Imprimis

[moosetracker]

OK.. So we can do away with EDGE. It wasn't a method for teaching in 1916.

No teaming of boys with Adults of "character".. Kudu can be happy the patrol method can't be killed in place of EDGE, nor Adults of "character

 

We should retest scouts at each level of rank for all their back ranks as that was a method for teaching.

 

 

It's late, I'm going to bed.. Others can think of other things that should not have been changed if the "methods" in common use by Boy Scouts in 1916 refers to "promote," "train," and "teach" were not suppose to be changed..

[dkurtenbach]

Hmmm. Is EDGE something new? I thought it was just a cutesy name for a process older than Homo Sapiens . . .

 

Dan K.

[Kudu]

skeptic writes:

 

Advanced first aid: Know the methods for panic prevention; what to do in case of fire and ice, electric and gas accidents; how to help in case of runaway horse, mad dog, or SNAKE BITE; treatment for dislocations, unconsciousness, poisoning, fainting, apoplexy, sunstroke, heat exhaustion, and freezing; know treatment for sunburn, ivy poisoning, bites and stings, nosebleed, earache, toothache, inflammation or grit in eye, cramp or stomach ache and chills; DEMONSTRATE ARTIFICIAL RESPIRATION.

 

I see nothing wrong with any of the REQUIREMENTS that you list. In fact in free countries Boy Scouts can join Baden-Powell Scouts associations just to get back to those basics.

 

The "program" is the requirements, no more no less

 

The "how-to" material in Boy Scout handbooks is just a best guess at the time they are printed. I'm sure that CPR procedures have already changed since even the most recent handbook was published.

 

skeptic writes:

 

Only a very few are the types of units of which you complain

 

You need to get out more often

 

skeptic writes:

 

These are my observations as a SM for more than 30 years, with a troop that has done thousands of back pack miles over its almost 90 years,

 

As such you must observe that given the opportunity, most Scouts in a gung-ho Troop will jump at the chance to hike into the backwoods.

 

That is what made Scouting popular (back when it was popular).

 

But no longer is there any requirement that forces an Eagle Scout wannabe to walk into the woods with a pack on his back. Even the Camping Merit Badge backpacking requirement (designed for Cub Scouts) is now merely optional:

 

An indoor Eagle can substitute four hours of eating cupcakes while floating downstream on an innertube.

 

Skeptic, I just feel that you are focusing too much on perceived successes, and not enough on the program.

 

moosetracker writes:

 

Unfortunately I fear Kudu has to be a born salesman both with his style of presentation at the high school

 

You could do it, moosetracker.

 

If you have ever spaced a Troop's Patrols apart 300 feet, or allowed competent Scouts to backpack a few miles ahead of the adults, then you know firsthand how dramatically Scouts rise to the occasion. Then, when you take that experience and speak to sixth-graders and the auditorium explodes with their frantic thirst for dangerous adventure, Scouting will never be the same to you.

 

I used to be terrified of public speaking. If I can do it, anyone can do it, provided they speak from truth and experience:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm

 

moosetracker writes:

 

Most pictures I see of our unit when they started out in 1932, showed them with the heavy canvas style tents that are still popular at many Council summer camps.. Those must have not allowed them to travel lightly.

 

Yes, the First Class Journey would be much easier now. For Patrol Campouts we used "Trek Carts." The most important invention was the backpack waist strap, which appeared in my neck of the woods in the mid-1960s.

 

moosetracker writes:

 

OK.. So we can do away with EDGE. It wasn't a method for teaching in 1916.

 

We should do away with EDGE, but not because it wasn't a method for teaching in 1916.

 

The "frozen in time" tag is not my position.

 

Yes, we should always include Baden-Powell's requirements to call it "Scouting" (the BSA did a good job at that in 1911), but there's nothing wrong with adding stuff to those minimum standards. I myself added LNT to Baden-Powell's 1965 SA requirements when I worked for the last two generations of B-P Scouting USA, See:

 

http://inquiry.net/traditional/handbook/index.htm

 

Now the younger generation has returned to B-P's 1938 requirements, which I agree is better. See:

 

http://inquiry.net/traditional/por/proficiency_badges.htm

 

moosetracker writes:

 

We should retest scouts at each level of rank for all their back ranks as that was a method for teaching.

 

I think we should, and re-certify all Merit Badges every 12 - 18 months. But those are Baden-Powell's British SA requirements, not the BSA of 1916.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Personally I'm surprised to see Kudu advocating that Merit Badges be "recertified" every 18 months.

 

 

That seems like a pedantic formula to take the fun and outing out of Scouting.

 

I can't see many Scout anxious to recertify their "Citizenship in the World" Merit Badge!

 

 

 

What we can do is build issues that Merit Badges cover into our regular Troop programs. Have first aid problems on outings rather than "recertifying" on Merit Badge content. Build in opportunities for qualified Scouts to teach newer and younger boys.

 

A lot of Merit Badges are quite specialized, and I don't think it would be practical to turn experts out for such recertification.

 

And In my opinion, one virtue of Merit Badges is that it gives youth a chance to investigate a variety of topics and fields in which they may have some interest. They get to learn something about those topics and then either drop them if they've learned enough or perhap investigate them in more detail and even make a profession out of the field.

 

There's no reason to try to make boys maintain a detailed interest in fields they have investigated to their satisfaction and in which they have no further interest.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[skeptic]

Kudu;

 

Why are you suggesting that I see something "wrong" with these requirements? Most of them are still in existence today, and so should be learned and "practiced". My point is that in some ways, they are more difficult, especially at the first two levels. First class is a real challenge, though certainly not anything that cannot be done by the persistent boy.

 

I would agree with the comment that reviewing past requirements might be a good idea in order to cement the skills more successfully.

 

As far as getting out goes, I wonder where you are that you have such a poor vision of the units camping. Maybe we have more outdoors oriented troops on the West coast. Certainly the problems you speak of are not nearly as common as you would indicate; or maybe it is simply a matter of perception.

 

Whatever; focusing on success is generally better than on failure. At least in my opinion. Too bad that yours is on the negative side. There is always room to improve, but it is far better to move to make those corrections based on a positive outlook. JMHO

 

No more responses to your posts on this from me, as you are obviously not willing to see anything but what you choose.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Kudu,

 

 

"Yes, we should always include Baden-Powell's requirements to call it "Scouting" (the BSA did a good job at that in 1911)"

 

 

 

Earlier in this thread you cited a court decision that authorizes BSA to use the term "Scouting." It would seem by that decision that BSA owns the term, not Baden Powell.

 

After all, that's what the 1916 charter calls for, and you've even proved it with a Court decision that happens to be on point as far as who can use the term Scouting.

 

You always seem to be looking for some Authority to support your personal views. But since the BSA owns the term Scouting, perhaps the Authority you should be quoting are the words of the Chief Scout Executive.

[moosetracker]

Seattle - the recertifications were for the requirements tenderfoot thru first class, not for any of the MB..

 

I will say although our troops will do other types of camping & events.. Car camping or as others refer to it "Plop" camping seems to be the major camping event for most our troops. The equipment that comes into a camporee is surprising! Most units have gone to those self-Popup canopies for their dining tents and a majority of troops own an enclosed trailer.. I will confess the trailer is our unit also, and we have a garage unit style dining tarp.

 

But we also have a piece of property out in the middle of no where that the troop owns, it can only be back-packed into and the troops patrols are set up at least 300' apart.. Not due to knowing that piece of info, just because when the camp was first given to us all the patrols got to pick a patch of ground they like and clear it for their patrol site and it just happened..

 

We also hosted a camporee a while back in a place where backpacking was the only way the troops could get in, so they had to leave their trailers and dining canopies at home.

 

But we will "plop" camp, alot.. Probably too much! Thing is our scouts prefer it, we do have some boys who may be what Kudu defines as "cupcakes".. There is a high attendance for cabin camping.. Pretty good for "plop" camping.. Low turnout for backpack camping. But there are a few of our boys who do want the backpack camping, so they just go out in a smaller group.

[desertrat77]

While I wouldn't recommend retesting the "homework MBs" (the citizenship series, etc.), there is benefit in remembering scoutcraft skills, in terms of credibility and reinforcing their value.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello desertrat,

 

My method of reenforcing Scouting skills was quite practical:

 

find out which senior Scouts were going to teach junior Scouts first aid. Set up first aid problems for Scouts to encounter and solve.

 

Ask Scouts where we were located on a map, and how they knew that.

 

I recall two junior Scouts on a camping trip who were warned to hang their food up but did not. They went hungry the next day.

 

I recall another Scout who couldn't lifty his pack up on his first backpack trip. Investigation revealed numrous pairs of underwear and even more "Supersips"!

 

Two senior Scouts were tested on their ability to tie a bowline and plan and execute a rescue when a junior Scout rolled about thirty feet down a snowshoot of deep, soft snow and couldn't get out by himself.

 

In my view, retesting shouldn't be formal and academic ---- it's best when it grows naturally out of the Scouting program -the need to teach younger boys skills and the need to use and practice skills as part of a troop and patrol program.

 

But it's certainly true that everyone needs to practice or use skills or they will tend to be lost, or won't be mastered in the first place.

 

But perhaps I'm wrong. How many adult leaders here are willing to go back and sit through the adult leadership skill training for Scoutmasters every two years?

[moosetracker]

Well redoing the entire training event, and retesting are two different things.. Ask any of my fellow district trainers who are on one side or the other about accepting and offering the Nationally approved test-out of IOLS..

 

This may be true with the belly aching about redoing YP training, but again, it is a retraining every two years. People think they should be able to just take the paper test offered after the in-class retraining every two years But it is not. (test only is also offered on-line and confuses some people into thinking they can only take this, but it only acceptable if you can prove you took a class somewhere else also).

 

But with YPT as well as Hazardous Weather, and other things like saftey afloat etc, etc. The adults are asked to review those courses every two or every three years. Regardless of if they are a 20 year long veteran of scouting, camping every month with water events for the majority of outings.

 

But IOLS.. It would have to be an easier test out. One that was on-line, or at your troop level. Quick and Easy.. The meeting up with the training staff is too difficult to schedule.. The two day course is to long, complex, and too back to basics.

 

Still even with an easy re-test, I agree, YES you would have your belly aching even so... Just as much belly aching as the boys..

 

You are right good troops will review the most relevant skills as they go through things, or as I brought up on a different thread, while the scouts are teaching the younger scouts.. Poor troops are really the ones who both sign off on a requirement with a cub scout "do your best", or "going through the motion is good enough, no need to really learn it" attitude and then never have the boys review because the adults are doing the training of the younger boys, and they don't do events that are challenging the skills.

[OldGreyEagle]

I think someone asked about how to stop a runaway horse

 

http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/yarn24.pdf

 

(always wondered what if there was no handy building or wall, or tree but then again, I may be too critical)

 

And how to stop a mad dog,

 

http://www.bsatroop14.com/history/WhyABoyCarriesAStaff.pdf

 

(of course any discussion of mad dogs demands the story from "Bert and I" about the two farmers talking:

 

Farmer 1: I had to shoot my dog yesterday

Farmer 2: Were he mad?

Farmer 1: He weren't to pleased about it

[Stosh]

As a Baby Boomer with a strong interest in history, it always amazed me while reading some of the old scout handbooks some of the things boys had to "know" back then.

 

Yeah, right, how many times is someone had to corral a runaway horse! LOL! This is ridiculous. No one today needs to know how to stop a runaway horse! Well, er... but it is useful information that has helped me stop 3 runaway horses in the past 10 years.

 

When I first took CPR training, I had no idea that I would need it 7 times in my life.

 

First aid? Heck, anyone that has kids, knows about first aid! (or should!)

 

Knots? I tie them all the time! I camp at least every other weekend. I'm into boats that need tying up, tents that need knots, dining flies that need knots.

 

There is hardly a day that goes by that I don't use at least one skill I was taught in the Scouting program!

 

Yeah, like I need to know how to stop a runaway horse, but it did come in handy when the situation arose. The last thing I ever thought I'd use was some tidbit of information gleaned from an old historic Boy Scout handbook.

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[Twocubdad]

Stosh, maybe you should start hanging around with healthier people! And I'm sure you will admit that your hobbies make you much, much more likely to encounter a runaway horse than most folks.

 

desertrat wrote: "While I wouldn't recommend retesting the "homework MBs" (the citizenship series, etc.), there is benefit in remembering scoutcraft skills, in terms of credibility and reinforcing their value."

 

While I wouldn't recommend retesting AT ALL, desertrat's comment made me step back, scratch my head and ask, "Really?" Twenty years from now we would prefer our former Scout to remember lashings over the lessons of Personal Management?

 

The issue missing from this discussion is relevancy. Sure, when the war comes, knowing Morse code may come in handy. And a runaway horse may gallop through my front yard any minute now. The odds of either of those events occuring are probably approaching PowerBall range. But the past couple years has shown that understanding the financial markets is a rather relevant skill.

 

I'm sure we can fill up 10 pages here with stories using long-rememberd scout skills. Some of our Scouts will grow up to be "Axe Men" or Army Rangers or even Civil War reinactors and will use scoutcraft skills on a regular basis. Or they may develop a love of the outdoors and make camping and backpacking a life-long hobby. And we all get warm fuzzies at the idea of an Eagle Scout stepping forward during some natural disaster and using his scout skills to save the day.

 

But creating a network of survivalist sleeper cells isn't our mission. Most will be businessmen or lawyers or engineers and may or may not have a call for these skills again. It may be part of the depised corporate scouting, but I'm much more concerned with my Scouts becoming men of character, good citizens and good leaders. Those are the skills I want to reinforce with my boys.

 

 

[Stosh]

A lot of one's character is based on a sense of self-confidence. I may never have a need to do CPR, but knowing how to do it if needed gives confidence. I may never have the need to start a fire in the back country because one of my buddies fell through the ice, but if needed it gives me confidence, etc.

 

Even if I don't know all the steps exactly, at least I have an inner pool of knowledge that I might pull something out of in an emergency and either save my life or the life of someone else. It kinda goes along with the "Be Prepared" idea. Maybe it will keep me from running out onto the ice when my fishing buddy breaks through. Maybe it will keep me from swimming out and trying to save my wife when it may be better to toss her a rope, etc. Knowing what NOT to do is sometimes as important as knowing what to do. My SM harped on safety first all the time and does that override my snap judgment of going to be a hero someday?

 

Maybe there's a lot of skills out there that the Scouts have been taught that hopefully the boy will never have to use, i.e. first aid, but if needed it's nice to know what to do instead of just standing there watching someone bleed out or choke to death.

 

In an emergency, I have often heard people comment that they wished they had known more to be able to help someone. I have never heard anyone say that they regret having learned too much.

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[desertrat77]

Twocubdad, I hear what you are saying. In my experience, I believe bsic scoutcraft skills to be an important link to scouting's past and present. Working at unit level in the past, and even now as a UC, scouts seem to take notice when an adult can demonstrate those old school skills. Helps them relate, and perhaps motivate as well.

 

Daily use? As a career military guy, I can definitely say those scout skills have helped me, especially on deployments. (No, not a ranger--but being able to work and live in austere settings is important, regardless of service or speciality.)

 

And off duty, I use alot of what I learned in scouting, including stuff from the "homework merit badges."

 

My knock against the latter? Redundant--at least for me. Learned these things in school.

 

Citizenship series? Torture (even 30something years later!). And I like civics and international studies! In a scout setting? A bore and a distraction from the outdoors. All three of those MBs should be combined into one.

 

I'd sum up this way. Though a bit of a stretch, let's look at an imaginary policeman that isn't good at marksmanship. Doesn't like guns. Barely passed marksmanship at the academy. But wants to be a cop and serve.

 

Since marksmanship is one of his core skills, shouldn't we expect him to requalify regularly? And just as important, why is he a cop in the first place if he doesn't like guns? If he wants to serve, aren't there other jobs he can pursue that doesn't require firing a weapon?

 

To finish my little screed, I think we can take one point and use it for the BSA: if it isn't about adventure, then why bother? If we are looking for programs to build character, or play soccer, or teach someone how to build a budget, these already exist and do a pretty good job. What does the BSA have that many others don't? Outdoor adventure. So if someone doesn't like the outdoors, and doesn't feel comfortable there, and isn't interested in passing along adventure to the next generation, what's the point?

 

Again, I fully realize my cop/BSA example is mostly poor. But if not adventure, then what are we doing?