yknot

I read all of the FAQs and still don't follow this logic. It is not unusual for Troops and even Packs to help guest scouts from another troop to join up in some configuration for desired activities that might not be available in the home troop. These arrangements by default can result in an ad hoc leadership role for a guest scout for the duration of the activity. These situations can include provisional camping, hiking miles, leadership opportunities like a Den Chief, etc. BSA does not have a policy expressly excluding girls from any of these opportunities based on gender. The only requirement is that appropriate leadership and YPT are followed on the part of the adults. The FAQs provided above also create and endorse clear opportunities where blended leadership might occur. They reinforce it in fact when they state that blended dens and patrols can operate at Cub and Scout Day Camps. Activities at such camps would naturally include leadership opportunities. The FAQs further reinforce that different gender dens and patrols can meet at the same time/place and engage in joint activities which again would naturally result in opportunities for blended leadership. Nowhere does it state that a scout of either gender couldn't, say, serve as Chaplain's aide for the duration of a joint activity. The precedents have already been set. Unless there is a clear cut policy that says girls and boys may not ever hold leadership positions over the opposite gender -- and BSA would be falling on its own bad PR sword if it ever issued such a statement -- where is the policy that a girl or a boy can't serve in such leadership roles? And as ParkMan said, why does this even matter?

I think the only sensible course is to leave the SPL position in place. You cannot remove a female SPL from a joint position that was previously given to a male SPL until the term runs out. You have to consider the optics on that. More importantly, the impact on the scout. However it happened, pushing the idea now that children are being irreparably harmed by having a female SPL for a few months is a potential PR debacle. I can see her being interviewed on CNN now. You'd have to be pretty process blinded to not see that. Also, I would not be so sure that National would have a cow over a female joint SPL. At some point, BSA is likely going to whip out another survey or press release and say that scouting families overwhelmingly want the option of blended units. I think the Bryan on Scouting post shows where the thinking on that is headed.

You have the right to refuse but that doesn't make it defensible and will only be the cause of the next set of negative headlines for scouting. Imagine if a DL refused a special needs DC or a DC of a different religion. It doesn't fly.

I am not understanding why a female scout can't be a joint SPL? It's a leadership position in linked troops. Assuming all adults follow YPT and youth follow all tenting requirements, there is no violation that I can see. It's discriminatory and not defensible. Can a female scout be a den chief or troop guide for a boy den or patrol? Of course.

The metal slides are a safety hazard because they can fall off and into things. We have been at outings where we have been told by the venue to leave them home or take them off on site for this reason. They are also a continual source of revenue for BSA because many cubs can't seem to hang on to them for more than a few meetings and they are another piece of the cub uniform that unnecessarily drives up expense. It's not thrifty. I'm all in favor of dispensing with them. There's a para cord version my son made and he wears that as a scout if he feels he needs a slide.

No. It's out of control. My son's advancement for a single rank was held up for more than a year for something not even part of the requirement, but scouters who are check box mad can do that. Since we're not rank, merit, or Eagle driven, we kind of ignored it. But in the meantime, he lost whatever enthusiasm he had for scouts and almost quit. Thankfully a new scout master has come on board and he's having a better time.

I think this is where I wonder if it really is over for scouts. I'm aware, given BSA's use of the term "youth" rather than "scout", that there is an expectation that scouters follow YPT whenever and wherever they are involved with youth, scouts or not. However, imagine telling a non scout parent that you cannot take a group of kids to a movie or let your son have them over to your house unless another adult is present because you are involved in scouting. The inference is that you are not to be trusted because you are involved in scouting. I have taken BSA YPT, and similar training through church, sports, a juvenile diversion program I've worked with, and other youth related organizations. I am very cautious about what I do. The training has also made me very cautious about what I allow my kids to do. All good. However, at some point, you have to use common sense. But when common sense puts you outside of BSA policy, that's not a comfortable place to be. And since I'm normally a rule follower -- to the point where people generally don't want me around -- I'm not sure I want to be a volunteer anymore and have to choose between following policy to the letter or letting my kid have a normal social life.

Yes, wash your hands long and often. However, scouters are among the most hand shaking people I know, so cease and desist for the time being. Little is known about this virus. Most recommendations are being extrapolated from data collected in connection with the SARS and MERS corona virus outbreaks. However, this new virus is demonstrating some unique behaviors so prudent caution is advised.

Just at a COH this weekend where everyone, very scout like, shook hands. Please tell your scouts to stop this for now.

I'm in a high cost area so that sounds dirt cheap.

Skeptic, I heartily agree. Just had someone contact me to day to buy bluebird boxes from scouts because they assumed we sold them as a fundraiser. We don't. Why aren't we doing that, and becoming known for that, instead of ... rip off popcorn that has nothing to do with any scout value, oath, or law?

Eagledad, I think you are largely right. However, things change and if scouts manages to survive the bankruptcy, I will always believe that some scouting, even if it is a morphed program to fit new times, is better than no scouting. There are kids out here that love this stuff and I hope there is always a place where they can find it.

It's the Outdoors mission for me. Outdoors is neutral territory no matter what your politics. There is a huge groundswell of interest among young kids today in the environment, but a lot of them don't know the first thing about it or have access to it. Why are we not capitalizing on this? Our program -- the ranks and the merit badges -- need an overhaul to get rid of the school and homework type drivel and to emphasize more outdoors related activities. There is so much that scouting does not get into or go very deep with, from wildlife biology to weather to water resources. People mock STEM scouts but there is a lot of STEM programming that can be done in the context of the out of doors.

I just want to clarify that I follow YPT religiously when I am in a scouting environment. What I am talking about is when my son is outside of the scouting environment and wants me to take him and a couple friends to a movie. Or if a couple friends want to come over and have a nerf war.

If you read his "bio", the character was a cub scout and his den mother taught him to "be prepared".

I follow YPT as closely as I can but I realize some of it is to cover BSA's neck. Sometimes you have to use commonsense or your child wouldn't be able to have a social life.

I would agree. I think they've got their own problems that they are trying to address by distancing themselves from BSA.

I don't think we should engage in any fights over which organization is more "safe" for youth. Leader and adult use and abuse of alcohol have been issues at plenty of BSA activities too. While it's all inappropriate, there are those who could argue relative safety. I don't want to go there, and I think it's beneath us anyway. I can't account for what Girl Scouts says. Good PR for us will be local. BSA has pretty much boxed itself into a corner. Putting a light on what our kids are out there doing every week is something we actually can do at the grass roots level. It's helpful to remember the real audience though. Parents and leaders love to post and see photos of uniformed scouts lined up at a COH or some other ceremonial event. Most kids don't look at that kind of thing and think they'd give their right eyetooth to join.

Eagle 1993, I completely agree with the idea to sell artwork before camps. Artwork sold to a collector or museum isn't lost; it will be cared for and cherished and there is nothing to prevent a future exhibition of loaned paintings being brought back together. Camp properties sold, on the other hand, will likely be developed and forever lost.

I have no inside information and am not an insider, but based on what I heard through our council it made sense for our council to join the petition and that a significant number of councils have also done so. Would be interested to know what others have heard.

I agree. This exercise is interesting but it is more academic than practical. Reality, post filing, is probably going to be something we can't much envision or have much influence over. Council mergers are not going to be happening while the bankruptcy case is proceeding in all likelihood. I think it's good to try to frame out possible desired scenarios, but the reality is we are facing a new world order and we'll probably have to adapt as we go.

My understanding is that Councils can sign on to be part of the National bankruptcy filing and thus obtain some degree of protection however then any unencumbered assets could be at risk. My understanding is that many did so.

The proposal needs more work but the basic idea is good. Just to advocate for this poor scout who is unknowingly getting his proposal vetted by some scouters who are probably pretty intimidating in their collective expertise, he does state that all wood is already on site so he has at least thought about that aspect even if he didn't articulate why that's a concern. He also states that he is using 3 foot long logs not 12 foot. He absolutely should outline his work plan but I dug plenty of post holes as a kid so I"m not sure that aspect is far fetched. I've also helped build structures like this as planting beds or obstacles on a competition course so I get why he needs mallets. The photos he provided are examples not actual, so it's not clear if that's dirt and vegetation he needs to install to stabilize the project or if that is simply organic decomposition and growth occurring over time at an existing project. I've seen several Eagle projects where I'm not sure anyone reviewed GTSS and Sweet 16 so that reminder is a good one.

This is a great idea and with a little more context, such as including an educational component, it could be a great project. Insect biomass is plummeting. There is a valid conservation message in a project like this and if some education were provided about what it is, why it's needed, and how it could be replicated on a smaller scale elsewhere, it could be a really cool feature of a local park.

There is a certain amount of "local" logic in having regional high adventure or destination bases in the southwest, upper midwest, south, and now mid Atlantic, so I don't hate the idea of Summit either, but I think it's implementation has not been well managed. The loss of council camp properties has been an ongoing crisis BSA has ignored. It speaks to the lack of outside expertise because support easily could have been offered through property management expertise and advice, bench marked program adjustments, or collective purchasing agreements. Facility upgrades are a common challenge and there are common components in engineering, environmental impact issues, etc., that BSA could have developed some basic institutional competency with and been in a position to offer resources.