Beavah

Yah, I'm not Ed either, but I'm with da BobWhite. It's all about understandin' the purpose da rules are tryin' to achieve, not gettin' hung up on the letter. There are some units for whom all committee meetings are open. That's most common in cubs, eh? Some units even sign up all parents as MC's. That can work great so long as da unit is small and the community is tight and everyone are friends. Or, "it works great, until it doesn't." But there's plenty of other ways of doin' business, too. Some units use the youth ministry board of their church as a committee. Some use outside directors. Some run on just da minimum gang of three who meet in the pastor's office. What's necessary for a good committee is that each person who serves shares da vision, and has the long-term interests of the program as their reason for service. Not the self-interest of their own son(s) needs. Preferably, each MC should bring a different set of talent and experiences. Good unit committees often deal with challengin' or private issues. A SM may need to discuss the behavior of an ASM or a kid, without telegraphin' it to world. Decisions may be taken to help support lads whose families are in financial difficulty, and that should remain confidential. How to support medical issues of parents and youth members may be a topic, also private. Mrs. Jones' habit of gettin' distracted while she's driving might come up. And da best committees are plannin' strategically, talkin' about where the unit should be in 5-10 years, eh? Stuff that doesn't even apply to a current boy and his parents. There needs to be a "safe haven" where these kinds of private and long-term discussions can happen, eh? It makes for a much healthier program. But ultimately, the committee is a private group functioning within the CO. It's as open as the CO wants it to be. Me personally, I don't encourage completely open committees outside of cubs. Aside from everything above, there's a danger with the "open committee" thing when yeh get bigger, or get more diverse. "Problem parents". Folks who do not have the long-term best interests of da program in mind, just what they can get for their own kid. That makes for contentious committee meetings, eh? People showin' up just to complain that junior had to stay at camp until they finished cleaning up when he had a soccer game to go to. How many messages are there on these forums where some unit committee is at each others' throats and the whole thing is being tossed back in da CO's lap to resolve? But it's not just about "problem parents", eh? It's that all parents naturally want to get things for their kids. Absent a very strong SM or CC, open committees tend over time to lead to Merit Badge Mills and Advancement Factories. Just da way things naturally get "pushed." Nobody's sayin' there shouldn't be good program communication with parents, eh? But that doesn't have to happen at the committee/board of directors level. That's the SM and PLC's job. Beavah

Yah, dat's what I was talkin' about, eh? Joni, why don't yeh get with the SM and the SPL and put together an ECOH for the boy? Call the parents, set up an agreeable date (or attach it to the end of a troop COH), and let 'em know the troop will be presenting him with the award. Put out your letters, choose one of da many ceremonies, and let the boys honor one of their own. Doesn't have to be a wedding reception. Just has to say "we care about you, and honor your achievement." Beavah

Yah, hmmm... guess I missed a fun thread in da other section. I think all of Kudu's bit above boils down to this: The degree to which a Scoutmaster allows a Patrol to elect anyone it wants is inversely proportional to the responsibily he gives his Patrol Leaders as measured by their authority over Advancement, the frequency of adult-free Patrol Hikes, and the distance between Patrols at Troop campouts. If a Scoutmaster appoints PLs after consulting with the boys he is to lead and with other leadership boys, then what you end up with is a guided consensus decision, eh? Most importantly, the SM is able to select a lad that he/she and other adults trust in terms of skills and maturity to be independent. I suspect Kudu is right. Indeed, I'm pretty certain of it. So da question for Scouters is this: Do we get more mileage in terms of character development fully utilizing Patrol and Outdoor Methods, with youth acting independently of adults... or do we get more mileage in terms of citizenship development by giving them many direct experiences with democratic elections and their outcomes and consequences? I reckon there's a lot to be said for PL elections in teachin' citizenship, eh? But we shouldn't feel that it's cost-free. We lose some things doin' it that way, too. I suspect most troops do somethin' that's a hybrid in one way or another. They screen potential candidates in some way as adults (by rank, by interview, by age or participation or spirit, etc.), and then only let the kids elect from the screened group. Kudu, you've got to be aware of da downside, too, eh? Not every SM is necessarily a virtuoso at selecting natural leaders. Some SMs would prefer PLs who were compliant; others PLs who were "favorites." Given that challenge, elections might provide a "check", just like they do in the real world. Beavah

Why teach your children to not trust strangers? Yah, maybe I'm just unAmerican, but Mrs. Beavah and I never taught our kids not to trust strangers. To me, that's just an awful thing to do to kids. Start 'em on the American "culture of fear" kick as early as possible. Fact is, the folks who hurt children are almost always friends and relatives, not strangers. I always taught the kids to be polite, helpful, kind, friendly to strangers. Even to help 'em "at all times." Not that there weren't lines to be drawn, eh? Yeh don't owe "obedient" or "loyal" to a stranger. It always makes me sad when I hear tomfoolery like teaching kids when they need help to only ask a woman with children. What a way to start a kid on a hurtful prejudice! What a way to leave a kid without help when there are men and other women around! Fact is, you'd be hard pressed to find a man who wouldn't put his life on the line in a heartbeat to protect someone else's kid. Remember the young scout out in Utah who had been thoroughly instructed in "stranger danger"? So much so that when he became lost he actively hid from all the "strangers" who were out searching for him? Almost died and certainly was traumatized as a result. I reckon that's what we do to kids when we teach 'em such silliness. Nuthin' but harm. Beavah

Hi wtr100! Welcome to da forums, eh?! I think you're startin' out asking the wrong question. I'd recommend that the first question you always ask about anything is somethin' like "Is this good for the boys - does it help them learn, does it teach character, etc.?" That in my book is the only real important question. We're here to help kids. So ask yourself whether the system your troop has set up is helping kids. Boys going for 2nd class are going to be first-year scouts, eh? 11-year-old boys are not known for their personal organization! Maybe there's some merit in giving them some additional help with that. Many units do something similar with sample forms for helping them plan their 2nd class hike - sort of a mini "Tour Permit". Now, if the answer is "no" - this mechanism has become cumbersome and is really getting in the way for a lot of kids, then yeh are probably adding to the requirements. If the answer is "yes", this thing is still helping a lot of kids to learn and achieve, then the answer is "no", you aren't adding to the requirements. Either way, that would be a decision that belongs to your troop's Scoutmaster, eh? Beavah

Yah, MKE. There are different ways to interpret these things, eh? Here's some alternatives for consideration: * Most of us read da guidelines in such a way that a 17 and an 18 year old in Venturing certainly can share the same tent. I know Irving does. They are both youth members. More importantly, they are peers in the eyes of the wider world that judges us on these things. * Units are confronted by single-room bunking arrangements all the time, from large one-room cabins to sleepin' on the church floor while travelin' to stayin' on decomissioned naval warships to sleeping out under the stars to participatin' in international scouting where large "whole group" tents are often da norm. Just the way it is, and really not a big deal. Yeh just separate in a way that makes sense and act reasonably. Risk management-wise, a unit isn't goin' to run into much of an issue with everyone sleepin' together, it's when da wrong folks are sleepin' in separate quarters that there can be issues. * Da BSA doesn't allow the use (aka consumption) of alcohol at events by participants, in the same line as it prohibits the illicit use of controlled substances and right next to where it bans the use of tobacco when youth members are present. But we attend and even host Native American events and pseudo-ceremonies where tobacco is "used" ritually as a gift, and we certainly allow da use of controlled substances as medically necessary. Alcohol, too, for that matter - from cleanin' CPR dummies to a shot of Nyquil to that bottle of vanilla extract for the dutch oven cake. A small bottle of cooking sherry held and used only for cookin' isn't a problem unless it's a problem for da CO or individual. There certainly are COs and individuals who view da use or presence of any alcohol (or caffeine) as inappropriate, and that should be respected. * And finally, an 18 year old can only register in Venturing as a youth member, not as an adult, eh? So for Venturing, most of us read the rule as requirin' two "program adults." I've never heard it interpreted the way you suggest, but it's interestin'. I personally wouldn't recommend it to folks. The point of two deep is to have two experienced hands available to deal with problems, eh? Like what happens if a leader becomes injured or ill? Or the registered leader has to accompany a member to the hospital? Counting an 18-year-old crew member as an adult in a context where he/she is really a peer participant doesn't make sense to me. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Neat program, jblake! I understand your conundrum. I take it from what yeh write that you don't have a troop in this program, you just have individual Boy Scouts from other troops who come and participate? What do yeh do with regular "civilian" non-Boy Scout youth age 12 who want to participate? I'd have a brief conversation with your DE (and probably SE) just to get 'em to "sign off" so to speak, since you're sort of in gray area. A 13 year old visiting the crew and participating in some stuff as a guest/potential recruit is a bit different than one who is coming to everything as a regular member of the activity. BSA insurance covers scouting/venturing events with members and guests, but not every youth activity a CO runs. One option that might keep everything "clean" and make da DE and SE happy is to have yeh charter a troop and get special dispensation to allow boys to dual register in your troop and their "home" troop. Adds another troop to the roles, clearly resolves the ambiguity. As a specialty troop, yeh'd have to be clear with "home" SM's what your role was (to supplement but not replace their program), but it could work really nicely. Beavah

Yah, there's never been any question in my mind that good units form around and are sustained by good adult leaders - what B-P called Scouters of the "right sort." I have no doubt that given a few scouters of the "right sort" and a decently supportive community, a troop will flourish. But I wonder how many Scouters of the "right sort" are available these days. A Scouter of the right sort has to have sound outdoor skills - enough to be comfortable and happy in the woods. A Scouter of the right sort has to really like and enjoy spending time with young people as a friend and mentor. Neither of those are currently "taught" in BSA training, let alone learned to the proficiency needed. So we are dependent on adults coming to us with those abilities. So we get a few Gerns who have some real outdoor savvy, and some jblakes who have some real love of kids (and all da rest of you, too!). But they're fairly rare. Back in the 60s and 70s, we had a lot of young guys fairly fresh out of a service that ran a draft. It therefore included a lot of middle class guys who now had outdoor experience in the jungle and other places. Some of 'em also enjoyed kids. Now our folks with service experience live in clusters rather than bein' spread across the nation. Scoutin' is still doing fairly well in areas with more servicemen (and women) present, but perhaps is fading in other areas? Plus, too, the outdoor sports have changed, eh? As GW says, back then it was Davy Crockett and adventures in the woods. Straight camping. Adults were better at that. Campin' hadn't changed that much since B-P's day. Now, it's a bit more aggressive - mountain biking and skating and snowboarding half-pipes or rails. That's not da same as instant gratification - I've watched kids work for weeks earnin' wicked bruises tryin' to learn a skate move. But it is more aggressive than most of our available adult leaders are capable of supportin'. And sometimes, as in the case with paintball, it's more aggressive than we older adults are willin' to even wrap our brains around permitting. Maybe the kids have moved on, and left a lot of our BSA adult leaders behind. Beavah

Trust is given and remains in tact until the individual provides evidence that he/she is not to be trusted. Gotta agree with jblake here, especially in online communities. Online we don't have any opportunity to have a real relationship, or to assess "skills, backgrounds, methods, personalities, and abilities." So that would leave us not trustin' anybody at all, or assumin' they're all molesting kids or otherwise harming youth or the movement. Just doesn't seem reasonable. Over da years, I trusted my kids to all sorts of people. Teachers especially. I didn't have a "relationship" with da teachers ahead of time, and even if I could have assessed their skills by sittin' in the class for a month the previous year, I wouldn't have had all that much influence on who my kids were assigned to. Same with coaches, youth ministers, neighbors, my kids' friends. I've also trusted Mrs. Beavah's knitting buddies, the new doc I started seein' after my old doc retired, the neighbors next door, and da guy who sold me my truck. Generally speakin', sure seems like we trust people first, and then build a relationship that either deepens that trust or calls it into question. Beavah

Yah, did I miss somethin' about beer and brats? Nuthin' wrong with cooking with beer or wine (several scouts I know do a great bordelaise). The alcohol content evaporates out very quickly (dat's why a still works, eh?), well before whatever you're cookin' is done. ScoutMKE shows how hard it is to write a single policy that makes sense about this stuff, eh? His has several holes in it, too, like 17- and 18-year old crew or ship members who are fellow high school seniors sharin' a tent is just fine (and might be necessary sharin' a berth on a long cruise), or when there's a large single bunking hall and yeh have to mix genders. And then yeh get into siblings, like a brother and sister sharin' a tent with dad. Oi! Da two principles are: No situations that would raise eyebrows or could lead to substantive accusations of impropriety. Appropriate "distance" on trips between responsible leaders and those they are leading. Everything else is just efforts to define those two principles for a particular circumstance. Beavah

Yes, as dual/joint events of a troop and crew, or as guests/potential new members of a crew. Da same applies to the HSR supplementary medical coverage. Yah, yeh should of course be careful to be age appropriate, and should be aware of the few things (like hunting) that are permitted for Venturers only, eh? Boys who are "regularly attending" crew events on their own (not as a joint troop/crew event) of course should primary in the crew and dual in the troop (or vice versa). It doesn't cost much (or anything) and keeps everything clear for insurance purposes (the HSR premiums are slightly higher for crew/ship members than for troops, so we owe them the higher premium if the boy is a regular crew participant). What's your "unique situation," just out of curiosity? Are yeh runnin' a "consolidated" program like Pappy? B

Its always fun when you get told to ignore what's printed. Not ignore what's printed, eh? Just understand what's printed, and why. Like it's black-letter "policy" in G2SS that the beds of trucks or trailers must never be used for carrying passengers.... except that parade floats where passengers are in a truck bed or trailer are OK. Da BSA does its best (as a fairly small organization in terms of printed material) at providing some straightforward and intelligent guidance that applies fairly generally. Da application of such general guidance to odd specific cases is left as an exercise for da reader. BTW, what's a Star Federation? My google got me Federation Stars (on the Aussie national flag), several different Star Trek RPG and fan clubs, an association for Cheer and Dance teams (All-Star Federation...), and a mess of different entries about various fictional Star Federations that are part of MMO games. Has OGE become a video game addict? Beavah

Nah, folks, yeh are gettin' way too silly, eh? We had this conversation before about married and engaged couples, which was eventually resolved by the head of the Venturing Division: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=149435&p=1 The folks in the BSA aren't stupid. They're just caught in a situation where it's impossible to write a single policy that covers all bases. So that means we need to use da brains God spent a lot of time and effort giving us. OGE, my sentence was "no court is going to find..." which was a response to click's concern, eh? I wasn't commentin' on BSA guidelines. From a non-BSA legal perspective, there just isn't an issue with a 21-year-old dating a 20-year old. To call it a "youth protection" issue is just to be dishonest. Now the BSA can redefine the terms "adult" and "youth" for its own membership classes, eh? Or call 'em "sprouts" and "gardners" members if they want. Those are just names for membership categories. Which unfortunately confuses people. It doesn't change how the rest of the world views adults and youth. That leaves us some big traps... like married couples or friends in an all-college-aged crew run by the Newmann Center on one side. Or, on da other side, a 20-year-old Venturing "youth member" dating a 14-year-old Venturing "youth member" ain't OK, even though da BSA doesn't have any rules about it. Because in the world, that's a 20-year-old adult dating a juvenile under the age of consent, no matter what da BSA's membership categories are. It's when we hit those "traps" where a general policy can't be made to fit all the possible realities that we have to use our judgment. Beavah

So I trust you were a home schooler then, BobWhite? And not a member of any organized religion? Just joshin' with yeh. I think there's a time for "trust but verify" as well. But there's also a time for faith. B

Practically speakin', I wonder how many crews really have a mix of members across the high school/college/work line? Da ones I know are either mostly high schoolers or mostly college folks. I think that's what makes it impossible to write a consistent policy. We're talkin' about two different groups. Active ships might be the most likely to mix, but maybe not even then. Again, I think from a practical and legal perspective, the high school/college line is the appropriate one to draw. Courts aren't gonna find you odd for allowing 18-year-olds to shower with 15-year-olds when every high school team in the nation does it. And no court is going to find anything inappropriate about a 21 year old dating a 20 year old who is in da same class in college, even if one is the leader of an extracurricular activity and one is a regular member (since that, too, happens all the time). But everybody is gonna look at mixing college and high school kids as being somethin' to raise eyebrows at. Beavah

And yes once the Scout JOINS a troop the SCOUTMASTER can determine if he has earned the Badge. Yah, I agree with all of what BobWhite says, except perhaps for this little bit, which I reckon he just mistyped. The Scout Badge is a badge of membership. If the boy has joined a troop, then he has earned the Scout badge. The requirements for the Scout badge are the joining requirements. But the SM, on behalf of the CO, can choose to reject the application of any boy. It's not that the SM determines whether he's earned the badge, it's that the SM determines whether he can join the troop (say, for example, if a CO only wants children of its own members in the program). There's a reason for this, eh? The Scout badge requirements are conditions for membership... especially "understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law". If yeh don't meet the "Scout Badge Requirements" you cannot be a member. And the SM should be rejecting applications from lads who don't meet the joining requirements. Of course, practically what has happened almost everywhere is what Lisa'bob describes, eh? SM's sign and submit applications before a boy has completed all the joining requirements, and then view the Scout Badge as a first rank. This creates the illusion that all that's required to join Boy Scouting is to submit an application, which we all know isn't true. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, there is just no rhyme nor reason to this stuff, eh? The BSA gets caught because it's just impossible to make a single policy that works intelligently for all the circumstances. I think each unit has to make the call based on what makes sense for them, or to exercise some pro-active judgment. Puttin' a 20 year old legal adult in a room with a 14-year-old minor instead of a 21-year-old coworker/classmate is one of those nonsensical things that should just never be done. Puttin' an 18 year old high school senior in a room with his 17 year old senior classmate is perfectly sensible. But da line I would try to honor more strongly is the legal age of majority/off to college line, eh? That's the one that has the strongest "outside of scouting" implications in terms of cultural expectations. We treat college students as adults, and high school students as kids. That havin' been said, as Neil and jblake describe, Venturing makes a single age cutoff at age 21, if you're lookin' for at least a loose "policy answer." Anyone below is a youth, anyone equal to or above is an adult. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, revision cycles are always a bit odd, eh? Outdoorsman now has "explain the LNT Frontcountry rules" while Scout still lists the Outdoor Code, eh? That, and the YP pamphlets for the two programs are age-appropriate. That's gettin' a bit picky. I reckon da Boy Scout Handbook states the intent clearly, eh? A graduating Webelos Scout who has earned the Arrow of Light Award has completed the Boy Scout joining requirements. With the approval of his Scoutmaster, he will receive the Boy Scout badge upon joining the troop. Now that doesn't mean that a troop can't or shouldn't do what Lisa'bob suggests, if it works for them and the kids they serve. A lot of troops do somethin' similar, perhaps for similar reasons. But it is adding to what is necessary. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

After you have completed all five of the above requirements, and after a talk with your webelos den leader, arrange to visit, with your parent or guardian, a meeting of a Boy Scout troop you think you might like to join. Have a conference with the Scoutmaster. Complete and turn in a "Join Boy Scouting" application to the Scoutmaster during the conference. Yeh all are overthinkin' this, IMO. Don't confuse ScoutNet or paperwork with the intent of what we want to have happen for kids. We want the transition to be seamless, however yeh accomplish that. So the very last requirement for AOL is to complete the very first badge for Boy Scouting. A lad should never have an empty spot on his left pocket. Now you can accomplish "seamless" differently, if yeh don't like the way it's laid out in the Advancement Method materials, eh? But da goal should be seamless. Beavah

I think most scouters are dandy people. It takes great love and commitment to give up your time and $ for other people's kids. And that's what we all do, eh? So me, I begin by trusting fellow Scouters. Like many leaders we all have egos that we sometimes need others to see past, so I try to see past 'em and hope they'll do the same for me. There are some who take me a while to figure out. But dat's just humanity, eh? Even the best of folks think different and have to get used to each other. I have been disappointed by fellow Scouters only on the rarest of occasions. Most fellow scouters I run into across da nation and world are almost instant friends. That doesn't mean they all have equal abilities or the same talents. Far from it. How borin' would that be anyway? We all do better than others at some things and worse than others at other things. Some are great mentors, some great organizers, some boisterous, some quiet, some make Uniform Method hum and others make Outdoor Method sing. And many are just tryin' to figure out how to put da pieces together. I think the best troops play to the talents of their leaders, both youth and adult. Because the people are different, there are going to be differences in programs, and differences within da same program over time as people change. That's all to the good. Where troops run astray is when one strong-willed type holds on to what he or she used to do, and doesn't recognize that the kids and other adults have changed. Where districts run astray is when a strong-willed character from one unit starts to think every other unit should do things his/her way. We meet people where they're at, not where they, or we, were. All of us are doin' good work. And all of us can learn things and do better. What's fun is sharin' that adventure. Yah, I think I've got a problem with language, though. When I hear the word "follow", I think of a willing choice to follow a human leader whom I trust, eh? I would follow almost all fellow Scouters in their units. But I don't know that there's any way to follow a program, because a program doesn't lead. A program is a resource. It's a tool. To me, it's something we use, not something we follow. Not unless we're a computer, anyway! And at least for the present time, despite all da advances in video games, I don't think a computer that just follows it's program can do for kids what real, human, leaders can do for kids. Not even close. We shouldn't strive to be machines executing programmed instructions, eh? We should be people, using our different personal talents to give what we can to da children we meet. If we do that well, we may all use the same program resources and share in the same movement, but we'll build packs and troops and teams and crews that are different. Fact is, every time I meet a new Scouter and friend, I learn some new way of doing things or thinking about what we do for kids. That's the beauty of Scoutin'. And if yeh haven't done a lot of international Scouting, I would recommend it to anyone. Hundreds of different program resources. One common fellowship of good people who care for kids. Ain't the program materials that does it. It's da people. Beavah

Gee Beavah, I am not sure I could ever face the proud parents of a newly minted Eagle scout and tell them that they need to rein in their plans for the Eagle Court of Honor because it may make other scouts feel "bad". Yah, each to his own, eh? But that's not really what I was talkin' about. I was suggestin' they shouldn't be makin' plans for the Eagle Court of Honor in the first place. From what I've seen, da proud parents of a high school graduate don't seem to mind the high school presenting the award without a lot of input from them. The proud parents of a varsity letter winner or team MVP that I know don't object to the fact that the award is presented at the school's Athletic Banquet. The proud parents of the karate blackbelt dutifully show up at the ceremony run by the dojo. Same goes for adult awards, right up to the Oscars, or the Nobel Prize. Awardees go to the ceremony of the body giving the award, as a guest of honor. I think what's happened is most troops have just gotten lazy. "Let the parents do it." Rather than seein' it as a vital part of their unit program that they would never pass on to anyone else. The lads should be honoring one of their own, at their Court of Honor. And we should be honoring the parents as our guests for their years of service to the young man. Not expectin' 'em to throw us a party. In all my years I've never seen an Eagle not show up for a Court of Honor that was truly run by his friends in his troop. And I've never seen units that care about their kids forget/skip/not hold a Court of Honor. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Why in the name of diversity would we have the Troop run a Court of Honor for all of them? Yah, OGE has discovered I'm really not such a freewheelin' libertarian after all. I've seen the parent-run ECOH's get out of hand in a number of ways over the years. Bizarre stuff at the event sometimes, some kids excluded from invitations at others. What I think is roughest is when wealthier families or families more "into" Scouting throw the full wedding-reception event, and the less well-off lads or lads whose parents aren't as supportive of their Scouting life get the short end. I've known kids who never had an ECOH for that reason, eh? They said they didn't want it, but really they didn't want to be embarrassed. So make my vote for Uniform Method, which is bigger than what we make kids wear. It should be about how we treat kids and recognize kids for their achievements uniformly. That doesn't mean a lad and his family can't have input, invite Grandpa Jones, choose music or whatnot. An ECOH can be personalized, within reason. But like any other award ceremony in the world, it should be hosted by the organization, with da awardees and their families as guests of honor. IMHO. But I know I'll never convince da wedding reception crowd. Beavah

Yah, the BSA coverage limits are definitely finite. But for most ordinary accidents the coverage should be adequate. Generally speaking, if your state adopts the Uniform Unincorporated NonProfit Associations Act, then the law recognizes the group as a legal entity separate from its members, similar to a corporation. Members are therefore not liable for a tort claim just because they are members (though they may be liable for their own personal actions). Dependin' on your state's NFP Volunteer Immunity statutes and court rulings on such, yeh may or may not have further protections. So this probably isn't somethin' folks should lose any sleep over, eh? The American Bar Association was an unincorporated association until the last decade, and for a bunch of lawyers they didn't lose any sleep over it. Beavah

Yah, I'm goin' to sound like Kudu, eh? Sometimes we do too much emphasizin' of "leadership theory". I'm less adverse to leadership theory than Kudu is. I think it gives folks a good idea or three to try out. Mostly, though, both boys and adults need hard skills before they can ever approach being leaders successfully or comfortably. Gern's mention of NOLS is great and all, if yeh can afford it. They've got an "Outdoor Educator" course which is outstandin'. Consider these other options: Wilderness First Aid Wilderness First Responder ("advanced" first aid for the woods) Leave No Trace trainer or Leave No Trace Master courses. American Canoe Association canoeing sequence. American Sailing Association sequences. Hooking up with a local (adult) outdoor club, many of which teach great outdoor skills. Hooking up with a local college or university outings program, which often teach clinics and outdoor leadership courses. Finding an outfitter to do a one-week clinic for yeh on a skill you want to learn (climbing, skiing, canyoneering, etc.) There's plenty of others out there. Personally, I don't think anybody should be a Boy Scout leader without at least a current WFA and LNT trainer course to their credit. On da BSA side, BobWhite gave yeh the rundown on options. Don't neglect the vast array of "supplemental" trainin' in his list, eh? A lot of it is very worthwhile. Look for things bein' taught by "real world" experts especially, who have both BSA and outside experience to draw from. There's a world of difference between first aid bein' taught by an experienced scouter and first aid bein' taught by an experienced scouter who is also an EMT instructor. Beavah

Yah, ain't northeast GA pretty flat? Yeh can also go rappelling off of buildings and towers and such. There's an old book out there called Rock'n'Road that was an atlas of climbing areas in the US. I think it's still available. And it's a sure bet that if there are any local crags in north Georgia you'll find some beta online or from locals. Yeh might have to go to the northwest corner of the state to find some rock. Check around Lafayette. Here's a link to get yeh started: http://www.rockclimbing.com/routes/North_America/United_States/Georgia/Georgia_North/ Now, don't get me wrong, but yeh know yeh really scare some of us with the random "go grab a rope and jump off a mountain" stuff, eh? Rappelling is a dangerous part of climbing, and most experienced climbers avoid it when they can. You're system dependent, which means if you're inattentive and mess up da system, yeh crater. It doesn't take much to end up as an "uncontrolled rappel" statistic, eh? Find somebody who knows what they're doin', is careful and safe about it. And then forget the silly adrenaline hype of stunts like "Aussie rappelling" and learn somethin' really cool and worthwhile, like how to rock climb. Beavah