GernBlansten

We compared treks when we got back. Ain't GPS tracks great? The HH guys did about 4 to 7 miles a day with little elevation change in 35 miles (7 day trek). Our Philmont trek did 3 to 11 miles a day with lots of elevation change in 78 miles (14,000 ft over 11 days). Major HH threat was rattlesnakes and scorpions. Philmont was bears. Philmont was much more structured, we couldn't deviate from our itinerary. HH just had to hit the next water source and had much more freedom on route planning. All of us are experienced backpackers, all would go back.

GW, your SM might have been correct depending on when he did HH. HH leases the land from ranchers, BSA doesn't own it. It started out bare bones. Over the years, they have refined the program. Early on, I wouldn't have been surprised if they had to carry everything from base. But as of last season, it isn't the case. On another note, some of our advisers from our crew told me that the arrangement has been strained with the land owners and they might lose it. In one case, a crew had damaged a cistern valve, didn't report it and allowed it to drain completely. The ranchers relied on that water for the cattle and it takes years to fill it. Might seem minor to us, but to the land owners its a matter of life and death for the livestock.

"Kids don't crave badges, eh? They crave skill. Crave being important. Crave being treated like an adult because they know as much or more than adults. Crave adventure and video games because adventure puts them in hard, challenging places where they have to rely on their own skill. " Wow beav, I think you found a golden nugget. I see nothing in the current requirements for advancement that have that magic ingredient to make a scout crave it. Nothing ties all the stuff they learn into an adventurous journey.

GW, no it isn't. They resupply mid trek, 3 days in, just like Philmont. Water is available every day via cattle troughs and wells or water buffaloes. Most of the routes are based on connecting the water sources. Its more wildernessy because there is only one staffed camp, unlike Philmont with dozens. Our guys had only one other group at HH when they were there. I think there were 5000 scouts and advisers at Philmont the weeks we were there. Another significant difference is there is a ranger with you the entire trek unlike Philmont where your ranger is with you only the first two days.

We sent one crew to Philmont and one to HH last year. I went to Philmont but have some feedback on HH. From what I gather, HH is much less program oriented. We had a program every day, HH had two for the entire trek. The terrain is more desert oriented whereas Philmont is mountainous. Their trek was 7 days, ours at Philmont was 11. Base camp at HH was a couple of semi trailers. Base camp at Philmont was incredible. But the boys who did HH loved it. Said it was much better than Philmont even though none of them ever went to Philmont.

Rank requirements should be designed to measure a scout's mastery of scoutcraft, independence and self reliance. Each should build on the foundation of the previous rank. There should be a capstone test (challenge) at each rank that each scout should have in their sights. When they are ready, they take the challenge. Similar to the OA Ordeal in structure. If a requirement cannot be objectively tested or is unrelated to the capstone challenge, take it out. Put those things in some other mechanism that can be delivered to the scouts.

You have to wonder if the WB21C'rs would pine for the ol' WB21C course if BSA up and swapped it out with a new and improved WB21.1 version. Probably hear the same comments the ol'timer WB'rs have about the WB21C course.

Its kinda like double secret probation.

"Is that why we want them to be Scouts. I thought that they were supposed to be a Scout because THEY wanted to be Scouts. I guess I'm just silly. " I wouldn't call you silly, that would un-scoutlike. I think it is the reason that a lot of scouts are scouts. Because their parents want them to be scouts.

Do away with advancement, take away the lore and prestige of the Eagle Scout and you will make it very easy for alternative youth programs to snatch up the majority of scouts. Lets face it, the majority of youth stay in BSA because their parents want them to. And the parents want them to get Eagle.

A few years ago we got evacuated by a major forest fire in the middle of the night. No time to pack. Our insurance agent said afterwards that we should video tape a walking tour of the house opening every cabinet and drawer. Then keep the tape in your car. At least it documents what you had.

Your patches should be covered by your home owners insurance. The difficult thing would be to convince your insurer the true value of the patches.

Its the trailer they want, not its contents. Our troop trailer also has great security. It sits in my back yard guarded by highly trained and vicious attack Weimaraners.

I think trailers being the number 1 thing stolen is pretty realistic. Most trailers are stored on church properties with no security. They are easy to steal. And they have some value to the thief. Unlike a scout shed full of musty camping gear. There are devices to secure trailers but they can be easily defeated by a determined thief.

The problem is these requirements have nothing to do with rank. They might be very valuable and worthy but should not be tied to advancement. We might want our scouts to do them. Figure out another way to force compliance. Leave ranks to be what they were intended to be, a measure of the scout's journey.

We are preaching to the choir. Our sons are not the ones having drug problems. Its those youth who don't darken our doorways who do. Heaping and diluting our rank advancement with these requirements just doesn't make sense to me. *SARCASM(kinda)* In the new era of terrorism and our firefighters being turned into domestic spies, perhaps we should add a new scout law. A Scout is Vigilant. Add the following to the 2nd class (why 2nd class, because there's room in the book): 26)Make a list of all your friends and acquaintances, sort the list into three categories, Potential terrorist, subversive, good guy. Review the list with your scoutmaster, explaining how each was chosen. */SARCASM*

In our local paper a few years ago, a troop had their trailer stolen with all their gear in it. Within a week, donations had not only replaced the trailer and all their gear, but fattened up their bank account several times over. Talk about a fund raiser! I have a feeling this year's Christmas tree fundraiser will out perform any previous year for these scouts.

Now that makes more sense. Put these added requirements in merit badges that are related not in rank advancement. *SARCASM* Perhaps one new eagle required MB to group them all together. Put in bullying, sexual abstinence, drug avoidance, recruiting, etc in there. You know, all the stuff that really shouldn't be in the rank requirements. Call it CYA MB, or the Rubber Stamp MB, or the Dynamic MB. That way BSA can add and delete requirements as they see fit. */SARCASM*

Hmmm, perhaps WB is a religion to some. Any critical discussions are met with the same response one gets when you critically analyze someone else's religion. I have never had an abortion, but I have an opinion on it. I've never served in the armed forces, but I have an opinion on the Iraq war. The fact that I haven't attended WB doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on it. In fact, I think my opinion should be extremely valuable to those who evangelize WB and want as many scouters to join them.

Where should we stick it in? Tenderfoot or Eagle?

Why? Why? Why? I understand that bullying is bad and we need to address this in some way. But every time BSA thinks something needs to be addressed, are we going to get a new set of requirements for rank advancement? We already have drugs and recruiting as a requirement. What's next, sexual abstinence? Why are these tied to advancement? Is a scout who isn't interested in advancement expected to complete these or left behind? I thought T-2-1 was scout craft specific. S-L-E was leadership. If these are important to BSA, then they should be applied to entire group as a requirement to keep your charter.

What is WB supposed to be? Training adults to lead adults or training adults to lead the youth? It seems to me that each requires a different method and expertise. The reason I think it should be boy scout centric is that if mastering leadership training of the youth is the goal, boy scouts is where we do that. Venture scouters should be able to apply what they glean from WB to their scouts, but is leadership really the goal of venturing like it is in Boy Scouts? We don't really train cub scouts to be leaders. So if WB is designed to train adults to train youth, I'm not sure it applies to that program.

I've always viewed WB as the analogous of an Eagle rank. The highest achievement an adult can make in scouting without being nominated (IE Silver Beaver, etc.). Because of that, I think WB should be Boy Scout specific. It should require the participant to master the skills and leadership expected of an Eagle scout. It should provide the gold standard on BSA methods and goals. A graduate should be as competent and skilled as any 16 year old Eagle candidate in not only scout craft but leadership. But its just my opinion. I haven't attended the course and I don't plan to. I'm sure those who have already taken WB will have a different one.

So Explorers cannot be the best kind of citizens but Venturers can?

I have been in middle management in a Fortune 50 corp for many years. Here's a partial list of training I was required to take. Diversity Project Management Conflict Resolution Full Spectrum Management Team Building Mentoring Decision Making Public Speaking and Presentation Skills Goal Oriented Management Gleaning from the posts of those who evangelize WB21, that is exactly what WB21 covers and is what differentiates it from the old course. I'm not saying one is better than the other. When you fundamentally change a product but call it the same thing, those who have bought into the original, will probably not embrace the "new and improved" version. The folks who only know the new program will view the former as "old and bad". I liked the "New" Coke. But I didn't drink old Coke, I was a Pepsi guy. It didn't surprise me when those who loved the Classic Coke nearly rioted. Coke learned a lesson. Ever notice all the different Coke varieties now? Don't mess with what I'm comfortable with, go ahead and give us something new, but leave my old favorite alone.