yknot

Well, they are. But you can't blame a tiger for hunting any more than you can blame a media outlet for trying to sell papers or clicks. The bigger problem is that we have no platform that addresses these headlines. National is basically a corporation and it ought to have more proactive corporate public information responses when things like this happen. Instead it is silent. These cases are tragic but infrequent and do not represent the good that is done by the remaining 99.9% of the organization.  The media tiger eats us alive because there is very little push back. 

There is no reason to be irked. We promote that we are a character building organization. Scouts and scouters are supposed to be a cut above the rest. Most of them are. Sadly some are not. When that happens, it's a relevant headline in the same way it is to point out that someone accused of arson was a firefighter. It's tragic and ironic.

Frankly, I'm glad that BSA is no longer so tied to LDS. I am not comfortable with the gender disparity, and have never been happy with how the BSA program was modified to fit the needs of one religion. BSA should have had more of an arms length relationship from the very beginning. This transition is very difficult, but I think it ultimately could be healthy. Scouting should work without any kind of special kinds of concessions for any kind of faith environment. 

"Trust but Verify" is a much better policy than "A Scout is Trustworthy" because obviously some are not.

We've sometimes worked with folks from  our local chapter of Trout Unlimited:

https://www.tu.org/conservation/outreach-education/headwaters-youth-program/explore-fishing/boy-scouts-fly-fishing-merit-badge/

On 11/1/2019 at 10:34 AM, fred8033 said:

Our individual experiences may vary, but statistical trends are pretty clear.  Total number of licensed hunters/fishers has changed measurably down (some up, but mostly down) ... but "per capita", it's significantly down.  Further, the "median age" shifted from mid 30s up into the 50s (my interpretation is those who learned to hunt/fish when they were young still hunt/fish).  The median age is significant because it predicts the future.  It reflects the pool of future hunters / fishers that will maintain the trends.  https://www.outdoorlife.com/why-we-are-losing-hunters-and-how-to-fix-it/  

Anecdotally ... yes I see some with ATVs, but I just don't see the kids regularly fishing / hunting.  That has become "special events".  It was a regular / recurring family activity throughout the fishing seasons.  Now, it's more special events.  Heck, I remember when school started that kids would talk about fishing plans etc.  Now, it's all electronics.  

 

 This is a marketing message BSA is missing. Getting America's Kids Outdoors would be a great positive message to counteract all the negativity. Doing more to save local Council camps that are closing. Protect parks. Developing partnerships with conservation groups that are working to protect some of the species that are linked to our ranks, like wolves and tigers and bears. There is very little real or functional connection in BSA to conservation, wildlife, parks, etc.  Our purpose is so muddled and we miss opportunities right and left to cast ourselves in a better light 

Yup, that's some of the logic that the UC kept saying. I am not saying that big or small dens are good or bad. I am saying make what you have work with the kids and the parents you have and ignore the people that say, well, we always do it this way so you should too. And I disagree with your point. I never used parents to split groups apart. They were simply there for talent.
 

I like big dens. Our unit commissioner was a pain in my neck, constantly telling me to break my dens up into two smaller dens. I listened to what he had to say and understood his concerns, but for whatever reason, for both my sons, large dens worked extremely well. If a teacher can handle a class of 22 or more, there's no reason why a den of 12 or 14 won't work, especially if you have great ADLs and parents, which I was lucky enough to have. Frankly,  a lot of the requirements wouldn't have  been as much fun with a smaller group. Having larger groups meant that, with boys of very diverse interests, from the arts and STEM to sports and just hard core scouts, everybody seemed to find a pal. I always told them, you don't have to be close friends, but you are den brothers who look out for each other and you are friendly. It worked.

I think 4-H is an example of a youth organization that has done a good job of retooling and managing itself well to meet changing youth and family needs. 4-H also has about 6 million kids with a very similar leader/youth structure to BSA and yet very few reported cases of child abuse. There are problems in every organization -- 4-H isn't perfect either -- but BSA could probably learn something from how they operate.
 

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

My area, summer camp is just under $400 but a one week YMCA overnight camp is over $800 (but they ask those that can afford to pay the true cost $900).  In terms of overnight week long camps, BSA summer camps are a great value in my area and there are scouts I seem to only see during summer camp.  Many parents are dual income and look to sign their kids up for week long camps throughout the summer when school is out. 

You've got to be careful with those comparisons because generally the lower scout fee is based on several adults from the unit attending for the duration to provide supervision. YMCA, sports camps, STEM camps -- the kids go, parents don't, and counselors are provided. Having to take a day or so off work to do your shift at a scout camp can be a major hit whether you're self employed or burning vacation days.  I think it works out kind of the same in our area although I know other places are different. 

First, I really don't care about the social stuff and I don't judge anyone because labels are the worst way to judge whether or not someone is a decent person and trustworthy around youth. I wish to dissociate from the "real men" comment. 
 

Second, I think the core of what I want from National is that it abide by the Scout Law. I think if it had used that as a litmus test for every decision made, many of these disconnects between the leadership, councils, and units, would go away. National right now is almost unrecognizable as a scouting organization in its operations and, in my humble opinion, has lost its way. 

17 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

To the question:  The priorities of National are to maintain a program template that works and arrange for sensible business services and highest-end program experiences unavailable at the unit and council levels.  I think they are on-task and doing reasonably well, now that they have withdrawn from social policy development and enforcement — and now that they are conducting YPT effectively.  The priorities of councils are to form and maintain units and to provide program experiences to supplement and support units (camp properties, camporee, etc.).  The effectiveness of councils varies greatly.  My long term experience is that the principal determinant of how well a council hoes to these priorities is the quality and engagement of the volunteer council board — and not the professionals.  The priorities of units, like the 30-girl Troop I am Scoutmaster of, is to vigorously provide an outdoor program and, while there, foster leadership and self-sustainable among young people.  I think volunteers do an excellent job at the unit level no matter the status of the unit —because we are usually doing the best we can with available recourses.  It is striking just how many of the above comments stray so far from these fundamental priorities.  

 

I know there are many well meaning people working at the National level. However, I would wager that a lot of rational people would say that somehow, the ship has lost its rudder. Frankly, I think it's time for local units to work toward a down-up reorganization, because our parent organization is clearly not meeting our needs. Successful organizations do not operate this way. You are attempting to normalize something that is largely dysfunctional and unresponsive. The idea of National patting us on the head and saying, "Go, shepherd, go tend your sheep and don't worry about all this," is not going to help BSA survive long term.  We're right to question. We're right to demand more. We're right to look for ways to make this relationship more functional. If we're in this for the scout, we're compelled to. 

They are not common but my point is that they are not unanticipated. BSA spent money lobbying to prevent changes to state laws that would open up the statute of limitations, so they were obviously well aware this could happen. 

Well, I've got as many surgical supply stores within driving distance as Walmarts, so perhaps so. Another type is hemostat clamps. All these things have small teeth and they click into a self lock. You can get them on Amazon if you are not close to civilization. I don't just use them for ticks, I use them for a lot of stuff. 

Most of our competition -- other youth organizations -- generally do not have these kinds of issues.  There is usually a highly functional public interface, things are usually very organized, and the organizational messages and goals are coordinated from the top, wherever it is, down to the local level. I don't have any issue with BSA reexamining fees. It's understood that we have a financial crisis. I do have an issue with the timing and the total lack of contingency planning. Something has really gone off the rails and without some degree of honesty beyond the spin, I'm not sure what's next.

That method is generally not effective. Use tweezers. Personally, I find surgical bulldog clamps the best. You can get them in a surgical supply store and toss them in your kit. I have about 4.

Ridiculous. Another glaring disconnect is that the statement from National says they are setting up a donor funded BSA registration assistance fund. Nothing has been issued to date on a) whether the fund will in fact exist, b) if it does, how it will be accessed and what kind of process will be required, and c) since nothing BSA does at a process level is speedy, how this process can be accommodated within the current rechartering deadline. I don't fault National for struggling some with challenges. I fault them for being so utterly unprepared despite the fact that lawsuits, liability insurance issues, and registration fees are nothing new. 

What??? If you've got a scout involved, all BSA policies apply. 

I'm just wondering if the problem is that they can no longer get liability insurance. I know they were fighting with their insurers who were balking. Bankrupt or not, if you don't have insurance, I don't think you can operate. That could leave all of us nowhere. Anyone know more about insurance than I do and have a learned opinion? 

I agree 'scholarships' don't always work well. For anyone who really wants to stay but will find a fee increase a financial hardship, I wonder if you could find a way to reach out to scouting alumni in your area and ask for sponsorships?  Or instead of a unit asking for dollars to be donated to an anonymous scout fund, maybe you could ask for sponsorship of individual scout registrations?  A unit could ask to have a tree put up in town hall or home depot or the feed store or someplace that has supported scouts with Please Sign Me Up! cards for Scout J, Scout R, Scout B... 

The elephant in the room is that the organizational structure of National/Council/ Units isn't working. National seems oblivious to this and isn't doing anything to address it. That's my biggest concern out of this whole mess. The organization will only continue to be dysfunctional no matter what we do or how much money we charge until that is addressed. It makes me think that the only way to refocus the organization -- and the best thing to do for the future of scouting -- is to stop subsidizing it until they are forced to self examine. 

I know. The 'scouting is a great value' statement always has my eyes rolling. While scouting isn't more costly than other organizations or activities, it's not cheaper and there are lot of hidden costs in it in terms of not only material and activities but also time and energy. Don't even get me started about FOS or about volunteers who have to "pay" to volunteer.   
 

qwazse, I was attempting to answer that question. The answer is that they probably read it, but they are only looking to extract the data that was the purpose of their issuing the survey in the first place, since it's skewed to give them some data they are looking for. Does that make more sense? 

Several of the BSA surveys I've responded to over the years have used design mechanisms that can skew answers. Many surveys do this and it's why you have to be skeptical of survey results. When BSA issues a survey, they are generally looking for data that will support some marketing message they will eventually spin out.