Beavah

When teaching hands on skills each and everyone of us use the EDGE method. Its just that we never break it down like in EDGE. Some of the steps are combined. But none are ever left out. Nah, not really. That's da problem with EDGE. It sounds good, but it really isn't that helpful. Folks who are good at instructing tend to look at it and say "of course", folks who aren't good at teaching can try to follow EDGE until they're blue in the face and still not improve. It's like snake oil, it morphs to whatever da person thinks it means. If yeh think it works for yeh, great. But I reckon there's a reason no one else in da educational world uses the thing. If I'm teaching a young fellow how to paddle a canoe, I might just as readily put him in da front of the boat and flail for a bit. Skip lecturing or demonstratin' what a front paddler does, just start with letting him get the feel and then move right to Guiding. Same with teaching a young kid how to ride a bike. Yeh mostly put on training wheels and let him ride around and get the feel, then run along with him and encourage. Explaining and demonstrating is well nigh useless. That's true of most physical skills, eh? Blah blah blahing and demonstrating is no help whatsoever. Yeh have to get the lad to "feel" it themselves.

Small troops of da size you're talking about run as a single patrol. That's just fine, eh? The experience for the boy is no different than a big troop that runs by patrol method. He spends his time working in and with his patrol. Big troops tend to have more resources, more high adventure stuff and such, more gear. Small troops know their boys better and are more friendly, usually have less bullying, and often don't have da same overt level of adult run organization. Adults are more comfortable with letting boys organize small scale stuff they can easily keep track of. Da average size of a troop in the US is only 14 boys, so most troops out there are pretty small. The big ones are unusual, and often shrink when da current SM moves on. Biggest recommendation, though, is to let your son find the troop that he really likes. Beavah

Nuthin' wrong with a lad who gets into new things, Gern. But you were the fellow who suggested that in your son's case, it was because Boy Scouting was a good middle school program and a poor high school program. That doesn't suggest a lad leaving because he suddenly found his bliss in band, but also because scouting was no longer meeting his needs as a high schooler. I think if we have a program for 11-17 year olds, it shouldn't be "poor" for the 14-17 year olds, eh? Certainly not so poor that they don't continue. B

Yah, shrubber, the second quote emphasizing "MAY" comes immediately after a large, bright, bold statement that "A Scout IS Tested". The "may" refers to the many different people who could be designated to do the testing. It may be the scoutmaster, or it may be an ASM or it may be a PL, or... The scout, however, IS tested. And as ScoutNut points out, it's your Scoutmaster is the one and only person who determines who "may" do the testing for rank requirements. That's the way the BSA program works. Sorry yeh disagree, but your son's SM is not wrong. Beavah

Yah, as yeh all know I'm often amused by the notion that every troop implements da program in the same way. That's just not reality, and it's not what da BSA expects. I know troops that don't use advancement at all, but just run as a middle school outdoor program using BSA facilities and insurance and youth leadership and other program features. Their councils are delighted to renew da charter every year. What TNScoutTroop is talkin' about is not as far off as that, eh? In fact, TNScoutTroop is talkin' about something that is well within the "regular" BSA program. I reckon most of us can recognize a few troops like TN's in our areas, eh? I know I can. I don't think there's any need to "run under the radar", because it's pretty ordinary scouting, with a "strict" view of advancement as being for proficiency. I reckon most of us can recognize a few "advancement mill" troops in our areas as well, if we're honest and payin' attention. And lots of troops somewhere between those two. I think da problem TNScoutTroop is anticipating is one I've seen plenty of times. When a lad from a looser "advancement mill" troop transfers into a "stricter" troop, it can create a lot of tension. Not so much for the lad; the kids adapt pretty well. But parents who are expectin' a continuation of rapid advancement for limited skill proficiency often raise a ruckus, eh? Not much different than what all troops deal with when some cub scout parents move up to troops and don't understand da change in the way the program works. Now yeh might say like Calico that it'd be nice if we were all standardized, eh? Develop a nationwide standardized test or somesuch. That's worked well for schools, eh? Fact is, there are always differences, and da effort to really standardize is way more than anyone is interested in. Besides, we like the fact that some troops go climb Mt. Rainier and set their programs and expectations for that, and some troops manage to get a few inner city kids out camping a few times a year and set their programs and expectations for that. If TNScoutTroop wants to be da former, I think we should welcome 'em and treat 'em as fellow scouts. But TNScoutTroop, be careful not to be too down on da other fine volunteers who are also gettin' kids out into the woods, even if they aren't climbing Rainier. Beavah

It sounds a lot like you advocate adding to the requirements.. Hiring a scout to do a job, asking to see his bank book? Nah, not adding to the requirements, adhering to the requirements. Da requirement is that to advance, a scout must be tested, and the official Rules and Regulations state that "In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration." So however the SM chooses to test the boy on the requirement, it should require the boy to show proficiency. I agree the saving thing is hard to come up with a test for. In that way it's like first aid requirements, eh? How do yeh test "show first aid for..." without actually having someone get hurt? Well, what yeh do is you create a first aid scenario, where someone simulates getting hurt. Da best ones use moulage - fake wounds and blood and such. A scout has to demonstrate proper first aid by responding to the emergency and properly diagnosing and treating the patient - finding the broken bone and making a good splint, identifying shock and choosing the correct treatment, etc. Running a first aid scenario to test the scout on "show first aid for..." is not adding to the requirements. It is the requirement. Asking the boy to tell you what the first aid is or having him do a simple splint with prepared materials in a meeting hall is subtracting from the requirements and not proper. I was tryin' to come up with a good scenario for saving money, eh? Paying the lad a few bucks and seeing what he does with it seems like a good scenario to test how well he's really learned the importance of saving some of his income. Your Scoutmaster might come up with a different test, I was just floatin' the idea. But a scenario or test isn't adding to the requirements. It is the requirement. Beavah

Nah, evmori, that's not the BSA advancement program. The requirement isn't tie a square not. If the requirement were tie a square knot, then "the scout learns the square knot" is the first step, just as you suggest. But the requirement is to teach how to tie a square knot. So the first step is the scout learning how to teach (with EDGE or whatever). So the Scoutmaster has to explain to the scout how to teach, demonstrate how to teach, coach him as he tries to teach, then let him practice teaching on his own. When all that is done, then the Scoutmaster has to test him on his ability to teach the square knot. That's the second step to advancement. The Scoutmaster or his designee has to come up with a test that determines whether the boy has become proficient in teaching someone how to tie a square knot. He can't take the boy's word on it, he has to test the boy on his ability. That might be a scenario, like for first aid - "I'm old and senile and forgot how, can you teach me the right way to tie my shoes?" Or it may be live "Go teach that visiting webelos scout how to tie a square knot and I'm going to watch." But it has to be a test or assessment of the boy's ability to teach. Then the third step is review. At this step, the BOR will ask a boy how he fulfilled the requirement. The boy will talk about how he learned how to teach and then how he taught a visiting webelos scout how to tie a square knot. And the BOR will take the boy's and the scoutmaster's word on how the test was performed and what the result was. Those are the steps for advancement in the BSA. Yeh can't skip the first two and proceed with "just take his word for it" and still be doing Boy Scouting Advancement correctly. Beavah

Yah, I agree with yeh dScouter15. Particularly on #1, I think that scene management and safety is completely neglected in da BSA materials. And on #3. AEDs, Epi pens, assisting with nitro tabs & inhalers, etc. I would add that I think we should teach kids the proper use (and risks) of over-the-counter medications. By high school, most kids are self-medicating with OTCs, and someone should teach 'em about such things. I'd add a #4, we do a very poor job teaching/emphasizing C-spine precautions. Personally, I think our first aid training is weak all around. I'd like to see First Aid MB bumped up to at least the level of a standard WFA course. I have one reservation about #2, though I agree absolutely that the emphasis should be increased. A civilian first responder is a bit different than a professional responder or even a scout with his first aid kit handy. We each have to make our own informed ethical decisions, of course, but my personal ethics are that I'm not goin' to refrain from assisting a person in need because of the small risk of disease transmission from a single incident. Health care providers and EMS workers experience hundreds of incidents with a different population demographic, so the risk profile is a lot different. So I think we should fully inform the boys of good practice, but keep that in mind as well. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, there was an interestin' post by TNScoutTroop about refusing to accept transfer scouts to their "different" program that seemed like it could stir the pot in a new thread. As I understood it, TNScoutTroop wants to be a "traditional" scout unit in terms of expecting proficiency in outdoor skills for advancement. So roughly a rank a year, First Class Scouts should be able to do a backpacking weekend on their own adult-less, that sort of thing. Very consistent with the core BSA program philosophy in most ways, though differing from what some units do and some of the more modern BSA program materials' focus. Da problem TNScoutTroop is anticipatin' I think is a real one, eh? There's quite a bit of misunderstanding and tension when yeh have lads transfer between troops with different approaches and philosophies. It's really no different than when boys move from Cub Scouts into Boy Scouts and they or their parents are still stuck in Cub Scout mode. If yeh move from a rapid advancement, Eagle-and-out-at-14 program to a program like what TN is puttin' together, there's likely to be some confusion and even hard feelings. Similarly, if a lad moves from TN's troop to a rapid-advancement program there's likely to be some tension and disappointment, too. That sorta thing can lead to a lot of adult misbehavior and time wasted by the unit leaders. So what should be "best practice" in handling transfers under such circumstances? A few troops I know tell parents when kids move up from cubs to give the boys some space, and they don't accept transfer parents as leaders until they've had at least a year of "cub scout deprogramming". Do we do somethin' similar for transfers? How do yeh handle a 12-year-old Life Scout transfer with very weak skills who moves into a troop with a very active outdoor program where Life Scout refers to a 16 year old with 200 days in the field who can plan a high adventure trip from scratch? I've seen lads who were reduced to tears because their new troop assumed they had the skills and so put 'em into positions where they were set up for failure because they really didn't. Conversely, how do yeh handle a 15 year old First Class Scout who along with his parents develops an attitude about all da "Fake" Eagle Scouts his age who can't lash together a bridge without adult help? I've seen that, too. What's the best way to avoid problems with such transfers? Just say "no?" Put conditions or expectations up front? What? Beavah

Yah, I get where TwoCub is coming from, but I'm more in BrentAllen's corner on this. Scouting is outdoor adventure and a way of life. There's plenty of outdoor adventure and life out there to more than enthrall a 16 or 17 year old. Yep, in some units they can't seem to get it together and boys in high school move on to other activities. That's not "bad" for the boys, but it shows where there's room to do better Scouting. Gern's son shouldn't feel he has to leave the scouting he was loving because the challenge is no longer there for him as a high schooler. I think JMHawkins got it right when he said " If the adults are doing all the leading, there's nothing for the older kids to do." Teens are looking for adult-level challenges. Beavah

You'll see that view well represented here, shrubber. As both a parent and a scouter, I want to see kids learn things, not get things. Be able to do, not check boxes as literally and minimally as possible to get by. That is da BSA's official position, too, in the Rules and Regulations, but not all of da BSA documents are well edited, so there can be some confusion. And there are always some kids and some parents who do just want to "get" things, so that view comes up a lot. You will find troops where a lad selects a campsite only once, or ties a knot only once, or teaches only once, taking the word of the boy or the parents rather than the observation and test given by an expert in the field. Those are the Eagle Scouts yeh see occasionally who we're slightly embarrassed by, eh? "Paper Eagles" is the term some use. Most of us want to expect more of our kids, and expect an Eagle to actually be able to do and lead and teach. Yeh can find troops with different approaches, eh? But to answer your original question at the start of the thread, your Scoutmaster is right in his approach. He is following the Rules and Regulations of the BSA and is correctly interpreting the advancement program. It sounds like your son is in a good troop, because many troops are "fudging" on these new requirements. If yeh disagree, your choices are to be a good soldier and support the SM even though you disagree, or to move to another troop where things are looser. Beavah

Yah, there's no requirement that committee meetings (or any adult meetings) be open. Only youth activities have to be open (where practical) to observation, not participation. That "no secret society" rule is a very limited one, eh? It doesn't mean dad automatically gets to go to Philmont, or go boating without a swim check, or to join in his son's EBOR. Council exec committee and some EB meetings are closed, and it's entirely the CO and Committee's discretion on whether a meeting should be open or how the committee should be constituted. Discipline, adult leadership issues, financial review of individual accounts and campership awards are all things that should probably be closed. Aside from those issues, most committees run fairly "open", and many if not most let unit leaders and assistant unit leaders and den leaders have a voice and a vote. Neither, of course, are required. Beavah

How would you test... Earn an amount of money agreed upon by you and your parent, then save at least 50 percent of that money. Hi shrubber. Welcome to da forums BTW! Yep, all boy scout advancement is supposed to follow the four steps, and be "tested" by the Scoutmaster or his/her designee. It's different from Cub Scouts, where we take the word of Akela (his parents) that the boy has done his best. In Boy Scouting, the boy must meet a standard as determined by an "expert" designated by the Scoutmaster. The newest requirements like the one you mention and the one this thread got started on are poorly worded. First draft wording that needed some editing, IMNSHO. Maybe they'll be fixed in next year's Requirements book. But yeh have to read 'em the same way yeh read all the requirements. In Boy Scouting, a boy earns a badge for what he's able to do, not what he has done. So when da requirement says "select a campsite" it means that the boy is able to, on his own, select an appropriate campsite in a variety of conditions, and someone with experience in campsite selection confirmed that by testing him on it at least once...not that he gave his word that he selected a campsite with his family once. So what we want a lad to learn from the requirement is the pain and joy of saving money. At the end, what we want him to be able to do, on his own, is earn money and set some of it aside for long term savings. What's a good test for that? Yeh got me. At some point a lad and his parents can probably find ways of doin' some creative accounting. As a Scoutmaster, I might hire him for some small job and pay him, then check down the road to see if he saved some of it. Maybe a bank statement with his deposit records ("hey, what about that time I paid you for..."), maybe da envelope of cash from his safe at home, maybe his records of his earnings and saving. Yeh work with da parents to try to see if the lad really has learned the lesson of saving, but the lad has to satisfy his SM, not his parents. Beavah

Yeh can do that, evmori. Nobody will stop you. If it works for yeh, great. But it's not the BSA advancement program. To my mind you are subtracting from da requirements and shortchanging the kids from what could and should be a lot of fun and learning. And I'll bet a few weeks later your scouts will have "forgotten" how. Learning to tie a square knot is a joining requirement, not a Tenderfoot requirement. The Tenderfoot requirement is to learn how to teach a simple skill like tying a square knot. Learning how to teach requires time and practice. Yeh don't become proficient at teaching da first time you do it. Besides, like all the BSA requirements, it's fun. So yeh practice it and you get feedback and yeh practice some more until you get really good at teaching the square knot. You know, EDGE. You as the scoutmaster (or PL or whoever is teaching the requirement) explain how to teach, then demonstrate how to teach, then guide the scout as he teaches a bunch of times, then let the scout practice teaching on his own a bunch of times. Then and only then, after da scout has really learned and gotten good, he is tested by teaching the square knot in front of an "expert" at teaching square knots. By then he's comfortable and confident, and not goin' to forget how in a few weeks or months, eh? He's going to be able to do it, even months later with all da adults 300 feet away. Only part where "telling" comes into it is at da BOR, where the lad may tell the board how he learned and was tested on the requirement. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

The one thing I want to stress the most it that this situation should only be handled by adults. Nah, gotta disagree with this, E61, though I agree with everything else. When yeh have a time-critical emergency response like responding to cardiac arrest, yeh want everybody to be trained, eh? Yeh can't guarantee that an adult or an EMS vehicle is going to be immediately available, so we train everybody, even the scouts, in CPR and AEDs. Same with anaphylaxis and lifesaving treatments like Epi auto injectors. The nearest adult might be in da latrine, eh? Yeh don't want to be in a position where someone is there who could help but was never trained. Epi pens are straightforward for even relatively young lads to use themselves. They aren't hard to train older scouts to assist with,and that's a much better choice than not training a scout and having him improvise or watch his friend die. In an actual emergency, of course, we'd expect the person with the highest level of training and experience to take over. That's probably an adult, but it may very well be a scout. I know a lot of boys who have a higher level of certification than the average adult. Beavah

That is the program. According to your interpretation, eh? Even though the BSA Rules & Regulations state that how we administer the advancement program must harmonize with the Aims. I think it's as John says, eh? It's up to the BSA to decide what things are small things and what are big things. And this is clearly somethin' that nobody in da BSA has any interest in making even a small deal out of, let alone deciding to tell a unit to "do something else" by pulling a charter. So if that's the BSA's approach - one of respect and support for da local volunteers - why should ours be any different? I've seen a heck of a lot of units, camps, districts and councils over da years. I have never once seen a single unit that follows the letter of every scrap of program material. Not da units I work with, not acco's. Nobody. But that doesn't mean they aren't doing great scouting. So yah, we disagree on that. . I think it's a difference in perspective between unit and district/council scouters. Every unit scouter is proud of his unit and thinks his unit is " following the program" and that others should do what they do. It can cause all kinds of friction when unit scouters move to district and trybtelling that to other successful units . Once yeh see that enough yeh realize that some diversity of approach is a strength of Scouting, not a weakness. Just MHO, of course. Don't sweat da small stuff. Beavah

Pack committee meetings are open to all parents - registered and non-registered Usually. Dependin' on da pack or CO and how the committee is set up and what the topic is. Just like "voting", eh? Often packs in particular let all parents participate (including make proposals and vote), even ex officio members like the CM, ACM, or DL. There is no requirement about how committees are structured or how they make decisions. That's left to each CO and committee. B

Huh????? Who gets tested? The person the Scout taught? I'm confused There's training for that, eh? Four Steps of Advancement 1. The Boy Scout learns. 2. The Boy Scout is tested. 3. The Boy Scout is reviewed. 4. The Boy Scout is recognized.

Nah, that's Beavah vernacular for "the Methods serve the Aims". Kinda like "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Or, to put it in terms of what we all agreed to do as BSA leaders: All advancement procedures shall be administered under conditions that harmonize with the aims and purposes of the Boy Scouts of America - Rules and Regulations of the BSA, Article X, Advancement Program. There are always folks who feel that their version or interpretation of being a Christian, or being a good citizen, or being a good scouter is the only way. I just disagree. Da form we sign as adult leaders say we'll follow the Rules and Regulations, not every page of every BSA document ever written. And in da grand scheme of things, whether a volunteer fills out a page of paperwork before sitting on a BOR is a small thing, eh? Beavah

The Scout teaches someone how to ties a square knot. He tells his Scoutmaster he did this. The Scoutmaster signs the requirement. Yah, you can do that, but it's not the BSA program. (gosh, I feel like BobWhite... ) In the BSA program, the scout tries to teach a bunch of people how to tie the square knot. He practices, he gets better. He works until he's able to do a good job with EDGE or whatever. After he's learned, then he gets tested by whomever the SM designates... however that person decides to test him. But it should be a test, proving that this is something he can do well, not a review of what he has done. Same with any other requirement or skill. First he learns how to swim. It takes time and effort and practice. Then he gets tested with the swim test, to demonstrate that he can swim 100 yards in a strong manner with the ability to rest while swimming and floating. We don't take his word on swimming. First he learns how to tie a splint. It takes time and effort and lots of practice and some fun scenarios on campouts until he really has good splinting down and can do a good job whenever called upon. Then he gets tested. Right in da middle of a hike an adult falls down and "twists" his ankle without warning and da scout has to improvise a high quality splint. We don't take his word that he tied a splint at home, eh? Then he gets reviewed, and that's when he tells what he did to meet the requirement and the BOR takes his and the SMs word on it. If yeh just take his word the very first time he teaches the knot, then I don't know what you're doing, but it's not BSA scouting advancement method. But it does explain why your lads keep "forgetting" things they supposedly learned... I mean were "signed off" on. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah clemlaw, I think it's just fine to speak up politely about safety issues, eh? Yeh never want to discourage anybody from raising a safety question. That having been said, there are all kinds of ways to make a pool rental work great for a pack of cub scouts. As others have mentioned, most pool rentals come with lifeguard support and markers between shallow and deep ends, so you're covered in terms of supervision and areas. Then yeh just need to do basic swim checks at the start of the event, and teach the boys the buddy system. If yeh have a really big pack, appoint a few parents as extra lookouts to supplement the life guards, and go have fun. That's not being "Mr. No.", eh? That's being Mr. "Sounds great, let's do it right!" As for the insurance thing, insurance has nothing to do with SSD. It's based on an insurance contract. Just like your auto insurance, BSA insurance covers you even if you speed, deliberately run an red light, or otherwise make ordinary mistakes or bad decisions. So while it seems like it makes your argument more effective to "blame the bean counters", in actual fact you're not being honest. And a Scout is always Trustworthy, eh? Keeping kids safe is a better argument than insurance anyways . Now, as ScoutFish points out, parents can always assume personal responsibility for their boys and do whatever they want with 'em, eh? So they can leave your scout event to go swim in the lake without SSD and you have no business telling 'em they can't. But at your scout event, they should agree to follow and abide by the program policies and procedures. Beavah

Yah, what ScoutNut said, eh? The Rules & Regulations have relatively little on advancement, but they do specify the four steps required for a boy to advance: learning, testing, reviewing, and recognition. I think these days what happens in a lot of troops is that they forget or shortchange the "learning" step and jump right to testing. As a result, they teach lads to cram for the test (or just go off and teach a neighbor once), rather than actually learning how to do something. The point of da requirement isn't to teach someone a square knot once, eh? That would just be silly. The point of the requirement is to learn how to teach someone else a simple skill using EDGE. It's there to get the lad started on what will be his responsibility to teach patrol-mates and younger scouts skills down the road. It might take teaching a half-dozen people in different settings how to tie a knot before the lad really figures out how to use EDGE (or something else) to teach someone a simple skill. That's the learning step of advancement. He should keep doing it until he gets proficient - until he becomes confident and successful in his ability to teach someone a simple skill like tying a knot. Might take a month or two and a lot of practice. After that he gets tested, by whomever the SM designates to do that type of test. I'd say for teaching someone to tie a knot, as a test I would have the lad teach someone how to tie a knot! Not talk to him about what he did to fulfill the requirement. That's the review step, eh? The BSA advancement program depends on doin' all four steps. Don't sabotage it by skipping the "learning" step, or by mixing up the "review" and "testing" steps. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It's time the Board and SM work out a process that works for the troop! Yah, I think this is the key, eh? If everyone is on board with the system, whatever the system is, it can work just fine. I know excellent troops where the BORs ask some tough skills questions. The boys are usually enthusiastic about showin' off their knowledge. But I remember visiting one such troop one night where they realized that an ASM had been teaching improper First Aid. So they sent the boy back to re-learn it and talked to the ASM. Boys weren't upset, they came back within a week or two and nailed it. If I remember, I think da SM had 'em teach and test the ASM after they re-learned it. All fun and good natured. There was no notion of failing a board of review, but it was possible to not yet pass. I know other excellent troops like jblake's, where a BOR is a rubber stamp but the SM maintains a high level of quality at SM conference time or in other ways. That works great, too, at least until the SM changes. Then yeh often, but not always, see a decline in expectations as the new fellow struggles a bit to fill da shoes but wants the boys to keep advancing. I know still other excellent troops where BOR's don't ask a single skill question or "about" how you did the requirements question and instead are more a short easy-going conversation. That can work great, too. No right or wrong way. Each way can be done well or done poorly. Da first can become boards of final exam with "failed" kids and wailing. The last can become loosey goosey badge mills. The key is to choose an approach that gets yeh the outcomes you want in a reasonable way, and then not get caught up in da notion that your approach is the only way to do a good job for kids. Like BOR membership. Beavah

Yah, those were the days, Mr. Boyce! Good choice, Mike F. Beavah

I could do the same Beavah, but you and I are not 12 years old. Yah, speak for yourself, eh? Always young at heart! The young folks are better at learning and less forgetful than us old farts. Mrs. Beavah can attest to that! I learned to canoe when I was 12-13 and didn't get in a canoe again until after college. Had no trouble at all doin' all the canoe MB skills the first day back on da water. As long as we expect 'em to really learn, to be proficient enough they can be 300 feet or 300 miles away without worries, then they're not going to "forget" da skill next week, next month, or even next year. If they're "forgetting", then we're failing at really teachin' 'em to be proficient before signing 'em off. That's a bit scary, eh? Most of da stuff in T-2-1 is stuff we expect kids to know to be safe. If yeh signed off on "what to do when lost" and the lad "forgot" it before the next campout, then it doesn't strike me as being the most responsible thing. If the lad is tyin' stuff to the roof of the car with a garbage knot because he "forgot" all the knots he'd been signed off on as being proficient, that's goin' to be a problem for the poor fellow driving behind you. A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do; it is not a reward for what he has done. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)