KublaiKen

I'm not sure I see the real harm in that decision being "taken" from the youth; they already don't decide membership requirements. Having said that, I am not at all opposed to keeping single sex units, but I would view them as transitional to where it is obvious BSA is headed.

It seems to me as though BSA is adding a new rule (or propagating it for the first time) that works to further silo units when we should be trying to be more ecumenical, both among the units and programs within BSA and without. I was just discussing a joint camp out with a neighboring Troop and now I wonder if it could even be approved. And it would hardly be competition with corporate, since our District only does one camporee a year. It's knee jerk, but I don't like the rule.

On 5/23/2021 at 10:22 PM, elitts said:

Except that none of those other things you've mentioned are contagious. 

And if there were a shot (or two shots) that could prevent one from dying (or minimize the danger/damage) from car accidents, lightning strikes, snake bites, or drowning, would anyone be arguing about taking it?

If this topic is inappropriate or in the wrong area, please move/delete it, and I apologize.

I have a bunch of bamboo on my property, most contained, but not all. I have read online some of the pros and cons of burning bamboo, but I was hoping for "real world" input from a community of experts. My son, who is one more example of the adage that inside every Scout is a pyromaniac waiting to emerge, has volunteered to burn it when it is dry. He would be burning it in an above-ground, free-standing fire pit, if that matters.

Yes? No? I'm crazy? What sayeth this forum?

37 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Please reread what @David CO posted below. My take is he wants to screen kids to better protect them from predators, not exclude them.

 

Upon rereading, I see that. I think what was confusing was the comparison with screening adults; in this context, the only screening we do for adults is to exclude them from the program. It is single sanction.

21 minutes ago, David CO said:

That's fine.  It's always good to have a balancing opinion.  

I don't agree with either position.  I don't think the program is either safe or unsafe.  It's the kids who are either safe or unsafe.  Some kids enter the program with certain vulnerabilities.  Others don't.  The only way to make BSA completely safe would be to identify the vulnerable kids and exclude them from the program.  I don't think anyone seriously intends to do that.

BSA is in trouble because it deliberately markets its program to vulnerable kids, and then does little to identify their vulnerabilities or protect them from abuse.  We need to better at screening these kids as they come in.  It's not enough to screen the adults.  We also need to screen the kids.

.

I think you've jumped in the deep end of victim blaming and then failed to tread water. Blaming a child victim of sexual molestation or rape and saying the antidote is to keep them out of the program instead of fixing the environment is a non-starter across the board, at least for me.

I live in the 7th most diverse city on the U.S. (three of the six ranked above us are our neighboring cities). My son's Troop has a couple of Hispanic/Latino kids (same family), a few Asian kids, three bi-racial kids, and one Black kid (my son, from a transracial family). We are right in downtown, such as it is, and don't come close to matching the racial and ethnic breakdown of the schools, soccer teams, track teams I've coached, etc. Scouting is missing large and growing populations.

I've noticed that all the Scouters with more knots than I have are braggarts and know-it-alls. The Scouters with fewer are greenhorns who can't really tell me much. The Scouters with the same number usually have the wrong ones or put them in a dumb order. Once I saw a guy with the exact same ones that I have and in the same order; I figured he probably just knows somebody at council.

6 hours ago, RichardB said:

And yet when offered an opportunity to engage within the Service Territory structure (national) and be part of the solution moving forward look at the responses that followed.

The solution to what? Not getting an answer? Is the solution that being a member of the upper echelons is the only way to get the answer, or that those now holding these upper positions will never give the answer, so you need new people and are recruiting them?

This issue came up last weekend when we were camping with a brand new Scout and his dad, and it was awkward telling him that tenting with his own son was a YP issue, especially given that less than a month ago when he was the AOL Den Leader it wasn't.

Short of me taking on yet another volunteer role, this time in the Service Territory structure, is there a way for me to find out why this is a YP issue and not a program issue?

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

Meetings are the same place and time. Campouts are the same weekend, meet at same place, same time, but 9 out of 12 are different locations. So, adults must choose who to go with. 

Got it. Although, to be clear, I didn't mean your specific scenario as much as a general idea that BSA created a certain rationale and expectation but now says it is inappropriate to mingle with another unit.

I think of all the many, many reasons I keep National on my speed dial </sarcasm>, telling them that boy and girl Scouts are working together will be the last reason I tell on somebody.

Wasn't that one of the things BSA touted when they opened Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA to girls: that families now could have a shared activity instead of two or more? That only works if they are meeting/camping at the same place and at the same time, or you are still driving multiple places on multiple weekends, etc.

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Yes, but adding the Tigers program tipped the balance of managing the program. So, it is significant.

Barry

Sorry, I'm confused. I just meant that the program he proposed was the program as it existed when I was a Cub Scout during those years: no Lions, no Tigers, three years, AOL was extra.

6 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Not Tigers. 

Right. He said drop Lions and Tigers. I was a Wolf in 3rd grade, Bear in 4th, Webelos in 5th. AOL was above and beyond and earned while a Webelos.

6 minutes ago, GrubKnot said:

I can tell you, having been either DL or ADL for both of my boys from tiger to AOL, (They are two years apart in age) that the cub program is way to long & repetitive. IMO.  I'm just an amateur scouter but if I could change it i would say:

Drop lion & tiger ranks

Keep the Bobcat requirement

Have Wolf, Bear & Webelo ranks

Make AOL a specialaward for over/super achiever

Introduce ALOT more patrol method in the Webelo rank

 

 

This is the program I was in 1975-1978.

So would the territories replace regions/areas (realizing this is just a proposal)?

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

This one does not:

 

Q. Can a leader bring their Scouts BSA son or daughter to an opposite gender troop activity?

A. No. Scouts BSA program integrity requires single gender units and single gender buddy pairs. 

So you couldn't bring your son who is a Star Scout to a meeting of a girls' troop just starting out to teach knots to Scouts who have never tied one? That is absurd.

I read things like this and wonder what in the heck this SM is thinking. How convoluted is the thought process that decides helping at your own Troop's COH should count as community service hours? What next, cooking for your patrol?

In fairness, I am sure people often wonder the same about me.

It is probably more accurate to say one doesn't know OF any Scouters who abused kids or OF any Scouts who were abused.

10 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I know how you feel, I am called a sexist because I would rather the BSA to stay away from coed troops.

I've yet to hear anyone on this forum call the GSUSA sexist. So, yes, hypocrites comes to mind. How can I be sexist for my preference and the GSUSA acceptable for theirs?

I just called it as I see it. I am certainly open to a civil dialog. I like to think myself as humble and can be swayed. But as you saw yesterday, some folks look at discussions as a battle to be won and don't mind wrestling playing dirty to protect their pride.

Barry

Barry, I don't think I have done any of those things to you, and if you feel I did then I apologize.

23 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Seems like you poking the GSUSA in the eye to me.

I'm tired of hypocrites using girls in the BSA as a prop to brag about girls in scouting without any comment of the existing Girl scouting organizing that does not promote a co-ed program. The BSA took a lot of heat for not being, well lets say progressive, but the GSUSA gets a pass. Comes off a pollical male bashing to me. You have your coed BSA, now go deride the GSUSA like you did to the BSA and push for the first 1000 Gold Award males. 

Barry

@qwazse, and see today's post above. Of note, I have not called anybody nor any organization sexist, nor used the term.

11 hours ago, David CO said:

Not at all.  I have some very strong feeling about the direction I feel my Church should be taking.  Other religions may do as they please.  They don't concern me.  They have their own beliefs.  I don't think myself a hypocrite for not interfering in the course they set for themselves.

Same in scouting.  If I had my way, we would have girl scouts, boy scouts, and co-ed scouts, each with its own organization.  I would join the one I want.  The others may do as they please.

 

And I would agree with your self-assessment. My caution comes because in this very thread I was called a hypocrite for not trying to make GSUSA accept boys.

2 hours ago, David CO said:

... People should choose the group they like and leave the other alone.

Be careful with that thinking: believing that one organization to which you belong should change its rules but then not arguing that another organization with which you have no agency should change its rules will get you labeled a hypocrite.

There is an inherent political component to any first when that group was excluded from the achievement by political means. In most cases, the differentiating factor that led to exclusion is race, sex, religion, etc.

Jackie Robinson

Barack Obama

Thurgood Marshall

John F. Kennedy

Female Eagle Scouts

We also celebrate significant firsts when those were not differentiating factors, like George Washington, or even when the means of exclusion were not political, like Neil Armstrong.

And I think the BSA'a approach has been a good one. I get it that not all (or any) may agree with me. I'm OK with that.

As for the GSUSA, I passively support the organization and wish them well, but my active support (dollars and volunteer hours) is for the BSA, so that is where I'll target my opinions.