JMHawkins

Bart, I'm talking about skills and approaches to being outdoors. If you want to teach the same things for dump camping with kybos and trash cans as you do for three days into a wilderness area, then you're not doing much more than reminding folks to apply two or three parts of the Scout Law and to use the Scout Motto. Good enough as far as it goes, but it doesn't appear to go far enough in practice, if the horror stories we're reading are true. Sure, we can say "dispose of trash appropriately" and that applies to Happy Creek Campground and RV Park just the same as Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area, or the corner of Fifth and Elm Streets, but... If you'll recall, the thread this was spun from had a comment making the contention we have a lot of mediocre frontcountry campers who aren't very good in the backcountry. Perhaps teaching the same cirriculum for our frontcountry and backcountry citizenship is part of the reason.

So how do we get there from here? I've got some ideas. It involves addressing tbe issue Beavah mentioned when he wrote "... that only a fraction of our units are really good wilderness citizens and LNT campers. Most are mediocre front-country campers who really aren't quite ready to be in da backcountry. Well meaning folk with ordinary, unprepared lads who inadvertently give us a bad name". And that means (in addition to other things) bridging the gap Beavah also mentioned between the LNT folks and the "...good fraction of our membership that just "ain't goin' to do that sissy liberal Leave No Trace stuff..." It comes down to doin a better job with our outdoor training. Retooling LNT a bit and upping the amount of outdoor skills we expect from adults. I think there are things we can do in how we present LNT to defuse the "sissy liberal" reaction (accepting the existing of "backcountry snobs" and distancing ourselves from them is one important step - BSA isn't the only organization that gets tarnished by association with a few bad apples). And is it really a surprise that an organization where the old outdoor training was replaced with corporate leadership training finds itself with fewer competent outdoorsmen? How's this for starters? 1) Replace LNT with "Backcountry Citizenship" and give the program a (argh) mission statement of "Fostering responsible camping and hiking to ensure the protection, beauty, and continued public access to our backcountry" or some such. I know this creates some problems since LNT is a program shared with other outdoor folks, but I think it's sort of misfired a bit and acquired a taint that impeeds acceptance. Mabye we can salvage the name and the relationships, on the other hand, it might send a signal considering pulling out of the program because we're having trouble getting acceptance of it from the largest single group going outdoors, and the organization introducing the outdoors to "...the lads who will be the future supporters of wilderness, the citizens who do their part to preserve da fields and streams because they remember how great it was to be there with buddies and Mr. Scouter." (I probably owe Beavah a royalty for quoting so much of his posts). 2) Include actual pictures, statistics, and documented evidence of degraded trails and wilderness in the "BC" training. That would help to convince people of the need, plus it also defuses the "sissy liberal" reaction because frankly, claims of the need with vague or missing evidence rightly sets off alarm bells in folks. Even stuff that ought to be common sense we should be willing to back up with evidence, just to establish a tradition of openess and accountability. You want people to change their behavior, be willing to show why and never resort to claiming only an idiot wouldn't go along with you. Even if only an idiot wouldn't go along with you! 3) Have formally separate Frontcountry standards (e.g. stop this LNT for the Frontcountry nonsens) that discuss etiquette when in larger groups. I've never seen a campfire built in a ball field at a campsite, but maybe folks need some training on how to find the campfire ring. Sheesh. This is probalby where we can make the most PR gains, since this is where most people will run into Scouts. Seems like regardless of our backcountry standards, IOLS isn't cuttin' it for dump camping either. 4) Have something more than IOLS for backcountry trips, with some sort of well-thought out test-out so we don't just pile on more training and run off volunteers. Seems like BSA is on the verge of (or perhaps already is, depending on how you read the rules) requiring WRFA training to go into the backcountry. 5) Celebrate the proper use of the Axe and Saw, while more strongly pointing out what "proper" means and that there are only specific places where their use is indeed "proper." Beavah says "Da BSA LNT folks have considered eliminatin' all saw and axe requirements..." and that would just, of course, convince even more folks LNT was sissy liberal stuff. Personally, I've never seen any signficant damage from axe and saw-weilding Scouts, though really it would just take one irresonsible Troop. Seems to be carving initials into trees with pocket knives is far more wide-spread. Okay, family members to hug and turkey to eat. Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

Now, all that's not to say that a MBC for Theater MB shouldn't "count" the boy's performance in "Beavah flew over the cuckoo's nest". Synergy is fine. But da MBC should attend the performance, or perhaps a rehearsal and then the performance, walk the stage, talk to the boy afterward, etc. And then perhaps take him and a few of his buddies to a professional or community theater performance and talk to folks in the production and such. It's not about signoffs. It's about givin' the boy your full attention and sharing your enthusiasm and benefiting together from da relationship. Anything less is subtractin' from da program. Hear! Hear! I think another important element of the MB program is having the Scout learn to take the initiative too. Getting up the nerve to call some adult, introduce himself, explain what he'd like to do, schedule time, plan his work, follow up, etc. If part of his plan is to include stuff he's doing in school, or somewhere else, and the MBC can see a way to include the ideas Beavah mentions, sure, why not! I wouldn't want it to just be a completely repurposed school class that was planned and organized by his teacher (and um, that's what an awful lot of summer camp MBs end up being, sigh...) but no problem including stuff he's already doing as part of it.

I'm not sure when the next Court of Honor is, but I can work on planning it out for requirement 8. I was also wondering if the program for the CoH could be considered a brochure for requirement 7c. This one I told him was double dipping to do one thing and count one item for 2 seprate requirements.. So "NO".. I'm fighting hard to ignore the phrase "double dipping" which sets me off about as bad as "Eagle Mill" gets others, but... I don't see anything wrong with the Scouts' proposal here. The requirement says he should create printed material with at least one article and a photograph. I would agree if you said "No, I don't think a CoH program is the right place for an article" but to simply say he can't combine two requirements because there's some.... argh, can't resist... fixation on "double dipping" is odd. If you said "Okay, but if you want the program to count for 7c, it's going to need to be a really good program, more than just a list of people being honored and a schedule of activities. It needs at least one article and a picture, and it needs to represent your best efforts..." well, I'd think that would be pretty good. Better than some random make-work brochure. You can remind him that CoH programs often get stashed in keepsake boxes by parents, showing up decades down the road, so he should take pride in it and etc. etc. He's already planning the CoH, it hopefully will be important to him, so having a really nice program to go with it would be fantastic. Might prompt him to really put his heart into it. Now, clearly there is no shortage of Scouts who are used to skating by with the minimum effort, and we should swim hard against that current. But if we automatically assume their every effort is an attempt to dodge work, we miss opportunities. Even if it is an attempt to dodge work, we can still let it be the first step in doing it right. And if the Scout wasn't trying to skate by, there's less chance of offending him by incorrectly questioning his integrity. And I realize my tone is more critical than I'd like it to be moosetracker. MBC isn't a piece of cake (not even the cooking MB!, well, burnt cake maybe...). Even if I disagree with the decision you made on the CoH program idea, I'm 100% on-board with you caring enough to think about it and make sure the Scout is being challenged to get everything he can out of his work.

Eagle92, Yep, that's what I was (inexpertly) trying to get at. If the new leadership-focused class they teach with the Game Of Life wasn't called Wood Badge and wasn't touted as the summit of Scouter training, it would get less criticism. Let's call it "Leaderbadge" or something, and not position it as a replacement for outdoor skills. Honestly, I know lots of guys who use both sets of skills (indoor Organizational Leadership skills and outdoor scoutcraft skills), so there's just no reason the two courses couldn't coexist. Of course, that would require National to re-evaluate the direction it's been drifting for a while where it's been reducing the outing in Scouting. The sad thing is 30 years ago the old-style outdoors Woodbadge was probably less necessary than it is today, because there were more adults who came into the movement with outdoor skills. So, maybe we the volunteers need to organize our own course. Unofficial of course, but I bet a few with-it Councils might support it. A week long class would be hard on people's schedules, but it would sure be a nice format for covering material.

As soon as they realized they were lost, they should have sat down on a log and played "The Game of Life" until the Wood Badge caterers arrived. Oh, c'mon Kudu, you know perfectly well WB21c isn't meant to cover getting lost in the woods. What they should have had was a soccer ball. A magic recruiting soccer ball. Throw it out into a field and within a few minutes a horde of prospective new Scouts would show up to play soccer. After the game was over, the leader could just ask one of the parents which way back to town... Yikes, I'm a little too sarcastic even for myself. Of course Seattle Pioneer and Kudu are really both - in their own way, and so am I for that matter - saying the same thing about current BSA training: it's not meant to make competent outdoor leaders. We rely on previous knowlege for that. The question is, should we? Is there a need for real outdoor skills training for BSA volunteers? I think half the criticism of WB21c would dissapear if it wasn't called "Wood Badge" but was instead called "Organizational Leadership" or something similar (the other half of the criticism is related to the Game of Life and would surivive any name change). Maybe we really do need enhanced outdoor skills classes to avoid this sort of thing. We're moving towards requiring WRFA certs for backcountry trips and at least my council is making a big effort to offer training. Maybe we need to emphasize basic outdoor skills too.

I can tell you here in the PNW the hiking community doesn't have a favorable view of the Scouts. go to nwhikers.net and search for boy scouts. it isn't pretty, and a lot of it is just what basement is talking about. if you register to post, I wouldn't admit that you are affiliated. Y'know, it's also worth considering that there are elitist snobs who don't like sharing stuff with other people, even other people who make an effort to be good neighbors. They're still "in the way" and "ruining the experience." BTW, I'm not calling Basementdweller an elitest snob! Objecting to bad behavior isn't the same thing at all. Just pointing out that more than a few members of "the hiking community" in any given region would be much happier if they had private access to the public backcountry. Sometimes they convince legislators or bureaucrats to accomdate them too... Of course if they succeed in keeping large numers of young folks (e.g. Boy Scout Troops) out of the backcountry, then in 30 years we'll probably convert our Wilderness Areas into industrial land because only 1 person in a million will have ever been in one and nobody will care. So getting back to Basementdweller's topic. "Ethics" really is the most important thing, but I'm pretty much against a bullet point list of rules. I'm of the opinion that if you only need official Ethics Guidelines if you don't have ethics. Well, at least for the adults. For the Scouts, it's good to have guidelines because they don't know, they're still learning. But so far BDs stories seem more a problem with the adults than with the youts. Anyway, lists of rules have a habit of getting out of hand because there's always someone overeager to have their pet rules, I think I used the phrase in a previous LNT thread, bask in the reflected glow of common sense. Seems what we really need is a commitment from the adult leaders to be courteous to the general public we share our world with, make an effort to understand the impact a group (of whatever size they're taking anywhere, backcountry, front country, or local swimming pool) has on a resource, and pass those concepts on to the Scouts. My biggest personal pet peeve about adolescents (of whatever age) is that they're often completely oblivious to what's going on around them. They don't realize the impact they're having on others. Most kids are decent enough and don't want to intentionally annoy someone else, but so often they don't know they're doing it. We need to help them learn to be observant, aware of their surroundings. What we do about adults like the ones who kicked BD out of the shelter? Well, sheesh, I think the folks saying "report 'em" have it right (though I acknowledge the obstacles - perhaps there's a trip permit filed somewhere that a council could use?). We will have knuckleheads in our organization from time to time - it's in our best interests to self-police as best we can.

Just not sure what to do anymore! Well, you could stop reading the forum! No, seriously, if all you get out of it is frustration and find it depressing that others are pointing out what they think are problems and you just don't agree, well, don't frustrate and depress yourself. If on the other hand you want to complain about there being too much complaining, er, can't help you there. Nothing's perfect, and folks have ideas about what BSA could do better. Especially considering one of the big problems we have is a lack of leaders with experience in the program as a Youth, a place like this where, um, the phrase was something like "curmudgeons who see the fuzzy past through their bifocals" can ruminate over stuff is a really good thing. And if on the Gripping Hand, you just think there should be more positive stories, chime in with one!

mds: Just want to point this out. Some have referenced the Journey to Excellence one rank each year requirement. Remember that 1 rank per year is very different than FCFY. One rank per year means 6 years to eagle. That is a 16 or 17 year old Eagle scout. That is very different than the 14 year old Eagles people are complaining about. No, that's not quite correct. The advancement schedule that National seems to want is for the Scouts to get the first 3 ranks - reach FC - in the first year (hence, FCFY, First Class First Year) and then make one rank per year after that. JtE doesn't mention FCFY (yet, I suspect it'll make it into a revision if it survivies, which is another reason to support Beavah's "shoot it in da head" position), but FCFY remains the directive to unit leaders from BSAs advancement folks. So, FC at 11 (because of course they got AoL as Webelos and joined at 10), Star at 12, Life at 13, Eagle at 14 as the average. Now, there are Scouts who can absorb all the experiences and lessons involved in an honest achievement of that rank by 14, but they're the exception. For most of the Scouts, it would be a disservice for us to force-march them through the ranks. But I suspect you're right about the overall objective being Eagle in a Troop so they can move to Venturing, I just think BSAs timetable is a couple year's faster than your. Venturing by 14. I wonder if National is moving towards the LDS model where the various alternative units aren't "alternatives" any more but expected stepping stones.

In our desire to be modern sensible types, I think we've lost track of the value of rituals. Of rites of passage. Oh, those are for backwards, primitive people, not us modern sophisiticates! Except rituals and rites of passage are really important things for Scout aged boys. They need things like that. Advancement helps fill that need. Just a CoH where we say what Johnny did doesn't quite do it. The actual rank helps them recognize their own growth, especially when the rank requirements are real accomplishments that they had to work for.

Well, Beavah, I guess you are right. We should give up now and go back to being an Eagle mill since we will end up there anyway. Sasha, they tell me that in the long run we're all dead, but between now and then I figure we can still have a lot of fun and do a lot of good. Keep going!

but we also don't want a bunch of 17 year and 364-day old Eagles either, right? We want as many 17 year and 364 day Boy Scouts as possible. I'd rather have a guy age out active with whatever rank than have him get Eagle in the bare minimum time (with Mom, Dad, and the Troop Advancement Committee carefully scheduling everything to fit) and then drop out of Scouts to move onto whatever resume enhancer is next on on the list. As far as pushing advancement, the new Journey to Excellence requires 65% advance one rank each year for Gold level. Now, I don't think that's particularly unobtainable, but it's definitely pushing the idea. FWIW, advancing 65% of your Scouts at least one rank is worth as much in the scoring system as going on 10 overnighters and getting 60% of the Scouts to summer camp combined. Obviously that doesn't force units to become diploma mills, but it sure seems like it might push inexperienced units that direction. Advancement is a powerful tool in helping the Scouts learn to set goals and focus on them, and a great way to reconigize them for their growth and accomplishments. But they're not little kids any longer, they recognize when something is a Participation Award instead of a real award for merit. And teenagers aren't very motivated by participation awards. If we water down the requirements and make a Troop into an advancement academy, we're throwing away a powerful tool. As far as retention goes, yeah, in the absence of adults marching the Scouts through the requirements, what sort of kid is most likely going to make FC in one year? A kid who loves camping and goes on every trip he possible can. A kid who constantly has his nose buried in his Handbook because he just digs all the cool stuff in there. A kid who doesn't have a lot of other obligations (Band, Sports, Robotics Club) that limit his Scouting time. In other words, the kids who most love scouting and are most committed to it - regardless of what advancment awards they get. For them, FC absolutley comes via the suntan method - naturally as part of being active in the Troop. Those kids are least likely to drop out later. But a kid who doesn't really like camping, or who isn't really interested in knots and lashings, or who is really into sports and ends up on a big-deal team with lots of required practice, they're all less likely to make FC in one year and more likely to drop out later. Because it's just not their priority, and sticking a badge on their pocket isn't going to change that. I think it's time to do away with FCFY. Long walk off a short pier...

I think "trust" is the right word, but for me it's characterized as "do I trust XXX to make the right decisions for the good of the program?" There are three requirements for a "yes" answer. 1 - do I trust the person to have the right priorities? (e.g. personal finances, status or private agendas are not more important than the program*). 2 - do I trust that the person has accurate information to base a decision on? (e.g. Wilton125's comment about logistics at Jamboree). 3 - do I trust the person's general level of intelligence, competence and experience to, given the right priorities and information, make a good decision? In all three cases, the farther away, the harder it really is to trust folks. Budgets and egos tend to get bigger as you go higher in an org, so it's easier for folks there to cast their priorities in a negative light (intentionally or otherwise). They're farther away from me so it's harder to believe they have accurate information about my experience as a grunt. And finally the farther up the more complex the challenges ought to be, requiring more wisdom and experience to handle the job... Bottom line, it's natural for there to be less trust as you go up an org (BSA, or any other - business, non-profit, government, church, etc), and there's no way to avoid it completely. Excellent communication skills help, but the best way to minimize the fallout from "mistrust due to distance" is to keep power as decentralized as possible. If you look over the standard "evergreen" complains on these forums, the ones about National tend to be in cases where something is centralized. G2SS rules against laser tag, eliminating Patrol Outings, WB21C course content, training mandates, etc. Of course some of that is unavoidable due to other centralized functions (if National pays for insurance, then it has to own G2SS too...), but overall it's worth keeping the problem in mind. Don't centralize anything that doesn't have to be. * - regarding the finance and status part, while it is necessary for there to be paid professionals in a non-profit organization, I think it would be wholly inappropriate for pay and perks to be on par with for-profit corporate standards in an organization where 99+% of the work is done by volunteers. [edit: fixed a typo](This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

What to do in an earthquake? Mostly just ride it out. Usually by the time you recognize what's going on, there isn't enough time to do anything useful. Especially if there are 55 thousand people between you and any place you might want to go. If you're by a big window, move away. Stand in a doorway if you have time to get to it. If you're downtown with lots of skyscrapers, um, rub your lucky rabbits foot that nothing lands on you. Best way to avoid being injured in an earthquake is probably to be outdoors camping! So there's a good excuse to plan more camping trips. You're keeping the Scouts safe! Besides, if you're outdoors, you might have a chance of seeing a ground wave... Thus spake a native Californian and survivor of 4 7.0+ quakes...

I saw the thing about Eagle projects needing to have lasting impact and wondered if 15 years from now when the EBoR asked a Scout what his project was, he might say "Well sir, it was clearing out all the old Eagle projects that had been piling up. We were running out of room in the forest to camp..." It's a tricky thing for young men to learn how to disagree appropriately and productively with an adult. But it's something they do need to learn sooner or later, cause there will sure be lots of adults in their lives they'll disagree with! It's also worth learning you don't need to win every argument or point out every mistake.

Gunny, sorry, yeah, I wasn't clear enough about my WRFA/CRP comments. Sounds like your class covered both, but we do em separate here (or maybe it's now, the sylabus is changing a bit). Wasn't trying to disagree with your example. In fact, maybe I could amplify it and point out we don't really care if someone uses their training for some other program, we just care that they have the training. If you're going to use your RC WRFA cert to be a professional river guide, BSA doesn't make you go take the class a second time to take a Troop to Philmont. Of course, retaking the class and getting extra practice isn't a bad thing. In fact it's one reason I volunteered to be an instructor - it'll help me keep my knowledge, skills and experience fresh. BadenP, I'm familiar with what Trustworthy means. I've put a fair amount of effort into explaining why I don't think this whole "double dipping" issue is cheating because I understand why someone might think that it is. You insist that I am just trying to justify something. My son is still a Cub Scout, this isn't a family concern for me. We disgree. We're both well-intentioned. Can we agree on that?

Beavah, to my mind, the thing we have to do is head the Scouts off from thinking about it as an hour-counting requirement in the first place. Yeah, there's a number there in the book and we need to follow those guidelines, but the hour tally isn't the important part of the requirement. But if we - the adults - go into it with the mindset of "I hope the kid isn't cheatin' on his hours" we're probably not going to do that. Adopting the attitude that "double-dipping is cheating" means that we have bought into it as an hour-counting requirement and made the hour tally the important thing. Nah, we've got to avoid that in our own minds if we're going to get the right message across to the Scouts.

Gunny, regarding the Wilderness FA and CPR/AED classes, the 16 hour Wilderness FA class doesn't cover CPR or AED use. Holding a current CPR cert is a prereq for taking the class, it's knowledge you're supposed to already have and we don't cover it when we teach the class. (frankly, and unfortunately, CPR is probably of limited use in the backcountry. If someone's heart stops on you in a wilderness settings, odds aren't in your favor - but it's worth it try and beat the odds, anyway, back on topic...) The class time in WRFA is going to focus on skills like wound management, primary and secondary assessments, hypothermia, altitude sickness, go fast/go slow evac decisions, etc. The certification implies that you've been trained in a specific set of wilderness skills, of which CPR isn't one (no time, 16 hours is too tight as it is). We only give out one card, because that's the card for the skills we taught. And there-in is a huge difference between a WRFA or CPR cert and credit for a service project: The cert covers a set of skills we can check off: primary assessment - check, secondary assessment - check, head injury - check, etc. all the way down to Childbirth in a wilderness setting (oh, I hope I never have to deal with that one...) We're not tallying hours, we're tallying skills. But for service projects, for some reason, National (and all the other youth orgs that include required service projects) have decided to tally hours. That's where I think we run into the problem. You and I, clearly we understand that hours don't equal understanding, and the point isn't to have a kid who's done x hours of "required volunteering" but rather a kid who understands the value of service to his community. And that's what creates the difference of opinion between folks like Beavah and BadenP and me, Scoutfish, etc. The hour tallying creates something of a no-win situation if the kid sees it as an hour-tallying requirement. Because once that happens, we can't avoid running the risk of teaching the kid something wrong. if we take my approach - hours count for multiple different organizations, you can get mutliple cookies for the same service work - then Beavah and BadenP worry that we're teaching the kid to game the system and take shortcuts - double-bill his clients as it were, and look for ways to get by with the minimum effort required. It's a valid concern, I agree with them we don't want to teach kids those things, and that letting them count hours for multiple organization could do just that. But if we take their approach - hours can only count for one cookie at a time - I'm worried that we're teaching them that service to their community is not something you do for the good of the community, but something you do to earn another cookie. And the truth is that once they're all grown up, there aren't many cookies for real service. The whole point of service - the reason it's important - is that it does all the things that need doing but don't earn rewards. We don't need Service for those things adults are ordinarily rewarded for doing (like, say, your job). We need service for the acts that don't bring a paycheck or a promotion or a ticker-tape parade. If we take the counting cookies approach with the kids, I worry they'll grow up without really understanding what service is and they'll stop doing it when there aren't any more cookies to earn. Or perhaps even worse, we'll leave them gullible to people who manipulate them into giving their energy to questionable causes by dangling fake cookies. So, for me, the real problem is that we stress the hours instead of the acts. If the kids pick up on that (and it's right there in their books) then we're stuck trying to reorient their thinking, with risks of falling off either side of the cliff. And that's why I've been interested in yammering on about this even though, in amlost all the real examples, the kids have plenty of hours. I'm not worried about the hours, I'm worried about the message.

Thanks Barry, we're still plugging away. I think you're right about a different vision for folks who weren't Scouts as a kid. I think a lot of their image of Boy Scouts is the Leadership/Eagle/Help little old ladies across the street sort of thing. Which is part of Scouting, most certainly, but I don't think they realize (at least until they've seen the results) that the Outdoor program is the most important tool in delivering the character development. But I'll give our Committee a big thank you. It's mostly folks who were not Boy Scouts as kids, but they have been willing to trust those of us who were as we get a new troop off the ground. You can see that they're nervous at times, not quite sure about these crazy ideas, but they've stood behind us and let us roll out a real patrol method, boy-led, outdoor program. We're starting to see results 6 months in. The mother of one of our PLs told me last week that she's amazed at the difference in her son since he joined (new troop, all the leaders are new scouts, they're getting a crash course). We just had our 2nd CoH, and I was looking at some pictures from our very first campout back in April. It suddenly hit me how much more mature the boys looked now. I think we're doing something right, so we should probably keep doing it. Kudu: And most (if not all) Scout camps will allow you to camp your Patrols 300 feet apart if you know who to ask about the "primitive" areas We're going to a local Scout camp next month. We've got separate campsites for each patrol (and another for the adults plus the Webelos who are joining us). They should at the very least be out of sight of each other. Does 200 ft + trees and bushes = 300 feet? Some of the Scouts who did Wilderness Survival at summer camp want to give it another shot in the primitive area and try to teach their buddies how to do it. We'll see what they think when we get there - November in the Cascade foothills will be a little different experience than July. Dump camping will let us have lots of dry clothes on hand at least if they go through with it. We'll be taking our ~30 lb Patrol Boxes instead of backpacking it. We're still gearing up and got some donated Coleman green stoves, but we're a little short of backpacking stoves. Getting there though. And I will be hauling my 250 lbs self up the hill too (I do meet the Philmont BMI guidelines, thankyouverymuch).

The next 10 years? I thinkt he Scouting spirit will live on and be stronger 10 years from now. We're going to go through a period that will do that. Whether BSA is stronger or not is another question. It's going to be an important ten years for the organization. I believe that ten years from now, a lot of institutions we always took for granted will be gone, some new ones will have arisen, and the institutions that survive will have been renewed and revitalized. I agree with BadenP about the outdoor program - it's really the heart and soul of Scouting and it's being watered down in general. I'm really happy with the quality of outdoor program my Troop and Pack are able to put on, but that comes from the volunteers who have old school attitudes about that. It helps that we're in a pretty good area for outdoor activities and have a Council that gets it and supports that aspect of the program. If we didn't have a bunch of crazy would-be moutain men who actually enjoyed tromping around the woods, it would be awfully easy to put on an indoor scouting program. National doesn't see to set a very high bar for outings. So it's up to us as volunteers to get it done. We have lots of SMASMs in their 30's and 40's, so maybe we can keep things going for another generation. If we don't, we can't really complain that someone else didn't... I'm also becoming concerned about access to the outdoors. Every year it seems like there are a few more regulations and restrictions on using public land. Most everything around here is getting turned into Wilderness Areas. Kudu talks about patrols camping 300 feet apart - if you're going into a Wilderness Area you can't have more than 12 in your party, so with two-deep adult leadership, you can't even take two full patrols anyway. There are plusses of course, but overall I see it getting harder to just go explore the great outdoors. I'm saddened that BSA isn't doing more to fight that. Seems like they could generate a lot of support for maintaining access. Stosh mentions the sheer bureaucratic burden involved. Amen. Sometimes I think we're the Bureaucracy Scouts of America. I'm worried we are normalizing bureacracy, teaching kids that there's nothing wrong with thousand page book of regulations covering anything and everything. Eamon mentioned the age structure. I'm not sure it works either. Seems like we start Cub Scouts too young, burn the adults out at Webelos and lose a bunch of kids who get bored with it all (except for PWD!). Clearly the corporate side of Scouting has become Cub Scout focused - it's where the bulk of the membership is. But as much fun as Cub Scouts can be for the kids and for all the good things it does for them, it's no where near as vital as Boy Scouts. The official Boy Scout program seems to be degenerating into a four year advancment dash so the kids can "Eagle-out" before they get their Driver's License and drop out, with Venturing being the back-up plan to keep them enrolled if they actually like hiking, camping, etc. I suspect the trend will continue, though I wish it wouldn't. At the volunteer level we can still make adjustments. I also wonder if we might run into a Charter Org crisis at some point. Civic groups have become so weakened in general in our society, it worries me. Ultimately though it is all on our shoulders as the unit volunteers. We can complain about watered down programs and increased paperwork from National, we can vent about obnoxious DEs or Council decisions, and we can get frustrated about how "that troop over there" is doing it all wrong, but we can still make a huge difference with our unis and the young men who belong to them. 10 years from now I hope my son will have aged out an active scout, with whatever rank he gets, and he and his troop-mates will remember Scouts as fondly as I did. We'll see.

Da moment a lad thinks about double-countin', we've failed in our mission, eh? Because then he's focused on what he can get, not on what he can give. I got the impression it's more the adults getting worked up over the accounting than the Scout. I assumed it was the Scout looking at "6 hours of service projects" for his rank requirement and saying "well, I'm doing 12 hours over the next month at the food bank with my school, does that count?" and then some adults worrying he was getting too much credit for his "volunteering." Maybe it was the other way around, but I can probably be excused for assuming it's the adults mucking it up, eh? But that's not what we're talkin' about here. Whether it's for rank or NHS or confirmation class or what have yeh, there is an expectation of a "cookie" on da boy's part. In fact, there's a prior agreement on da expectations for the cookie. Of course most of this gets back to our goals, eh? What do we all want da boys to learn? This is where I really think that anybody who is spendin' their time tallying up hours and fractions of hours and portions of requirements in some computer program is doin' Advancement all wrong. Advancement should be like a suntan, eh? It's somethin' yeh just get naturally from being outdoors and workin' hard. In my very first comment on this thread, I said I was uncomfortable with putting an hour requirement on service. I'd be happier if it was worded more like the Scout Spirit requirement - demonstrate a commitment to service while doing all the other things you do to earn a rank. I think the number contributes to the green-eyeshade behavior and increases the chances of sending the wrong message. And while I know Scout Spirit gets a lot of uneven attention in advancement, I think we mostly manage to fit it into the "suntan" approach. I certainly don't hear loud calls to quantify Scout Spirit ("demonstrate at least 5 instances of trustworthy behavior, 3 instances of loyal behavior, 8 of helpful..."). I'm also uncomfortable with things like the class Scoutfish mentions. I think forced volunteerism is a really dangerous idea to fool around with. I understand John-in-KC's point about kids needing some - shall we say encouragement - to do the right thing while they're still maturing. But tying "required volunteer" hours to important rewards or objectives (cookies) for the kids risks teaching them not about service, but a somewhat skewed work ethic instead. Teaching kids the importance of service to their community is good. Teaching them that the way to get something you want from Person A is by doing something for free for Person B is really bad. All sorts of social, cultural and economic problems will stem from that appraoch. It's not an easy line to walk, and I think asking kids to punch a clock on their service hours makes it even harder. Better to simply stress that service is important the same way that Thrify, Brave, Cleean and Reverent are imporant. In the meantime, we do have to quantify service hours because that's what the book says, but that doesn't mean we have to emphasize the quanity.

BadenP, you took the words right out of my mouth (grin). Cheers,

BadenP, I don't accept that a community service project recongized by his School or his Band or some other youth organization can't be recongized by his Scout Troop as well. It's community service. The fact that mutliple organizations want to consider it proof of good character or proper development doesn't change that. But you think we're asking him to do it so he can earn a cookie. Or a rank, or grade, or whatever. So yeah, in your view, sure it's cheating to get two cookies for one cookie worth of work, I get that. I just don't think cookies are supposed to be the reward for community service. I think it's supposed to be respect and goodwill, and I have no problem whatsoever with kids earning respect and goodwill from multiple people for the same admirable behavior. There is no cheating or fudging in that, and nothing at all dishonest about it. (This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

BadenP, I'm sorry, where is the dishonesty? The kid did the service hours. Are you saying it doesn't count because he already "got paid" for those hours with some other reward? If so, then we're not talking about service here, we're talking about contract labor.

I guess Im still bothered by this. Sorry for ranting on about it, but it got under my skin for some reason. Lets look at a hypothetical, using 5Years son. Lets say 5Year Jr. and his Patrol mate Zeke both make First Class at the same time. Zeke goes to a different school that doesnt require service projects, and isnt in FFA or NHS. A year later, Zeke has checked off all of his Star requirements, including doing a 6 hour service project with the Scout Troop. 5Year Jr. has done everything except the service project. Over the year, he has done 12 * 21 = 252 hours of service work, but it was for other things and he cant count it because that would be double-dipping. So, as the SM, youre going to say with a straight face that Zeke, with his 6 hour service project, has demonstrated the spirit of selfless giving and service to others, but 5Year Jr. with his 252 hours still hasnt quite got it? Now, obviously thats ridiculous. Nobody is fudging requirements he participated in 6 hours of service projects, met the requirement. Clearly his SM needs to have approved them before-hand as the requirements say, but theres nothing wrong with fulfilling obligations to multiple organizations with the same service work. It would be wrong to be *paid* by multiple organizations for the same work oh yes. But were not talking about paid work here, are we? Our goal (at least as far as the service requirements go) is to instill a respect for, and a habit of, service to others, to his community. Theres no need for the service to be exclusive to Scouting. If his service was also recognized by some other organization, fine, great, not a problem! Maybe helps drive home the point that its a good thing to do. In fact, refusing to recognize the service he did seems to miss the spirit of the whole thing far more than any double-dipping could. Saying that he has to earn his rank by doing a new service project makes the service work not quite selfless service, eh? Rather more mercenary in tone. Service is something you do without expectation of a reward. You dont earn anything but respect and goodwill from it. If you have to do another 6 hours to earn your Scouting rank because your previous work was already counted for something else you also earned (a grade, a ribbon, whatever), then its not service to others. Its a job.