Beyond Wood Badge Mills

[Kudu]

 

Horizon writes:

 

The only limitation I deal with is due to my Troop's location in Southern California...Camping limitations make it difficult to get Kudu's 300 feet...

 

That is Baden-Powell's 300 feet, or "The Patrol System in the Rest of the World's" 300 feet

 

How about National Forests?

 

I don't know anything about Southern California so I clicked on the southern-most National Forest I could Google (Cleveland National Forest) and called them up (858-673-6180).

 

As is true for most National Forests, there are no such "camping limitations" so long as you camp at least 150 yards from any developed camp, road, parking lot, or other human structure.

 

Some exceptions do apply to some specific wilderness areas in Southern California.

 

See:

 

http://inquiry.net/images/Nat_Forest_So_Cal.pdf

 

Horizon writes:

 

Backpacking is fine, but requires permits with a max of 12 hikers per permit, so we have to split up the unit (usually 2 patrols per crew), and separate. 2 deep leadership means I need more Physically Strong Scouters to lead these patrols out there.

 

A free Visitor's Permit (AKA "Wilderness Permit") is required (just so they know you are there). There are no regulations regarding how large that group can be, but for more than 15 people you must obtain written permission from the District Ranger. There are no rules about how far apart the Patrols can camp, and (of course) no minimum adult to youth ratio (because adults are NOT required for youth to camp in a National Forest "Remote Camping" area).

 

Your mature Patrols could hike independently during the day and meet up with the adults at night (to satisfy the Paper-Eagle Guide to Safe Scouting).

 

"Adventure Pass" parking in the Southern California National Forests costs $5/day/per vehicle, or $30/year/per vehicle.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

[skeptic]

Kudu;

 

What is written is not always the actual case. There are many camp grounds that have sites very close together and have limits on how many can be in them, especially those to which you can drive. But even pack ins often have limits on how many, and can be very close together. And remember, even though you may not agree with LNT, that is a factor in not overwhelming the trails and camping areas with too many bodies.

 

Perhaps you need to come to California and actually visit camping areas. Now days, due to the lack of funds, many areas are simply closed. Then add on fire restrictions, and you can have very limited usage possibilities.

 

Just saying.

[Tampa Turtle]

My experience in many places in Florida is similar. Tight, crowded campsites and between environmental restrictions, fire danger, and LNT (reuse existing campsites) it can get crowded. I suppose we may need to start reserving additional campsites but that will drive up costs.

 

In our case we will start the push toward more Patrol separation and Patrol only campouts. So maybe what I perceive as a problem is more achievable than it seems.

[Kudu]

Skeptic,

 

NONE of that is true for "Remote Camping" in a National Forest.

 

With the exception of:

 

AREAS WHERE REMOTE CAMPING IS NOT PERMITTED

Anywhere in Laguna Mountain Recreation Area.

Flathead Flats

Morris Ranch Road near SDSU Observatory Turnouts along the Sunrise Highway

Along the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) between Burnt Rancheria Campground and Pioneer Mail Picnic Ground

Picnic Grounds

Private Property

Noble Canyon Trailhead/Pine Creek Trailhead Filaree Meadow

 

See:

 

http://inquiry.net/images/Nat_Forest_So_Cal.pdf

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

http://kudu.net

 

[Basementdweller]

This kinda behavior gives scouting a bad rep in the outdoor community.

 

First you should never ever haul an entire troop into the back country. This sort of outing should be limited to parties of 10 max including adults. so the entire 300 foot thing is irrelevant.

 

I read postings on several other forums on a regular basis that are very anti boy scout because of large groups and poor behavior.

 

I know I have received this sort of abuse in the backcountry and my boys were too tired to cook let alone act up. People roll into a campsite and in a very loud way say, oh no there are boy scouts here we gotta camp some where else. there was only 8 of us.

 

One of my roles is to teach back country and front country etiquette.

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

Thanks Kudu,

 

I will remember the key word is "remote camping".

[Kudu]

Tampa,

 

Yes, "Remote Camping" is the antithesis of "campsites," or Skeptic's "campgrounds."

 

Developed campsites = Webelos III camping.

 

And yes, it is more achievable than it seems. Start small with "backcoutry treks" (don't call it "backpacking") of 1/4 mile. I billed my first one as a "backcountry fishing trek."

 

You can do that on most (if not all) Boy Scout camps if you ask softly about "primitive camping areas." Talk personally to the Camp Ranger, NOT to anyone who works in a Council office unless you know that he or she is a rugged outdoorsman.

 

Check out the National Forests in Florida, and get free copies of the "Swift Mud" Recreation Guide to Southwest Florida Water Management District Lands.

 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/recreation/

 

Before arriving at the destination with your Troop, it helps to have a couple adults and natural leaders (your most rugged outdoor Scouts) visit the destination to scope out the "designated camping area" (if any) and (in most parts of Florida) to figure out where to cache the water.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[Tampa Turtle]

Good advice. I will drop the terms in our meetings.

 

Yes we have used "primitive camping areas." But with 40-50 guys it ain't that primitive.

 

We used some nice SWFMD properties, non-surprisingly the lack of potable water makes them not too crowded.

[Horizon]

Kudu - I know the 300 feet it is Baden Powells - I just like to give you credit. I will admit that you are the one that reminded me of his words.

 

The Cleveland is OK, but not nearly as clear as you make it out to be. When I add in the adventure that the boys seek, they are best attracted to high peaks. This means permits that cost $5 per person, have to be filed in advance, and camping sites must be designated. This is hitting San Gorgonio and San Bernardino peaks, for example.

 

The Cleveland has some nice places that we have hit, but water can be an issue depending on how far in we go.

 

Our fall backpacking trek will be two groups of 12 going out on different trails, with limitations on where we can stop. Here is what my ASM got from the Ranger: "I checked in with the rangers in at San Gorgonio and they said there are some fallen dead trees at John's Meadow and the Trail camp is closed for overnight backpacking. So I researched Momyer Creek Trail (off highway 38) to Alger Creek Trail Camp (6.5 miles round trip with a 1400 Ft. elevation gain). There is water nearby. There is an option for the older Scouts to hike further to Dobbs Trail Camp (2 more Miles) to camp. The Ranger said 1 permit is available for (12 scouts)."

 

As you can see, for these sites, we are limited to designated camping areas.

 

Basement: I have run into the same attitude. I like to remind people that there are 60,000 Scouts just in Orange County, CA and that because we hike in uniform, it is easy to spot a few bad apples and apply it to everyone.

[Kudu]

Horizon,

 

The purpose of separating the Patrols by 300 feet is to give Webelos III Scouts (and most "Trained" adult leaders) their first fleeting glimpse of the potential of what Baden-Powell meant by the Patrol System.

 

At 300 feet, the "natural leaders" in any Eagle Mill will grasp that right away.

 

The whole point is to get the real Scouts away from the Paper Eagles to pursue the "adventure that the boys seek." So (even with two-deep leadership at night), a "backpacking trek of two groups of 12 going out on different trails" is what I would call a 21st century Patrol Outing, given the Guide to Safe Scouting's "Centennial Celebration" victory over the Patrol Method.

 

Such ad hoc Patrols are a good thing.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

 

 

 

[Horizon]

I also find the value of Patrol separation here:

 

1) The Patrol has to work as a team, rather than messing around with other Patrols

2) My non Physically Strong adults don't have the energy to go bothering the Scouts and stay in the adult site drinking their coffee sitting in their chairs.

 

As I have said before, I do my best to keep everyone separated in their Patrols as my environment allows it, while also keeping up enough of a rotation across different locations to keep all Scouts interested (they are the ones that complain when we go back to certain places too soon).

[Basementdweller]

For us 300 feet is irrelevant, because on our backpacking trips we take one patrol at a time. The adults cook separate, but stay in the same site, CO rules. We let the boys do their own thing and not interfere unless asked by the PL.

[Kudu]

In the Patrol System, 300 feet is the distance Patrols are separated when camping as a Troop.

 

Backpacking "one Patrol at a time" is a Patrol Outing.

[Basementdweller]

My understanding is that you can no longer camp as a patrol

 

 

Not gonna mince words with ya.

[Tampa Turtle]

Why the heck can't you camp as a patrol even if you still had two adult leaders near by? Maybe I do not understand your point -some Troops are small enough to be 1 Patrol. Does the word "Troop" convey some magical power than the word "Patrol"?

 

Or do you mean that the Patrol camps without any adult supervision at all?