Beavah

Yah, ScoutBox, how about some additional info? How big is da troop? How many patrols? Patrols are same-age or mixed-age? Patrol competitions are regular, occasional, nonexistent? Other boys their age or are they the only 7th graders (or are they 8th graders)? Is there a natural leader among da four? B

Yah, there's always folks who don't appreciate industrious family fellows like us furry Beavers. Well done there, Foxy!

I don't mean lynch mobs, moron. So juries of our peers are lynch mobs to you, eh? That's interestin'. Let us know when you're back on speakin' terms with reality. Beavah

Amateurs shouldn't be making arbitrary judgements over possible felonies like child rape. Duh. By amateurs, yeh mean da folks who serve on juries? It seems to me that in our system, we allow our fellow citizens to make judgments about such things in every case. Duh. If yeh wait for da legal system to convict, and then after conviction if yeh expect da legal system to keep da world safe from the predator for the rest of his (or her) life, you're goin' to see a couple orders of magnitude more abuse. I would be interestin' to see what percentage of da "ineligible volunteers" who were referred to law enforcement were actually convicted, and how long their sentences were. I expect that in most cases there wasn't a prosecution, let alone a conviction. That was normal for the time period. Heck, da federal child pornography law wasn't even enacted until 1978, and most of da cases reported were before that! Even if there was a plea deal or conviction, I expect nearly 90% of 'em were out on the street in less than 10 years. That's not a whole lot of protection from da legal system, eh? I reckon I'd be grateful to the BSA for doin' what they could to try to prevent these guys from jumpin' state and workin' with kids again. It wasn't always perfect. No system is. There were folks who I want to string up by their thumbs because I'm so furious about how they opted not to respond. There always are. Both are true of almost any large youth-servin' organization of the period. Beavah

Yah, I think there's also a measure of whether this was a major change of activity or a sidelight activity that got tacked on. If lads are on a 12-day Philmont Trek, and da parents think it's backpackin', they're goin' to hit Miner's Park and go climbing or Whitman Vega and go Mountain Bikin'. Side activities, even "riskier" ones, don't strike me as bein' as big an issue as if a troop changed the overall direction of the major portion of the trip. Readin' between the lines, I expect that what perhaps happened was an addition of some shootin' sports activities without a range or a BSA/NRA qualified instructor. As a side activity that came up as a matter of convenience, I reckon that merits an informal rap on the knuckles (an informal conversation about "hey, we need to pay more attention to this, and would yeh like us perhaps to help pay for yeh to get certified?"). As a major activity where things were a bit more premeditated, I think it's a bigger deal of the "this was just poor and unprofessional and yeh must never do it again" variety. Beavah

Yah, Gunny2862, that still doesn't help us understand what da actual issues are at all, eh? So I'll respond to vague with vague. I think generally if a parent is upset/surprised, then da troop's communication failed in some way. Sometimes communication fails because of da listener as well as the speaker, but the burden is more on da troop to communicate well than the parent to listen well. I don't generally have a problem with the youth or adult leaders makin' changes to an itinerary based on availability / conditions / weather / etc. In fact, I think bein' flexible and able to adjust plans is a good thing that shows judgment and helps keep things safer. Sometimes yeh adjust down, based on da weather, how well the kids are doin', etc. Sometimes the weather is great, the lads are doin' better than expected, and yeh can adjust up. I reckon we all have a problem if da change is deliberately tryin' to pull da wool over people's eyes, like yeh tell the parents you're goin' backpackin' and the plan all along was to spend the weekend on ATVs with paintball markers. It's also worth mentioning that there really isn't such a thing as a "certified" climbing instructor in da real world. The BSA in some areas offers somethin' that IMHO is pretty weak, but it's not available in a lot of councils. AMGA now offers somethin' a bit lower end then their top-notch mountain guide certification, but it hasn't caught on in da industry yet. Most of da climbing instructors at gyms and outfitters have been trained in-house. Da BSA recognizes those, as well as folks trained in college/university programs and others, eh? But they're not "certifications." Da climbing community by and large still values competence over credentialing. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... It's really hard to comment about hypotheticals when they're quite that vague, eh? Generally speakin', most parents don't have da background to assess risk all that well. I agree with others that boulderin' can be a bit more risky than roped free* climbing or rappelling. So I wouldn't be particularly upset with a scouter who on a boulderin' or via ferrata type experience found there was also an opportunity for some regular climbing/rappelling to do that. It's a bit like participatin' in COPE low or high elements. You're doin' a climbin' activity. Now, I think it's a bit different if yeh truly switch activities in a way that genuinely ups da risk. So if yeh said they were goin' biking and they went whitewater kayaking instead, there's a bit of an issue. At least, if you're in a state that actually allows waivers for assumption of risk, that would invalidate the waiver. Practically speakin', though, assumption of risk by a minor or their parents is a tricky argument anyways. Still, I could see a high adventure trip where da mountain biking got rained out one day and da crew decided to pay a bit extra to go whitewater rafting that day. I'm not sure I'd be upset with that. So it all depends a bit, I guess. Beavah * "free climbing" means climbing without aid, but WITH a rope for belay/safety. In other words yeh climb on the rock with your own skills, without usin' a rope or ladder to help yeh climb. "Free soloing" or just "soloing" means climbing without roped belay (in other words, vertical bouldering ).

Yes, they really are. They have to follow actual rules. No, they're really not. They are every bit as susceptible to bias and cronyism as anybody else, and da actual "rules" they have to follow necessarily require "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of proof in order to proceed, while accordin' maximum protection against invasive action by law enforcement. Plus, they have to have the funds and staff time available for a thorough investigation and prosecution to establish that level of proof. Then they have to have da staff without too high a workload to actually monitor terms of probation and all the rest. Very few of da cases where volunteers or workers should be removed from positions have anywhere near da level of proof to be able to proceed with a prosecution. Beavah

Yeah, that's why it's important to get the legal system involved instead of just having amateurs make arbitrary judgements. Yah, because da "professionals" in the legal system are so much better at it, eh? Yeh do remember from da previous LATimes report that most of da molesters who had molested again had in fact been introduced to the legal system. Parents opted not to press charges, prosecutors decided there was insufficient evidence or offered plea deals, probation officers lost track of their charges. With da evidence available at the time, I expect da result would have been the same for many of the cases included in this report. It was interestin' to me that one of da "bad" cases mentioned in this report was apparently of a physician, where the council had reported, da parents refused to press charges, the guy apparently got counseling and never molested again. The LA_Times was upset because a newspaper publisher on the board opted not to report it as a news story, I guess. Da BSA should apparently require its board members to report allegations to the news media. The files in question dated from 1970 to 1991, Merlyn. So da most recent was 20 years ago. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... It would be interestin' to spend some time with da whole set of files. What we have here is a statement by a biased source that in about a third of da cases in the files there were perhaps unfortunate decisions by parents and scout leaders according to modern standards, though perhaps not by the norms of the time. And in about 6-7% of da cases, there were just bad choices. Then we have 5 cases out of da 1,600 that are selected for highlighting, no doubt because they are the worst of the set. I don't think there's any debate that those 5 cases fill every scouter here with righteous fury. Da case where the camp turned the lad over for counseling and then followed da advice of the Catholic chaplain who also happened to be a child molester was particularly beyond da pale. Forget jail time, there is perhaps room for more biblical punishments. "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6). Yah, sign me up to practice my knots by tyin' millstones around necks. To my mind, even that New Testament punishment seems a bit too gentle, and I find myself longin' for a more wrathful and vengeful deity. Still, that's 5 cases out of many, many millions of adult volunteers durin' the time period. We're in da realm of getting hit by lightning is more likely. No organization, no system, no policy anywhere can stop all of these things. Da only difference here is that the BSA as a national organization kept records. Don't think for a minute that other youth groups, public schools, churches, etc. were any better. If we had da records, we'd no doubt find that a number of newspaper reporters and especially photographers were bad people too. That's not an excuse. Da millstone rule still applies. But it's perhaps a caution about judgin' any organization by da acts of a few of its members many decades ago. Beavah

Yah, what TwoCubDad said! This is somethin' for the lad to discuss with da IH and make a decision about, not you. How's the young lad goin' to show initiative and leadership if yeh keep gettin' in the way? Why were you "agreeing" to anything? My guess is that this is somethin' that an Eagle Scout can handle. It's also somethin' that might make for a reasonable request for an extension of time by the boy. We found an unanticipated problem, as a result da beneficiary wanted a much bigger job, I want to do my best for 'em but it will take an extra two months I expect is somethin' that would fly without a second thought. Beavah

Unfortunately, most of the loud noise you hear is from folks concerned about MYYYYYY camp. Close HISSS camp, or THEIRRRRR camp, stay away from MYYYYY camp. Sorry - it was time to look at ALLLLLL camps, and make a decision. Yah, hmmmm... Now I'm a council fellow, and so I understand and sympathize with da "MY camp" thing. It requires some degree of bravery and kindness to make hard decisions and listen to passionate criticism. It isn't easy. But da Scout Law applies to us as much as those whom we serve, eh? We shouldn't expect it to be easy. Let's not forget that we have been tellin' folks for years that it was in fact THEIR camp when we solicited their money and their time, so it seems a bit unfair to turn around and complain about 'em actually believin' us. I reckon if you're hearin' lots of "loud noise" in less than a week it's probably because people are surprised, eh? And perhaps a little miffed that yeh closed camps where they had paid deposits and made reservations, and had set up their troop and family plans relyin' on those dates. That strikes me as more of a lack of planning, communication, and respect for folks by da council staff than of whining by volunteers. Perhaps that lack of communication is because da folks makin' and supportin' the decisions have been livin' half their time in Florida instead of Michigan for the past seven years, and have gotten a bit out of touch with da people who are still workin' with kids in the units. Just perhaps. I suspect that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that some amount of consolidation in Michigan is necessary given da demographics. Closin' three quarters of da camps seems a bit extreme, though; I know your demographics haven't changed that much. I'm also not sure I buy da notion that camps can't be next to each other and do well. Your whole state is pretty geographically similar, eh? Like most of us in da upper midwest. So it's not like a camp that's 150 miles away has different resources because of geography, and none of da drives are more than 3 hours I bet. Camps tend to get sited near each other because that's where the land is cheaper and da taxes/other infrastructure less costly, so if yeh want 'em spread out you'll have higher costs. I expect yeh don't have a camp in da southern FSC for that reason, eh? So to my mind, da issue is more a question of how big a population the camp serves, not where it happens to sit. I've also been on visitation teams for camps. I think if yeh are closin' 75% of your camps because you have lost 30% of your membership, then quite a bit of da problem is mismanagement and poor customer service. Yeh haven't spent money re-investing in da camp; yeh haven't done your duty of oversight ensuring that da program was high-quality and your customers well satisfied. Probably yeh spent it on exec salaries instead of program, because that's always easier for a somewhat disengaged board. If yeh want your rank-and-file to be supportive, yeh have to own your own mistakes as a council volunteer first, and resolve to fix 'em, eh? Blaming da rank and file for havin' a selfish attitude is da wrong way to go. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... So I confess I lost track of this effort in our region, so da link that got posted was new to me. Holy Smoke! That didn't take long. For those new hereabouts, 9 out of 11 councils in Central Region Area 2 (Michigan) voluntarily dissolved/merged into a new state-wide council called Michigan Crossroads. There was a big heavily promoted push for this, though as close as I could tell from readin' da proposal it was mostly fluff. Lots of promises without much of a real plan. Since then, they've created 4 "field service councils" (apparently sort of like big districts) which are subdivided into regular districts. I couldn't much figure out what da point was, other than a really elaborate way to sell camps. It's been about 10 months since da merger was voted on, and I guess they now have the camp plan that Eagle732 linked to in da other thread. Here it is again: http://www.bsaswmc.org/downloads/2013%20Camping%20Update%20-%20September%2010%202012%20%282%29.pdf By my count, they are closing 8 out of 12 Boy Scout camps, and 8 out of 13 Cub Scout camps, on top of three camps that were shuttered this past summer. They aren't doin' this gradually, they're actually dumping hundreds of troops that had reservations for next summer at camps that are shuttin' down. From da read of it, at least three seem to be settin' up for immediate sale by shutterin' completely. Why anybody would try to sell camp properties in this economic environment is hard to fathom, but I guess they need money for all da new executive positions they're creatin' to manage fewer lads. There's no doubt given da economic situation and population declines over that way that a bit of consolidation was in order, but this is just staggerin'. Anyone in Michigan have an inside story? Beavah

Yah, WasE61, I hear yeh. I agree as well. I've always felt that da purpose of Scouting is not to pursue thrill-seeking. It's to teach bravery and hard work and build confidence as lads face challenges and overcome 'em in the outdoors. I confess I don't care for zip lines because I think they're mostly an amusement-park type thrill ride, rather than a real scouting activity. Yeh sit there, get strapped into a professional contraption by a trained worker, and take a ride. Big whoop. Yeh haven't really challenged yourself or learned anything, at least not unless yeh had a fear of heights to start, or yeh lashed da zip line together yourself. Certainly it's also up to parents to decide what's appropriate developmentally for their kid and to not live vicarious thrills through their kid, but I'm still havin' a hard time with how a parent who doesn't have any experience with an activity is goin' to make that judgment. If the subs screw up, you sue the general contractor and THEY sue the sub Yeh do understand what a cross-claim is, right? Beavah

That is the challenge of recuriting new scouts, you get what you get. Once they crossover, failure is the troops responsibility, not the pack. Yah, I agree with Eagledad here, eh? Da fact that the troop couldn't adapt suggests to me an adult-run "curriculum" rather than a youth-run scout troop. That's one of da traps of New Scout Patrols, eh? Da kids playin' the game of Scouting can adapt fairly quickly. Yeh suddenly have a chance to really up the fun and challenge of outings, since yeh don't have to worry about the basics. It's usually the adults who don't have da skills/fitness/mental elasticity to go along with really uppin' da adventure and challenge of outings when such an opportunity presents itself. I'm struck by the close mindedness of letting a scout work towards a worthy goal. I think perhaps da question is whether such an approach is really "worthy." Workin' toward First Class and doin' it well is worthy. Workin' on da skills for First Class to serve others and help your patrol is even more worthy. When yeh add in the timeline race, it creates a tension between doin' it well and doin' it fast, and a tension between doin' it for and with others and doin' it for yourself. For advancement to fit with da other methods, especially patrol method and Scout Spirit, it can't be a solo activity, eh? It can't be "I want this". It has to be part of the rest of the program. Part of outdoorsmanship, part of youth leadership and followership, part of workin' with others in a patrol and a life of service. It has to be "I want to be my best, with and for the group". Now, would I tell the lad "No?". Of course not. There's no learning from that, other than learnin' the adult is in the way. Would the lad make First Class in 5 months? I've never seen it, because I'd expect a Scoutmaster workin' with the boy to use some of TwoCubDad's tricks, but more because I'd expect the SM to demand proficiency from such an enthusiastic lad, and bein' proficient in those skills is more than a 5-month endeavor. Bright lads should be challenged to do things better than average in any event, and I've never seen a bright lad turn away from such a challenge. In the end, though, even if because of previous skill and hard work on the requirements the lad plowed through it all, ignorin' all the hints and suggestions and advice the SM gave along the way and avoidin' the challenge to demonstrate higher levels of skill, I'd hope the Scoutmaster would sit with the lad at his conference and talk about the Oath and Law and Scout Spirit. He'd doodle up a map of the lad's time over the past 5 months, and he'd point out how much of the lad's time was spent on himself and his own goals, and how much of his time was spent on making his patrol run, and helping/leading others in their advancement, and all da other things that are Methods and show character. He'd ask the lad who he respected more, someone who spent all of his time seekin' awards for himself, or someone who spent most of his time workin' to help others and make the group better. He'd talk about how those who have more talent are expected to do their best, which means settin' their own personal standards high so as to challenge themselves. Together, they'd decide that he hadn't yet met da requirements for Scout Spirit, and they'd come up with a plan over the next 5 months to do that. After all, that's the lesson he needs to learn to be successful in a POR for Star, and to be successful in life. Let the howlin' begin. Beavah

I think (and hope) that any parent watching a training session from shore, seeing two adults and two 12 yr old boys scuba dive down, and then only two adults surface would sound the alarm. Common sense. Yah, I don't think that alarm was needed, eh? I'm sure the adults realized somethin' was wrong right away. A bunch of fools yellin' from da short is only goin' to be a distraction. As nldscout says, we're probably never goin' to know the details. Things like this settle fairly quickly, and da records are not made public. B

Yah, hmmm... Seems like there might have been an equipment issue of some sort, perhaps. In that case, da BSA is quite correct in its motion and cross-claim. They relied on da equipment and expertise of the dive instructor and dive shop, who owed a duty of care to all parties. If a parent is stupid enough to allow their kids to learn to SCUBA in a murky lake with instructors they don't know... Yah, WasE61, I'm curious. If you're a parent, how do yeh judge da skills and qualifications of a SCUBA instructor if yeh don't know anything about SCUBA? Because the person is certified? This fellow was certified. Certification isn't really that hard. Because yeh "know him?" In almost every case of serial pedophilia, da parents have "known" the perpetrator. Because yeh like his looks? I suspect that's what it really comes down to most of the time, which is a bit silly don't yeh think? That applies whether yeh are present yourself or not, eh? You standin' on da shore without any SCUBA knowledge tryin' to armchair quarterback da SCUBA instructor doesn't sound like a great recipe for safety, does it? If we want our kids to grow up and be able to live and work in da wider world with other people, they need to go out into da wider world with other people. If we want to give our kids opportunities that we never had ourselves, then we have to trust others to provide those opportunities since we can't. That comes with risks, eh? But it's not as if stayin' home with us is without risks either. Beavah

Yah, TwoCubDad, feel free to put a name on da thing! Callooh Callay, yeh lost me. First, this thread is about a troop where every boy got to First Class in five months with da troop only campin' quarterly. Not just one exceptional lad. If that one exceptional lad has burned through all those ranks in that space of time, he has to also have met all the citizenship and Scout Spirit and Ideals Method requirements, eh? So I don't get da comments about only bein' an outdoor club. Through sports or family or church he must have internalized da Scout Oath and Law and his rights and responsibilities as a citizen and his knowledge of respect for da flag and all the rest. I reckon we're all agreed that if da planets align it is possible for da one out of a thousand exceptional lad in a weaker one-and-done program to get First Class. Provided perhaps that he doesn't have to take his turn as a cook or whatnot, and instead always goes first. That's fine, I suppose. The lad has gotten an award and a brief introduction to Scouting. But he hasn't really learned much from scouting. If he were to then take off and do somethin' else because he's met his goal and "there are other things to learn elsewhere", I'd think that Scoutin' failed the lad. We didn't substantively impact his life at all. We gave him a patch, but we didn't help him a lick on da next steps he needed to grow into a man and a participatory citizen. Yah, yah, yeh can rush through advancement if yeh have adults who don't understand da program. Yeh can do it by subtractin' from da requirements in a one-and-done fashion or by focusin' all of da lad's and the adults' energy on the one method. That's not Scouting. Scoutin' uses a bunch of Methods, together, in concert. Da other Methods all take contact time in order to work their magic. Outdoors, Ideals, Adult Association, Youth Leadership, Personal Growth, identifyin' with da Uniform - they all take time. We're one of da finest character-building organizations around because we take that time, eh? We spend a lot of years with boys at their most impressionable, not just a season. A boy for whom Advancement is such a strong drivin' force is why da Method exists, eh? But that lad needs us as adults to link the advancement to the other 7 methods, because he most often he can't do it himself. Our goals aren't to teach him how to get recognition. Our goals are to develop deeper habits by linking recognition to other things, until eventually those lads who start out questing for recognition instead quest to be caring leaders, committed citizens, upstanding and Godly family men. They move from seekin' to meet an external goal and get advancement to a habit of workin' for internal goals and seekin' growth. That takes time, and puttin' advancement in its place as part of a broader program for the boy. Beavah

Yah, IM_Kathy, I hear yeh. Though yeh missed da whole bit about meal planning requirements in there. With a NSP it takes many months just to get through da testing of the First Class plan and cook da patrol's meals for a weekend bit. You're right, though. If a lad is cookin' every day at home for 5 months, he is goin' to learn how to cook. Then all yeh need is the adjustment to LNT field cookin', eh? Fires, dutch ovens, one-burner gas stoves and the like. There are few very amusin' episodes of Top Chef where a bunch of professional chefs with many years of experience completely bungle cookin' in the da field (even though they have far more resources than a lad does on a campout). So I'm not sure da transition is quite as simple as yeh suggest. Cookin' of course is only one part of da requirements, eh? Then yeh have all of First Aid. How long do yeh suppose it takes a lad to really be able to recognize and respond to shock? How much practice to do a good improvised splint? There are somethin' like 30 different first aid situations that yeh have to learn to recognize, understand, and treat. Then there's water safety and water rescue. How much practice do yeh suppose is required for a lad to really be able to competently perform a water rescue safely? Then there's basic land navigation and orienteering. Now I've been teachin' those things for many decades, and for 11-year-olds da process of making the map mean somethin' in their own head just seems to require a lot of time and practice in da field. Yah, yah, it's easier in da parts of da country that have more contours, but even so. Then there's... Then there's... Can da son of an Outward Bound instructor and a nurse who has been doin' harder campouts than most Boy Scout troops since he was 6 and who helped teach Wilderness First Aid every month since he was 9 get things done in 5 months if mom and dad homeschooled and spent 3 hours a day on practice and on da remaining skills? Perhaps. Not sure why da family is botherin' with Boy Scouts, though. Can every boy in an average troop that only camps quarterly achieve that? Absolutely not.

it sounds like what you're really saying is that your students are really, really poorly educated. Yah, hmmmm.... Well, da Scopes trial is mentioned in da recommended K-12 history content standards: Examine the rise of religious fundamentalism and the clash between traditional moral values and changing ideas as exemplified in the controversy over Prohibition and the Scopes trial. So that's half of one content standard out of 47. In one U.S. historical era out of 10. U.S. History being one of two or three different history content areas. History being one content area out of 5 in social studies. Yah, so that's roughly one ten-thousandth of what students are theoretically supposed to know. Or less. Honestly, da thing was sort of silly. Kind of da OJ trial of its day. Beavah

Many Webelo I's do not camp all that much. But, for that age, IMHO, you should have a tent weekend in the fall and spring, get a cabin someplace in the winter, and attend a week long GSUSA summer camp. Yah, this seems about right. Fall & spring outdoors, winter cabin, summer camp, plus day-trips, sleep-overs and other activities. B

Yah, sure, I know troops that "cap" in some way or another. Sometimes by modulatin' recruitin'. Sometimes by creating a wait-list. Yah, sure, I know troops that have participation requirements to remain on da roster. Yah, sure, there are even overlaps between the two! Generally speakin', if yeh want to strengthen and grow your troop, da universal formula is to set high expectations for members, and higher expectations for recognition and leadership. Then you're sure to have an active and exciting program with confident lads and proud parents, and you'll attract all kinds of additional members. Plus, when you're really too big and yeh have other folks who are anxious to get in, it's easier to be firm with problem-case folks. Mostly, though, troops tend to grow to da natural size that their adult leaders can accommodate. Once they get bigger than that, they "leak" boys until they return to the edge of their natural limit. That natural limit is usually a bit bigger than their "do the best job" size. So I tend to be an advocate of troops limiting membership, because it both leads to a better experience for the youth (and adults!) and because it helps avoid unnecessary loss of boys "leaking" out when a troop gets too big and da individual lads get lost. An area where a troop is hittin' its limit while there is still more demand is an area where da district should be lookin' to start a new troop. In fact, that's the only area where they should be really lookin' to start a new troop. Beavah

Yah, why not sit with all the boys and ask them, eh? It's easy enough to have a discussion with 9 boys. You provide da information on what NYLT is, and how the two lads spent a bunch of time and money to learn how to be the best leaders for the troop they could be. Yeh perhaps offer a thought or two about patrol size. Maybe yeh do it along the way, rather than up front, depending on how much your troop culture normally includes havin' open discussions with kids. Then let them decide on da whole thing, eh? One patrol or two, who is PL/APL, etc. With a group of 9, there's no reason for them not to set this up by discussion and consensus. Maybe they'll surprise you and launch a recruitin' drive for 5 more scouts, once they realize that it's theirs to run! Beavah

1st class they are patrol cook, 2nd class they are patrol assistant cook, and tenderfoot they are used as a helper by their patrol. so that right there is 3 different campouts. if you have a patrol full of new scouts this could take some time - if you have a few patrols all with a couple of new scouts it goes smoother and will take about 3 campouts for each scout. Only if yeh believe in One-and-Done, eh? Da requirements are the test. They're Step 2 in the Boy Scout Advancement Method. Yeh need three campouts for the test, I agree. Now when do they do Step 1: A Scout Learns? If a lad comes in who has been workin' at his parents' restaurant since he was six and who regularly cooks and even has prepared a few menus, then I'll believe he might only need a few campouts of learning how to use campfire and camp stove instead of a professional kitchen, and how to do LNT instead of use the disposal and dumpster and dishwasher. So five to six months of 100% attendance in an active troop durin' the fair-weather season might barely be enough to learn those new things enough to be reasonably proficient and then do the testing. Maybe. But only in a troop with mixed-age patrols. For the average lad, who hasn't cooked before? What does it take for such a lad to really learn how to cook? How much practice? I reckon it's somethin' more than zero. More still if he has to share da cooking and practice and testing time with a whole gaggle of other same-age lads. Beavah

Nah, not possible except in cases where a lad came in with a lot of prior experience from his family. Not without subtractin' from da requirements in substantial ways. Especially not if the troop is only campin' quarterly. B