Beavah

Yah, I think it's a fine thing to recognize a lad who was brave "under fire." Most boys won't get the chance to earn a Heroism Award either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't offer it to those who have done somethin' similarly notable. I like scotteng's notion, eh? Beavah

Part II Second part I reckon is what Eagledad talks about in terms of pushin' the adult fear back. Yeh want to build up to independent patrol hikes and camping. First step might be followin' Kudu's advice and setting up car camping with lots of separation from patrols. Second step might be backpack treks where yeh do the same. Adults follow and silently observe from a distance, camp at least 300 yards away, and perhaps join the patrol for a debrief/troubleshoot session each night over dessert. Third step might be to allow an independent patrol backpack trek, but to select a spot where the navigation is straightforward and there's good access. Have the PL's do written route plans and share 'em with you; make the adults do a written route plan and share it with them, so everyone knows where other patrols (and help) is if they need it. If it makes yeh feel better, issue cell phones or radios and establish check-in times, or have 'em flag a check point when they pass so yeh know they made it. If yeh feel one patrol is ready but another isn't, let the first patrol go and keep coachin' the second. That'll give 'em incentive to improve, and really recognize real "advancement!" When they're good at basic independent campin' and hikin', test their judgment. Move up to harder routes, or throw 'em a curveball like the adults not showing up on time (they need to run a search & first aid scenario). By then, they should be getting confident, and the adults should be becoming more at ease with youth independence. If at any point along the trail things "break", discuss it with 'em, let them troubleshoot, but pause and repeat or even back up and reinforce skills before movin' on. Think about this da same way you think about teachin' your kids to drive. Yeh train 'em and coach 'em, then back off and observe them, then give 'em the keys for short/easy trips, then for longer trips. Usually there's one parent who's better at this than the other, eh? I still remember how much more comfortable it was for me to drive with my dad than my mom way back in the day. Mom Beavah was always nervous and uptight, and tended to micromanage each tap of the pedals rather than watch and guide. If you're the parent who is more controlling/more worrying, then step back and let the other parent (or scout leaders) move 'em along. Beavah

Yah, OK, I guess I'll start. I've seen independent patrol outings in two kinds of units. One is in same-age patrol units for older scout patrols. Generally the older lads are allowed to hike and camp semi-autonomously, while the adults and some older TG's support the NSPs and mid-range boys. Second type of unit runs mixed-age patrols (perhaps after a brief NSP stint or new scout orientation campouts), and every patrol runs independent outings. I think yeh have to sit down with da T-2-1 requirements for a bit and think hard about 'em. When you really read those, they provide a pretty darn good description of the skill set anyone (youth or adult) needs to hike and camp independently. Select a site, pitch a tent, plan meals, cook meals, manage fire, plan routes, navigate/orienteer, know what to do when lost, etc. The First Aid for T-2-1 vastly surpasses a typical ARC standard First Aid course, which is more than many ASMs have. So if at the end of T-2-1 you're at all nervous about lettin' the lads camp & hike independently, I think yeh have to go back and look at where their T-2-1 training failed 'em. Kudu tends to blather on , but I think his message at the core is a good one for adult leaders, eh? We have to think of T-2-1 as actually preparing the boys for us not to be there. Part of that is forcing the issue by making sure we're so far away that we can't actively intervene and hover. His 300-foot mantra ain't for the boys, it's for us! It's a rule that if we enforce forces us as adults to train the boys well enough that we don't have to hover. I think da most common place T-2-1 fails to prepare lads for independence is in NSP/First Class Emphasis programs. That's mostly because these tend to be run cub scout style, as "Webelos 3", where boys get the awards for "doing their best" or parroting a task once. They light a stove and get signed off, rather than not bein' signed off until the adults and their Patrol Leader can trust 'em completely with stove safety when no one is watching. For most lads and most ordinary programs, proficiency in all the T-2-1 skills really isn't possible in a year. I don't want to turn this into a FCFY thread though, eh? The real point is "would you trust a person who had solid training and skill in backcountry first aid, camping, navigation, stoves & fires, safe swim, safety afloat, water rescues, menu planning and cooking, outdoor ethics, and emergency procedures to camp on their own?" Of course yeh would. In fact, you'd let 'em lead other people. Well, that's what First Class Scout is supposed to mean. If that's not what it means in your unit, of course you shouldn't let the boys camp on their own. But you should work to fix that, eh? Beavah

In the parent thread, Hal_Crawford asked a bunch of questions from the point of view of a unit leader who is in a troop transitioning from car campin' to a broader range of outings. He wants to know how/when in that transition he can allow/encourage independent patrol campin'. Specifically, stuff like "how to give scouts this level of freedom and independence while still managing risk and ensuring safety." So this thread is for those who have seen or run adult-free independent patrol outings and backpack campin' in your unit to offer a view of how that is accomplished, and others to ask questions. As a favor to Hal and everybody, let's keep the legal/rules/should we do this discussion mostly confined to da other thread. Let this thread just be for "I want to do this, how do I go about it well?" Beavah

Yah, easy there, Hal. I didn't really catch that you were tryin' to ask any of us how to run independent patrol treks, eh? More that you were fearful of 'em and arguin' against them. Maybe Eagledad and I both missed it. It's just that folks who really do run units with independent patrol outings think it's normal, and don't really see your worries and objections in the same light. So let's keep this thread as a discussion of whether we should or not, and start a new one on "how to do it well." B

Yah, I never quite understand the adults who feel it's such an awful burden for a lad who is applying for our highest award to ask a bunch of people he knows for reference letters. He's got to do the same thing for college applications, many job applications, etc. No responsible lad would think twice about it. Just for the record, the council sets the means of contacting the references, and it is perfectly OK and completely within the rules for the council to specify that the boy should request letters of recommendation be mailed to 'em. And for the council to wait for responses. At least in bigger councils and districts, it's the norm. I reckon it's da helpful thing to do, as otherwise the lads goin' up for Eagle BOR's are expectin' a busy district tryin' to get 40+ people on the phone and scribble notes, eh? That burns a lot of volunteer time, and doesn't offer as much insight for a good BOR as the letters do. A Scout is Helpful. Beavah

How do you address or combat the district EBOR with this type of attitude? First, yeh build a troop where that attitude isn't present, and at least in your troop the lads know Eagle means somethin' worthwhile, and want to earn it for that reason. The boys really aren't interested in earning BSA's badge, eh? They're interested in earning the respect and recognition of the adults in their troop whom they admire, and the acknowledgment of their peers and the scouts that they know. No boy is really interested in earnin' a district badge; they want a troop Eagle. Then, if your COR likes to go tiltin' at windmills, yeh send him/her off to the district with instructions to campaign and vote out any district chair and district advancement chair who cares more about handin' out patches than they do about teachin' character. Beavah

Boys believe they are immortal and do not know their own limitations. Yah, I've always thought this was bunk. Just a pithy but false statement by old folks who hold a prejudice against the young. As Eagledad says, it's far more common for adults not to know their own limitations, eh? Partly because our capacity for performance is decreasin', and we can't always still do what we did when we were 20. And partly because we mistake our competence in some area (like leading a business) with bein' competent in some other area (like leading children). Kids don't suffer from either misguided notion. I'm with Eagledad. Competent, well-trained older scouts can run circles around the ordinary adult leader. If the unit's program adheres to the BSA's Rules & Regs, and teaches proficiency in skills, only recognizing advancement when the lads are truly proficient. Seven years in da field with us and an Eagle badge is a lot of time and effort, eh? If the lads aren't ready to solo before then, we're really not doin' anything worthwhile. At least in sports the adults aren't allowed on da field. [speakin' of solo, do yeh know that we pilot-types routinely hand the keys of an AIRCRAFT to 16-year-olds to fly on their own? Oh the horrors!! I'll tell yeh, I'd much rather fly with that 16-year-old lad who supposedly thinks he's immortal than with many 50-year-old private pilots who think their 3-bounce-landings are still competent. Da 16 year old is sure to be more careful and cautious.] I know a few troops where it's completely ordinary for patrols to backpack and camp on their own (yah, includin' lighting a stove ). I know a few crews that go even farther, eh? We've even featured crews in Boys' Life that participate in SAR operations. "Yah, yeh can go out independently in the backcountry on a search and rescue operation, but when yeh find and are treating the victim for serious injuries yeh can't light a stove" gets a bit silly, eh? Our materials serve our mission, not vice versa. Da Sabbath, and the G2SS, was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. G2SS after all prohibits drivin' at night for anything other than short distances. Raise your hands if your unit is livin' up to that policy this month! Nobody? Neil's got da right of it, I think. The struggle we're faced with is that by and large in suburban America we've become the land of the Fearful and the home of da Litigator. That change in American culture from self-reliance to reliance on da Nanny State does start to impact us, eh? And kids. The more we infantilize our youth, the more they'll behave like infants and need da constant protection and supervision of the parent/adult/Authority/Government. Yeh can decide that's what's best for kids' growth and character, or yeh can decide that's not what you want for the kids in your care and for the future of the country. Then act accordingly. A Scouter is Brave. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah , If you understood or practiced the program element of Patrol activities... Again with da personal digs, BW? That just doesn't get old for you, does it? Far from debating against independent patrol activities, what I actually wrote was "Independent patrol trips are even better, because that means the adults have to do what Kudu's talking about, eh? Train the boys to perform on their own in the real world. First Class has to actually mean first class camper." Troops that I've been involved with have all run independent patrol outings, and usually camped well away from each other. The boys all learned to do that through a program run by older boys, not so much through adults who "trained" them. But 'tis Christmas Eve! God bless us, every one! Even 8 Beaver's Building and da BobWhite in a pear tree! Beavah

But our application agreements with the neighborhood association and local mall is that my units are not a charity, but conducting a fundraiser. Yah, Crew21, I might just be thick, eh? But what you say here makes no sense at all to me. Only charities can conduct fundraisers. If you are not a charity, you are a commercial enterprise, and you should be paying rent to the mall, charging sales tax, and paying taxes on your income to the government, just like everyone else who claims to be just selling a product. Not to mention goin' through whatever licensing your state requires as a food vendor! The only reason your community association or the mall are letting you have access is because they recognize that the BSA is a charity and want to support it. They're giving you access they would never give to someone who is just selling a product. And let's be honest, eh? Da only reason people are shelling out $50 for a tin of popcorn is because you're usin' a bunch of nice looking boys in uniform to bat their baby blue eyes at 'em, and they want to make a charitable contribution to help those lads. The product is a sideshow. But if it makes yeh feel better to think of yourself as a vendor, OK. I think what you're seeing in your customers is becoming more and more the norm. Back in the day, sales fundraisers were pretty rare, eh? Nowadays, especially as public school groups have gotten more into the fundraising sales of this that and the other thing, people have become saturated. They don't want to buy candy or cheap first aid kits or expensive popcorn. That means tins in a landfill and empty calories added to their waistline! They just want to give a donation to help without being burdened by a product they don't want. I think it's polite to honor their wishes myself. Makin' 'em buy popcorn they don't want is a lot like jangling a can in their face. Just for the record, the meaning of "solicit contributions" is specifically to ask someone for cash or cash equivalents. It's perfectly fine to accept freely offered donations. So what you're doin' is just fine by every rule in the book. So relax, mate! Be grateful that you live in a country where people are so very generous to charities like us. We wouldn't have camps or Philmont or any of the other great resources we provide for kids if it weren't for the charitable donations of our fellow citizens. A land that truly makes children pay their own way is an impoverished land indeed. Beavah

Yah, ASM915, I don't think that was me you're referring to. I was just jokin' that it was a Jambo PR move. Though clearly they can enforce da new rules there if they choose. Of course, yeh must not have been around for da last fiasco. I think we were transportin' kids a few hundred miles because we created the largest mass casualty incident Virginia had ever seen. Beavah

I certainly would never send a new Scout patrol camping by themselves, but by the end of the first year I could have them camping with adults in a different campsite near them. So then you agree that in the U.S., even you would not "be comfortable with independent patrol trips of a same-age group of 11-12 year-olds." B

Yah, BobWhite, sometimes I think yeh just don't take the time to read what other people are writin'. ----- " It would be incorrect to represent the BSA as anything other than a charity. And dependin' on who your sponsor is, it would be incorrect to represent your unit as anything other than a charity. The popcorn sale is a charity fundraiser. That's the only reason your mall and your grocery store and whatnot let you set up shop and compete with their merchandise. Until yeh start paying commercial rent at that mall, and taxes on your income, claimin' you're not a charity just isn't bein' honest." "She says that an organization/group to whom the IRS has issued a 501©(3) status is a "charity". Any arm of the BSA is therefore included. She knows of no defined difference between a "charity" and a "not for profit charitable organization". If the Scout unit is sponsored/chartered by a non-profit 501©(3), then they are included under their CO. " ----- Please explain how either of the above statements misrepresented the BSA chartering arrangement. Both correctly state that the BSA and its affiliated councils are charities. Both correctly state that the unit's status depends on its CO, but recognize that the vast majority of our CO's are charities and most of da rest are still NFPs that conduct charitable activities. Both correctly identify the popcorn sale as a charity fundraiser. And both correctly imply that a BSA unit is free to receive donated funds and materials. Remember that neither National or individual councils have the authority to issue tax ID's, eh? That authority belongs to the IRS. Councils are of course free to receive funds under their charitable ID for scouting in their service area, including donations designated to support individual units. In fact, councils with active Scoutreach programs frequently solicit funds to support individual units. Beavah

Yah, it's good backcountry LNT practice too, eh? Travel in small groups, and camp far enough apart that there's no "natural" footpath between sites which will be turned into an informal trail. BW's got the right of it. The distance thing isn't magic, it's just that environment contributes a lot to our behavior. The distance sets up an environment that encourages good scouting behavior. Adults don't hover, and boys can't easily keep running to the adults or another patrol when they forgot their spice kit or can't find the propane hose. Independent patrol trips are even better, because that means the adults have to do what Kudu's talking about, eh? Train the boys to perform on their own in the real world. First Class has to actually mean first class camper. Being Patrol Leader has to mean really bein' responsible. Older boys thrive on such independence and responsibility, far more than they crave a guided-tour high adventure trip, as Eagledad points out. I'm not really sure that anybody in da U.S. would be comfortable with independent patrol trips of a same-age group of 11-12 year-olds, though. Or with distant campsites for that age group patrol. That's where the age-based "den" scoutin' seems to break down. Beavah

LOL. Yah, OK, yeh got that nit, BW. But I reckon that since da BSA has exclusive rights to the term "Boy Scouting" in the U.S., and that a set of youth program materials cannot accept or hold tangible personal property or cash equivalents, nobody besides you was confused. Beavah

Yah, Crew21, I think you're strainin' at gnats. Boy Scouting is a charity. We're a 501©(3) tax exempt charitable educational program. It would be incorrect to represent the BSA as anything other than a charity. And dependin' on who your sponsor is, it would be incorrect to represent your unit as anything other than a charity. The popcorn sale is a charity fundraiser. That's the only reason your mall and your grocery store and whatnot let you set up shop and compete with their merchandise. Until yeh start paying commercial rent at that mall, and taxes on your income, claimin' you're not a charity just isn't bein' honest. There's nothing dirty or bad about being a charitable organization, and yeh definitely don't want to teach your boys that there is! Charitable organizations are schools, and hospitals, and social service organizations. We're part of that very special group of organizations that exist solely to help others. The BSA is proud to be a charity. You should be, too. Far more than popcorn sales, it is philanthropy that runs our camps and provides resources that make for good scouting. Can't speak to da rest about your feelings WRT folks misrepresenting da BSA. Sounds like yeh have some local issues. Yah, but in this matter you are your own enemy, eh? Beavah

Nah, ASM915, no part of da ruling turned on whether the rescuer was intoxicated. That would be a question of fact for the trial court, not a question of law for the Supreme Court. Da California ruling narrowed the scope of statutory immunity to just medical care in emergencies. So for any non-medical response, like a water rescue or most wilderness rescue, a bystander is liable for any negligence in the rescue. That means if you choose to toss a rope to the guy in the river and it gets wound around his neck because you didn't throw it perfectly, it's on your dime. You didn't have to throw him a rope. Statutory immunity in the form of Good Samaritan laws does have its downside, eh? It means if a bumbling rescuer injures you, yeh can't recover from them. It sometimes lets people get away with something that we wish they didn't get away with. In that way, it's like "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" or trial by jury, or other protections in the Bill of Rights. They all mean that sometimes people get away with stuff that we wish they didn't get away with. But da Bill of Rights is still a good thing despite that, eh? That's because the consequences of not affording that protection are far worse for society. Same in this case. When any of us or our kids' lives are truly in danger, we don't want bystanders to exercise their right not to help, eh? We want to live in a society where people can come to our rescue without worryin' that if they don't do it perfectly they'll destroy their family's livelihood. Me, I'm willing to let this woman off in exchange for havin' some guy throw me a rope when I'm drowning. How 'bout you? Beavah

I did not like the donations being handed to us at all; but I have finally given in, seeing that some others would prefer to donate and when units agreed to use donations to purchase popcorn for others. Yah, Crew21, I think you need to take a step back, eh? The proper response when someone gives a donation to your charitable endeavor is to say thank you. Generosity and charity is something we want to encourage, not discourage. The youth in your unit should see that it is a good thing to give money to a worthwhile cause for kids. These people are providing an example. Plus, people are savvy these days, eh? They know that payin' an outrageous fee for a bit of popcorn in a tin ain't thrifty. It means that a good chunk of their money is going to a popcorn tin vendor, and to shipping and council overhead. They don't want their money to go to those things, and they don't want some boxes of mediocre-quality popcorn. They might be unable to give their time to Scouting, but they are willing to do their part for the community by giving their dollars. They just want to be thrifty - again, a great example to the youth. Now, here's an important point of ethics that you and your district/council folks need to fix. When you accept a donation, you must honor the intent of the donor. You may not take a donation that the donor intends for Scouting and use it instead to buy popcorn for the Red Cross. Especially if the donor didn't want to buy popcorn! I understand how yeh feel, but what you're doin' simply isn't ethical, nor strictly legal. Again, the proper response to a donation to your unit is "Thank You!" If yeh feel it's important, ask the donor for permission to give half to the BSA council Friends of Scouting campaign. Your unit and the council will have more funds, and you will have honored the generosity of a scouting supporter in your community. Beavah

Yah, this is interestin', eh? Reworkin' the mess of medical forms was a good idea, IMO. Then there's those added things typical of a committee that went a bit off and didn't consider all the implications. And didn't know how to write with clarity. Biggest problem with vague wording is how it can be used to ambush a scout or a volunteer who shows up expectin' to be able to participate, but is told to go home. Only way I can figure to read the stuff is that it's a 30-minute window to BLS care on a rig (?). In other words, until the ambulance arrives. That still puts an awful lot of "ordinary" scouting in the high adventure category, includin' any backpacking and quite a bit of plop camping in the rural areas of most states. Yah, heck, it probably excludes driving in some areas, especially in winter. Certainly, it seems like it's goin' to apply to Jambo. My guess is it was written by someone in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or Connecticut . Leavin' aside the adults for a moment, what about the kids?. Are we not goin' to be allowing overweight lads to participate in a lot of scouting? I'm also not a fan of "averages" charts that supplant professional judgment. There are weight lifters, like the current governor of California, (72 inches and 240 lbs), who are in fine health but who would bust the BSA's chart. Can't help but think, when yeh add in the photo release, that this was a Jambo PR move. At the same time, I do think it's worthwhile pushin' both the boys and the adults to break the U.S. obesity trend. Honestly, though, I think an even more important issue is da stuff in the FAQ that says scouts and adults can't use a physical exam that was obtained for sports. That's goin' to create a lot of grief until families and units get used to coordinatin' and bringing four different health forms to their doc, assumin' they can schedule a single appointment to make that happen. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, the issue is havin' kids beg for dollars. No usin' kids for FOS presentations, eh? Of course, I reckon we've all seen kids associated with FOS events. And I reckon Eagle candidates everywhere solicit funds and material donations for their Eagle projects to benefit another organization. Too hard to write any rule that covers what we really mean, eh? Boils down to "don't give scoutin' a bad name, and don't commit fraud or misrepresentation." Aside from that, help other people at all times! Beavah

Wow, BobWhite, another personal attack post? Don't you ever get tired of that? Even when folks agree with yeh by and large. I've participated in international events with Sea Scouts in Britain, the Caribbean, and most of da Scandanavian/north European countries. Never in the Med or the Pacific, though I had an opportunity once in Greece. Mrs. Beavah was goin' in for minor surgery, so I had to miss it. Personally, I've been sailin' keelboats for 30+ years includin' some longer offshore stuff. Can still work a sextant pretty well. I don't do maritime law, though, that's quite a peculiar specialty. I still remember territorial waters being defined by "long cannon shot" . Sea Scoutin' in the U.S. is a pretty rare bird, at least to find an active, on-the-water unit. Tried a couple times and failed when I was younger doin' unit-level work. Known a few Navy fellows who tried to find active ships different places with similar results. They always seemed to be paper units. I expect it's rarer per capita here in the U.S. than it is in any of the countries I mentioned. I agree with you on how to run a proper safety boat at a regatta, and on da risks, eh? I just disagree that trailin' the slowest non-scout boat constitutes the qualified supervision that the first point of Safety Afloat envisions. Now, with JY's on a small inland lake on a fair weather day, yah, no harm.... at least until those folks who think it's important to put warning labels on ladders and who write statutes like those in Texas catch up with you. Scoutin' in da U.S. exists within the culture of the U.S. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, as good role models and good scouters our job is to understand the reasons for a law or regulation, and serve that faithfully - without doing other harm. And probably to understand da limits of the BSA's authority. When you purchase a Boy Scout uniform, the uniform becomes your personal property. You may wear it backwards, you may donate it, you may cut it up and use it for rags. The BSA has no authority to tell you how to treat your personal property, or when to wear green pants. You can wear your uniform to work, or to church on Sunday, or when working the Booster Club booth after your scout meeting. You can even use it to lampoon the BSA on YouTube. Nor does the BSA have any authority to tell youth members they can't solicit money for other organizations. Youth and adult members are personally free to solicit for any organization they see fit. Da BSA holds a trademark to its symbols, to protect its commercial image. So long as you don't do anything to harm da BSA's commercial image or reputation, and don't claim or imply that you're representing the national organization, it's just fine to wear the uniform. Ring bells, go caroling, help wrap presents for the PTO fundraiser, whatever. Don't go on TV in uniform and say that on behalf of Scouting, everybody should give to gay pride week. If you're not doing a unit activity or representing yourself as being part of the BSA, you can do whatever you want. That's it, eh? If you're goin' to go do a service project for Salvation Army or Catholic Relief Services or whatever, you of course can do it in uniform as a unit activity. Even ring bells and carol and shovel sidewalks for the church's annual raffle for the homeless. What you shouldn't do is represent to others that the BSA endorses another cause. Is anybody other than an anonymous internet scouter goin' to bother you if there's nothing but community service and a positive vibe afoot in your activities? Of course not. Beavah

Nah, BW, yeh missed the point, eh? I agree with yeh that I'm not a Sea Scouter. And I'd also agree with you that I would allow a crew of highschoolers who were well trained and who had demonstrated proficiency to operate a vessel on their own, albeit after considerable thought. Where we disagree is that the conditions in U.S. scouting are comparable to international scouting. Yeh see, my point about international Sea Scouting is that Sea Scouts can operate without adult supervision. Like as not, they have keys to the ship docks and can go take a boat out with no adults around at all. Go swimming with no adults around at all. Cross national boundaries with no adults aboard even. That isn't the same thing as bein' in a group of canoes or lasers traveling in a close group with adult chase boats and a race committee yacht. Point is it's not just sea scoutin'. Yeh talk as if fellow scouters who don't run independent patrol outings are incompetent doofuses, eh? But then when yeh read state statutes that have become ridiculously expansive in their definitions of criminal child neglect, yeh have to pause. Take this bute of a neglect definition from Texas: placing a child in or failing to remove a child from a situation that a reasonable person would realize requires judgment or actions beyond the child's level of maturity, physical condition, or mental abilities. Now, are yeh ready to bet that a reasonable group of non-scoutin' adults in your area is going to believe that allowing a bunch of middle school boys to travel and camp without adults in the big, scary woods is within their level of maturity? Or even that having your sea scouts that far from shore, perhaps a mile ahead of the nearest boat in choppy conditions is OK? Here in the land of the regulated warning signs on ladders and the home of the Fearful? Remember, this statute is a criminal one, eh? A take-your-children-away-put-you-in-jail offense where insurance doesn't apply. I'm with you, mate. I think it's important for boys and girls to experience independence. I think scoutin' is the perfect venue for doing that in a smart way. I'm willing to do that myself and encourage it in a qualified way, but only with eyes wide open, thoughtfully, and recognizing the risks. But I'm not willing to join you in belittling fellow volunteers who choose not to do it. Especially if they are in states or communities where the community mores might not view it positively, or in a unit which does not use advancement to truly recognize proficiency. And I reckon that here in the U.S., unlike internationally, it's a bit more prudent to allow it for mixed age 12-17 groups with older high school leaders than it is if we follow da current BSA materials trend which emb advocates, and limit boy scouting to middle school. Beavah

In the Sea Scout Ship I serve we have boats racing every weekend of the sailing season with all scout crews that race several nautical miles. While I salute your ship for what it's doin', it is a violation of Safety Afloat and the G2SS, eh? Remember the safety sandwich? Qualified adult supervision by a person over age 21 for all trips afloat? Beavah

Yah, BW, I concede, eh? I misspoke. Not "international waters" as in the legal definition of high seas. International waters as in open waters across national boundaries. Like sailin' into Canadian waters on the Great Lakes. The latter is fairly common for scouts on their own in any of the Scandinavian / Northern European countries, eh? Also not unusual for sea scouts in those nations to start at cub scout age in sunfish-sized boats in sheltered coastal waters with no adults aboard. More to the point of the recent discussion, most international scouters would be somewhere between shocked and horrified at our bureaucratic/G2SS entanglements. Maybe with few to no professionals, there's nobody who has the time to generate lots of paperwork and regulation. Maybe with a more rational, less fearful culture there doesn't seem to be a need. Maybe with a more rational civil court system or socialized medical care there really isn't a need. Point is, it's just very hard to compare and say that makin' a hard age 14 split in program is the best thing because a more gentle split exists in international scoutin'. International scoutin' is just way too different in so many ways to make that sort of direct comparison. Heck, in many if not most nations, scouting and other private youth programs receive direct governmental financial support from da education ministries. I bet we'd all love to get an annual stipend from Uncle Sam to support each of our units! Beavah