TAHAWK

Yes, found that site via Google. But it seems to require that I download all my personal information from FaceBook in order to get in. I'm not inclined to do that for a site I know nothing about. Did it once for Walmart and got SPAM'd to death for a couple of years. Are you familiar with the site?

KCD99I, Probably right. This should be a separate thread. Let me make explicit what is implicit in the language quoted above, our 2011 courses are unchanged from 2010 -- except that we have female youth staffers. 2012? Don't know. I did a Google. It seems a good many Councils join Scouting.org and my council in thinking NYLT is still about patrols in a troop setting. Here is the course description from out nearest neighbor: "The National Youth Leadership Training is a seven day outdoor experience for current and future leaders in support of the Scoutmasters responsibility for the training of his Youth Leaders. The conference utilizes the standard troop structure using the patrol method. Patrol leadership changes daily to give all Scouts a chance to be a Patrol Leader or Assistant. The participants will write their own Vision Statement in which they will plan how to use their newly acquired skills in their home troops. The Conference has been developed by the National Council B.S.A. and the Greater Western Reserve Council is the Host Council. The conference is the highest leadership training offered to Youth Leaders at the council level." The lady who was in charge of NYLT at BSA in 2010 was very accommodating. When we asked if we could go co-ed in 2010, she said "Let me know how it turns out." She gave the same answer when we proposed to throw the official PP slides overboard. We felt that the most important lesson was youth leadership. That was modeled very strongly. The participants experienced NYLT in a youth-led troop composed of youth-led patrols. The Scouters on staff had very, very little to say in front of the participants. Indeed, we were usually not in sight. This was not just "for show." The Scout leaders ran the staff meetings as well. The Scouters' role was to coach and be resources. The focus was on the leaders. After the course, I heard a couple of complaints from Scoutmasters who are used to being SPL of their unit. "What are you teaching these kids?" "Scouting." The unhappy adult SPL's are not slowing things down. The course -- at least here -- sells itself to the youth, and our biggest problem is finding room for all those who want to take it. Our Scout Executive says he NYLT as the most important program in our council. He is a strong advocate for the course and attends the orientation meeting and the first and last days of each course. His message is, "Go back to your units and apply what you have learned. Lead!"

I see this in the linked thread: "There's also some terminology updates - eg, we can't say "patrol" anymore, we have to say "team." Even the terms "troop," "SPL," "SM," etc are taboo, based on how this new program has been explained to me." Yet BSA and my council continue to use "troop," and "patrol," and my council continues to use "Patrol Leader," "Senior Patrol Leader," etc. We do not have a "Course Director." We have a Scoutmaster. And this is known at BSA. And I am curious about exactly what is is in the 2011 syllabus would be harmful in terms of development of a Scout as a leader in his Patrol and Troop? I see a lot of generalized worry, but nothing specific. Is it the co-ed issue? We had no problems in 2010. The female participants were carefully selected. The patrol they were put in was carefully selected. The issue was directly confronted with staff. Arrangements were standard BSA on the subject. An extra issue? Sure, but dealt with. Oh, and we had express permission of BSA to go with co-ed a year early. (Just as we had the OK for the youth staff to prepare their own slides.) Our course filled for 2010 nine months before the course. We added three extra patrols, and they all filled four months in advance. This year, we filled two courses -- 16 patrols -- six months in advance. Think we're doing anything good?

As I am not on NYLT Staff this year, I do not have access to the 2011 syllabus at this time of morning. However, this is the BSA brief description and the longer description for our Council's Course. BSA: The NYLT course centers around the concepts of what a leader must BE, what he must KNOW, and what he must DO. The key elements are then taught with a clear focus on HOW TO. The skills come alive during the week as the patrol goes on a Quest for the Meaning of Leadership. NYLT is a six-day course. Content is delivered in a troop and patrol outdoor setting with an emphasis on immediate application of learning in a fun environment. Interconnecting concepts and work processes are introduced early, built upon, and aided by the use of memory aids, which allows participants to understand and employ the leadership skills much faster. Built on the legacy of past JLT successes, the new NYLT integrates the best of modern leadership theory with the traditional strengths of the Scouting experience. Through activities, presentations, challenges, discussions, and audio-visual support, NYLT participants will be engaged in a unified approach to leadership that will give them the skill and confidence to lead well. Through a wide range of activities, games, and adventures, participants will work and play together as they put into action the best Scouting has to offer. Council: This is the Advanced Youth Training Conference of the BSA. It is a Leadership Development program utilizing both classroom and outdoor activities as teaching methods. Patrols are challenged early in the week to present to the troop at the end of the week their "Quest for the Meaning of Leadership." While the challenge is designed to have them go through the four stages of team development, it will help patrols and individual Scouts grasp and utilize the leadership skills and concepts being presented to them along the way. Throughout the conference, the staff will be modeling the concepts and skills that are the core content of the conference. The focus of each session is not only knowledge but giving the youth a "Toolbox of Skills" that equips them with the "How to Lead." The conference begins with the patrols finding their vision and ends with the individuals refining a personal vision of how to take the skills back to their home troops and communicate what he has learned. The conference models a month in the life of a troop three meetings (one each day for the first three days) all leading up to the big outdoor experience (an overnight outpost camp). The conference uses the patrol method and presents model Patrol Leader Council meetings. Course participants will experience: A simulated month of troop and PLC meetings where the scouts will plan all aspects of an upcoming outing that they will embark upon at the end of the week. Dozens of team-building games and exercises. The responsibility of leadership as each participant takes charge in a troop leadership position during the week. Training sessions conducted by some of the best teachers and volunteers the council has to offer. Course Objectives Give participants the confidence and knowledge to operate as a youth-run troop Provide participants with a clear understanding of team and personal development and how those elements relate to being a leader Train participants in all aspects of effective leadership, ranging from teaching skills to conflict resolution Guide the participants through the stages of team development Create an environment of Scouting fellowship and fun guided by the Scout Oath and Law Experience Scouting at its finest Skills Taught Communicating Well (Effective Communications) - Understand that the skills of communicating well are not just for presentations but can be used whenever one is sharing ideas. Learn to communicate with adults. Finding Your Vision (Team and Personal Vision) - Vision as what future success looks like (team or personal) Setting Your Goals - What are Smart Goals and how to use them to achieve your vision Preparing Your Plans - Use of planning as a step in reaching goals and fulfilling visions Forming Your Team - Describe the phases that a patrol or team will experience as members move toward achieving goals or learning new skills (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing) Problem Solving - Discuss the similarities between Planning and Problem Solving Leading EDGE - Describe the four leadership approaches included in the leading Edge (Explaining, Demonstrating, Guiding, Enabling) and apply them to team development Teaching EDGE - Describe the four steps of the Teaching Edge (Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable) and how to use effective communications skills as a tool for teaching Resolving Conflicts - Describe ways that a good leader minimizes conflict. Learn how to use EAR as a tool for resolving conflict (Express, Address, Resolve). When is adult involvement needed. Making Ethical Decisions - Give a definition for ethics and discuss the importance of ethical decision-making (use the Scout Oath and Law) Leading Yourself - Discuss the importance of having a personal vision and the phases of personal development (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing) Valuing People Use the Scout Oath and Law as a guide in valuing other people. How to act in an ethical manner in our dealings with people whose core values differ from ours. Use ROPE (Reach, Organize, Practice, Experience) to strengthen the patrols/troops programs My comments from what I personally know and after talking to the Scoutmaster of the Course and the SPL: All troop formations and staff meetings during the course will be youth led, primarily by the Senior Patrol Leader and ASPL-Program. All but one session and all activities will be entirely delivered by youth staff. That is how it has been here at least since 2007. My information goes back no farther. (This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

I just had to present "Uniforming" at a University of Scouting, so I had a chance to refresh and review. Nothing jacks you up more than presenting to who-knows-who about a topic. It's a long time since the "Activity" shirt, and that's all it was: an "Activity Shirt." The closest the BSHB comes to prescribing an official "activity uniform" is on p. 33, where it says: "When you're headed outdoors, you can pull on a T-short with Scout pants pr shorts, or wear other clothing that is right for the events of the day." Does not even say Scout T-shirt, which the "Class B" or "Activity Uniform" is said to require. That language is below: "The BSA's official uniform includes a Scout shirt, Scout pants or Scout shorts, Scout belt, Scout socks, and shoes or hiking boots."

"If Venturing leadership training includes VLSC, Kodiak, and Kodiak-X, why is there a need to rewrite the NYLT syllabus so that they can attend that too? I don't see how removing the patrol method will benefit Boy Scouts. There must be a positive twist to this somewhere. What is it? BDPT0." The N.Y.L.T. course in our council, which I was privileged to staff, had two female Venturers as "participants." They were members of the El Campeseno Dinosaur Chicken Nuggets Patrol. Having reviewed the syllabus for 2009, I saw no diminution of the centrality of the Patrol Method to the Course in 2010. Nor was the syllabus revised to take into account their presence. The staff elected to mention Venturers when appropriate to the material being presented. Why your concern?

True. Never been a "Class A." But that's just a name. More interestingly, there is no B.S.A. "Activity Uniform" (AKA "Class B"). There is just the uniform -- in so many manifestations that it is not uniform.

As a Scout, I recall that the Scoutmaster always gave "The Speech" before elections. He explained the duties of SPL and PL's (They appointed their assistants.), including the fact that the SPL would represent the Scouts to the uniformed Scouters and Troop Committee. (The SPL in that Troop presented the proposed program to the Committee and asked for their support.) He urged us to vote for Scouts who would take the jobs seriously, put in the extra hours required, and do their best. I have given that speech when my turn came to be a Scoutmaster. I think it helps. I can truthfully say that if the Scouts did not always elect who I would have voted for, their choices were always within the range of the acceptable. The idea of getting a parent's commitment sounds like a great idea.(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

If Mom says, "You can have one cookie," she does not mean you can take 2 or more. If BSA says the activity is approved for Boy Scout and Venturers, it is not approved for Webelos or Cubs. I have no idea what all the implications are for a unit -- or district or council -- putting on an unapproved activity, but responsible persons should think about all the implications and possible consequences of what they are doing. Violation of established safety standards is evidence of negligence in a civil action (AKA "lawsuit") in most states. I would be more than fifteen feet behind a child throwing a hawk. I have seen them loose their grip on the back-swing.

"When the PL says a Scout can't play Capture the Flag until he washes the pots, it is not a punishment if the Scout is on the duty roster to clean the dishes. Now saying that the Scout can't play Capture the Flag until he washes the pots, because he was assigned pot cleaning due to mouthing off to the PL is punishment. Now, the bit about staying in the tent is punishment. Mandating that necessary tasks be done before a fun activity is not punishment." Even assuming the kid -- and the majority of the world -- agrees this "mandating" is not punishment, it certainly is "handling a discipline issue" --- keeping order and maintaining compliance with rules. Can we not agree that it makes no sense to say a Scout leader is barred from such behavior? Is it not contrary to the officially-described role of a Patrol Leader to say only adults handle discipline issues? What should the training AV say?

No Beav, unless 42 years in makes me "new." ^___^ However, every day is new. I think if we cannot rely on BSA to produce rational and consistent policy, it's up to us to deconstruct what it publishes and try to come up with something that makes sense. It cannot be both A and not A. And discussing the Delphic utterings is one tool. We can't discuss it with BSA. It does not discuss things with volunteers. If you somehow manage to communicate with someone in Irving, all you get is the brushoff, even if you have the Red Cross, Mayo Clinic, U.S.C.D.C, Wilderness Medical Society, and U.S.E.P.A. on your side. (No. You cannot accurately claim that chlorine or iodine make wild water "safe to drink." BSHB 12th ed. at p. 267) If we can't "talk" to each other . . .

"'Not letting someone do something until they complete a task or assignment is a form of punishment.' No, it's not a form of punishment. Punishment is punitive action for a misdeed. Having prerequisites before an activity is not a punishment." The AV may mean to address punishment, but what it says is that Scout leaders never handle "discipline issues." "Discipline" is often used for punishment, but it is also self-control, orderliness, or submission to authority. The Patrol Leader Handbook states that "When you see that a patrol member is overstepping the boundaries of the code of conduct spelled out in the Scout Oath and Law, it is your responsibility to step aside with that Scout and discuss with him why his behavior is not acceptable." That is a description of handling a discipline issue. Spelling out to the offender consequences for the unacceptable behavior would be discussing discipline and punishment. It seems to me that telling a Scout that he cannot engage in a certain activity because he has not done something or HAS done something, is often inflicting "punishment." The Scout thus impacted will feel little consolation in being told the patrol leader is merely enforcing "prerequisites." Apart from the issue of whether the AV's message makes sense, and I think it does not, it is, as shown, inconsistent with other official pronouncements. (Contradictions in official literature is hardly isolated to this situation. Some B.S.A. publications are internally inconsistent.) *************************************** "Oh for God's sake. If the Scout had stabbed someone, would you be charged with theft for taking away the knife? If there is a suspicion a Scout is taking obscene photos can anyone think of a justification for not allowing him to keep the camera? Anyone?" Aside from the invocation of the Diety, you ask two questions. As to the first, I think the answer is "no." Change the facts materially and you change the outcome. In that case there ARE "exigent circumstances" in the threat of injury to others, and the right of self-defense is implicated as well. In the AV, the Scout may have taken offensive digital images. As for a "justification for not allowing him to keep the camera, no one has proposed one yet. The discussion has been about authority of a Scouting volunteer to "confiscate" the camera, the legal consequences of "not allowing him" to keep the device, and the possibility of physical confrontation if the Scout refuses to surrender the device. I can only speculate about B.S.A.'s "justification." I suppose one could argue preservation of evidence of a possible crime, but that is pretty thin. Preservation of evidence of a possible violation of B.S.A. policy is even thinner - transparent. If you are absolutely sure the device contains criminal images, you have a more attractive justification. But to be consistent with the position that you are preserving evidence you would ignore the instruction of the AV to turn the device over to the Scout Executive and, instead, would give the device to the police. I suspect, as suggested, that more typically the offender, or possible offender, will be persuaded to surrender the device. But there is that song about knowing when to hold them and knowing when to fold them, and the poet was not speaking merely of cards.

So how does this work, in practice, as a clear set of instructions for the real world: Confiscate the device and turn it in to your Scout Executive. As for the law, if you find that it presents distinctions that you find to be without a difference, you belong to a large club. Details do count. If the state cannot prove that you demanded ownership of the item (in our hypothetical) in return for not reporting a crime, they have not proved extortion. How do they "prove" that case? Especially how to they prove it if you never actually said there was a quid-pro-quo? They might argue that the circumstances prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your intent was to keep the item even if you did not say so in so many words. You would offer the BSA policy and say you were following it and had no intent to enrich yourself in return for silence that you never expressly promised. Indeed, you were not sure there was a crime because the boy may have only pretended to take the potentially offensive pictures.

"Tahawk, I'm curious. Do you have an example of a youth leader being prosecuted for such a confiscation? I do like your two alternative ways of stating the possible solution to the problem. But with the first option, aren't you now guilty of blackmail? "Give me something of value, or I will release information about you to someone that you don't want to know about it." As to the first, no. The notable cases involve many confiscations by government -- usually schools. I never would have thought McDonalds would be sued over serving hot coffee. Conditiona are not what they were when I was first a Scouter. As to the second point, if you threatened to report the Scout to the police for violation of the law unless he gave your ownership of the phone, as opposed to temporary custody, then you have all the elements of extortion. I didn't suggest that you say you will not contact the police -- if there is a crime -- or propose to regard the phone as your property. And we don't actually know, in the training AV context, that a crime has been committed. The description of what has happened is pretty vague. The implication is that pictures of a sexual nature have been taken. I suggest that we do not confuse ourselves with government officials or parents solely by virtue of our role as Scouters. Also, we of course need to be sure of our facts before making accusations. "Well, if I ever get to a point where a youth wouldn't give up a digital device (with the proviso that I will give it to their parents) to me, I have lost my authority as an adult Scout leader. I wouldn't wrench it away. I would call the scout's parents on my cell phone and demand they take their child home immediately, and that the police would be on the way (this is going by the assumption that there was suspicious material on the phone (aka child porn). I would do nothing but tell the child to put it away if there wasn't presumption of offensive pictures). Second call would be to the police. The victim of the picture deserves that." I respectfully suggest that you have not lost your authority unless you staked it on getting someone else's child to surrender possession of their property (or their parent's or sibling's) property to you. I think you can get that result without staking your authority on the outcome. I think your suggested course of conduct may be warranted if the Scout does not want the mater handled within Scouting. And the matter may have to be handled by government if is is likely that the law has been violated. Beyond sexual issues, the device may have been used for other unacceptable conduct, such as cyberbullying (which can be criminal under several statutes in my state, depending on the facts).

School officials, unlike Scout, 4H, or C.Y.O. adults, ARE "in loco parentis" and have the protection that status provides. And you may be right. You may not be arrested. If you wrench the item away, you may just be sued for battery.

Don't be amazed. The idea that the law takes a dim view of taking people's property away from them against their will is not novel. We are not privileged to take the property of another simply because we are adult leaders of a youth program, be it Scouts, Little League, Catholic Youth organization, 4-H, or whatever. It's is theft in Ohio and I suspect all 50. Don;t we tell the kids, "Not yours; keep your hands off." ? Not even danger of death or serious bodily harm in such a situation to support a claim of exigent circumstances. What if the kid resists "confiscation"? Do you use physical force? That's Theft with violence - AKA mugging. Ohio courts have specifically held that Scout leaders do not stand in the place of parents, and parents cannot give you that status. Only the courts or legislature can. That is the majority view in the U.S. Will the prosecutor prosecute? Will the parents file a criminal complaint? Why put yourself in a position to find out? "Johnny, I don't want to make taking obscene pictures more serious for you. If you give me the cell phone, we can try to deal with this as a matter between Scouts and your family and try not to get the police involved." "Johnny, give me the cell phone or I call your mom and dad right now and have them come and get you." As for the third issue, why test on off-topic matters? This is not a training course on G2SS, or "Climb On Safely," "Climbing and Repelling," or "Topping Out." It's on Child Protection. If you can't think of 25 question on-topic, go with 24.

Elastic tops. All green. Pretty nice IMO.

I just took the online CPT so I could be trained for the fourth time on this subject. I have some issues. 1. The teaching portion states that Scouts "never handle discipline issues." Only adults are to handle discipline. I take it the author(s) had a very narrow definition of "discipline" that excludes something like, "No game until the dishes are washed." Nevertheless, the AV says what it says, and beyond the shear imposibility of it, it contradicts the Handbook for Patrol Leaders: "t is your responsibility to step aside with that Scout and discuss with him why his behavior is not acceptable." Question 10 of the quiz portion of the training gives "unit leaders" as the persons who "monitor" behavior and "stop inappropriate" behavior. I suspect the author(s) do not think of Scouts are ever being "leaders." If so, they are saying that Scout leaders may not even "monitor" the behavior of their patrols and troops. That would leave it to the adults to see everything at all times. Again, not possible. Question 18 of the quiz reinforces that Scout leaders are not to administer "discipline," even in the absence of adults. 2. The instructional portion of the AV says that adults are to "immediately confiscate" the digital device of a Scout when the adults believes it has been used for taking offensive pictures. In my state that is an activity lawful only when performed by sworn law enforcement personnel or those acting in loco parentis. People are fairly aggressive about asserting legal rights these days, and if the device cost enough, you are looking at felony theft. If the Scout Executive takes possession, and you are supposed to give it to him, he may be Receiving Stolen Property. Without suggesting that the consequences will in fact be dire or that there is anything ethically wrong about "confiscating" the allegedly offending device temporarily, there must be a smarter policy. 3. Question 23 of the Quiz shows a boy either climbing or repelling. He is not wearing a safety helmet or gloves. Effectively, you are asked if there is an "attire" problem or a preparation and equipment problem. Only the second is accepted as correct. Depending on whether he is climbing with a unit or in a district or council activity, different publications apply and none of their contents is covered in the instructional portion of the materials. Hopefully you will spot the lack of helmet and decide a helmet is not "attire." Comments appreciated. Anyone have a way to actually communicate with Irving? I tried the "Help Line," and got the usual brushoff.

THE UNIFORM There is no "field uniform." There is just "the uniform" There is no B.S.A. "activity uniform." There is just "the uniform." (There is a vaguely described "dress uniform" of navy blazer and white shirt and, from the picture, some sort of slacks. Only the tie is specified.) The current official literature says wear what is appropriate outdoors. No mention of the uniform. Discussion of the suitability of the uniform and its parts in Summer's heat or Winter's cold is a strawman. If it's not appropriate for the conditions outdoors, you are not supposed to wear it according to BSA. A couple of posters have noticed "should," which, as they say, is suggestive, not governing. The uniform is not required. It is specifically not required for Eagle Courts of Honor for Pete's sake. (And I like Pete.) It is not part of "Scout Spirit." "Scout Spirit" is clearly defined with a definition carried through every requirements for every rank after "Scout." Obviously, the uniform neither makes a boy a Scout nor the opposite. Anyone notice what Dan Beard wore as grand panjandrum of Scouting? Good Lord! Buckskins!! COST What does a pair of Supplex nylon convertible pants cost? I saw some for $60.00 at Dicks. You can buy the BSA poplin pants for $35. Is that 30% better? It's the price of REI's cheapest convertible trousers. What does a sports uniform cost? A lady on eBay is selling brand new (with tags) 2007-08 "Switchbacks" for $25.00. That's no long-term solution, but Goodwill won't go away. When I was a Scout, we were in a recession. The Scouts were largely in complete uniform because they earned the money to buy their uniforms. I earned mine, and the replacements (I grew 6" in one year.), as a paper boy and lawn cutter (push mower). That was expected - part of "A Scout is Thrifty." You paid your way. Character development. It is still OK to develop character, yes? WHY There are other good arguments for the benefit of uniforming: democracy, equality; group-forming, a reminder of values; a message to the community; a tool to make advancement work (well, at least the shirt and belt). The reasons have been mentioned in official literature for generations. I think they are valid. Scouting is far from alone in preferring uniforming, we are just far less organized and insistent about getting the job done. I have seen very few sports teams not in uniforms. Someone mentioned bands. Schools are adopting uniforms and dress codes because they see benefits in uniform dress And why is that cop in uniform? Or the fireman, or hospital nurse? One trouble is, the arguments about the benefits of uniformity in dress apply equally to Venturing, where the uniform is not a "method" and is entirely "optional." Does a boy care if all the other Scouts are wearing expensive, department store blue jeans and his are from Walmart? Would he feel differently if they were all in uniforms that they earned by the sweat of their toil? Would that give them something in common? UNIFORM POLICE They are out there. Self-appointed guardians of who knows what. A gazillion troops, districts, and Councils absolutely require the complete official uniform for this or that activity (like Eagle Courts of Honor) when BSA does not "require" and, in fact, prohibits requiring. "Should." BSA doesn't even have a standing committee on uniforming (and it shows). If you run into the Uniform Cops, see above re "should" and send them packing. I can usually find some detail in which they are "out of uniform." They remind me of the "Knife Police." One of them was holding forth at a "University of Scouting" briefly ago on his contention that it's a purchased-from-BSA neckerchief or none at all. Where did he get that? A guess would be that it came from a direct pipeline to received wisdom, because it sure does not come from BSA. He wore a position patch that he was no longer entitled to wear. SOURCES The Insignia Guide was written in 1998, and has been patched over and over ever since. Like a patched garment, it has some function, but it's far from ideal. The organization of information is pathetic. Most websites are not official and contain more or less errors. BSA promised a new, comprehensive website in the current "Scouting," but the article goes on the describe a replacement for the annual Requirements book. We'll see. JUST STRANGE BSA now sells BSA blue jeans. Great price - really great price -- but supposedly "should not" be worn with official uniform shirts, say official Cub Scout shirts. Talk about starting out to lose a fight. (This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

Just as a matter of historic interest: "Scouts IN RANKS - In uniform or not: Face The Flag - All salute but (for uniformity) command may be given by Scoutmaster." [still working on that Patrol Method thing after thirty-six years.] Revised Handbook for Boys. 39th Printing (1946) at p. 57.

We were told my a national rep that the pockets would have points at the bottom to accommodate the patches specifically made for such a pocket shape.

The old ones were getting thin. ^____^

jrush, I think it is fair to say that you repeatedly set up the dichotomy of pocket knife vs. 7" fighting knife as if a unit, camp, or Council must opt for one or the other. Yet, there are other hundreds of other choices - long and short, thick and thin, heavy and light. The choices include folding knives much heavier than and with longer blades than my favorite fixed-blade sheath knife. How about a fixed-blade knife with a single 3" edge or the "filleting knife" specifically excepted form the discouragement of "large sheath knives" by the G2SS? I submit that you also set up the strawman argument that I advocate the use of a 7" fighting knife by Scouts. Yet I nowhere advocated the routine use of the "7" fighting knife." Instead, I pointed out its shortcomings as a woods tool. As to the use of khukuris and bolos expressly suggested, discussed, and illustrated in official BSA publications cited above, please have the courtesy of reading them before taking me to task for misunderstanding their message. I find it quite clear. BSA elected to put its name and symbol on the covers of books about wilderness survival written by former UK commandoes. What did they expect? In contrast, Stroud, Mears, and their ilk suggest much different sheath knives for routine woods work, but even they match the tool to the task instead of limiting the work to the tool. Eagle is a fine thing. I wear my knot with pride. Giving an Eagle Charge is my favorite Scouting activity, whatever my role has been in 41 years of Scouting. The requirements for Eagle, however, no more limit what is, or should be, taught in Scouting than do the contents of a single book - the Handbook. Otherwise, why all the other dozens of books and pamphlets? I again suggest that we teach our youth about fixed-blade knives as they are an almost unavoidable part of life and Scouting. I do not say there is a single correct answer on this topic. But I think there is a wrong answer: thinking there is a single correct answer and chaining all of our teaching on edged tools to that one supposed answer.

"TAHAWK, I'm not disagreeing with most of what you're saying. The point is, what the BSA actually *says* and what they actually *do* in regards to sheath knives are two different things." Brother Scouter, B.S.A. has "done" at least these things about "sheath knives": 1)decide to sell them; 2) decide to stop selling them after fifty years; and 3) currently advocate that "large" sheath knives be avoided AND used. "Next, scouts are taught how to care for, sharpen and handle knives. It doesn't matter one whit if that knife is a 2" folder or a combat knife." Respectfully, have you ever sharpened a 7" knife with a double guard and sharpened "false edge"? It is a considerably different task from sharpening a folding knife with a sub-3" single-edged blade. As for handling, also considerably different. Care of the fixed-blade is easier and materially different. "Passing fixed blade knives? Same thing as for the cook knife in the chuck box. Set it down, let the recipient pick it up." I very strongly agree. B.S.A., however, taught a method of passing a fixed-blade knife not contained in a sheath that reduced the risks that are avoided by the method we agree upon. Now BSA teaches nothing about any fixed blade knife - "sheath," "combat," "filleting," or "kitchen" -- including the ones that they sell and suggest for Scouting. "The Boy Scouts, believe it or not, allows for a bit of common sense to be applied to tasks. We (as adults) may have a hard time tolerating that concept, but we can apply it if we choose to." I have no problem with common sense being applied to tasks - or policies or practices. I simply see it as "common sense" for BSA to teach the safe use of what BSA sells and advocates. "Even so, my point is, so what if troops ban sheath knives? Again, what is the essential part of scouting being denied?" The outdoor program is just one of the eight Scouting methods, so banning the most generally useful of all woods tools will not deny any essential part of Scouting. It does seem to me that it is illogical and inconsistent with Scouting's philosophy of character development to distrust Scouts to the extent that some Scouters will not to teach about the most common woods tool. Especially when that teaching also helps Scouts know how to use the most essential cooking tool. (The most common place to see the use of large fixed-blade knives would be the Cooking Channel.) (Is driving by Scouts essential to Scouting? Why the Merit Badge?) "So what if the fieldbook mentions bolos and the catalog sells a fixed blade? The Troop isn't telling a scout what they can or cannot buy, simply what they can and cannot bring to a troop function...which is entirely the Troop's prerogative. The Fieldbook is a supplement, not a requirement; the "essentials" of scouting are all in the Handbook. If a scout or scouter feels like they're being treated like a baby, they are free to leave the Troop and find one that allows everyone to bring their favorite bowie to camp." As I pointed out, the Fieldbook says nothing about knives (or axes, saws, fires, ropes). And the Troop has the prerogative to do many things. Those things will usually be within the range of the acceptable: good enough. That the Handbook discusses all equipment "essential" to the program is certainly a point of view. The current Handbook is certainly superior to the 11th edition. It still seems woefully inadequate regarding the axe and saw. (It also is incorrect about the chemicals that it illustrates being enough to make water "safe to drink.") And if all things essential are in the Handbook, why all the other books? Attempting to reducing the discussion to the merits of a "bowie" or "combat knife" vs. a pocket knife is one rhetorical tactic. However, I did not suggest a "bowie" or "combat knife." In fact I listed the deficiencies of the most common clipped-blade knife - the Mark II. It shares those deficiencies with any double-edged knife. Neither did I, as do other B.S.A. publications, suggest the khukuri or bolo. Some may find it strange, but there are hundreds of patterns of "sheath knives" that are neither "bowies" or "combat knives." BSA sold some of them for fifty years. "At the end of the day, the BSA doesn't encourage the use of fixed blade knives and allows Troops and Councils to handle the matter in the way they see fit...as a result, because they don't add anything relevant to the scouting experience, they are in large part banned. If a bowie was even remotely useful around camp, the Handbook would have a section on how the bowie was the most useful scoutcraft tool on the planet and Troops would encourage every Scout to have one." At the end of the day, the BSA sells fixed-blade knives and suggests their use. Most of the Councils that purport to ban them also sell them in their camp stores. The majority of Troops that purport to ban them use them routinely in cooking. The Scouts will use them routinely at home and in their lives. So, I respectfully submit, BSA should present training information both in the Handbook and the syllabus for IOLS. We are about developing behavior and character for Scouting and for life. And if BSA elects not to extend its mandate as an educational entity to publishing materials about proper use of fixed-blade knives, I suggest that it should consider not selling them and not advocating use of very large fixed-blade knives in official publications.

"TAHAWK, Scouts are already taught safe handling of fixed blade knives...they are the same principles behind safe handling of any knife. They also use fixed blade knives on a regular basis...they are part of every chuck box and most tackle boxes. I agree, "banning" all fixed blade belt knives becasue the BSA "highly discourages" "large sheath knives" is probably overkill, but on the other hand, are councils and troops really denying some essential element of scouting or fieldcraft to the boys by telling them they can't beebop around camp sporting a 7" KABAR on their belt?" jrush, while "principles" can be a slippery word, a fixed-blade knife presents, in some senses, issues not presented by a folding knife. Namely, it cannot be folded closed to pass and needs to be carried in a stout sheath, rather than a pocket. In what sense are "Scouts" in general taught about fixed-blade knives? The information has disappeared from the Handbook and Fieldbook. When the Handbook speaks of "a knife" it has "blades." It is a "pocketkinfe." Consistently, the information is not required for Tot'n'Chip. The official BSA books that advocate khukuris and bolos are inadequate on safety issues and read by few Scouts or Scouters. Are there units that still teach use of the fixed-blade knife, a tool still sold by B.S.A.? Yes. But that is dependent on Leaders and Scouters in that unit, not B.S.A. Once again, we ought to start from the primary statement of B.S.A. policy on the fixed-blade knife. B.S.A. does not "highly discourage" even "large sheath knives." In language that has not changed in a generation, it "does not encourage the use of large sheath knives" and does so solely on the grounds of weight and poor utility for "most camp chores." I doubt that a MK II Combat Utility Knife is "essential" to Scouting -- unless, of course, when it is. You will know you need a medium-weight 7" cutting tool when you do -- probably very rarely. Many in my Troop carried MK II's or the lighter and shorter MK I's when I was a Scout because they were inexpensive and widely available. Those who had not demonstrated that they would carry and use those tools responsibly were not allowed to carry or use any cutting tool, "large" or otherwise. That situation was consistent with Scouting as an educational movement. (Not that a MK II is the ideal woods tools. The sharpened "false edge" tears up batons something fierce. The square junction between tang and blade creates a stress-riser making the knife vulnerable to catastrophic damage. The cross guard gets in the way. It is too long for most ordinary woods tasks.)