MGinLA

I remember being part of a long discussion of this topic on another board a few years ago, not sure it it can be found. Can't recall if there was any official guidance on the subject. Generally I think the requirements of the National Outdoor Awards should be (and are meant to be) read as broadly as possible. However in this case the key to Aquatics requirement #4 is the singular "the merit badge" in the last sentence. ("...applying the skills you learned in the merit badge"). Requirement 5 is the catch-all that includes everything, while requirement 4 requires some level of concentration in one skill. I agree with the others above that the time spent earning the merit badge in question is included in the 25 hours of on-the-water time. But only ONE merit badge, and it's related activity, can apply to req. 4, while all the other merit badges must be applied to req. 5. So, for example, a group of my scouts earned Kayaking Merit Badge (5 hours), then spent 18 hours of on-the-water time over a 3-day kayaking expedition in Alaska (about 6 hours a day), and then if they could document just 2 more hours of kayaking time (easily accounted for in summer camp free time), that completed requirement 4. Or it could be Canoeing Merit Badge and then they spent 20+ hours on the water on a multi-day river trip. As an aside, though it's never come up for me personally, and there may be some controversy on this point, but for fishing activity to count for requirement 4, I would NOT count fishing from shore as "on-the-water time." You'd either have to be in a boat, or perhaps standing knee deep in the water fly fishing. If anyone has seen any official guidance on this, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, hope this helps.

I agree with everyone above regarding the general edict from the GTA that double dipping is always allowed unless explicited forbidden. Just as important, I would point out a few things regarding the National Outdoor Awards: First of all, in the case of NOA Conservation, requirement #4 explicitly states that the 25 hours are "including hours worked as part of requirements 1 through 3 above." So that means including all conservation service hours applied to Trail to First Class (req. 1) and all of the related merit badges (req. 3). There are no other limitations so it seems that the plain language of req. 4 includes ALL conservation services hours worked as a Scout, which would include Eagle project hours. More broadly, all of the NOAs are intended to be cumulative and inclusive. For example, ALL camping nights are counted towards NOA Camping, including the 20 nights of Camping Merit Badge but also additional summer camp nights or long term camping nights (and even Cub Scout camping nights according to some online sources, but I don't want to crack open that can of worms right now). Hours from ALL of the aquatics activities in NOA Aquatics reqs. 2 thru 4 are included in the cumulative hours for NOA Aquatics req. 5. NOA Riding includes not only the miles in the core activity (Cycling, Equestian, Skating) but in all other riding activities as well. So I think the intent of the NOAs is to include and encompass EVERYTHING that the Scout has done in their Scouting career. As a side note: For our Scouts, the biggest barrier to earning NOA Conservation is usually Soil and Water Conservation Merit Badge. It can be difficult to find counselors for this one, especially since the pandemic. After a few years most of our Scouts accumulate more than 25 hours of conservation service without even thinking about it, but in the last two years a bunch of our Eagle scouts aged out with only SAWC standing between them and the badge.

Thanks for posting, these are great. Are there more?

I don't want to hijack the thread, and maybe this discussion about the Outdoor Code belongs in a separate thread. Our troop recites the Outdoor Code only rarely, but when they do they keep their signs up and recite it right after they say the Oath and Law. I don't know why you would lower your scout signs to say it, it's been part of Scout lore for 50+ years and was introduced into scouting by no less than Green Bar Bill himself. That said, though, they don't usually recite it unless I remind them about it, and then they have to bone up on it again because they have trouble remembering it because (and here comes the dirty little secret that nobody likes to talk about)...... the Outdoor Code kinda sucks. To be frank, the Outdoor Code does not flow smoothly over the tongue in the way that the Scout Oath and Law both do. Somebody (the authorship is not clear to me, see the link below for some of the official history) may have thought they were providing a clever aid to memorization with the repeated "Be C" construction, but the resulting lines are awkward and confusing: "Be Clean in my outdoor manners." -- poorly worded. Being "clean" and having "manners" are two separate concepts being smashed together here. "Be Clean in the outdoors" might be better. "Be Careful with fire." -- this is the only one where the "Be C" construction works. "Be Considerate in the outdoors." - Ugh. What does that even mean? I should say please and thank you? Point one has already addressed my "manners". Instead of repeating "outdoors" how about "Be Considerate of Other Visitors" (last point of LNT)? Otherwise, could be combined into "Be Clean and Considerate in the outdoors." "Be Conservation-minded." -- falls flat for an ending. The other problem with the "Be C" repetition is that Scouting is about DOING. Don't tell me how to BE. Tell me what to DO. That's what I like about Leave No Trace -- seven verbs, seven things I can DO to put "conservation minded" into ACTION. By the way the opening line of "As an American" is also awkward and raises constant questions with my Scouts. What does being an American have to do with it? Don't all nationalities have a responsibility to take care of the environment? If a scout is here on a green card should they say "As an American" or should they say their actual nationality? This wording is a historical artifact of a time when Scouting wanted to promote the new "Outdoor Code" to all Americans, and effort that obviously failed (perhaps because of the poor wording), and was presumably supplanted by the early efforts to promote Leave No Trace, which Scouting likewise eventually gave up trying to be a part of spreading the word to the rest of the nation. It's time for an update. Personally I'd like to see "As an American" replaced with something like "As a steward of the Earth". [I hope this suggestion doesn't lead to accusations of being anti-American. My scouts recite the Pledge of Allegiance at every meeting and take flag etiquette very seriously. But conservation is WORLD issue and today's youth are acutely aware of that.] I actually prefer the "Conservation Pledge" that preceeded the Outdoor Code since it actually mentions the soils, forests, waters and wildlife that we are seeking to preserve and all of which are absent here. Actually, to tell you the truth, my preference would be that they memorize the 7 points of Leave No Trace, which are a far, far better expression of key principals and aren't that much harder to remember. Anyone else agree with me or am I a lone lunatic raving in the wilderness? Here's the link with some of the history of the creation of the Outdoor Code: https://outdoorethics-bsa.org/OutdoorCode.php

Let me preface my comments by saying that as a youth, I was a Brotherhood member of the OA, and in my senior year was simultaneously SPL of my troop and editor of the Lodge newsletter, so I know from experience that it is possible to do both. And yet.... I confess that as a Scoutmaster I have never held an OA election. The primary reason, frankly, is utter and complete lack of youth interest. I tried promoting the OA in my early years, and often mentioned OA representative as a possibility to older youth seeking a POR. Even had the OA reps come and do a video presentation. Crickets. No interest. Part of the reason is that in their scouting experience, they have seen the OA as one of two things: (1) free labor at Camporees; and (2) dancers in Indian costumes. They have no interest in being either one, and are frankly uncomfortable with the racial overtones of the latter. Now, if a scout were to approach me and express an interest, I'd happily support it, and even happily run an election with a single candidate if no other scout was interested. It's just never happened in seven years. So I let it lie. I don't even promote it anymore. And rumors of a possible shut-down of the OA, or the potential renaming or rebranding of the group, also don't help drive interest. All that said, let me say that most of the arguments made by Scoutmasters who are "opposed" to OA are completely bogus. I don't want to get off on a rant here, but the "takes time away from the troop" argument is clearly ridiculous. The scouts in my troop play organized sports, are active in their churches, write for their high school newspapers, take music lessons, belong to numerous extra-curricular clubs, and take AP-heavy course loads, and suddenly joining one more "club" is going to make them shirk their POR for the troop? Do these so-called Scoutmasters also forbid their scouts from joining their church youth group, or a travel baseball team? Have a conversation with the Scout about responsibility. Be a mentor, not a gatekeeper. And then TRUST the Scout. I realize this was eight years ago, but my blood boils to read about Scoutmasters like the one in Oldscout448's original thread. "If you want to join OA, you'll have to join another troop." The first response that comes to mind is "OK, see ya!" Sometimes changing troops is the best option: our troop has had 3 Eagle Scouts in the last 2 years who started in other troops and switched over either because (1) we go camping a lot; or (2) we are wecoming and diverse, drawing scouts from multiple schools and churches in the area. One of our Eagles (an amazing kid!) faced considerable racism in his prior troop -- talk about making my blood boil at "bad delivery" of the Scouting program, but that's a whole other story. We've also lost one or two scouts over the years to other troops that are more monolithic in their religious make-up, or because parents couldn't handle the occasional chaos of a boy-run troop, but that's life in the big city. But sadly, "OK, see ya!" is not an option for many scouts facing badly run troops who have nowhere else to go. The second response that comes to mind is "Time for a new Scoutmaster!" but sadly that isn't usually an option either. Bogus argument #2 is that elections become popularity contests. I've heard this same argument related to Troop Elections in general, including from my predecessor as Scoutmaster who always appointed the SPL and ASPL. But I decided to TRUST the Scouts. I was terrified the first time we held elections that the whole thing would blow up in my face. You know what? It turns out, the Scouts can tell who really runs the activities and who helps them with advancement and who the real leaders are, and in seven years they may not always have always made the "perfect" choice but they've never made a bad choice. It all comes back to train 'em and trust 'em. Who said that? Hang on, it'll come to me. 😉

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this before now, but if you go on the my.scouting training portal, there is a training unit and video, as I recall about 10 minutes long, specifically showing how a PLC is run by the SPL with the Scoutmaster to the side observing or asking questions. I happened to notice it when renewing my YPT last year and watched it, and it was actually pretty good. I just double checked it's called "Patrol Leaders Council Meeting SCO-477." There are a bunch of related videos on Patrol Method, boy-led, etc. Definitely something a new Scoutmaster crossing over from Cubs should watch. MG