Beavah

Yah, perhaps some review from an old fellow may help a bit. Da other old fellows can jump in too. It was my understanding that FCFY was originally introduced to address two concerns: There were a bunch of thoughts at the time, but they came down to this. In da 1990 program materials revision, they again departed from old Green Bar Bill in a few ways. First, there was a notion that mixing ages of boys in a patrol led to bullying, and so there was a move toward NSP and youth leaders were removed from Boards of Review. Now, of course, yeh then needed something for the NSP to do, eh? So the thought was to just try to run a year-long Brownsea program. That got patterned after Webelos, with an ASM/Den Leader and a TG/Den Chief. There were also data that suggested 1) most boys who drop out of Boy Scouting drop out in the first year, and 2) most boys who achieve First Class stay in scouting for 3 more years. From this, da conclusion was if we use da NSP to get boys to first class in the first year, we will "solve" the dropout problem. Most of us recognized da "correlation is not causation" problem at the time, and after 20 years of FCFY da results are that most boys still drop out in the first year, boys who make First Class stay in a bit less long, and overall membership is down. We gave it 20 years, eh? It was a failed experiment. I think FCFY originated from the idea that the T-2-1 requirements were developed in such a way that, on average, motivated Scouts in units with quality program could earn the rank within their first year This is certainly not true. Da basics of First Class rank were developed decades before FCFY, and back then there was never an expectation it could be done in a year. 2-3 years was da norm I think. As I've pointed out, with a NSP and a troop of average, by-the-book activity level, it is not possible to do FCFY unless yeh treat it as once-and-done, and even then yeh can't quite make it even with 100% attendance. And that's only if it's also adult-run, so yeh carefully fit everything in.

I dont think we need to take the advancement method out of the program, we just need to remove FCFY and instead encourage a quality program where any scout could advance on his own as fast as he wanted. Eagledad's comments in da parent thread were quite a contrast with the new Guide to Advancement, eh? The new Guide to Advancement says it's the unit's responsibility to "establish practices that will bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining, and then to Star rank the following year." Has this just gone so far off da rails that we should flood da program office with demands that the whole silly FCFY notion be abolished? I have long maintained that given an average troop program, it is impossible to get to FCFY with every boy, even with most boys, without turning Scouting into advancement-focused school. Yeh can even see some 50-page curriculum documents out there, eh? I remember old BobWhite advocatin' somethin' that looked like it had been developed in the Department of Education. Is it time to just say "enough"? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Lisabob, advancement is a trick we use with external motivation to help young men become internally motivated. Once they are internally motivated, then its work is done, eh? There is no longer any point to da method. At that point, if well-meaning adults try to "chat" or "push" then teens rightly feel that they're being treated like little kids and fools. So they do what any of us as adults would do and push back. It's da surest way for 'em not to make Eagle. About da only way I've ever gotten such lads to go for it is to come at it a different way. In order for da Eagle rank to really mean anything, the best scouts have to go for it. If the best scouts in da troop aren't making Eagle, then the trick of motivation won't work for the younger boys, as your son's experience demonstrates. So it's an act of service for the good lads to go for it, because it helps the younger boys. Besides, it's fun to put together a project that really helps an organization yeh care about, and yeh really can learn some good stuff from da right counselor for the required badges. But honestly, in da big scheme of things, your son has already learned da lessons advancement was there to teach. So be proud of him, and don't sweat the trivial kid's badge game if he's not. Beavah Sometimes they'll get the

Da reason for your mistaken statistics, E61, is that DoJ is only accumulating criminal charges of sexual assault, eh? Most frequently, parental abuse is prosecuted under different statutes as child abuse and neglect and, when there is insufficient evidence to sustain a criminal complaint (which is often the case for parents who abuse children in the privacy of their own home), it is handled as an administrative civil action. A more comprehensive treatment is given in da Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, which is available from da U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. There you will find that the majority of all children countable under the Harm Standard (81%) were maltreated by their biological parents. When limited to incidence of sexual abuse, it is true that only 36% were abused by a biological parent, but when yeh add in non-biological parents and "partners" of a biological parent (like yourself), it is still da largest category, especially when yeh add in relatives. Then yeh consider that a child only has contact with a few parents, but has contact with dozens of other folks. On an incident-per-person basis, parents are a much bigger risk. Beavah

8a. Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used. 9b. Successfully complete the BSA swimmer test. Yah, lrsap, I think what we want for 9b is that the boy actually knows how to swim, eh? So yeh sign off the requirement when he actually knows how to swim. The 100 yards swum in "a strong manner" with da ability to rest while swimming/in water and not be exhausted is a measure. If yeh use that measure well, and actually sign off for the ability to swim, then there will be no question that the lad will still be able to swim in three months, or next summer. Da problem only comes when yeh feel "he's worked hard enough" or somesuch and then sign off for drowning in a forward direction for 100 yards because actually making him learn to swim would be "mean" or because da scouter isn't willing to take the time with the boy to really teach him how to swim. That's the only time you'll find the lad somehow can't swim 3 months later. No different for any advancement topic. Beavah

Are you saying that units should look only at experience, and not at age when selecting a unit leader? So a 40 year old who served as an ASM for 7 years would be on roughly equal footing as a 18 year old who spent the past 7 years as an active Scout? Or are you saying that preference should be given to the younger man in a case like that? I'm sayin' that it's an awfully rare troop that has da luxury of "selecting" a unit leader in da first place, and that by and large units should make use of any qualified and willing soul, taking advantage of each person's individual skill and talent. I can't imagine why a unit would place ASM candidates on any comparative "footing" at all, eh? I'd expect any unit would grab both fellows. Beyond that, I think that "training" is vastly overrated. Nobody is really goin' to change how they act or approach things because of a few hours of seat time or viewing an online cartoon. In reality, scouting relies on people to join who have certain kinds of experience and talent that took a lot of time to develop, because we aren't very good at developing it after they join. That's what B-P used to talk about as scouters "of the right sort", eh? People who came with some natural skills working with boys or the outdoors, and preferably both. So yeh really do a unit a disservice when yeh reject people who come with substantial prior experience that yeh didn't have to "pay" for, because we really don't have da time or resources to develop it after they come. For da rest, I only have loose rules of thumb, eh? I'd never make decisions based on such things, they're just potential traps to look for. Da most common trap is accepting Webelos parents immediately into ASM/MC ranks. Causes lots of grief lots of times. Second most common issue is selecting SM/ASMs based on who da parents like, without reference to the boys. Parents I've found are more apt to judge on surface appearances if they aren't out campin' with da troop a lot. Clean cut and well pressed takes precedence over "works well with kids". That sort of thing. Beavah

Now you and I both know that what your troop is doing in regards to POR is incorrect and is appealable for a BOR. Nope. No appeals anymore for T-2-1. Star and Life are appealable, but only to council. Trainerlady, no time in a POR before First Class "counts" in any way. Yeh have to serve "while a First Class Scout". Expecting a lad to be First Class to serve in a POR is a common expectation of larger troops and troops that use FCFY. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think E61 has made it clear in the past that his wife is the custodial parent and wants the boy in scouting, as did the child's dad. E61 is doin' the controlling rather than supportive thing and sniping from the sidelines until he gets his way. Some folks need to be in control in a relationship, and we all prefer things we know and understand to things that we aren't as familiar with. To some extent, that's a good thing, because at least he feels some responsibility for the lad, which is more than many men in his position. B

If your supporting the scout (what we signed up for), why aren't debates like this decided in the favor of the scout. But yeh see, fred8033, when yeh tell a lad that he needs to be proficient and hold him to that, yeh are deciding in favor of the scout. You're doin' the hard work of actually pushing, cajoling, and inspiring the lad to do what he is fully capable of, and at the same time helpin' the other lads see what a First Class scout or Life Scout or Eagle Scout really is, and why it's cool and valuable. Da notion that "deciding in favor of the scout" means always giving him the award is shallow. I'd almost say juvenile, except that most juveniles would never buy into it. Even da most spoiled of youth don't really buy into da adult "entitlement" thing. To understand and properly apply da BSA program, yeh have to start with da Rules & Regulations that yeh agreed to, and then read all of the program documents in their proper context and with consideration for the outcomes we want for youth, as an organization. Sorry, but yeh just get it wrong when yeh try to base the whole method on two isolated phrases "don't add to requirements" and "don't retest". Those are qualifiers and guidance, not core principles. And quite frankly, if yeh award lads who have not really achieved proficiency, yeh have clearly subtracted from da requirements of the BSA. That's da far more common error these days. I get that yeh have had issues with a few of your DAC folks. We all view things through the lenses of our own personal experience. I think perhaps your lenses have gotten a bit too fogged up by da real or perceived problems in your own district. Beavah

Yah, I've got a scouter friend who does this sort of work professionally, so I mostly just listen to him, eh? Ain't my field. But here's somethin' he pointed me to as a good synopsis: Scientific American Article It's one of those areas where da popular press and da actual science bear relatively little resemblance to each other. We old farts aren't very good at filterin' out our own biases against da young. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

to always give the young adult preference, based only on age, and regardless of the needs of the unit - well, that's just discrimination in the opposite direction, right? Perhaps, though yeh have to admit that the Europeans have a point when they think that older adults who want to hang out with kids is a bit creepy. I was really talkin' about young adults who have scouting experience, eh? I'd give preference to da scouting experience over some vague, amorphous notion of "maturity" which quite frankly I have not seen to be particularly well correlated with age. And I'd give preference to people with experience working with groups of same-age youth over parents, because that experience is more relevant. And I'd give preference to those who come with solid outdoor skills over those for whom IOLS would be their first introduction. All of which brings us back around to why I'd give preference to a young adult with 7+ years in scouting, because unlike that neophyte parent, the man has years of relevant outdoor experience, years of experience working with groups of youth of that age, etc. Given a situation with a kid in the outdoors, that young fellow is much more likely to make the correct decision. And that's what da brain studies really show, eh? It's experience that counts, because experiences causes brain development. Not vice versa. Da notion that young people "can't do" stuff is just a pleasant fiction that us old farts tell ourselves in order to make ourselves feel better in our declining years. Ain't got a thing to do with reality. Beavah

Beavah, I appreciate your creative interpretion of what I'm saying. It educational to have someone tell me what I mean. Only too happy to be of service. We all agree that Advancement is just a Method, eh? It works for some lads, not as well for others. But in order for it to work even for some lads, it's important to understand how or why it works to achieve our goals. Boys like to be recognized, eh? They appreciate being recognized by adults, but even more than that they want to be recognized by their peers. Advancement takes this desire for recognition and uses it as a way to motivate effort toward learning and personal growth. Da thing of it is, boys have a very finely honed sense of "real" vs. "fake", eh? They know from personal experience with their peers which of their peers can be trusted with dinner, or with setting a tent up in the dark, or with managing a water sport. It's that peer recognition which they crave. So da Advancement Method works best when earning the awards aligns with recognition by their peers and fellow scouts. Boys don't care a lick about "signoffs" and paperwork. That's an adult game they only play grudgingly and with reluctance. The real BSA Advancement Method is smart, almost inspired. It takes da practical and adventurous things boys care about and turns 'em into a tangible thing that can be strived for. It teaches 'em it's worth the effort to work hard and become proficient at things, to really behave honorably and earn da recognition of others for genuine skill. It helps him engage more fully with da other seven methods as he works toward a goal. That's what's behind all the words I and others have been quotin' from the Rules and Regulations and the program materials over decades of development into the present. It's how the BSA program is designed to work. Turnin' it into a once-and-done exercise in lawyering da meaning of "explain" or the validity of a signoff as a contract turns it into an adult make-work exercise of little value to youth. Yeh can try it, but the results yeh get in terms of growth and character development in youth will be substantially weaker. Better just to drop da Advancement Method from your program and use the other seven well. If yeh find, though, that boys in your program for some reason are not "retaining" their knowledge, that is a sign that they never learned it in the first place. Instead, what yeh did was conduct a "class" where yeh felt that because the boy was "told" something and regurgitated a piece of it, he actually learned. Yeh were just fooling yourself. Being a good adult leader means puttin' in more effort than that, eh? Yeh can solve that by actually puttin' in the effort, or by convincing yourself that all the BSA really wants is "once and done" and actually expecting lads to have learned somethin' is "adding to the requirements". Beavah

I was at a shelter before dark, making dinner when troop walked up and after a few minutes I was told to leave by the scout leader because they had more people and had planned on using the shelter. They had 15 people in their group. I asked to see his reservation.....oh wait all the shelters are first come first serve. At that point all three leaders were there telling me to leave. Holy Smoke! Yah, hmmm... Don't know quite what to say to that, eh? Probably worth a call or letter to the Chartered Organization and council. Now, I confess, if I was solo and a big group of kids showed up and asked politely, I might voluntarily move. I don't mind being out without a fixed shelter, and I always figure that giving kids good experiences with the outdoors is an investment in da future of the nation's wild lands. But I don't think I'd take too well to being "told" to leave. Beavah

Yah, I agree with Oak Tree, but only to a point. I think we're probably closer to 50/50 in terms of good wilderness practice than we are to 90/10. All yeh have to do is look at da threads where many of us poo-poo LNT, or pick up any outdoor magazine where Boy Scouts are frequently mentioned as poor wilderness users by da folks who are in da wilderness most frequently. And of course, there have been quite a few high-profile cases of vandalism or poor skills on many public lands. Beavah

Similarly for skills ... explain hiking skills and what to do when lost does not require mastery that lasts a life time. It's explain. Yes, one time. Seemed like this discussion still had legs, and it was gettin' mixed up with tryin' to help trainerlady in da other thread (not to mention da more important consideration of the ban on pirates, Arrrh! ) Fred8033 keeps tryin' to make da same point as what he writes above, and claims that it's just "marketing" puffery that Eagle Scout has any meaning or value in terms of character, leadership, or skill. I say that a Scout is Trustworthy, and that when we tell parents and da community that ranks like Eagle Scout actually mean something that has merit for employment or college admission, it's not just marketing puffery, it's what we're really trying to accomplish and what we really intend the rank to signify. So I believe that when we teach a Tenderfoot what to do when lost, we actually want him to know what to do when lost. Because we're taking him into the woods where sometimes life happens, and he might actually need that skill for health and safety. Like our scouts in NH earlier this month did. To tell him, and his parents, and da community at large that he merits an award for knowing what to do when lost when in fact he does not have that skill is subtracting from da requirements, and it not only is a poor and improper use of da program, it puts the boy's safety at risk. I say this because we agreed in the Rules and Regulations that education is the primary purpose of the advancement program, and that awards in Boy Scouting are based on proficiency in skills. We are instructed that advancement is only a method to help achieve our educational goals, and that we must interpret G2A and all other program materials in such a way as to harmonize with our fundamental educational mission. We acknowledge that proper use of da advancement method begins with A Scout Learns, and takes as long as he needs to in order to really learn, and only then is he tested. It is not "mean" to expect a boy to actually know what to do when lost, it is the actual Scouting program. Boys don't "fail" in Scouting, but there is a stretch where they are not yet proficient in their skills, and therefore do not yet merit recognition for those skills. Da BSA advancement method can be boiled down to this: we publicly recognize boys for developing proficiency, because it encourages boys to develop skills and proficiency. In the end, we hope they will value learning and hard work and proficiency even without recognition, not seek recognition without truly developing proficiency. That's what character and honor means. What says da group? Beavah

The frustration is that he was FAILED number one Nah, he was told that he had not yet fulfilled all da requirements, and by your and his own admission, that was the case. So by your own and his admission, he was not yet ready to advance. We might agree that da scout badge is "trivial" compared with first aid, or not. . No matter how yeh cut it, not being ready is not a "failure", it's just not being ready. Failure only happens in schools where there is a time limit on learning. Again, as a parent, I think this is da right time to teach your son about personal honor. He wasn't ready, he admits that, and he should have worked as hard on the scouty stuff as on the other items. Help him be the guy that is thorough and nails all of da expectations, not the parent that excuses being lax in some because they're "trivial.". You'll like the results better. As a troop, yeh may have a point, eh? But that's other people's jobs to deal with. Yeh might let 'em know, politely, about your perceptions, and then give 'em time to work on it. Or yeh might step up and volunteer to help out in some way. Of course if yeh think that things are so awful that your son is losing ground in terms of his development by being involved, then yeh should find something else for him to do. Beavah

Da abuse rate among scouters is no higher than it is among teachers, coaches, ministers, and other similar folks. It's of course significantly less than it is for relatives and parents, who are statistically the most likely abusers. Only difference is that da BSA is a national organization, where most sports/schools/churches are not, so what looks like isolated incidences for the latter looks like s big problem for da former. If we ever accumulated da record of "parents" as though they were a national organization, there'd be laws in every state prohibiting parenthood. I'd never tell parents to "trust" a policy like two-deep or any of the other YPT stuff. By and large those are just institutional policies designed to limit liability. What yeh really need to do to protect your children is help 'em be their own person, work to see you as someone they can genuinely turn to on hard issues, and make sure there are a number of other good people in your child's life they can also confide in. Abusers only succeed when they are able to limit access kids have to other good people. So da more proper poll is this one eh: have you ever asked your child? Have you ever asked your child whether they would turn to you with a question about sex, drugs, or rock and roll? Have you ever asked your child if you weren't available or didn't give 'em a good answer, who would they turn to? Have yeh ever really worked to keep all those lines of communication open... To you, to trusted relatives, to good friends, to trusted mentors? Don't trust a policy. Trust your child, and give him/her da resources and support and confidence to protect himself. That's why I think da stranger danger nonsense is so much crap, eh? When a child is in trouble, he should feel comfortable and confident in turning to anyone, even a single, male, young stranger for help. Abusers isolate. They can only succeed in isolation. If a lad is comfortable asking the guy behind da counter at the gym for help because coach is abusing him, that's a YP win. Beavah

But I think that the connection between age and maturity and experience is a bit tighter than maybe you'd like to admit. Nah, I think all da evidence out there says that experience is based on, well, experience and not much else. Age is only a correlate because it affords more time to accumulate experience. At least that's what all da psychologist folks seem to tell us, with reams and reams of literature on how difficult it is for people to "transfer" experience from one field to another. Being older doesn't make yeh a better airplane pilot, and having a lot of experience as an attorney doesn't make yeh a better airplane pilot (if you've ever met an attorney pilot you'd know what I mean ). But havin' years of experience as a pilot will make yeh a better pilot. So I'll buy that an older EMT candidate might have better people skills, but that's only because folks with people skills / caring experience tend to be attracted to EMS, not because of age by itself. That's a selection effect, not an age effect. Da only well-documented age effect is that the older we get, and particularly when we get past our mid-twenties, the less able we are to learn or really change our beliefs in light of evidence. Our brains get kind of hardwired, eh? Nuthin' more torturous for a young scout than trying to teach grandpa Beavah how to use da most recent computer thingamajig In da case of scouting, though, we're talkin' about a young fellow with 7+ years of recent experience and typically much better fitness, vs. a parent with virtually no experience. Have yeh ever sat and watched as parent scouters try to treat every kid as though they were their own son? Expecting "obedience", giving orders/consequences, doin' nuthin' but high-impact car camping? Blech! They have experience as a parent, but that's not da experience set yeh need to be an effective scouter. Yep, each unit should make a choice based on da individual, for sure. My advice, though, is to give preference to younger folks, folks with scouting/outdoor experience, and folks with experience working with groups of same-age kids (schools, camps, sports, etc.). That's da experience which is relevant. Experience as an engineer just isn't. So I'll take moosetheitalianblacksmith and his willingness to beat the crap out of a guy raping a kid over an "experienced" older athletic director who carefully and responsibly acts to limit liability and damage to public reputations like a mature, responsible adult. Any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

if I were evaluating your application to serve as a Scouter in a unit I was involved with, and I knew you to be brutally honest, but then also heard you make a comment about beating the crap out of someone.... well, that would make me question your suitability to serve in my unit. Yah, to be fair to moosetheitalianblacksmith, I think it was this old furry critter who was da first to say that if I had seen coach Jerry with the boy he would not have left the building under his own power. In handcuffs or on a stretcher, yeh protect the kid first. Personally, I'd have trouble with any scouter who didn't have that kind of immediate reaction. But maybe that's just me, eh? I'm an old fellow, but I still believe in black and white. As an EMT-W (albeit a part-timer who just maintains it for outdoor stuff), I also don't think KC9 is being fair in his comparison. I think he's confusing age with experience. Fact is, most EMS folks start out pretty young, and only the ones who really have a talent for the work stay around to become older EMTs. If yeh got a lot of 40-something EMT trainees, you'd find lots of similar issues. Perhaps better drivers, but often slower learners who mis-apply their other experience to emergency medicine. Leastways, that's what I've seen. I've seen scoutin' in other countries, where da norm for Scoutmasters is to be of Rover age or at least under 35, and where it's considered downright creepy for an older adult to be servin' in those positions. I confess that I like da feel of it a lot better. As my fellow commissioner reported earlier, it's more often da older scouters and parents who are negative issues or problem "head cases" in programs. And if yeh believe da profilers, da typical predator is like Coach Jerry, eh? They don't really get around to abusing youth until they are older and better established. I think mostly that we owe it to da kids and to our own sense of ethics to evaluate each individual, not to discriminate solely on age or any other arbitrary criteria. There are great and poor young folks, and great and poor old folks, and anything in between. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, every now and then some unthoughtful nutter in a regional or national office sends out one of these goofy memos or rules, eh? Remember da one prohibiting certain skits in da NE Region? Or the it-just-won't-die prohibition of laser tag in da G2SS? Best is just to ignore such nonsense. If someone really feels like tryin' to enforce it, yeh can deal with it then by gatherin' around and laughing at 'em. That's usually da best cure for people who are takin' themselves a might too seriously. Arrrrhh! Beavah

Yah, BartHumphries, you're right. The Game of Life in WB21C is just a version of Prisoners Dilemma, which does have a rich history and a bunch of psychology research behind it. Just like situational leadership in WB21C is really just old Hersey-Blanchard. We don't call this stuff what it is because then it wouldn't seem as boy-scouty. Either that, or we'd have to pay royalties The Game of Life in WB21C also has a mixed effect in da course. Lots of times it melts down badly, and causes a lot of bad feelings among participants. Da course designers would have benefitted from lookin' up the research that others had done on da Prisonners Dilemma problems and been more thoughtful about da rules and context. Beavah

Yah, trainerlady, I have da same question as moosetracker. Which are you upset at - that your son is not learnin' things to proficiency, or that he didn't get instant gratification for not being proficient last night? As a parent, I think I'd take da opportunity to help my son actually become proficient. I'd think it was a gift that the SM said "no", because I'd use it to help my son realize that learning is up to him. He can't expect someone to spoon-feed him all the time like in school. He can read the requirements, and he knows whether or not he knows the part of the badge, so he should have done the work to be ready. We'd work on it together, and on the other requirements where he felt weak. He'd learn a lesson about being responsible for himself, and about personal honor - never requesting a recognition that he didn't know he had down completely. Now, as a commissioner, I'd take a different tack with da SM. Da problem yeh seem to describe is that the unit program never really gave the boys the opportunity to learn. It's commendable that the SM has enough of a vision of what he wants from boys to try to "hold the line", but he's holdin' the line at the wrong point. He needs help trying to improve the quality of the program earlier on in the process, at Step 1: A Scout Learns. So I'd work with him and the others in his unit on that. Hopefully, he'd also learn a lesson about responsibility and personal honor, eh? When a lad gets to a SM conference/BOR without really having learned, that's not a reflection of a lad, it's a flaw in the program that the SM has to take responsibility for. So da proper response is different dependin' on whether you're a parent or a commissioner or someone else. I do think it's better for everyone, though, if we think in terms of our honor and responsibilities, rather than what we feel we are entitled to. Beavah

Generic logic like that has been used for thousands of years to justify treating kids badly....And it's not candy to give a scout his due. Yah, yah. Kids are entitled to awards and recognition by others. It is their due to have other people applaud and give 'em things, regardless of whether or not they have actually learned anything, or have any skill, or have demonstrated da character and values that we care about. That is the Scouting Way. NOT. Da Rules & Regulations are the official BSA Policy document, fred8033. The old ACP&P put excerpts in for informational purposes, but the full thing is still there and in force. The difference between da Rules & Regulations and the G2A is like the difference between a state law and the promotional pamphlet yeh get at the information booth at the state capitol. One is a rule, the other is just a program material. I reckon there's a point to the BSA Rules & Regulations opening the section on Advancement with da statement that education is our primary purpose, eh? And that's the basis for advancement. As our colleagues in New Hampshire demonstrated, when we don't live up to that we put the safety of kids at risk, because they go into the field not really knowing the thing that they were "signed off on" 6 months ago. When a lad is confronted with a drowning victim and goes to do a rescue, then that failure on our part to really make sure the boy has learned puts the boy's life at risk. When we tell colleges, employers, and the community at large that an Eagle Scout has meaning in terms of character and ability, but we don't actually assess the lads on character and ability, then we are stealing from other kids who may not be selected because someone valued the Eagle Scout on da resume, and we damage da reputation of the program. I get where that this "don't be mean", "he did his best" stuff is a product of da Cub Scout program, and some Cub Scouters and parents have a hard time with the transition to Boy Scouting, just like da transition to middle school expectations can be rocky for 'em as well. I'm sympathetic. But it's just not da best Boy Scouting. Should First Class Scouts show a mastery of certain outdoor skills? Sure - I think all of us would agree - but the mastery comes from a program that gives the Scout plenty of time to practice, and thus master, the skills they've learned and demonstrated for rank. Yep, exactly. And they should not be given the rank until they've had plenty of time to participate in the program, practice and master those skills. The award recognizes what a scout is able to do. If a unit program isn't providin' those opportunities, then da solution is not to give the lad an award anyways. That's what I mean by "pencil whipping". It's to improve da program and to give the lad more time to learn and to practice. It takes time and effort to learn things, and often some degree of "push" or challenge. Be an adult, and push and challenge. Yah, each unit can define "proficiency" for itself, but I reckon in honesty most would be pretty close. A boy who gets signed off as being able to plan, purchase, store, and cook a weekend's meals for his patrol should be able to do that, in whatever conditions are common for the region. So a PL should be able to call up a First Class scout and delegate the weekend's food to him, and the lad should be able to handle it, with nutritious and tasty results. A boy who gets signed off on da taut line hitch should be able to set up the patrol's dining fly or rig a clothes line or whatnot when asked. And yah, sure, if da troop arrives in camp in the dark and rain, then he should be able to do it in the dark and rain. A lad who is signed off on recognizing poison ivy should be able to recognize it whenever he comes across it, and a boy who is signed off for first aid for cuts should be able to perform first aid for cuts. Yep, even if he hasn't seen a cut in 3 months. A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a scout is able to do. Beavah

Nuthin' at all, KC9DDI. Or with bringin' a HAM radio HT. Provided yeh know how to use each to communicate properly. I was just talkin' about myself personally. I don't use GPS. It just annoys me. If you're good enough at navigatin' that tends to be the case. That's not to say someone else shouldn't bring along a GPS unit. They're fun toys. Just don't be completely dependent on it, anymore than I should be completely dependent on a single map or a compass. Especially since it just ain't as trouble-free as either of those. These days with GPS-equipped phones and tower triangulation and such they are a touch more useful. I remember da days when some tom-fool of a lost hiker would call 911 and say "Help, I'm lost!". Which would always get a dispatcher to roll his or her eyes and try to keep from screamin'. Beavah

"Some lazy adult just pencil-whipped a requirement." ... "Pejorative." ... Yeah, I was thinking that too. Yah, well, maybe . Just tryin' to push people to think a bit, eh? The quoted "mastered" only appears in a magazine blowing air into scout achievements. True, but the quoted "proficiency in outdoor skills" appears in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America which we all agreed to follow. I think "proficient" is da right term, eh? Not quite mastery, but definitely solid skills. I always fear when marketing hype is taken too seriously by some mean spirited adult that remembers his white-washed youth with fuzzy bifocals. Sorry, I was just too lazy to find a nicer way to say it. Yah, I think we have to get over da notion that folks who want kids to learn are mean-spirited. To my way of thinking, folks that just give kids candy all the time because they don't want to be "mean" are really the ones who do enormous harm to children. Yah, sure, there's a time and place for a bit of candy, but it's as an occasional treat, not as a matter of policy. Put energy into a challenging and exiting program, so the boys have a need to learn the skills needed to survive in the woods by themselves Yah, sure, I agree with this and am an advocate for it, but only to a point. In a lot of troops, yeh see a lot of adult-run stuff designed to give boys exciting entertainment, but never really to push 'em to develop necessary skills or values. Lots of outfitters are geared this way too, eh? Provide da exciting and fun guide-run raft ride down the whitewater river, where really the guide is doin' all the work in da back of the boat and for the most part the clients are just sittin' there air-paddling. Oh, yah, and there's a safety lecture at the start. Too many troops believe that because they gave the lecture and ran the exciting tourist trip that that's the same thing as actually makin' the boys work and learn, and deserves da signoff. It isn't. As a friend of mine says, we're not about givin' the boys experiences. We're about helpin' 'em become experienced. That requires an active program, but it requires an active program with a certain kind of vision and action. Not all "activity" is equal. Beavah