Beavah

Yah, I gotta agree with sherm. Honestly, I think it's an age and fitness thing. As we get older, we all get a bit slower and less adventurous. Many of our national fellows also become very well rounded. If we aren't getting outdoors and being adventurous ourselves, if we hold back from the rock climb or da whitewater raft or the snow camp, that does send signals. Even more, we start to think those things are optional. They're not necessary. We can do scoutin' without 'em. Only a small step from that to "and they're risky." Need to write more rules. We can, perhaps should, cut 'em. Only a few people would miss them, but not any of the people we know. I never did paintball. Cub scouts don't need to canoe. Teenagers can't be expected to camp on their own. Sound familiar? I reckon that's why in much of international scouting, unit leaders and officials are young folks. They often consider it odd and disadvantageous to have older, slower, more well-rounded folks leading. Beavah

Yah, here I have to disagree with qwazse a bit, eh? If yeh have a suspicion of impropriety within a unit, the supervisor is the Chartered Organization, not the council. So your ethical obligation and da proper legal course is to notify the Chartered Organization, and follow their guidance. Some Chartered Organizations (schools and groups that run other youth programs) have some very well developed response policies that honestly are far better than the BSA's, with a more experienced professional staff to implement 'em. Of course, that's not every CO, so yeh have take my guidance and use your own judgment and common sense based on da circumstances. Practically speakin' the Chartered Org. will work with da SE and vice versa in most cases. But SEs are a bit hit or miss on this stuff. Their training in it is really fairly cursory, and their experience pretty limited. Some are good, some drop da ball, some overreact. There's nuthin' guaranteeing they're goin' to be better than da CO, or even any better than what qwazse describes. Da most recent trend has been to "shoot first" and forget about asking questions. Beavah

Shortridge, it's not enough to quote da document, eh? Yeh have to understand the document. The bit that I wrote above was a summary of the direct wording of the previous version of G2SS. Do yeh really think that the entire reporting expectation of volunteers in the BSA was changed in da last few months? I know Health & Safety sucks at communication, but yeh would think they'd get somethin' like that out, eh? You are mixing up several very different things, and that's what's causin' you to misjudge. Thing One:Child Abuse and Neglect Child abuse and neglect, includin' emotional abuse, can generally only be committed by parents or legal guardians (or long-term camps in some states). In most states, professional medical providers and professionals who work with children are obligated to report reasonable suspicion of this to child protective services. Not to law enforcement. Definitely not to the SE (because reporting to anyone other than CPS means they're liable for defamation). The exception is if it happened during a scouting activity where yeh tell the SE because he's the responsible supervisor. That's why YPT has that bit about "scouting context". This stuff varies between states in terms of who is a mandatory reporter and how abuse is defined, but da essence is the same: report suspicion to CPS and no one else. Thing Two: Physical abuse (sexual battery, etc.) within Scouting (at a scout activity, by an adult) Here in general there is no reporting obligation to CPS, though again this can vary a bit with da circumstances by state. If you believe a crime has been committed, then yeh report to law enforcement (yeh call the cops). You should have evidence of that, eh? Because here there is no protection for you from a civil defamation complaint. This is why in da youth protection training it says that if a child tells you he's been abused, you call the cops. The child telling you is evidence. And, because it happened within scouting, you also must notify the supervisor(s) within scouting: the Scout Executive and/or the Chartered Organization. Now, if yeh just have a vague suspicion, then yeh don't call the cops. Yeh do what you'd do if you thought a coworker might be stealing from da company. You tell the boss. So if yeh have a suspicion of physical abuse (or other really bad thing that hurts kids) within scouting, you tell the appropriate supervisor: the SE, and/or the Chartered Organization. Then it's their responsibility to investigate and take action (includin' calling the cops if they feel that's warranted). Where the line is between just tellin' the CO/SE and callin' the cops yourself is a personal judgment. Depends how sure you are, and whether yeh feel the lad is in immediate danger. Most of us would err on the side of protecting the boy, even at risk of our own financial well being and reputation. At da same time, making a false accusation will destroy another adult's life, eh? Police records are public. So there's a balance. Thing Three: Minor violations of protocol We have all kinds of guidance and rules in scouting. The CO is supposed to check references on adult applications. Two-deep. No one-on-one. Three hours of paddling instruction before any canoe trip. Yeh should have a road emergency kit in a vehicle. These are internal program guidance, and like the entire G2SS they relate to youth protection. CPS and the cops could care less. For incidental violations, most scouters could care less, as long as da actions were reasonable and thoughtful for da circumstances. Single violations are like your coworker making personal copies on da company machine. Are yeh goin' to report him to your boss for that? Now, if yeh discover that every Saturday he comes in and makes several thousand copies for his own printing business on the side, that's different. But if yeh encourage a corporate culture where everyone reports everyone else's minor violations to the boss, will anyone want to work there? If someone doesn't like you as SM, they report yeh when you used a four-letter-word to the scout who left your iPhone out in the rain after he borrowed it, and that time in da big cabin when the "barrier" between the adult and scout side wasn't fully floor to ceiling, and when... and when... ------- The part shortridge excerpted from da current G2SS refers to things 1 and 2, eh? Child abuse, child pornography within scouting and the like. It's not referring to thing three. The G2SS is not policy. That at least they made clear in this revision. It's an internal guidance document to advise scouters. If you're a unit volunteer, only the Chartered Organization can make policy for you. G2SS is good advice. Yeh should pay attention to it and consider it thoughtfully. But you are not "bound" to it like some mindless automaton. Any claim to da contrary is just flat out wrong. And there's a reason for that, eh? Because if yeh follow G2SS and do somethin' that your fellow citizens feel is irresponsible, then you are liable to judgment. Following G2SS does not protect you. You are expected by society and the law to behave as a rational, reasonable, thinking adult human being. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, nldscout, I reckon that's the way to handle it. Honestly, junior called mommy on his cell phone to come get him? Da issue wouldn't be so much that the adult leaders had an attitude toward the boy it would be what the other boys in his patrol felt about that. tmmw4 doesn't share her location, but around these parts 7 degrees is warm as all get-out. Most well-prepared scouts wouldn't even consider it chilly. Beavah

Right or wrong, BSA youth protection training states that we don't "use good judgment" to decide if we should report to the SE or not - we should report it and let the judgment fall with the SE and others. Oh fer cryin' out loud. Da things you report to an SE are allegations by a scout concerning abuse in the program, youth behavioral incidents that result in physical injury or involve allegations of sexual misconduct, and death. In short, the really serious stuff that will likely result in an insurance claim or publicity disaster. Not every time an adult walks into a public restroom and there's only one youth there. Get a grip, people! Yeh have to understand the policies. Do yeh really think that the SE wants to hear about every time a female venturer wears what someone feels is an inappropriately revealing bathing suit? That's one of the Youth Protection policies! Yah, yah, da most recent G2SS release had some tom-fool go overbroad on the wording. The last version was much more clear that notifications were for the things I mentioned. I suppose we could all force a change back to more precise wording if we really did report every single YP violation to the SEs, then they'd all be calling up Irving demanding someone do a more responsible job of editing that document. But honestly, that's why it's a guidebook, eh? It's not written to be a policy document, and yeh can't treat it as one. Common sense and good judgment always apply. On my honor I will do my best to keep myself mentally awake. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Latter they talked with the PL about the indecent. The WHAT?!!. Don't yeh just love da newfangled autocorrect features that pick words like that? Sounds mostly like minor stuff. They rightly and properly earned da dutch oven cooking award and from what it seems the Spirit Award. Yeh don't really have any reliable information on da patrol competition stuff, just some complainers who weren't with the patrol who believe they might not have actually won or that they might have gotten points they didn't deserve. I've seen patrols skip events and still win handily just because of how well they did in the events they participated in. So I wouldn't turn molehills into mountains. At most, I'd have an offhand conversation with the ASM in question and some offhand conversations with da other ASMs as well. The first to explore a bit about being honest and fair, the second to explore a bit about being loyal, kind, and courteous. To be honest, I feel the other ASMs are a bigger problem. That behind-the-back-of-a-fellow-leader stuff is just poison for a unit, even if they're 100% right on the facts. Yeh need your team of ASMs to work together and be on the same page. Of course, if the lads really admit to not deserving some points they got and that would have changed the outcome, they should learn to come forward and speak up as well. That sort of honesty is an important lesson. I'm not sure I'd pursue it at this point, though, unless you're really sure of all your facts. Maybe just an oblique SM's minute tellin' a story about someone else who gave up their win because they didn't think they deserved it. As for whose duty it is to call, "never do for a boy something that he is capable of doing for himself." The PLC set the departure times, the boys opted to change, the boys should be responsible for calling if that is expected. They can borrow the ASM's cell phone or da camp phone if needed, and can even ask for directions on how to use a rotary phone if required. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, flyerscout123, welcome! I think yeh have to keep everything in balance, eh? LNT is a modern wilderness ethic that recognizes we have a whole lot of people tryin' to enjoy some very limited frontcountry and backcountry outdoors, so if each of us doesn't do all we can to preserve it unspoiled, we're goin' to lose it. Some of my favorite outdoors places as a young man your age are almost unrecognizable now. They've been so over-used by well-meaning or slightly careless people that they're almost unrecognizable. Brings a tear to my eye just thinkin' about it. Of course, if you're comin' from an armed forces background, the emphasis is different eh? Just like for rappelling on a COPE course. We in da BSA teach you to rappel slowly and under control. But da rules are different if someone is shooting at you! Then yeh need to rappel with almost reckless speed and precision. So military training gets yeh different skills and practices because it's assuming different conditions. Since you're actually civilian camping not travelin' with your patrol through da high country of Afghanistan, it's the LNT principles yeh should be followin' most of da time. "Survival" situations, of course, are on the line where civilian campin' has to make some compromises. That's why I don't particularly care for da practice in the BSA, since if we teach good camping skills then there's never really a need for "survival" skills. But we're a "be prepared" organization, so havin' some survival skills in our toolkit that we practice on private land that can take the abuse is an OK thing. And in a survival situation, most times of da year yeh won't get enough calories or nutrition out of just gathering edible plants. So for anything longer than a week (or a long weekend if yeh want to stay comfortable), you're goin' to want to be thinkin' about hunting or trapping or fishing, and know how to prepare an animal so caught. Yeh need da calories and the complete protein to be able to function well. So I think you're both right, eh? You're right, in that in a civilian camping environment, LNT should be the rule (plus there might be hunting/trapping laws that yeh need to be aware of in your area!). Some of da others here are right that in a shorter-term "lost" or "survival" scenario, yeh shouldn't spend any time catching food, you should be workin' on water, shelter, and getting found. And your adult leaders are right that in a longer-term lost or survival situation, yeh would want to know how to hunt, fish, or trap, and learning that stuff is an OK thing if yeh learn it well and in the proper environment. All things in balance, eh? But a Scout Salute to yeh for being mentally awake and really thinkin' about this stuff, and for havin' the courage to question and challenge things you see that might be a problem. Would love to have you in any troop, mate! Beavah

Yah, jet526, what's your position in da troop? Why is this your concern? Mostly, most of da things sound like ordinary kid stuff being relayed by a group of whining complainer parents upset that their little darling's patrol didn't win because da "special needs" patrol got special consideration. I dismiss that kind of stuff as unworthy of my time almost automatically. What's particularly incongruous to me is that despite all these awful, horrible things, the camporee staff agreed that they deserved the Scout Spirit award. The ASM was only one fellow on staff, eh? He might have been in their corner, but clearly quite a few other adults from da district and other troops thought these fellows were doing a good job. So yah, the patrol worked as a group to make their awesome dutch oven dessert and while it was baking played and threw some rocks. Who cares, unless da rocks were aimed at someone? That's just kids enjoyin' the outdoors and each other's company. And to my mind, staying behind at the camporee to help clean up is da sort of thankless hard work that makes for true Scout Spirit. Should they have called? Perhaps, dependin' on their age, parent expectations and da like. But to my mind, that's a conversation between a parent and a child that needs to be had, eh? Better to have that conversation now over a camporee than later on out with da girlfriend after the prom. Could the boys have been better? Sure. Could the ASM have offered a bit of gentle correction over the uniform inspection or da flag ceremony? Sure, if he was aware of it instead of runnin' around helpin' other events. But most importantly, what did the complainers do? Did they speak up at the time? Did they approach the patrol and say "hey, that's not cool?" Or did they just talk about the winning patrol behind their back after the fact? Beavah

Yah, OGE, I reckon yeh missed KC9's point completely. But look! Kudu's plan has egg in it too!!! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, runintherain, yeh raise an interestin' question. Honestly, from an objective point of view, the no one-on-one rule is more to protect the adult leaders from false accusations than it is to protect the kids. Just being in a car with a boy for a bit on a long drive isn't goin' to be a setup for predatory behavior on its own. Predators really start outside of scouting, eh? Become friends with da family, see the boys when no other scouting adults are around. Adult-on-youth molestation by anyone other than a parent or relative rarely happens on scouting events, and then only when the person has been doin' it outside of scouting for a while. So I'd be inclined to approach the SM gently and describe what it looked like to you in a friendly manner. Let him know it's compromising his own protection, because it opens him up to suspicions and rumors and da potential for false accusations. That should be enough to kick it up a notch in his thinkin'. And as others have said, there are all kinds of reasons why it might have seemed like da right thing to do in the moment, from the lad misbehaving in another car on down to all da other boys piled into the minivan with the movie player . Packin' up with a mess of kids runnin' around, things happen yeh don't catch. Now, if there's a pattern with isolating that same boy on multiple occasions, giving special treatment or gifts, that sort of thing, then yeh might have a word with da boy's parents, the CC, and perhaps da Scout Executive. Beavah

Yah, I've relegated Kudu to my blocked user list. His good thoughts and suggestions get too lost in his emotional rhetoric, and I've heard it all before. So I'm pretty sure he means that it's possible given da current BSA requirements for a boy to Eagle in two years and never put on a backpack. He's right, eh? Nuthin' in the requirements that demands it. Heck, if we look at most of da requirements these days, theres a lot more "discuss" or bookwork stuff than there is active outdoors skill stuff. Now of course the lad might have done a thousand mile bike trek or 200 miles by canoe . And like NJ says, the actual experience of many if not most boys in troops is that they will do some backpacking (and maybe some pedalling and paddling as well). But Kudu has a point in that all of that is extra, eh? Stuff that is beyond what is expected of programs or Eagle Scouts. Yeh don't see patrol camping or backpacking or pedaling or paddling in da new Journey to Excellence either, eh? Should that really be da case? That's Kudu's point, once yeh get past all da inflammatory nonsense he puts out. And yeh have to admit, he does have a point. Beavah

So I got to buy a DVD from BSA to show to a bunch of volunteers Ah, come on BD. That CD media is expensive, eh? Gotta recoup da cost. Must be at least a fraction of a penny per disk. Beavah

Yah, star bash, welcome to da Scouter.Com forums! In answer to your question, whether or not the SPL attends troop committee meetings is entirely up to your CC/committee and your SPL . I've seen it both ways, and in fact a lot of permutations (includin' putting the former SPL on the committee). Generally speaking', I have the following thoughts (in no particular order). 1) adult meetings tend to be boring, and da style might not really help the SPL work with the PLC. 2) if the adult meeting is too boring to an SPL chances are your CC is doin' a lousy job with the agenda for the committee meeting. It shows your committee is spending too much time on things that don't matter to the boys. The adults can learn from that, eh? Sadly most don't. 3) having one or two youth present helps da adults to behave themselves, if that's an issue for your committee. 4) it's good to have the SPL come to the committee for some things, like presenting the annual calendar from the PLC or da budget, or sitting on the committee to select a new Scoutmaster. Even if he doesn't attend other meetings. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, unauthorized use of copyrighted material is not stealing, eh? That inaccuracy is just a pet peeve of mine. The work is the property of the public. It is not owned by the creator/author, so it cannot be stolen. The public grants da author a limited right to semi-exclusive distribution in da form of a copyright, so as to encourage the creator to do more work to benefit society. Violating that semi-exclusive distribution right is called infringement, and it's not the same as theft at all. And there are any number of "fair use" distribution cases where the public retains its rights even if it has granted a temporary copyright. Now, if yeh break into da office and take a bunch of CDs, that is stealing. Beavah

Yah, interestin... This is da first time I've ever heard anyone officially give voice to da notion of "consistent delivery" as being a design goal of da BSA training materials. I find that just fascinatin'. As far as I know, the rest of the educational community gave up on that "teacher proofing" approach a few decades ago, eh? Everyone learned that consistent delivery gives yeh inconsistent to poor outcomes. Because da focus is on delivery, not on learning outcomes. If yeh want learning outcomes, yeh have to adjust delivery to the needs and style of the learner and to the local conditions. Seems like Hazardous Weather Training would be exactly da thing we would want to adjust to the needs of the learner. Unless Climate Change happens a lot faster than predicted, I don't think I'm goin' to need to worry about hurricanes in our area of Central Region anytime soon. But folks could probably use some extra time with cold weather, and da local expertise is quite frankly a lot more expert than the online module. Beavah

Yah, SR540, let me take another crack at what packsaddle said. If we're talkin' about an audience of 13-14 year olds and we're tryin' to get 'em to learn and be successful (as compared with just trying to present something to them), then let's think for a moment. What makes for a good explanation (to the particular learner(s) you are working with)? What makes for an effective demonstration (given da environment and equipment and learners)? How does one do a good job coaching/mentoring? When do you allow a learner to "solo" and under what kinds of conditions? I reckon each of those things, to really understand and do a good job with 'em, requires quite a bit of time and training and practice. Certainly books have been written about each. So da notion that we can spend an hour explaining EDGE to a 13-14 year old and have them be successful with it is to my mind much less likely than havin' 'em figure out a goal and timeline, consider the learner, and come up with a plan. And that's before we get into the fact that everyone seems to agree it's not E->D->G->E it's some random on-the-fly assortment of those four letters in different orders. Only difference might be that goals and planning are part of so many other things we do in scouting, so unlike EDGE they might have seen that before. As for da examples, I don't quite get 'em. RICE is used industry-wide. Yeh can pick up almost any BLS or First Aid or nursing text and find it in there. So it's a well-established protocol. That's not true of EDGE. I've never taught STOP for what to do when lost (at least da "stay put" version. Well even da other one...). Much easier and more effective just to use an apprenticeship model and teach 'em what to really do when lost, rather than memorizing some almost useless acronym. Yeh can learn da acronym and still not know a thing about what to do when lost. Stop where? When? For how long? Think about what? Observe what? Plan how? Taking what into account? But if yeh teach with an apprenticeship model, yeh can blindfold a kid, walk him 2 miles into the forest and leave him and he'll be out at the cars in 30 minutes or less. So I've always found it more successful both for me and for youth to figure this stuff out for real, rather than recite an acronym or algorithm. I reckon it might just be a different view of program, eh? I like to see da lads become proficient, not do-it-once-and-done. I expect older scouts to teach all of T-2-1, not just da "simplest skills." I figure a successful Life scout level of skill should be to be able to handle different learners, since he's dealin' with a range of kids in his patrol or as TG or Instructor. But if you're just doin' a once-and-done signoff, then I suspect anything, from EDGE to BALROG will be "successful." All the learner needs is enough of an IQ to play da school quiz game. They've had years and years to learn how to do that with even da worst of teachers. Beavah

Yah, Tess, we're happy to be of help. Yeh say the CM's wife is both Assistant Cubmaster and Treasurer? Yikes. Again, I think it's pretty common for da founding CM to feel a lot of "ownership". That's a good thing, because without someone doin' that a new unit would never get going. What yeh have to do here is switch da feeling from ownership to co-ownership and partnership. Gently, firmly, and pleasantly. Of course, it's not a good sign that da CM wasn't very honest about some things. That steps over the line in my book. But if the fellow is a decent CM, I'd show him the loyalty and kindness of addressing those things personally and in private. Good luck with it, Tess. Remember, yeh deal with fires by patiently pouring on water, not by feedin' 'em fuel. Beavah

A CC who wants to replace a Scoutmaster or Cubmaster can sign an adult leader application to appoint a new person and recommend that the Chartered Organization Rep sign it. That's all it takes to replace someone Yah, SP, you're confusing a form with a process here, eh? The CC signs the form representing a decision by the committee. He or she is signing on behalf of the committee, not on their own authority. Just like any board of directors, eh? The Chairman of the Board does have some important roles in setting the agenda, calling and leading meetings, etc. (dependin' on da bylaws). But on his own, the Chairman of the Board doesn't have da ability to make decisions like replacing the CEO. That requires a vote of the board. Same here. Of course, as you say, a COR acting on behalf of the CO can act unilaterally on his/her own authority. But that has nuthin' to do with whether or not he/she holds the CC position as well. To remove someone without appointing a replacement, the COR just sends a letter to the council registrar to inform the council that the person has been removed. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Now, Richard, yeh should always listen to those voices in your head, eh? Seems to me in some of our pile of Scouting literature we suggest that to communicate well, da volunteers should use multiple media to reach as many people as possible. Mail, email, web, in-person, etc. But if it ain't in the Scouting literature, then it's definitely part of the knowledge and training of anyone with any experience in Communications. Different media get da word out to different audiences and demographics. So I reckon being snotty to a well-meaning volunteer who is just tryin' to help yeh do your job in rural Maine is a touch counterproductive. He's giving yeh information that the online training doesn't work well in rural areas where high-speed internet access isn't readily available. That's good information, eh? Same is true in my state. I suppose yeh can take that information and say yeh don't give a hoot. Most of da rest of us who live by da Oath and Law would say "Thank you for that information. Now, how can I help?" Else I reckon a fellow who is charged with protecting the brand, people, property and environment of Scouting can end up sorta embarrassed when it comes out in da middle of a court case that the training effectively wasn't available to da people in question. Especially when there's a public record on an internet forum that made yeh award of da fact. Beavah

So one example of tryin' to help other people learn how to teach that does not use da EDGE method is the BSA's Trainer's Edge course. Da four modules in Trainer's Edge aren't actually E/D/G/E, eh? Instead they're Communicating Preparation (logistics, media, and methods) Directing Traffic & Thoughts Platform Time / Feedback I confess I'm not terribly enamored of Trainer's Edge either, because it's more of a corporate presentation model than a real teaching/learning model. But isn't it interestin' that when we teach how to teach, we don't use da very model we're supposedly advocating? Beavah

Bump for SR540...

In reality, you need to work together on this kind of stuff. But technically, the CM ( and all the other leaders) works under or for you! Nah, not really. And not da right way to think about it. Everyone works for the Chartered Organization. Works together on behalf of the Chartered Organization. The Committee serves either as the support "staff" compared with the unit leader/assistant unit leader front "line", or da committee serves as the "board of directors" to the unit leaders' "executives". The former setup is more common in units, especially cub packs; the latter is closer to the BSA's model. Any way you cut it, the CC on his own has no particular authority, and the unit leader does not work for him/her. When it comes to program, da CC and committee should support the unit leader. When it comes to changing leadership, the committee (or some subgroup thereof) is empowered to make recommendations on changing leadership to the COR, and da unit leader should support them. There's no express role for the unit leader in the process of choosing assistant unit leaders, but only a fool would not strongly consider the input of the unit leader and other assistants, and only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of fools would not include da unit leader and assistants in the process in some way. Beavah

Yah, what KC9DDI said. Yeh can use flour, egg, baking soda, and spice to make a delicious cake, or yeh can use flour, egg, baking soda, and spice to make an inedible mess. As scouts sometimes demonstrate . Da problem isn't with individual ingredients. The problem is with da bad recipe. I think this is probably a duplicate of da other thread at http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=311705&p=1 . I thought there were some good responses over there. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, pchadbo, consider da impression "Denied!" The fellow is free to contribute his time as an ASM in the troop and as a Tiger Cub Den Leader at the same time. He can also add on Venturing Crew Associate Advisor and District Commissioner if he likes. Within a unit, yeh aren't supposed to overlap. There's some good practical reasons for that, though in smaller units those reasons fall apart and yeh will see people who are effectively MC's (committee members) and Den Leaders, or CM's and Den Leader and the like. For da purpose of BSA registration, they just choose the position that is required for the unit to recharter. What position you're registered for with da BSA and what work you actually do don't have to have any bearing on each other. Only true dual-registrations within units are COR and MC. So da COR can serve as Committee Chair or as a Committee Member in addition to COR. COR/CC makes more sense in most cases, but not always. Da IH isn't really "in the system" so to speak, so practically speaking the IH can register as anything else, though it only makes sense as COR. Beavah

Do you have to teach them using the edge method? Sure it might help them to learn it if you did. But it's not a prerequisite. Yah, it is a requirement. That's the issue. The requirements for Tenderfoot and Life Scout are to use the EDGE method to teach a skill, not to use the most appropriate method to teach a skill. That's what's being debated here. Whether requiring a particular method which has no demonstrated basis in reality nor broad acceptance is appropriate. BSA is an institution. Institutions have rules, they have policies and guidelines, policies change, documentation changes, get used to it. Yah, take a step back and relax there, Rockford. The BSA is a corporation. Corporations sell things, either goods or services. There are internal rules within corporations, but most of us here are not members of da BSA corporation; only if you're elected by your council to serve as a national rep. or selected for an Area, Regional, or National position do yeh have that distinction. So most of us are just purchasers of da BSA program materials and services. As consumers/customers, it's right and proper for us to evaluate and comment on da quality of those materials. I've been a loyal Ford owner for a long time, eh? But that doesn't mean I can't comment on da strengths and weaknesses of my vehicle, or grouse about how Ford automatic transmissions are often lousy. No difference here. If yeh don't like threads where loyal Ford owners grouse about lousy transmissions, just avoid 'em. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)