KublaiKen

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.

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.

3 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

But, wait!  Wasn't all this asked and answered for them back in 2019 via Appendix MM in the 204 page BALOO instructor syallbus buried in the bowels of BSA's website servers?

LOL

You just cannot make this stuff up.

Right? Now we find that a Council serving nearly 60,000 youth has not understood (and therefore has not been training or enforcing) an element of the GSS for the past four years. Any bets on whether they are alone, since none of us knew it either?

And to give an idea of how bad at this BSA is, or at least how dysfunctional the relationship between National and Councils is, read that C10 memo again:

1. C10 did not have the heads up this was coming so they could already have that product developed and on the shelf waiting, which would have benefited both the Scouts they serve and their own bottom line.
2. Like us, and contrary to what he have been told, C10 had no idea what any of this meant and also believes this policy to be new. Read their language (emphasis added):

• The Circle Ten Council has been reviewing this new information and seeking clarification.
• Through our investigation, we have determined that a “short-term camp”...

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Official response from Circle 10 today.

UPDATED CUB SCOUT CAMPING GUIDELINES

As many of you have already seen, the National Office recently made an addition to the Guide to Safe Scouting, specifically “Cub Scout pack unit coordinated camping is limited to single overnight experiences.”

 

The Circle Ten Council has been reviewing this new information and seeking clarification.

 

With this change, if a Cub Scout pack goes on a unit campout, you are limited to one-night events only. If you go for more, you will be out of compliance of the Guide to Safe Scouting.

 

Through our investigation, we have determined that a “short-term camp” will allow Cub Scout packs to camp for one, two, or three nights. A short-term camp is defined as council-coordinated, provides certified staff, and may provide program and food services.

 

All of our council-organized events are considered short-term camps (Cuborees, Family Campouts, Parent-N-Pals.), providing your unit many opportunities for multi-night camping.

 

In addition, Circle Ten Council will now be providing council-organized, short-term camp opportunities for packs on our camp properties on select weekends throughout the year, allowing your pack to camp for more than one night. These select weekends will be open for unit camping, you will simply reserve your campsite and conduct your program. We are in the process of setting up these weekends and will be sharing those opportunities with you as soon as we have all the pieces in place.

Ah. So they ban something as unsafe, but permit it if you buy from them.

We use the same Scout Oath and Law that allowed BSA to permit racial segregation until 1974, meaning for over half of its existence, so I would be careful how you use the word "guarantee." It is also worth noting that inclusion involves more than just allowing membership.

2 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

If you have two other registered adult leaders there, I'd invite that MBC along any time they wanted to come. You're compliant to the registered leader requirement, while not putting burden on that MBC.

As @mrjohns2stated, this is to stop those who don't want to pay-to-play. I'd say it is 50/50 on unit leaders that I've discussed this with that have always treated MBCs this way vs those who were viewing it as a way to avoid their unit paying the registration fee beyond ASM #2/Committee Member #4.

As of 9/1, you are not compliant if you bring that MBC, as they are specifically excluded from the list of registrations required to accompany a unit camping.

It works until the Camping MBC actually wants to see a Scout in action. Registering all your MBCs into Troop positions is kind of the antithesis of one of the stated purposes of the MB program, isn't it? Too many of our MBCs are already ASMs.