ChaiAdventure

As long as Sea Scouts is part of Venturing, there will be advancement in Venturing....

just poking the bear...

Running a crew is completely different than a troop. When you take the training, pay particular attention to the aims and methods. Uniforming and advancement are not part of a crew's methods, but they are fall-backs for long-time scouters.

I think of it this way...

Cub Scouts: based on particpating in activities

Boy Scouts: based on leading the patrols during activities

Crews: based on envisioning, resourcing, planning and executing activities

A bit simplistic...but...

Maybe the folks at National will have a better time understanding the train of thought of this letter. I cannot follow it.

 

Qwqzse, you like splitting hairs. Awards are a part of advancement, and the distinction between Venture Scout and Venturing no longer has any relevance. Returning to the actual discussion in progress ...

 

If we're trying to embrace the traditional methods of scouting in the Venture program, which is what I see happening, and we're placing an emphasis on advancement, wouldn't uniform use ne an deal way to support this program change?

 

Yes, some crews do have uniforms that will support wearing the new insignia, but most I'm familiar with use a t-shirt, which won't work will with the new insignia.

 

 

 

not sure sure why you would say that he is splitting hairs....

awards are most certainly not part of advancement and advancement is not a method in Venturing...

and why do you say that there is no relevance to distinguishing between venture scouts and venturers...they are completely different, are from different programs and have different methods associated with them...

This is a question for the district training chair, not the advancement chair. As a DTC, I would count WB as equivalent to UoS for the purposes of this training award for one of the years required of the two for tenure.

the Venturing pants look decent, but the commercial alternatives still win out....I would have been happier with a pair of microfiber scout pants in gray...

we got our slot...

talk about digging up old threads...this one started in 2003....

Kind of a weird first and only post (one day after signing up for an account) by a youth and zero follow-up by the OP. Makes me think that this is an adult trolling....

Just sayin'...

One thing that I would have wanted to see was a connection between training and advancement. We have ILST and NYLT training out there, but it is in no way tied to the program. This is not a dig on the training. I believe leadership training has its place. But like Venturing requires ILSC to earn Silver, I believe that part of the higher ranks (Life, Eagle) should be not only to serve in a leadership position, but to attend the training that supports it.

In addition, I would like to see some kind of recognition (in the form of official bling) for scouts who attend NYLT or NAYLE. I know they can wear a patch on their right pocket, but they can wear anything on their right pocket. This leadership training should allow them to wear something distinctive......

But I digress....

and meanwhile we still wait for the Venturing requirements that will take effect before these Cub/Boy Scout changes....

If OA is a Boy Scout program, why would Venturing even be involved? Same for the leadership of the Cub Scout program. Do they wear the lodge flap on their DL uniform?

the report issued by national on the future of Venturing specifically states that Varsity would be included in the Venturing program which also includes Sea Scouts....I assume that this would mean the Varsity Teams would no longer be allowed to vote for OA candidates since they would be out of Boy Scouting...

Not sure what the issue is.... The pledge is just that, a pledge. It is not worshipping the flag as a deity.

The report stated that there was only 0.7% of Venturers who earned any Venturing award. In my mind, since recognition was a method in Venturing, that is a 99.3% failure rate. Any changes are welcome...

An interesting side-effect is that my Crew has committed to earn the bronze-gold-silver award prior to their abolishment on Dec 31 2014. In an off-handed way, getting rid of the old system put some life back into it (in my small neck of the woods).

My council is sending 11 troops and 1 crew. The crew is about 65/35 female to male ratio.

Personally, I would like to see another category in the forum...classifieds. I think that we could benefit from both private and commercial classifieds to seek out equipment and uniforms that we need, as well as giving us an opportunity to recycle equipment and uniforms that we have in excess.

Just a thought...

okay...since we are on the topic...how about this...

you have a married couple on a Venturing trip...the husband is 22 and the wife is 20...according to what national said, they can tent together and to me, that makes perfect sense...

what does not make sense is that there now must also be a female adult since there is a female youth on the trip...even though that youth has her husband there as a leader...

seems crazy that a husband can't serve the role as "supervising" her (I am assuming that she is the only female youth on the trip)...

just like it makes no sense to me that a father can't serve as the adult leader supervising his daughter (again, assuming that there are no other female youth), but that a female adult must also be present...

just sayin'

Interesting situation. I see your point on Scout spirit issues and leave the conference to you.

My point of understanding is how the meeting situation was handled. No where in the string of events did I see anything about the SPL getting involved. What I did see was an ASM backing up a PL.

In my mind, it is on the PL to get the patrol members in line at his meetings.If he has an issue, he can get his SPL involved, or turn to a Troop Guide if your troop has them. It seems too early for an ASM to get involved.

Also, you do not mention the age of the scouts. Based on your first class SM conference, I would assume the boys crossed over spring 2011 which makes them 12 or so. At 12 for boys to not stay on task at a meeting is not much of a surprise..... Hence the challenge of the PL in trying to lead his peers....

let me preface this by saying I applaud Scouting reaching out further into the Hispanic community....after all, I am a gringo who speakes Spanish...but...

this form is horrible...it tries to do too much...both languages make it confusing...really...did we really need this???

take a look at the courses that NOLS provides...

Wilderness Advanced First Aid is a 40-hour course and info can be found at http://www.nols.edu/wmi/courses/wildadvancedfirstaid.shtml

Wilderness First Responder Course is 80-hours long and the info for that can be found at http://www.nols.edu/wmi/courses/wfr.shtml

good luck with your endeavors

stockholder. The "ultimate customer" does not get a vote. If you do not own stock, it does not matter that you are a customer of Comcast and have TV, phone and internet service through them. Same with BSA, the ultimate customer does not get a vote at these meetings.

There is a difference between Comcast and BSA though. BSA (I believe-I do not know the numbers for sure) gets the bulk of their funding through corporate sponsors. The sponsors get a tax break for the donation.

In the end BSA's Executive Board acts like a Board of Directors that serves the interests of the stockholders who in this case are the chartered organizations. When viewed this way the actions of National make a lot more sense than viewing them as some quasi-National government which they are not.

Ponz....

Not sure I see your point. In the business world, as you used as your example, stockholders have a monetary investment in the business in question. What is the investment that CO's have?? If you consider members as customers, then surely CO's would fall into the exact same category. CO use the national scouting program for a unit which they charter. They are customers...period....clearly not stockholders.

My point is that members have a say in the direction of the Scouting movement. Charter Organizations do not own that right exclusively.....

I am not sure that I agree with the statement that the Charter Organizations are the customers....at least not directly. I can see that National provides a program for youths, and youths belong to units which are chartered...but as far as CO's being the customer....

It is the youth (okay, us parents) and volunteers that provide the funding that goes to national, whether it is dues, insurance, boy's life, uniforms, or program purchases. Charter organizations pay a pittance a year to national. What I can see is that unified groups of Charter Organizations can hold leverage over National by threatening to support units. Lack of support to units means less units, less membership, less money to National. But to call them the customers...I think that is a stretch.

After all...the mission and vision of scouting never once mentions charter organizations....

Has anyone seen any major changes in the guide??

it is all getting clear.....

being a member of a private organization is absolute justification to be bigoted, racist, etc.... or on the flipside, exclusive, selective, etc...

with that established, it is simple...either the membership affects the decisions of the ruling body, or it abides by them...

I,in no way, support what NLD has said on his feelings for gays but he brings up an interesting point. Why are we talking inclusiveness regarding gays, but not athiests and female youth (rewind a couple of decades and we would add female adults). Is it because gay-rights are the "cause du jour" or is it because we truly believe that we have harmed a segment of society.

I would argue that what we should be focused on is the stance against female youth....50% of the target population of overall youth.

Gays and atheists live among us in scouting...whether we agree with their choices or not. Females are only welcome to the party as Venturers (let's just say it....not quite boy scouts) or as adults where many secretly try to recapture times from their youth when they wanted to be scouts (I know I am going to get crushed by that statement, but I don't mean it negatively...just rather as a sad realization of missed opportunity).

I guess the momentum of women's suffrage wasn't enough to drive this then.....and the 2010's are the decade of the gays...maybe next decade, unless another cause has that time-slot already booked.