I assume are left open by design. Otherwise only affluent scouts or scouts who live in areas with certain facilities would be able to meet the requirements. That's not the purpose of the requirement or the badge.