Beavah

The REAL intellectual elites think YOU are just as much of a dumb-bumpkin, anti-intellectual idiot as you think us Southerners are. Why? Because you believe in a supernatural being. Anyone with a REAL brain wouldn't believe in such nonsense. So, how do those shoes fit? Oh, yah, they fit just fine, eh? Most of da liberal academic folks I know think I'm a barely tolerable reactionary old fart. I reckon I earn "barely tolerable" just as a virtue of age and profession, in a roll-their-eyes sort of way. Trust me, I pick on 'em mercilessly. I'm an equal-opportunity critic! And they even foam at the mouth better than southerners. Southerners often have their head screwed on better when it comes to commitment and family, and liberals just hate it when I tell 'em to stop worrying about poverty in Africa when their neighbors could use a hand. Culture is a real thing, though, eh? There is an urban culture, and it causes some attitudes and actions which leave people in welfare and poverty when they could do better. There is a sort of east-coast elitist culture, and there is a sort of southern anti-intellectual thing, and a kind of northern midwest rural thing. And of course there's Texans! What's wrong is to pigeon-hole or discriminate against individuals in any way, and that's not what I mean to be doin'. But I reckon its important to acknowledge cultural influences, since sometimes we have to fight 'em. I think yeh have to take a look at that trend in da southern states, which shows up so strongly in your really low graduation rates. Why is that goin' on? We know you're not dumber than the rest of us, so what is it about the attitudes that folks are encouragin' in their kids that leads 'em not to value education? That's a pretty scary thing, since da job market ain't goin' to be kind to 'em, when they're competing against Asians and Indians who are hungry for work and willing to go great-guns for an education to improve themselves. Maybe your example to 'em is that everybody's opinion is equally valid, so yeh don't need to get an education. "I know as much as any climate scientist, who are they to tell me what's happening!" Might not be what's intended, but sometimes our example speaks da loudest. Beavah

Yah, for da minimum I'd say yeh just need enough to outfit boys who can't afford or haven't gotten it together to get the gear they need yet. I've seen troops that didn't have a storage room and pretty much just relied on the gear of the members. Ideally, I do think each patrol should have its own gear that it's responsible for and that allows the patrol to be self-sufficient. Whatever that happens to be for your area of da country and your style of campin'. For some it means patrol backpackin' gear, for some a patrol canoe trailer. But da focus should be on the patrol havin' what it needs to be independent, and bein' responsible for its own gear. Beyond that I have to admit that I'm an old dog that has learned new tricks. I don't encourage troops to buy trailers or heavy gear anymore. Big waste of money. I encourage 'em to buy lightweight gear they can pack small and use for a wide range of activities beyond car-camping. It's funny, but gear drives the program in more ways than you think. If yeh have heavyweight trailer-gear, that pretty much limits a troop to heavyweight trailer-camping. If yeh have lightweight backpacking gear, I've found those troops do a lot more with their outdoor programs, because it's so much easier to plan a backpack trip, or a canoe overnight, or a snowshoe trip, or whatever. And since they don't have da expense of trailer purchase/maintenance, they have a lot of cash available for other stuff that makes their programs better for the kids. In my experience, if the adults let 'em, the kids will slowly drive a troop toward more and more lightweight, easy to handle, versatile gear. They much prefer quick-pitch backpackin' flies to hauling out those monster frame jobs that take a gang of guys an hour to set up. Problem is gettin' adults to change. Kudu put me on to this notion, IIRC. I'm sure if poked he'd add many paragraphs . Beavah

Trying to keep up with other vehicles, or even to keep them in sight, can force the driver to put road conditions and other vehicles as secondary considerations. Yah, seems like this is a problem with da driver's judgment, not the notion of the buddy system. I reckon that a driver that uses that kind of poor judgment or is so easily distracted by tryin' to keep a car in sight is also going to be distracted by the things kids do in the back seat, etc. Sometimes yeh just need to choose not to use bad drivers for longer trips, eh? I understand the issues of breakdowns and accidents and the need to support each other.... But we do not worry if we loose sight of each other as we all have maps and know where we are going. Thing is, even people with maps get lost or make a wrong turn and such, especially when yeh get out on rural or forest service roads that aren't all that well marked, eh? Lots of places like that in my state, and lots of those little roads will take the lost car somewhere bad this time of year. No cell coverage. Little other vehicle traffic. No fast food joints to hang out in while yeh wait for da lost vehicle that never shows. Those are da areas with great wilderness for scouts. In the western states, it's even better. There's a reason for da buddy system, eh? Now, if all you're doin' is drivin' to an easily accessible campground near the major roads with solid cell coverage for every carrier, it ain't as big an issue. Yeh still should probably give each driver da health and permission slips for every boy, and put at least one older boy who can deal with a driver problem in each vehicle. But then I've been around long enough to have heard all da stories of drivers gettin' sick, having heart attacks, getting in accidents, having kids develop appendicitis or have flare-ups of underlying medical conditions and the like. And I've had friends on a couple of scenes where families gettin' lost and stuck in our winter wildlands almost didn't make it. Just a month ago, heard of troop where the adult driver started havin' a heart attack. Scout with only his learner's permit took over and drove the car to the hospital. Good for the lad, eh? But pretty scary. Sure would have liked to have seen some other support for him handy. I'm not in favor of convoys, mind. But there are lots of areas in da country where it's worthwhile stayin' together. Drivin', after all, is the most dangerous thing we do in scoutin'. It's nice to have a buddy nearby. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, and like many stereotypes, there are some sad truths to it, eh? High school graduation rate across da south is substantially lower than the rest of the country. There's a proud anti-intellectualism which seems to come up a lot. Da Sarah Palin worship thing is perhaps a stark example. Smart people like scientists shouldn't tell us what to do! They could be wrong! They could be tryin' to pull one over on us! They could be liberal "elites"! Don't trust da "mainstream media", don't trust da academics! Believe da untrained bloggers and loudmouth pundits instead! It's really quite tragic. Culture determines a lot about how we raise our children to be successful or to be failures in da world. Folks like that everywhere, of course. We have a few of 'em around here. But outside of the urban slums, yeh don't quite see the same tone of anti-intellectual culture that seems to be da stock of the old south. I've got a few degrees above undergraduate too, eh? Doesn't make me qualified to second-guess da work of climatologists, just like degrees in climatology don't make 'em qualified in my field. Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if Al Gore had kept his trap shut on this issue, eh? Would da debate have been different if the scientific community had gone to the farmin' belts of the midwest and south and discussed how drought will reduce their crop yields and land values for their children and grandchildren? How OPEC and da Saudis manipulate prices to keep us from developin' alternatives because they trust we'll be stupid? Or would they have been met with da same anti-intellectual and political fervor? Drill, baby, drill. To be honest, in a lot of ways I don't give a hoot about whether we're forcing global warming. Moving aggressively toward alternate energy and conservation is a national security issue. We can't keep funding our enemies by mortgaging our houses to buy oil. Da people who are sellin' oil are among the most corrupt or wicked on the planet. And da developing world is goin' to keep upping the demand unless we come up with something better, eh? Whoever comes up with something better is goin' to be the dominant economy for the next 100 years. If it's China and not us, we're condemning the U.S. into obscurity as a former world leader. Our grandkids will be emigrating to the orient looking for work. Alternate energy is a conservative issue. So is education. It's our national security and our heritage at stake. Gotta agree with BA, though. Cap-and-trade is just goin' to be the next version of credit default swaps. A largely unregulated gambling pool for bankers and crooks. Probably why a lot of folks are pushin' it that way instead of doin' the obvious thing and implementing a carbon tax. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

We know there are already gay Scouts out there. As Calico says, there are even a handful who have had a sexual experience on a Scout outing. How would this be any different if the BSA were too officially acknowledge the existence of gay Scouts and say the BSA wouldn't generally kick them out? Yeh must be jokin'. Can yeh imagine the response of da parents of a scout so approached by a gay fellow scout? You're nuts if yeh think that this wouldn't be settin' scoutin' up for a catastrophe. We may or may not, by virtue of environment or nurture, be able to influence the desires of a person, but fact is we can't control that environment. Likewise, we don't have control of the attitudes or behaviors of parents. Arguin' over an Eagle award is enough to tear some troops apart, eh? Can yeh imagine da arguments over this sort of thing? Even the most supposedly "enlightened" families can get pretty darned un-enlightened when it comes to their own son. Now Calico's figures are interestin', eh? As we are one of da only single-sex bastions left in society, it's within reason that we become attractive to young gay males. Mens' clubs used to be an old-boys-network thing when we had a largely gender-segregated society. Now that we've got a gender-integrated society, mens' clubs tend to be more likely to be a gay social gatherin' than they ever used to be. Beavah

Yah, this is a really interestin' example of how da internet isn't always the best for news. Lots of folks who in the old days wouldn't have had a forum because anybody with a brain thought they were political hacks and would be embarrassed to publish 'em now have vanity press blogs that get picked up here and there just because of da traffic generated by other fools and political hacks. And science gets corrupted in da process, too, as outsiders and political hacks jump into things too early and with too little understandin' of the process, and take things out of context or grab at stuff that supports their politics. Scientists are human, too, and will go after the friends and the funding, and will typically overestimate the precision/accuracy of their conclusions. Calm down, breathe deep. Let good scientists do their job, puzzle things out, debate things and deal with da occasional bad egg. And fer cryin' out loud, whether you're liberal or conservative, stop listening to just your own political echo chamber. Readin' the Daily Kos or the Drudge Report is entertaining and humorous, but it's no way to inform yourself on da issues. On my honor I will keep myself mentally awake and all that. Beavah

Yah, I think da actual G2SS thing says "convoy", not "caravan". A convoy is a military / civilian trucking term which means traveling in a secure line and generally not allowing any other vehicles in. A caravan is an ancient term, referrin' to a bunch of people traveling together for commercial purposes. Unlike a convoy, a caravan is goin' to have vehicles moving around, switching places, dropping in and out, and allowing other vehicles to cross. And camels . My take on it is that G2SS frowns properly on convoys, but allows caravans. Again, there are lots and lots of da U.S. where cell coverage is poor to nonexistent, and lots and lots of rural and mountain roads where yeh don't want non-locals out driving on their own, especially in da north in winter. Caravan-ing, which we scouting types also call "the Buddy System", can be a safety necessity. After all, when we teach da Buddy System for boys or for boats, we don't teach "oh, you just meet up occasionally" or "oh, you just keep in touch with your buddy by text messaging." The buddy system works by actually being with your buddy or your buddy boat. Or your buddy vehicle(s). As fer scouts on da side of the road, don't yeh all teach your boys road safety and managing breakdowns? Yeh should! Stoppin' to help stranded motorists or assisting at accident scenes is part of our Oath, eh? Boys need to know how. They're goin' to be drivin' on their own soon enough. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, jeff-o, you're thinkin' right about this. Buildin' a new troop is a long-term project. It's got ups and downs. Yeh just keep on keepin' on through the downs, and the ups will come. I think yeh always get adult leaders in the same proportion to boys, eh? Yeh always have barely enough. So as yeh grow, you'll find others to join on the adult side... always just barely enough! Twocubdad is right. You are a one-patrol troop right now, and that's just fine. Once yeh get a few more active boys, yeh can begin to think about splittin' into two, but only when you're sure that both patrols will remain viable on all campouts. And I wouldn't go with an SPL at that point. How hard is it for two PLs to coordinate with each other? Save da SPL role until yeh get to at least 3 patrols, maybe 4. Beavah

Yah, bunch of old fellows here, eh? Bein' a geek is no longer da stigma it once was when lots of us were younger. Lots of kids are proud to be such, and modern media tend to celebrate the uniquely capable. From Buffy the Vampire Slayer on, the geeks have been the cool kids. And da sixties are soooo over, dude. The boys in our programs now don't even really remember the 90s! All da culture stuff OGE and others are hung up on from that era don't even register on kids now. Problem is much closer to what HiLo describes. Da "brand identity" of Scouting is dorky and uncool. Ridiculous uniforms. Kowtowing to fat, foolish adults. Lots of lectures and rules. Boys aren't rejecting our values in the least - they would be Harry Potter or Eragon or da modern G.I. Joe in a heartbeat. They're still ready to fight for right and freedom, same as always. They just don't see Scouting as being that kind of place. We're the Hogwarts of Delores Umbridge to them, not the Hogwarts of Albus Dumbledore. Or if not that, we're the Scouting of den mothers and arts and crafts. Beavah

Yah, Ehrlich was quite da comic, eh? But takin' out of context quotes from one weak thinker and tryin' to condemn all science is like takin' out of context quotes from one corrupt televangelist and tryin' to condemn all religion. Just ain't reasonable. FScouter's right, the warnings of the past have caused us to work harder. Warnings of famine caused us to develop advanced fertilizers, usin' oil to make more food. Very creative, that. Warnings of resource shortages caused smart folks in da market to do what markets do - go exploring for new sources, or opening up sources previously unavailable. Da increased political stability in many places resultin' from the end of the Cold War have helped. So have leapfrogging technologies like cell phones and fiberoptics, which greatly reduced the need for copper throughout da developing world. Oil and Coal kill lots of people through disease, orders of magnitude more than nuclear. Can't see where yeh can be a sound scientist and not agree that for the moment, nuclear is a necessary component of our energy future which needs to be expanded if we're combattin' global warming. Solar and wind will take some of the load, but only some. Everything else spews carbon and kills people with pollution. Responsible environmentalists can't be the "party of No", sayin' "no" to every energy. Conservation and efficiency improvements have their place, but we're still goin' to be using energy. Beavah

Yah, all things in moderation, eh? Traveling together can be a much safer way to go up here on remote roads in the winter time (or for you folks in hot desert areas in da summer). One vehicle that gets lost or stuck can be in a world of hurt in da winter backcountry in lots of places, with no cell phone coverage. That's da problem with these "policy" proclamations in the guide. They can't take circumstances into account. And sometimes if yeh take 'em too far they throw out really good safety rules like the buddy system. The other thing that's at issue is if a car does get in an accident, or a lad does get sick enough to need to stop for treatment, who's got the medical forms? Odds are it's just one or two scouters in individual vehicles, unless you're in the habit of passin' people's medical history around willy-nilly. Seen lots of cases, too, where drivers have started having medical problems. Yeh sure prefer not to have a small group of first-year scouts on the side of a highway with a driver havin' a heart attack. There are real merits to drivin' together or at least keepin' in contact for mutual support and safety. Buddy system vs. stupid convoying. Balance and prudence, eh? Balance and prudence are what make for safety, not policy. Beavah

I would say that when you observe a lack of decorum, make public mention of it. Yah, I'd encourage da opposite. When your brother errs, first approach your brother in private. Same as we would do for the scouts... praise in public, reprimand in private wherever possible. Just MHO. Keeps from winding the argument up on the forums. Beavah

Yah, I'm with scoutldr and Le Voyageur. I reckon our pathetic, narcissistic tendencies, at least in this country, will doom us. Like I said, there aren't any problems we seem willing to address rather than shove off on our kids and grandkids. And no science or thoughtful prudence can withstand da challenge of our rampant anti-intellectuals. Never trust anybody who worked hard enough to earn an advanced degree! But I just can't help lookin' at all the lads (and young ladies) wearin' our uniform and honestly taking our Oath who we are betraying. On the Day of Judgment they will be our accusers before the Throne. "Who among you, if his son ask for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?" (Matthew 7:9-10). That would be us. Beavah

Only if it's #4, should we try to reduce the man caused component of GW, which by the way includes methane and gaseous sulfur compounds, not just CO2, and risk devastating the world economy along the way. Yah, I'm not convinced of that claim either. I reckon on matters of economics, even the economists don't know jack, and the economists aren't claimin' economic devastation. I reckon that a focused national effort Manhattan-Project style to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels would be an economic boom for the United States. It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and devastate our enemies in the middle east and belligerent states like Russian and Venezuela. It would set us up as the energy and technology supplier to the world for another two generations. But right now we're ceding that lead to China and Japan, where real investment in alternatives is goin' on, while we hold on to old coal plants. We aren't always da sharpest tools in the shed, eh? Who else would give away their technology lead while choosin' to fund their enemies? Beavah

Yah, this is one of those areas where what we individually believe is irrelevant. There is an actual answer. What we need to do is go and find da answer, not spend a lot of time on "belief sharing" or trying to convince others to believe da same way we do. I reckon the people who are in da best position to find the answer are the scientists working in the field, and the best way to understand what they're sayin' is to actually read their research. Scientists don't talk like politicians, eh? When they try to do da political thing of convincing stupid people to vote their way they're bad at it. In their actual research, they admit to assumptions and weaknesses, they challenge each other. So I'm all in favor of funding 'em, and then trusting them. Just like medicine, eh? Da human body is complicated, the research on your disease may not be right, but it's the best yeh have to go on and you're a fool if yeh decide to "believe" something else. Same with this. Da climate is a complicated thing, an individual scientist may be wrong, but there is a real answer out there and yeh have to trust the best people to go find it. What we do with da knowledge they give us is up to us, eh? We can get the information and choose not to act. Heck, we seem to be passin' all the other problems and debts on to our kids these days, why not one more thing? But even da possibility of a couple degree rise in global temperatures should scare the living tar out of us, eh? That kind of thing would be absolutely devastating to the U.S. (though perhaps good for Canada ). About a thousand times worse than anything al-Queda could do to us. It's a national security issue. I'm an old school conservative, eh? I believe in conserving our values, our nation, and our liberties and passin' 'em on to the next generation. I don't know a thing about climate, though I sure do know it's a lot warmer now than it was when I was a young lad. I do know that I want to conserve the beauty of our nation for the generations to come. And I know that in conducting a military campaign the politicians better trust the generals, and on a matter of science, da politicians better trust da scientists. Beavah

Yah, I reckon that's da biggest issue, eh? We'd have to replace a lot of dropped units and leaders. In some areas, we'd lose da majority of units in a district, and a lot of long-term volunteer experience and donor dollars. And I reckon that in most units, we'd lose some families. That's pretty devastatin' organizationally, eh? Especially if a few of those bigger partners opt to get together and form their own scouting association. Beyond that, all I can see happenin' is that we have even more obtuse G2SS rules about who can tent with whom, especially when the moon is full. And some mandatory diversity training. Beavah

Yah, what Lisabob said. Runnin' meetings is somethin' kids start with completely blank brains on, having never had to do it. Runnin' kid meetings is something most adults aren't real great at either, so odds are the boys haven't seen great examples. Two thoughts. One is that you can change what happens in your meeting so that it's closer to the kids' area of experience/expertise. Have the meetings outdoors. Run 'em like "practices" rather than meetings. Yeh still have all the planning issues Lisabob talks about, but da execution is somethin' that the boys will have some background in. Second is that yeh model it for a bit. A pair of adults with a pair of PLC member partners plans and runs a bunch of meetings together. The adults are responsible for everything in the beginning, but they set aside double da usual time so that they can "think out loud" in front of the kids, and the kids can actually see and hear their thought process. Those meetings have to really, really hum, so that all of the boys get some good examples in their head of what "fantastic meeting" looks like. Then the adults slowly fade and hand things a bit at a time over to the boys. So they "share" meeting planning for a bit, then the boys take over part and da adults share in part, then the boys take over the whole thing and the adults just do Roses & Thorns afterward. Then that SPL/ASPL gets to lead the "how to run a meeting" training for their replacements! Yah, another good thing to do is to take 'em to visit a meeting of another troop or two. Good or bad doesn't make any difference, eh? If it's good, you've got some ideas to take back, if it's bad, you've got some thoughtful reflection about "whether we look like that sometimes." Last, in these days of ubiquitous video, yeh can videotape 'em. Nuthin' quite like seeing yourself as "the boring guy" to inspire a change. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, now here's a thought. Rather than removin' a lad from a position, why not sit down with him and teach him how to prioritize and be creative about his schedule? I think a lot of boys (and families) need that sort of help and guidance. If you're goin' to do that kindness for him, workin' with him over a period of time so that he learns how to be more efficient and responsible in his choices, he needs a goal, eh? And the goal is to pass the requirement. That's why we have Advancement Method, to set goals. So the goal is to demonstrate that he really can efficiently and creatively manage his schedule to be responsible for 4-6 months. Doin' that for a lad takes some time and effort workin' with him. It means yeh can't remove him, and yeh can't sign off until he really meets the goal and achieves that 4-6 months of being responsible. But if yeh do that - if you use Advancement Method and Adult Association properly - you'll be giving the boy habits he will use da rest of his life. What a great thing Scouting is, to give lads such gifts. What a shame it is when we listen to balderdash from Irving and choose not to give the boys the real benefits of the program. Beavah

Too often you see postings where the youth didn't do their job, and then the scoutmaster wouldn't sign off on the position when it came up for review/signoff. Its like no one thought about making sure the kid was doing the job, and if not, remove him from office before hand. Yah, I don't get this negative attitude about fellow scouters. Far more likely, it's da Scoutmaster has been working actively with the lad to try to get him to do the job, teach him responsibility, overcome his reluctance, help him to manage his time... and the boy hasn't learned yet. For every other requirement, "A Scout Learns" is da first step, eh? We don't sign off for da swim requirements after a boy has tried once every two weeks for 4 months (missin' half da sessions). We sign off when he can swim, and we keep workin' with him until he can. And we don't remove him from swimming opportunities when he can't (yet) swim. Same with PORs. We shouldn't sign off because a lad has held a title for a period of time. We sign off when he has really demonstrated responsibility for a period of time. And rather than remove him when he hasn't (yet) demonstrated responsibility, we work with him until he learns. Yah, yah, sure, occasionally the boys have to remove a non-performing leader for their own sake, or occasionally the Scoutmaster has to remove a leader for behavioral reasons. But that shouldn't be da regular practice just because a lad hasn't yet learned all that Scout Law stuff about "Trustworthy and Loyal" and such. Yeh keep workin' with him until A Scout Learns. But yeh don't sign off until he has learned. A Scout is Tested is the second step to advancement. And the requirement is the test. So to pass da requirement, he has to swim 100 yards. And to pass da POR requirement, he has to serve actively and responsibly for 4-6 months. Not just hold a title. Beavah

Remember Council is a business. Nah, most councils are not-for-profit service corporations, eh? Good NFPs look at operations very differently than good businesses.

Yah, I guess I see no problem with da BSA's real definition of active in the Rules & Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America: An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age Sounds reasonable, and lets da unit have some discretion in interpretation. What's a bit objectionable is when a few office staffers ignore the Rules & Regulations and come up with their own definitions, eh? In any ordinary workplace, you'd get fired for that. But we all know da BSA rarely fires high-paid execs when they participate in fraud, never mind waterin' down the program to suit their own ends. Also gotta agree with BA. What boys want is to get good at stuff as a group and feel successful. That requires effort, and boys need help connecting the need for effort with that reward of feeling strong and bein' able to do cool stuff. Da troops that help lads by demanding/expecting high levels of participation are the troops where boys are learning and growing and they can feel it. Those troops always have lots of boys. I never worry about those troops, eh? Da troops that have weaker expectations tend to lose boys and putter along, and are always strugglin'. Not just with membership, but with behavior as well. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, LFL is a different entity than da BSA, eh? But your council is also a different entity. Your council can charter with da BSA to provide services for traditional scouting. Your council can charter with da BSA to provide services for LFL. or somethin' else, even! Sounds like what your council should really do is simply drop its agreement to provide LFL services in your area, and let da BSA find a different service provider. Of course, I reckon that will cause ca cowpies to hit the whirling air circulator. Beavah

Yah, in da one troop around here that seems to do anything with it, I think it ends up motivatin' the boys to plan to go to different places to camp all the time. Baggin' the cache is part of the fun of the campout, exploring the other things around fills up the rest of the time. Love to hear more from troops that really make use of it. Beavah

Yah, I think if we feel that Youth Protection Training actually prevents bad people from being bad, we're foolin' ourselves. Da primary purpose of da major YPT stuff is to protect adult leaders from false accusations and the appearance of impropriety, and to allow da BSA/CO to say that folks were "trained", which makes for good PR and an OK fig leaf defense in court. Most of the adult level YPT doesn't do a lick to actually prevent abuse. That part of da program is the youth-side of YPT, eh? Stuff like the parental discussions and the "Time to Tell" videos and such that unfortunately most troops don't actually use. If yeh want an example of a decent recognizing/preventing abuse training for adults, look at the Catholic CO's Virtus training, which focuses much more on da patterns abusers use to gain access, and less on "policy" type stuff which is easily circumvented. Ain't an issue of parents knowing the unit leadership either, eh? In almost every case of child sexual abuse, the parents know the perpetrator quite well - uncle, grandpa, spouse, neighbor, coach, scoutmaster. That's how the person gets access, eh? Beavah

Yah, just curious, for all yeh keyboard-tappers out there... If you're usin' TroopMaster or somethin' else, how the heck do yeh do all that data entry? I can see ranks and MBs. But we're talkin' individual requirements here. That's about 45 per boy for T-2-1 if yeh don't count da fact that half the requirements have multiple sub-parts. If yeh count those, the data entry goes into the hundreds per scout. Plus attendance records and uniform inspection records and days/nights campin' and MB partials... Sounds like yeh need a full-time data entry staff. Ain't it gettin' just a bit out of control? Beavah