KublaiKen

I also hope strict adherence to rules would apply to any forthcoming directives from the BSA concerning the use of Native American traditions. 

Which is why Pop Warner still uses the Flying Wedge and disallows the forward pass.

Yes, you can take YPT training without being a registered Scouter in any position. Our council, at least, requires it be completed before you are allowed to register as an adult. We have always required adults using the 72 hour rule to complete it, and ask our drivers too, as well. We encourage all parents to take it, but, you know...

No, you don't need an MBC present when skills are learned. The MBC only needs to be the one to sign off when the Scout has completed the requirements to the satisfaction of the MBC.

Remember that when your Scout finishes Cubs you will be camping separate from them (because of the risk you present, according to the G2SS), so as pointed out, do you need it in a couple of years? I have a huge dogtrot that I still get out once in a while, but I tend to nestle in my two-man (i.e., one-man plus my stuff) on most camping trips with Scouts BSA.

As I mentioned, the campsites closest to us are starting to require two-night reservations. This is a bad idea.

On 3/19/2023 at 12:09 PM, mrjohns2 said:

Interesting as the youth members of my troop want the Native American imagery removed. 

This. I am sure sentiment varies widely among Scouts, among adults, and among areas of the country, perhaps, but I only know of only one Scout for whom it is a draw (not my Troop or even Chapter). For many it is met with disbelief and disapproval.

36 minutes ago, nolesrule said:

I can't tell you the number of times I've heard the word "cringy" used by scouts in reference to the Native American aspects of the OA.

Are we in the same Troop?

25 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Interesting as the youth members of my troop want the Native American imagery removed. 

This. I am sure sentiment varies widely among Scouts, among adults, and among areas of the country, perhaps, but I only know of only one Scout for whom it is a draw (not my Troop or even Chapter). For many it is met with disbelief and disapproval.

Frankly, it also hurts recruitment of trained leaders: many people don't sign up for something blind. The all-natural intoxicant called "wood smoke" has sealed many a deal.

I do  not mean this as an insult, but there is nothing in my own personal experience with Scouting (I joined in 1975) that leads me to believe that BSA is the right organization to handle a sensitive issue like this successfully.  I mean that from National to local. I don't doubt that some professionals and volunteers could navigate this minefield successfully, but, again, my own personal experience leads me to disbelieve that such success would be across the board. I know National can't do it, and inconsistent results across councils or districts, or among different MBCs, will just cause BSA problems. I can think of a million ways I'd rather the organization spend its time and treasure than on trying to thread this needle, especially because I view it as being chiefly to appease adults, not youth. While I'd love for there to be a happy consensus of including NA elements into our program, I just don't see that happening.

8 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Neither the BSA nor the OA has a purpose or mission as a Native American Heritage Society.

I love what the OA is at heart, and it has nothing to do with any real Native American lore.

I say ditch it, and walk away.

Structure it around the colonial period and a call to service for freedom.  I can think my way through that set up easily.

That was the essence of my responses to the survey. Any potential positive to the inclusion of NA elements is spitting into a tidal wave of the negative.

Is a non-theist the same as an atheist? (I mean theologically, not linguistically.)

@Mrjeff, the AoL Den is what used to be called Webelos II. BSA rightly recognized that every other Den was named for the rank they were working on achieving, and changed Webelos II (or 2?) to Arrow of Light accordingly.

I was thinking about this a little more, and I think if I could send @RichardB one (long) message from this it would be:

This forum, while hardly a complete cross-section of Scouting, seems to have a pretty good selection from different councils and different programs. It skews to more experienced Scouters, I'd say. The group is not homogeneous in thought by any stretch. Though some of the members are clearly wrong on many things (😁), not one poster here has ever come across to me as anything other than well-reasoned and well-meaning.

If the members of this group didn't understand BSA's rules, BSA has a big problem.

Whether Circle 10's confusion about BSA's rules is representative of other councils or not, it represents a huge problem for BSA.

In my view, the best response to this confusion is not subterfuge and semantics, but that is the current impression BSA is projecting. It is a terrible look to me at least, a huge supporter and third generation member of the organization. I can't imagine it looks good to BSA's critics and detractors.

We teach our Scouts to acknowledge their mistakes and correct them. I'd like to be able to point to Texas when I tell them that.

It is gaslighting to change things and then pretend that they were always that way. It is Orwellian to whitewash history and pretend that what is falsely claimed to have been is what really was.

I don't believe that I just had to explain that to you, by the way. Pretending that isn't what is happening right here in real-time is insulting.

Oh, and more and more campgrounds around here are two-night only for much of the year, so this rule hurts Scouting.

Anyone else get a vague sense that we might have just hosed Webelos out of two-nighters?

Oh, the gaslighting is by BSA. It is weird how an organization that promotes honesty uses this level of deceit and disingenuous practice. In this very thread we have now seen a rule change, not a clarificarion, while being told it has always been this way.

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Actually if you look up Webelos Overnighter in the Language of Scouting webpage, they changed to last week to say 1 night. Prior to that, it was one or two nights.

Welcome to 1984.

More gaslighting.

Just to make sure I understand how to keep kids safe: BSA maintains that it is safe to camp two nights in groups smaller than a Pack (i.e., a Den), and larger than the Pack (e.g., a Council camp), but at the exact size* of a Pack a second night presents an inherent level of danger so great that it cannot be mitigated and such events must be banned. And to be clear, camping is allowed in all of these individual circumstances, but the second night is the huge risk, the safety violation. Is this right?

* - How big is a Pack?

@Protoclete is correct as relates to the Roman Catholic Church. His use of episcopal is lower case in this instance by design.

An encounter like they had might be a determining factor if they go on to a Troop, and in what they say when recounting their experience in Scouting. For $4 a head? I would like to think I would have handled it like @MattR.

I understand that organizations change their rules.

I understand that organizations clarify their rules in ways that seem like changes to those who didn't understand the original intent.

I will never understand why BSA systemically gaslights its members and volunteers by pretending a rule was always the way it was. This is an example, as is pretending AOL was always a rank and not an award presented for going above and beyond during Webelos.