Beavah

Yah, KC, but what yeh describe ain't what National Advancement Committee says we should be doin', eh? "Mentoring" and providin' additional training take time. They can't easily be force-fit into a 4 or 6 month window. They're long-term, personal relationships, and it takes time to get additional trainin', or for mentoring to sink in. Even supervision would have to be pretty aggressive, eh? And it gets into this whole odd thing about needin' to "fire" a scout from a position within a certain space of time. Scouting isn't supposed to be a job, eh? Any more than it's supposed to be school. There is a last step, when the job is done: RECOGNIZE!!! When the job is done and done well, you praise the young man. Yah, absolutely! The reason for the whole advancement method! But yeh just broke Terry Lawson's new rule, eh? The job doesn't need to be done or done well. Recognition comes when the lad has had 4-6 months of seat time without bein' fired. Beavah

while the swimming requirements also hold some people back, I can't recall people complaining about it. They certainly do around here a fair bit! Far more common to hear complaints about that, and see application for a "special needs" waiver because Joey sinks, than to hear about pullups. In my experience, complaints always go with strictness. Any requirement that a unit is fairly strict about will generate complaints. Complaints are avoided by bein' looser; allowing dog-paddling, counting fractional pullups, etc. Teachers who give out all A's, and units that produce tons of young Eagle Scouts, don't generate complaints, eh? Leastways, not from those in their classes or troops. I suspect a lot o' troops think like Lisa'bob and me; they're willin' to modify a bit on TF pullups, but not on FC swimming. Yah, I agree with Hunt in this case. It's easy to drop pullups. Doin' pushups is a fine measure of upper body strength, and while there are kids who can't do even one pushup, the hurdles to show "improvement" are still lower. We could drop pullups without really hurtin' the goals. A bigger question is whether we should have a more concrete fitness goal for 2nd and 1st Class, eh? After all, we don't say "improve" on your swimming, we say the requirement is to swim. Seems like maybe we should have a similar, concrete basic fitness requirement for a boy who has reached da "good scouting citizen" level of First Class Scout. Beavah

I wonder a bit about how long it will take before this starts costing us units and volunteers. Or maybe before units and councils start their own recognition programs and give up on da BSA's "advancement" scheme. On the up side, it's a big step toward the underlyin' goal of making Boy Scouting the middle school program of the BSA, with Venturing the high school program. Sorta following the LDS model. In that scheme, you've got to make Eagle half way between Arrow of Light (just "do your best") and Silver/Ranger/Quest, etc. I have mixed feelin's about that, but then I'm an old traditionalist at heart I guess. The numbers loss in early HS does make a strong case for "forcing" a new, more age-appropriate program at that level. Beavah

Beavah, I had this great answer all keyed in and then my computer froze up and I lost it. Yah, yeh must be runnin' Windows there, eh? I think some of this goes back to what I think is a strange way of lookin' at advancement. It's the idea that advancement is "owed" to a kid, and is time-based. Gern puts it well; if a boy doesn't get an award on schedule, someone like dan must be 'keeping the kid from advancing' or as Lisa'bob puts it, 'beating a kid down.' Kinda like da school situations where if junior doesn't get an "A" or a recommendation for Honors Chemistry it must be the teacher's fault. And let's not even touch what happens if Billy doesn't make first string on da team . I personally just think that's the wrong way to think about scouting advancement. In scouting, advancement is learning/growing, and then recognition for that learning and growing. Yeh get recognized after you've learned. No time pressure, no "have to cover da mandated curriculum for the test". Just playin', and growin', and gettin' recognized at your own pace. Two months or two years, makes no difference. It's just a recognition of where a boy is at not a measure of what a boy is worth. That 13-year-old Tenderfoot should be as valued, as active, as much a recipient of adult love and care and support as da 13-year-old Eagle candidate. In Scouting, there should be no notion that any boy is "slow." If we dumb adults don't create that "slow" notion, then there's absolutely nuthin' wrong or unusual about a 14-year-old still workin' on swimming, or pullups, or a 16 year old tacklin' a leadership position for another 6 months to really learn, or whatever. They are all equally valued. And there may truly be more joy in a troop for the 14-year-old who finally learns to swim than for the 99 who could swim when they joined. That's when advancement means something. I think da trend at treatin' advancement on a timetable which National started with QU and FCFY really broke the system. The method only works for character development the old way. I can't see how it helps a boy's character to receive public recognition for learnin' or achievin' something he hasn't (yet) done well. No matter whether it's a pullup or a splint or his job as QM. Being upset over a 13- or 14- year-old pre-Tenderfoot Scout is our odd hangup. It ain't got anything to do with usin' the program properly. Beavah

Yah, Its Me, same everywhere, eh? Especially in the mix of public/parochial/private calendars, and da public calendars often not getting set until right before school starts. I used to be a "school first" guy, but they've just been abusin' the prerogative. And an extracurricular ain't the same as "school" even if they get a "grade" for football. Got a lot of SM's locally who get pretty frustrated that the paid professional band/sport teacher gets to make everything "required" because his/her time is valuable, but the volunteer SM has to schedule extra days, make-up time, put in more effort in order to work around the band/sport schedule which came out after da scout calendar was set. We've seen more parents take kb6's route. Some troops are startin' to do that, too, eh? Just plannin' an event as best they can, and then havin' kids who want to participate take off. No easy solutions. Beavah

(oops, double post)(This message has been edited by Beavah)

If it's like most reasonable troops, he'll probably come back from the second or third meeting with Tenderfoot. This was a comment based on a boy who already had most of the requirements signed off, but it got me curious. What are you all seein' as the "average" time in different units for kids makin' it to Tenderfoot or to First Class? I confess my knee-jerk response to "1-month Tenderfoots" is to try to work with the unit to improve the quality of their program . What do da rest of yeh see out there in the field? Beavah

Yah, ain't we a bunch of old-timers, eh? I never had a problem droppin' trou in da woods when at the huntin' camp, and wipin' off with snowballs. This goes back to Gonzo's "wimps" thread. There's quite a few lads these days who've grown up in hyper-sanitized and protected ways, with sparklin' and disinfected indoor plumbing their whole life. A stinky old wooden pit latrine is major trauma for 'em. I kid you not. Every camp has tales of young'uns who try to "hold it" for the entire week because they can't muster the courage to approach the kybo. Those tears might not be homesickness, they may be latrine fright! And most of us don't even recognize da need to help 'em. I sure didn't, until a fellow commish showed me the way of things. Who'd have thought? The competition these days is camps with modern facilities, very well-organized, friendly, and customer-centered program, good food, and three times the cost. Plenty of "values" too, quite a few have a strong Christian bent. Yeh add that up, and some kids just think those others are a lot more fun. Can't be sure whether it's da kybos or not, but I guess they play a bigger role than I thought! Beavah

Yah, easy there, momma beara'bob! Likely there's all kinds of possible reasons for the delay. And boys are supposed to do the requirements, eh? Try out your arguments with a different requirement, like becoming a "swimmer" for First Class. Lots of kids who would otherwise blaze through T21 get stuck on the 2nd and 1st Class swimming requirements, eh? They're "sinkers" by body type, they have to overcome fear of the water, then build up skill and stamina. It can take years. So, do we say "it's supposed to be easier, it's supposed to be FCFY, we'll accept dog-paddlin' and stoppin' to rest a few times?" Some troops and camps do, eh? I think it's OK, though, if a troop does hold on for really swimmin'. And OK for a BOR to "have a conversation" with da SM and boy to ensure that happens . I don't think that is automatically "beating a boy down" or anything of the sort. Dependin' on what activities a troop does, bein' able to swim or bein' fit (or bein' able to really do first aid or know what to do when lost) can be a matter of happiness, success, and safety on trips. I personally might fudge on swimmin', but then if da troop did a lot of water activities, I might not. And some CO's can place a bigger emphasis one way or the other. I'm always reluctant to judge other volunteers for their program choices. Just because they don't do things the same way I would, doesn't necessarily mean they're "wrong." And we never know all da backstory, eh? Kittle, given all you've said, and given the age of your son, I think this is his battle to fight. If he's still in scouts after 3.5 years, he clearly must enjoy it. He should be headin' into high school. That's a time for a young man to be makin' his own judgments and stands without mom's (or Momma Bear's) active involvement. Listen to him, tell him how proud you are of him, let him gripe to you... and let him fight his own battle here. It's da best gift you can give him for his future. Pull-ups and TF don't matter, but bein' able to deal with things on your own sure does in the long run. Beavah

Yah, I've seen a lot of da "my money" set over the years. My scout account, my fundraisin' time, my money. Nope. Like any other group people do fundraisin' for, the money goes to the organization. PTO money goes to the PTO, Church money goes to the church, etc. - not to the kids of the parents who worked. Fundraisin' is an act of charity. Yeh don't get anything from it. You give to make the organization and community stronger. Sometimes young units or units with a lot of turnover don't have any norms or policies for how they handle finances. That's somethin' every unit should have in place, so that people understand the basic lay of the land. "Excess" or capital funds might go to "mandatory cash flow reserve" first, camperships for needy kids second, capital expenses like troop gear third, support for "big" outings last. That gives yeh a good way of sayin', "OK, we have enough cash flow reserve so we're not borrowin' money from scouters or parents to pay reservations, etc.; we've covered the kids who need help to participate this year; we're set on gear; wow, we still have $1000 we can use for a special event/subsidize camp/high adventure." If that's where the troop is at, helpin' with high adventure costs is an OK thing, eh? Especially if it's a great scout unit and those high adventure kids are leaders/instructors in the troop, and will bring back their skills to share. If yeh have a better idea, it's up to you as SM to bring it up. Supportin' TLT or NYLT for boys would be another good one. The important thing is that any decision should be based on what is best for the unit, long term. Never on what kids or families are "owed," because they ain't owed anything. Jazzin' up high adventure opportunities might be a good use or not, dependin' on where your troop is at. If after all that you still have an issue, I agree with J-KC and #4 above. I would add that it's helpful to have a few non-parents on troop committees, folks with a longer-term, program-centered view. Helps prevent older boy parents from runnin' away with things for their own kids. Beavah

Yah, OK, I re-read Lisabob's response and couldn't figure out where the 2-year figure came from. Apparently kittle was da original poster on this topic way back when. Sorry for readin' this thread initially and thinkin' "gee, what a flock of helicopters." Still, this ain't somethin' for the council. I honestly think this is just something to encourage your son to have a chat with his SM about. He should explain all da confusion in the troop with different people tellin' him different things about how to interpret the requirement. SM should get that under control. As a parent, you might *politely* back-door that conversation with the SM, just for your own peace of mind. As I've mentioned, I agree with Oak Tree in that I don't like this requirement for TF. I encourage troops to do modified pullups for boys who can't do a single one. Just seems a better standard to me than fractions. But it's up to da SM and the unit, eh? They may choose not to subtract from the whole-number intent of the requirement. I don't necessarily agree with 'em, but I support them. Pushing for personal fitness is a good thing, and in the grand scheme of things, 1 pullup ain't much for kids outside our "supersized" culture. On the upside, if your son has really made it to half a pullup, he's gettin' pretty close. I would expect that another month's worth of regular effort would get him to a full one. Given all his work, seems like a bit of a shame to stop at this point, especially if it means his peers feel he "snuck by." And those muscles really are needed for backpackin' and scramblin' and canoein' and all kinds of fun stuff da troop may be doin'. Beavah

Kittle, what is your position in the troop? If you're not a program adult in the troop, I think yeh have to take a deep breath, step back, and let the boys and adults do their thing. You aren't going to agree with everything they do, but they're the ones puttin' in the time. I'm sure you don't want to be the "Little League Mom" complaining about the coach or the referee. You'll find from all the responses you'll get here, that different troops handle this differently. IMO, the "best" programs push kids a bit to really improve, supporting each boy at his own pace rather than rushin' advancement for "this Court of Honor." Beavah

Tough call, awesome1. I think yeh have to trust your instincts. If your instincts are tellin' you that this is the boys fallin' back on an "easy way" rather than pushin' themselves, then I think you push back. Boys are a conservative lot, often gettin' into "ruts" rather than bein' adventurous, especially during their first shots at leadership. A lot of that is fear of the unknown, eh... and worry they won't be successful. They often need some bucking up, or some experience with being "forced" into a new challenge so that they discover they can do it. One way of pushin' back is to make it hard work for them to change: "Nope, sorry, I've got all the adults lined up and committed to the plan you gave us, too late to change." "Well, Joey, we've already told all the adults and troop families about your plan. To change now is really hard. Are you prepared to call everyone up and apologize to them for making a late change, when they were looking forward to something new?" "Well, it's your guys' call, but a change in the approved calendar requires troop committee approval. So you need to call Mr. CC, ask for a special committee meeting, and come make a presentation about why you feel a change is important." Whatever approach you choose, I think da big message is "Trust your instincts." Beavah

Yah, the reality in troops is all over the map, eh? And there are a lot of troops out there with proven practices that really work. Funny enough, they do things differently. Conceptually, they all sorta follow the BSA model that FScouter describes, which involves the youth leadership and the SM/ASMs, then the troop committee. The nuts and bolts are different in each place, though, bein' adapted to local circumstances. Yeh really have to give us some background, donomiser, if yeh want us to offer any meaningful advice. But here's what I'd offer: Who is suppose to make up the proposed budget for the next scouting year: the SM and the treasurer or the CC and the treasurer? Yah, all three, and the SPL and the PLC. SM and PLC boys as being the primary drivers for the program planning (outing costs, short-term gear needs); CC and individual committee members as being the primary drivers for parts of the budget related to support services (parent mailings, award purchases, long-term gear depreciation & replacement, training, etc.). Who has the say in allocating the funds? Donors . People who make a charitable contribution get to say how they want it spent. As for the rest, final say is da whole troop committee when they vote to approve the budget. But that should really be an "up or down" vote, without micromanagin' the work the PLC, SM, QM, Treasurer, Scribe, and CC put in. Beavah

Yah, hello donomiser! I'm with J-in-KC, I think yeh gotta let us know what the backstory or concern might be. Technically, the SM of the troop he's registered in gets to decide who can "sign off" on rank requirements, and that same SM gets to approve MB applications. So it'd be OK for his hometown troop not to let a troop where he's only a "guest" sign off on requirements. That'd be pretty unusual, though. It happens pretty frequently that a boy can be a guest of another troop at a camp or camporee, where his SM is just fine with acceptin' signoffs from the other adult leaders of da troop where he was a guest. A boy attending summer camp with another troop, or as a provisional scout, would typically be an example. So would a boy who splits time between mom and dad. A boy can also be dual registered in two troops (like for a split family). In that case, either SM can approve advancement. So yeh pretty much just work out what makes sense for the boy. If he's scammin' advancement from his relative in the other troop, his registered SM can say "no." But if he's workin' hard and has friends in both units, that's great, eh? Your case of the boy comin' to a camporee with one troop and then stayin' with another seems kinda awkward, unless it was worked out in advance. At least, it should be clear to everybody which adults are responsible for the lad, and which troop's duty roster he should show up on . On the other hand, visitin' with other troops is part of the reason we do camporees, eh?

Yah, Gonz, there's a balance here, eh? It's always possible to point to the rare circumstance when even a bystander has to intervene. But those are rare circumstances, eh? If every time someone thinks "it ain't by the book" or "I wouldn't do it that way" they raise objections, we usually call that someone a "troll" or a "helicopter"... or worse . Think of Merlyn's perpetual "I wouldn't do it that way" threads to us. In a forum it can be either fun or annoyin'; in a troop it's either annoyin' or destructive. You've talked about how you feel when some of those same committee members interfere with da program side by trying to dictate "one night only" outings on weekends. They have all kinds of (what they believe are) legitimate reasons for interferin'. It still ain't the best way to go, eh? What you're doin' is the same thing, eh? The committee should trust da SM and ASM with the program side, even when they have individual objections or reservations. You should give 'em the same courtesy. After all, this wasn't just a treasurer or CC sneakin' off, this was a decision made at a full committee meeting. If you really feel the committee can't be trusted, yeh need to go find a new troop, mate. You don't want to become "that guy". As in "Oh, no, here comes that guy again!" . Feelin' that you're "right" or "by da book" just isn't an excuse for polarizin' a kids program into "us" vs. "them." So, IMO, there's nuthin' that you've said that indicates the committee is doin' anything wrong here. They've done a good job fundraisin', they've created a restricted fund which honors the intent of the donors, they've deposited in a separate bank account for ease of accountin'. Single or dual signature checks is a financial control that's at their option; frankly dual-signature checks are mostly placebo protection. My guess is most troops use single-signature accounts, and that's OK. I'd be more worried that they have a fair method in place for awardin' grants, myself. It's your call, my friend. Yeh asked for opinions. That's mine. Beavah

I have 3 shirts, two tan and one for Venturing. I do wear all of my knots on all of the shirts. Again, it's personal preference. I don't know much about Sea Scouts, but imposing a limit of 6 knots on that uniform is interesting. There must some sort of rational behind it. I'm on da other side of it, eh? I think National is pretty clear that "members wear only the insignia that show their present status in the movement. Members should make every effort to keep their uniforms neat and uncluttered." (emphasis BSA). Da sea scout limit of six I think is in line with this, as well as the general prohibition on wearin' more than 5 medals. If yeh look at almost all of da BSA publication photos, they adhere pretty well to this rule. So me personally, if I'm wearin' green for a Venturing function, I only wear knots appropriate to Venturin'. Nobody in Venturing needs to know I have da Scoutmaster Award of Merit or da Arrow of Light; those aren't Venturing awards, and don't convey useful information to Venturers. All they would do is make me look like a knot-bespangled popinjay, especially if I didn't have many Venturing awards, eh? Some of da silver and gold tabbers who serve across different programs might have a reason to wear different program knots. Personally, when I'm under those tabs I only wear council/national knots rather than program knots. So da silver-tab uniform gets things like the District Award of Merit, Distinguished Commissioner, and Silver Beaver, but none of da program awards. A gold tab uniform should only get things like bigger silver animal knots. But a red-tab uniform doesn't get any silver critter ribbons. Keeps things neat, clean, and appropriate. If yeh only have one uniform, a pocket full of shoulder tabs and matching knots on a pin-on device works pretty well . Beavah

I see that within scout regulations it is legal but is it "appropriate" for an adult leader to wear a jamboree patch that he attended as a youth? Yah, da uniform is just a tool, eh? Use it in whatever ways work for you. "Inappropriate" is probably a function of your troop's culture and the culture of your area. Me personally, I agree with National's position (used in most of the publish document pictures) that "members wear only the insignia that show their present status in the movement. Members should make every effort to keep their uniforms neat and uncluttered." So I'd move a Jambo patch to the temporary spot (right pocket) a month or two after the jambo was over. Still a great conversation piece and inspiration to the lads, but also a good example in terms of humility and not usin' the uniform to be a popinjay! Beavah

Political Big Wig has a son in the troop and is on the committee, he asked for donations from some of his friends for ELSP for one or more boys. The good ol' boys decided it would be too hard for the treasurer to keep track of everything, so they (good ol' boys) put the ELSP money in a different bank. My thought is that if the treasurer can keep everything else separate, why not this money too? Yah, not sure who da "good ol' boys" are, eh? Sounds like what the troop is doin' is creating a donated fund to support ESLP's within the troop. I've known one or two troops do somethin' like that. I'm not particularly fond of it, because I like da Eagle candidates to work out funding on their own, but it's OK I guess. It does make for some "bigger & better" projects. In this case, the CO/troop is receivin' donations restricted to ESLP support. It should have a mechanism for boys to "apply" for support for their project, kinda formal-like. It can be in one or two bank accounts, that's sorta trivial, as long as the account is under the control of the troop committee. This is even a good thing, buildin' up a bunch of donors to the troop, eh? Great way to support kids in need, future high adventure trips, etc. Treasurer keeps accounts for popcorn, cummercamp, etc. why not ELSP money too? I'm definately recommending two signatures on all checks on both accounts. Gonz, don't get me wrong mate, but this is not your job!!!. Yeh got no business interferin' with troop committee operations, tellin' the treasurer how he/she should work, insistin' on different accounting oversight. None. Same as they shouldn't tell you as an ASM how to organize patrols or when to go campin'. If yeh feel a real need to be involved in the committee level of da program, yeh have to submit your resignation as an ASM and apply for a committee seat (and then stay out of da youth side of the operation, eh?) . No volunteers are perfect. Be patient and willin' to accept "good enough." Beavah

Yah, hmmm. Not sure why this is an adult or committee issue, eh? Seems like this should really be up to da Eagle candidate(s). Part of showin' leadership and planning is to demonstrate how to handle money. A troop might offer to run things through it's account if an Eagle candidate requests it, or a committee might ask an Eagle candidate to demonstrate good financial controls (have an adult also approve expenditures). But it's mostly da Eagle candidate's game. Sorry, Gonz, but you're a bit off-base, too, eh? Eagle project funds are raised on behalf of the organization the boy is doin' service for, not on behalf of the troop/CO. The funds have to go for that service project, eh? If there's any excess, the Eagle candidate has to either return it to the donors or donate it accordin' to the donor's wishes (usually to the organization that it was collected for). I don't see this as being a problem, if the Eagle candidate makes that request/agreement with the committee for financial oversight as part of his project. It's a bit unusual to go through all the trouble of openin' a separate bank account, but that might be helpful so that the Eagle Candidate can be a signer on the checks. A lot of troops offer some version of this service to Eagle candidates, and I've seen some Eagle Pre-Project Review Boards "insist" if there's a lot of $$ involved. Yah, now da more important question... why is this your problem? Don't I remember that you're a first-year parent and ASM, not an Eagle advisor or committee member? . Sometimes Courteous and Loyal mean lettin' other people do their jobs so they let you do yours. Relax a bit, eh? Beavah

Global Warming: A private firm's downgrade of its hurricane forecast raises an obvious question: If scientists can't get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now? A reasonable response is: They can't. Nah, that's about the silliest thing I've heard in a while. What da author is mixin' up here is the difference between micro events and overall averages. Weather is a micro event. Whether it rains on me this afternoon or not is a really, really hard thing to predict. Depends on all kinds of local and semi-random stuff. That doesn't mean it's hard to determine the average rainfall in my area of the country, or develop a trend based on the averages. My local pizza guy a couple of blocks away always complains about how hard it is to predict business on any given night. Seems really random - sometimes he gets a lot, sometimes a little. But he's able to do an OK job budgetin' on a monthly basis. Climate change is one of those big, long-term averages, eh? That's a much, much different problem than predictin' whether it's goin' to rain on Saturday. Ain't that many factors; incoming solar radiation gets either bound up in chemical energy through photosynthesis (very little), gets reflected or re-radiated into space, or heats up da planet. If we're decreasing the amount that gets re-radiated into space, then we increase the heatin' of the planet. Dat's pretty simple, eh? Predictin' the big picture ain't hard. But figurin' out how that drives local stuff like drought, Atlantic hurricanes, local ocean temperatures, or whether it rains on my picnic this afternoon is a much harder problem. I'd always tell the kids to assume anything in a lobbying/advocacy piece is deliberately misleadin' or just plain wrong. And da quote clearly comes from a lobbying/advocacy piece, eh? Same goes for Gore's movie, too. Kids need to learn to be aware of (and appropriately skeptical of) different sources. Beavah

Beavah has used the mantra we should respect other adults who volunteer their time to the organization and have faith in them and their abilities to do the right thing by the boys and always have their best interest at heart. This may be one of those times we trust each other.... No, BSA doesn't specifiy what is "sufficiently trained, experienced, and skilled" for every circumstance - they depend on leaders and parents to reasonable assess their own and other leaders' abilities. Yah, I agree with both of these statements, eh? The only spot where I think there are issues is when a CO doesn't have a lot of depth in youth/outdoors programmin', and where the adult scouters are beginners. Advanced beginners, people with some real experience are usually pretty good at evaluatin' their own competency. Novices ain't. I think da risks happen when you get beginners who just don't understand the issues and get in over their heads (maybe they were great summertime hikers, but just didn't get what it's like in winter, or what it's like with a bunch of inexperienced kids). I think the other risk is when there's adult turnover and experienced scouters get replaced by less experienced, but the new leaders feel they "need to do the same activities." Kinda like sendin' the 15-year-old CIT's out to supervise Wilderness Survival MB. The experience is low, but there's a feelin' yeh have to go.... and then yeh burn down a forest. Both of these happen enough to be noteworthy, eh? We all recognize that a lot of the incidents in da Outside article were exactly like that - novice leaders in high-turnover troops, thinkin' they had to do the activity. We gotta find a way to catch them, without puttin' too much of a burden on all the rest. Beavah

Or should alternate certification/experience be reviewed (possibly by Council Training professionals) followed by the issuance of a BSA certification? (Because isn't having the knowledge rather than a piece of paper what we are really after?) Yah, this is sorta what I was gettin' at. Kinda like the CPR model... you can re-take the course for renewal, or you can "challenge out" by just taking the test again. We can leverage the trainin' of other groups, fer sure. But there should be someone in each council who can do one of two things: 1) Make a decision on equivalence. "Yep, we'll accept your Fire Department Medical First Responder as equivalent to Wilderness First Aid" (or not). Or "Yep, through-hikin' the Appalacian and Pacific Crest Trails we'll accept as qualified for backpackin'. No need to take the intro trainin'." and 2) Allow a person to "test out". "Sure, George, if you're free Saturday afternoon for a few hours we can run through the river canoe skills / Safety Afloat. If you look good, we'll credit you for ACA canoe Level 3. Meet me at Joe's Canoe Palace." It'd be great if it could be done on a unit trip, where the person could demonstrate supervision skills, too. "Joe, you're not checked out yet for canoe trip leader, but we'll send Calico with you on your troop trip, and if everything looks good you get credit for that." In other words, make it easy for people to quickly get credit for prior work, but don't let raw beginners take kids out into the woods. Beavah

So according to National a person with no other outdoor experience can take a 1 day course and be considered trained to take his/her troop out in any weather or terrain. Yah, but we can stay in a Holiday Inn Express the night before, eh?

Yah, I think we all agree, eh? Here's da thing, though. Safety depends on good judgment, or what Calico calls "common sense" in the other thread. Problem with SA, SSD, COS, etc. is that they don't provide enough experience/skill proficiency for a person to develop good judgment. So yah, sure, they've been lectured that they need somebody who is "experienced and skilled in the activity," but they don't have the judgment to recognize what such a person looks like, eh? I've seen loads of SA-trained types who considered themselves "experienced and skilled" because they'd been on simple class 0 float trips before. Now, as BA says, some of 'em are just dumbos, eh? But I don't think most are. Simply put, beginners don't have the ability to even know what questions to ask, or what "experienced" really looks like. After SA, they know they're supposed to have PFDs, but they don't know how to size PFD's appropriately for kids, choose proper PFDs for an activity, etc. Yah, sure, us dedicated scouter forum-types then read about da incidents and accidents they caused and complain that they should have known better. But we never really taught 'em any better, eh? We just checked the "Safety Afloat Trained" box. They just checked the PFD box. Might be as easy as sayin' things like "in order to take boys on a canoe trip, you should have the equivalent of American Canoe Association Moving Water Canoe (level 3) skills." If you're not sure, you can either take an ACA course through da BSA, or you can do a quick afternoon checkout with a local instructor. So there's an identified standard, and also a way for scouters whose prior life experiences qualify them to quickly "test out" on the standard. Seems almost negligent not to provide that kind of thing before lettin' people take children into the woods, eh? We've all seen troops with guys who are pretty scary, haven't we? Beavah