JMHawkins

The only kid who will fall and gash his leg open on the hike is the one who faints at the sight of blood.

I'm sorry Dean, you've got that one wrong. The kid who faints at the sight of blood will be the buddy of the hemophiliac who falls and gashes his leg on the only shard of glass within 10 miles.

Twocub's point about "a simple understanding of power" is a great one. Made me think of a Shakespear quote: "I too can call spirits from the vastly deep. So can any man. The question is, will they come when you call?" Anyone can claim authority, and anyone with a little authority can try to claim more, but just because you issued a decree doesn't mean anyone will follow you, even if they're technically supposed to. If you wield your authority in ways that are unacceptible to significant stakeholders, you'll probably find yourself with a whole lot less authority soon. A while back on another thread I said something like the corollary to "A Scout is Obedient" is that the people claiming his obedience owe it to him to be worthy of it. Helping the boy leaders learn what it takes to be worthy of the authority they've been entrusted with seems like a great outcome.

The recent thread about the SM voting in the Committee has a sidebar discussion about Troop bylaws defining Eagle requirements. It made me ponder a hypothetical.

Let's say you've got a great boy-led troop going and one day the SPL comes to you and says the PLC would like to have input into the Troop bylaws. How much leeway do you give them?

Suppose for example the PLC (with the troop voting to confirm it) wanted to add via the bylaws an additional requirement for Eagle - namely that the Troop had to vote 50%+1 to approve the candidate.

As a SM or TC member, how would you respond?

(this is purely hypothetical, I'm just provokin' discussion).

I've sat in on many committee meetings, and the only time I saw a real vote take place was in regards to a large expenditure for a new trailer. I say real vote, because one unit committee always comes to a concensus but then for some reason takes a vote. I've never actually seen a nay vote on anything.

As CC, I will sometimes call for an official vote on something we've reached consensus on in order to record it in the minutes. Usually I'll only do this if it's a subject that I feel might be controversial outside the committee (e.g. approving budgets or large expendatures like the trailer you mentioned), or because some outside party needs the documentation (the bank wanted official minutes approving granting a new person signing authority on the checking account before they would do that). Of course, calling for a vote is a good way to find out if you really do have consensus - it's awfully easy to assume everyone agrees with you. Asking "Okay, should we vote on it?" can prompt someone who still has reservations to speak up.

I don't think we've ever decided a controversial issue by vote. It's always been by consensus. OTOH, we've never had any controversial isses that we couldn't reach consensus on. Our committee lives may not remain quite so charmed forever though.

How many times do we tell the parents, don't worry, nobody will get hurt.

A Venture Crew leader at a training session last year said he promises parents "I won't let your son starve to death. I won't let him freeze to death. He probably won't break his leg..."

The Two Burner Gourmet is a book meant for sailing (cruising), but most of the recipies will work for car camping too, and they're really, really good. The first part of the book talks about menu prep, repackaging, safe storage without refrigerators, etc. Looks like it's out of print based on the Amazon page, but used copies are under $2. Polynesian Breakfast Cakes are my favorite.

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Burner-Gourmet-Cookbook-Cooking/dp/0964373300

I've found that many, many people who take an anti-LNT position haven't actually read the principles and program - they're going by what someone told them. Or they latch on to one item (e.g., colored tents) and condemn the whole package because they disagree. I just don't understand that mindset.

People "latching on to" one item like colored tents is exactly what I was complaining about, except I put the fault on the zealots who try to piggyback their own personal agenda onto a package of otherwise well-regarded guidelines. It's their fault when the "pack out your trash" part of LNT get's a bad name. They're the ones lumping the two together, because they want "no orange tents" to bask in the reflected common-sense of "don't litter." When "no colored tents" makes it's way into a set of guidelines sold as limiting environmental impact, it's a clue that the guidelines have been compromised by someone with an agenda, and the question becomes how badly compromised. "Don't pee against a tree" is now suspect. Gern tells us that animals will lick the bark off the tree to get the salt. How does he know that? We've seen plenty of recent examples of made-up facts and bold-faced lies used to support an Agenda, so something like this that (pardon the expression) doesn't pass the smell test comes under suspicion. When there's also obvious overreach like "no colored tents" in the equation, it adds to the suspicion. Just exactly how much of LNT is real and how much is baloney? How much of the new parts are just somebody pushing a stealth agenda?

Same with the cathole/bag-it issue. People are "going by what someone told them?" Well, who do you think told 'em? Some zealot who presents LNT - perhaps in the capacity of an official instructor - that way. Why does the "bag-it" portion get so much attention? Frankly, most of the folks at my IOLS class aren't taking their troops (or Webelos) up into the alpine meadows or down some some sensitve river gorge. The instruction ought to focus on typical outdoor trips (where catholes are okay), and have a small section that goes something like "some environments, above the tree line, for instance, are more fragile and you need to take additional precautions to protect those environments. If you're interested, here's where you can go for more information about how LNT applies to those areas..."

The slippery slope argument applies to this just as it does to every other set of do's and don'ts, and I think a fair part of the anti-LNT sentiment comes from the legitimate worry that the precautions needed for extra-fragile environments will be coming to a front-country near you in the future, if there's no pushback. That's why I think it's so important to call out both the lumping of personal preferences in with common sense rules and the overly-broad presentation of the most restrictive aspects of LNT. The combination will seriously undermine acceptance of the good parts.

I'm in a difficult situation here. Like many LNT supporters on this thread, I think it's important to make the effort to preserve the land. But I find myself profoundly disturbed by LNT as I've seen it presented (not here mind you, in real life, so to spead).

Proud Eagle said:

Those aren't your normal conditions. Nor should we act like the same degree of care is needed in all places and cases.

Yet LNT is meant to be more or less universal, so if it doesn't prepare you for the widest range of possibilities, it isn't doing its job

This is, I think, a big problem and a catastrophe in the making. People have a fine sense of the absurd, and if you tell them that crapping in the woods is going to destroy the wilderness, a majority will, eventually, have the same reaction as desertrat: "When the bears start practicing LNT, I'll go along too". Teenagers are particularly adept at seeing the absurdities in adult rules, eh?

Meanwhile, you create the backlash movement. Rules that have a valid core but are taken to absurd extremes cause people to just see them as abusrd and not recognize the valid core. Over time, perfectly reasonable ideas like "pack out your trash" become associated with idiotic ones like "speak in hushed tones on the trail" and suddenly we've trained a generation to think it's dumb to pack out your trash.

Or, as Kudu mentioned when he quoted Last Child in the Woods, we raise a generation that thinks they're not welcome, or comfortable, outdoors.

LNT has a fine set of core principals, but desertrat is right when he says it's the "bureaucratization of simple precepts."

And speaking of bureaucrats, Beavah is right that there's an element of avoiding heavy handed regulation by land managers (aka bureaucrats), but I'm increasingly skeptical of the claims said land managers are making. They seem to be crying wolf a lot. Yes, wolves do exist, and some habitats are fragile, but the job of Land Manager is highly attractive to the type of personality who likes to make rules, and claiming "erosion" as a justification for limiting access is awfully conveninet...

Reading GernBalnsten's crib notes on how the salt in urine create problems led me back to deserrat's comment about bears. Where to the bears pee? Or the deer? I've seen deer pee, they don't fan it, or go on boulders. The humans who go into the wilderness are a very, very small part of the overall biomass using the area. Yet we feel compelled to badger our fellow man about his impact because we know darn well the bears aren't going to listen.

That's where the folks Eagle92 and JoeBob are talking about - the extremists - come in. They're the biggest threat. As Eagle92 pointed out, they end up doing a lot of the talking about LNT, and I think they're naturally drawn to it and try to take over to make LNT what they want it to be (which is, I think, an excuse to ban the hoi polloi from the Sacred Wilderness). They give LNT a bad name, which gives conservation a bad name.

I think the biggest job the rest of us have is making sure the nutbars don't capture the agenda.

Let me rephrase it another way. Let's say Congress charters a new organization tomorrow - the Acco40 Folks of America. The purpose of the "corporation" is to reduce obesity in our youth. The "method" that this corporation uses is to employ exercise (to burn calories and increase muscle mass) and provide dietary education (portion control, habits, etc.). Now, to exercise we would use treadmills, free weights, Universal machines, etc. Fast forward 100 years and the methods have not really changed - exercise and diet, but technology has now made treadmills, free weights and Universal machines antiquated and rare. Those were not the real methods, just tools. No violation of the Acco40 Folks of Americal (AFA) charter in my eyes.

And if 100 years from now the AFA program consisted of writing up exercise programs and meal plans, but not actually doing any of them (er, like say, build a fire, but the scout is not required to light it)? Or if the AFAScout was required to show he could take 20 steps on a treadmill, identify a barbell and a dumbbell and explain when you would use one over the other, but not, you know, actually lift one...

Really, there are lots of ways to teach things to kids. The genius of outdoor scouting is it makes use of some powerful natural inclinations among scout-age boys, specifically a sense of adventure and a desire to belong to a small peer group, and it does it in an environment that highlights responsibility in a way you just can't do with the vast resources of an advanced civilization at your beck and call.

Teaching "Leadership" is a cancer upon Scouting

I think "Citizenship" is far more important than "Leadership." For one thing, citizenship includes providing leadership - if that's what your society needs and you have the ability to offer it. It also includes, er, "Followership" for lack of a better work, which for me defines not just how to take orders (aka do your part), but how to recognize competent, wothy leaders in the first place, and how to replace bad leaders if you end up with one. Patrol elections are important not just so the PL learns how to lead, but so that the rest of the Patrol learns the consequences of casting poorly thought out votes, and of failing to support a competent leader when you have one. You can vote for your friend as PL, but if he's a screw-up, your Patrol will suffer. If your friend loses and you undermine the guy who won, your Patrol will suffer.

And like Adam S said, the world isn't made up of just leaders. Gotta be some followers too, and it's a cancer on our entire society that "follower" is probably considered such an insult these days. There's no shame in being a good follower of a worthy leader. Where there is, or at least ought to be, shame is in being a blind follower of whatever snake-oil salesman comes along. For my part, I think we're more in need of teaching Followership than Leadership. Ultimately it's the Followers who decide who the Leaders will be anyway, so we're better off with a society that's good at picking leaders.

And that's "Citizenship" really.

I think Scout skills have great value for three reasons.

One, boys are attracted to them and consider them fun, so they'll willingly, enthusiastically, spend time working on them. A food drive might be a worthy project, but the typical boy just isn't going to be as excited about organizing a food drive as a backpacking trip. He won't be as enthusiastic about cleaning up the local park as he is about lashing together a monkey bridge.

Two, it's much easier to tell success from failure with Scout skills than with a generalized "leadership" skill. A knot either holds or it doesn't, a tent either stays up or it falls down, and the right trail leads back to the trailhead where the cars are parked and the wrong one leads to an empty parking lot. Most leadership challenges are less clear-cut in their results, because "leadership" is usually most in demand when the situation is confusing different people are pushing different agendas. Odds are someone will be at least a little unhappy at the end and there will be plenty of blemishes on the project. About the only real way to judge success or failure of leadership is to judge success or failure of the project, and that requires a project with some real challenge to it and a clear threshold of success. Back to the Food Drive example - was the Scout successful in his leadership or not? If one can of soup gets collected? One hundred? What's the bar? A scout doing nothing but Service Projects won't develop the same sense of confidence in his abilities as a scout doing a 50-miler because there will always be that nagging doubt.

Three, Scout skills - from the boy's perspective - are a lot less arbitrary than most of what they experience in the rest of the world. Why is it important to clean up the park? Why does he have to do his algebra homework? Because some adult authority said it was important. Why is it important to know how to cook his own breakfast on a camping trip? Because he's hungry and no one else is going to cook it for him. There's a subtle but important sense of control - spend too much time working on things that seem arbitrary and I think there's the risk that the young man will grow up without a sense of control over his world, that he's at the whim of others. Scout skills carve out a place for him to be master of his own fate, and experiencing that is really important.

Tell you what . . . why don't you profile your test against your committee members. Tell them you need to do it, to calibrate the test, and to identify test proctors and judges. Once they find that they can't pass it maybe they'll go along with your easing up a bit.

Ha, maybe we need to institute a "Regulat'n Chip" for District, Council and National folks. You can't implement new regulations without your Regulat'n Chip, and every time you do something careless with your authority, you lose a corner.

Actually I think you should be able to trust a 14 scout to get the proper food for a trip.

Oh, I do too, it's just that it's a different mindset than what the rest of society seems to have today. What I'm really trying to say is that a Scoutmaster has a different relationship to a Patrol of his peers than he does to a Patrol of boys in his Troop, and I'm not sure that having him hang around with a group of his peers helps him figure out how to empower the boys in his Troop to run their own Patrols amid the growing nannyism around us.

I tried a driving metaphor, but maybe a different one would work better. Teaching a SM how to run a Troop via the Patrol Method by having him camp overnight with a half-dozen other adults seems to me like teaching a Scout how to pitch a tent by having him sleep in one. For half an hour on a calm, dry afternoon with no mosquitoes.

Kudu, I mostly agree with you on what the Patrol Method is, I just don't think having a bunch of Scoutmasters forming an ad hoc Patrol for the weekend does much to teach it.

It's one thing for a group of 30 and 40 year olds to trust each other planning an overnight. It's another for a 40 year old Scoutmaster to trust a 14 year old Patrol Leader to do the same. I wasn't too worried about the Grubmaster in our IOLS patrol, he'd cooked over a camp stove often enough and knew his way around a grocery store. But if he did screw up, myself and a few other adults (who's mothers would not complain to me about anything that went wrong) would miss a couple of meals. Trusting him to get it right wasn't the same as trusting 14-year old Billy to get it right.

You're right that answering a written test on "300 feet" isn't really it either. Frankly, I don't know if you can "teach the Patrol Method" in a weekend. Seems to me it's more of a mindset, along with some strategies for coping with the inevitable problems (like the worried parents who aren't sure about this boy-led thing, what if Billy get's hungry?).

I dunno, it's important, I just don't know how you teach it, let alone test it.

Kudu, you're the biggest advocate for the Patrol Method around here, if National asked you to design the new SM training, how would you incorporate instruction on using the Patrol Method into the course? Constraints of course include that there has to be a reasonable limit to the time involved. Then, how would you "test out" experienced SMs?

Many people talk about IOLS as 2 weekends

The course I just finished was all day Saturday one weekend, then Friday night-Saturday evening two weekends later.

When Required training hits, they will only have one year from when the register to train (unless they register for a committee position for a year or two and still go on outings.) Therefore asking them for 10 camping nights over a 2 year period would make the test-out basically impossible to accomplish, they only would have 1 year to do 10 camping nights..

Well, 10 was just a number, you could set it at whatever level you think is appropriate to demonstrate outdoor experience. If it was 1 night it would equal what doing the "butt check" version of the course offered.

Possibly some paper or verbal tests may work, I guess I may be hooked on the word "demonstrate" a little too much..

And that's the conundrum with the "Patrol Method" requirement anyway. What does "demonstrate" mean in that context? I don't think pitching tents and cooking together demonstrates the PM at the level that a SM should understand it. That's like someone passing a driver's test by riding in a car driven by someone else.

The big thing with Training groups accepting and using the test-out option fairly to get volunteers through is the fact you are showing volunteers you are working with them and for them to help them get through the required training. If you just play a power trip of "you must come to my class or else you don't know squat, because I know far more then you".. type of game with eagle scouts and scoutmaster of 5 to 20+ years, you set up an "us" vs "them" and you don't have a working relationship. Now try asking them to help staff your trainings.. You will get little help from them..

Bingo! I think National has already created something of an "us" vs "them" with this new requirement. I enjoyed my IOLS class, and the overall experience was good, but it didn't make me a better outdoorsman. The other thing to think about is how effective the overall volunteer hours in your council are being used. Every volunteer who goes through IOLS without needing it just spent 2+ "volunteer days" doing something other than working with kids. Every volunteer instructor who teaches a class to people who don't need it just spent his or her "volunteer time" doing something that didn't help kids. The classic example from the class I just finished was the Powderhorn instructor/long-time Venture leader who took the IOLS course with me. She couldn've spent those two + days more productively.

"Indulging bureaucrats in power struggles" is not one of the stated aims or methods of Scouting! Neither is "training adults." It's supposed to be about the kids, and IOLS for people who already know the skills just takes away from what we can do for the kids. Ask your council how they'd feel if a troop had to cancel an outing because the only available adult leaders had to take IOLS that weekend, and didn't really need it?

In fact, for what it's worth, I'd encourage you to take a firm stand against the power trippers - we're supposed to be teaching leadership to the boys, and leadership requires taking stands against bureaucratic nonsense. A reasonable test-out option for experienced poeple is clearly the right thing to do here. It saves their time and the trainer's time. Maybe the boys won't see you modelling good leadership by doing that, but the adults who work with the boys might, and maybe it will inspire them to model the same good leadership skills.

Good luck!

The camp director is in a no-win situation. They have the authority / responsibility to limit any skit / song done. They also get the brunt of every overly prudish parent that happens to be in camp when a skit is performed. So, the knee jerk reaction is to err on the side of caution. Thus, the program gets a little more watered down, a little less adventurous, a little less boy-brash.

Yeah, so, we're supposed to be teaching leadership, and teaching it by modeling it for the boys to see. So the Camp Director has a responsibility to model good leadership by continuing to use good judgement even in the face of unreasonable demands by unreasonable people. For Pete's sake, 90% of leadership is denying poorly-thought-out or selfish requests made of your people by some outsider pursuing a different agenda. If the CD caves and goes with the bureaucratic CYA response, he's utterly failing at the primary mission on any adult in BSA, providing a good example of a responsible adult for the boys to see and emulate.

Sorry, just a real peeve of mine, that so many adults in positions of authority around the youths of today adopt a bureaucratic mindset.

Pergo Badge?

I just finished IOLS. Although it was enjoyable hanging out with the other members of my Patrol, and exchanging info on equipment and good places to take the kids hiking, I wouldn't say I "learned the Patrol Method." As a matter of fact, I'd consider "the Patrol Method" part of the book learning - the concepts, why it's important, what it's supposed to accomplish. Those are things you can read about. I'm not sure there's a whole lot to be learned by a bunch of 30+ year old adults spending a weekend as a "patrol." Adults are fairly used to working in small, independent groups without close supervision. Kids aren't, that's why the Patrol Method matters - they get an introduction to the way the world really works and get to develop their abilities in a realistic group environment.

So, maybe you can test them on their knowledge of how the Patrol Method works. Show them a few diagrams of different campsites and ask which one best represents the Patrol Method (e.g. one diagram has the entire troop concentrated around the central fire pit, one has the patrols dispersed 100 feet apart, the third has them 300 feet apart).

As to the other objections you listed from your council...

They are not staying in the tent over night..

A Scout(er) is Trustworthy. Ask them if they've spent at least 10 nights (or whatever you think is the right number) sleeping in a tent the last two years. If Yes, they pass.

They may know older methods and not the newer ones. Like changes to Leave no trace..

LNT should be web-based training like YPT. Until then, give the testees a written test on it. You're not going to be conducting IOLS in a Wilderness area anyway, they'll be camping at an established Council camp with plenty of durable surfaces, so they won't have any real chance to practice LNT.

They want the people with the knowledge in their classes to teach those who don't have the knowledge..

That only works once - right now when all the experienced folks are signing up for training because they'll need it to recharter next year. After this year, you won't have very many experienced people taking IOLS, it'll all be newbies. And besides, newbies need way more than two weekends, they need mentors who will go with them on the Troop camping trips.

Dot, dot, dot; dash, dash, dash; dot dot dot

So... they're teaching Morse code at Wood Badge now?

The ones I get will be the ones needing the training

And since there will be fewer, you can deliver better training for them! I could probably have tested out (though I'm a bit rusty on some skills, so I didn't mind a "refresher" course), but as a parent, I'd be nervous trusting my son's backcountry safety to a leader who had nothing but the IOLS training as I experienced it. It is rudamentary. The actual outdoor skills were taught the way you might teach a new Scout just starting his Trail to First Class - i.e. with the expectation that more experienced people will be with him for the outings and can backstop any gaps or mis-remembered skills. Not sure that's really the best way to approach the adult leaders, unless you are just giving experienced outdoor people a refresher and a few pointers about having kids outdoors.

Personally, I would like to see IOLS repacked something like this:

-LNT as web-based training

-G2SS web-based training

-Basic First Aid (can be satisfied with non-BSA training as well)

-Outdoor Scouting for the Experienced Outdoorsman (or woman - half-day class that covers BSA specific outdoor stuff like the Patrol method. Test-out for outdoor skill is part of this since the participants will be expected to demonstrate basic outdoor skills during the class)

-Introduction to Outdoor Skills (one or two weekend basic instruction in outdoor skills - how to pick a campsite, how to cook outdoors, bear bags, how to deal with weather, etc.)

The classroom stuff goes on-line and can be done at leisure, FA get's a little more emphasis (as it probably should, ours got cut a bit short), and people who know how to pitch a tent and tie a bowline can demonstrate their skill while getting an overview of BSA specifics, and real adult Tenderfoots can get a little more practical instruction.

I too though fear bringing up this new training and the reaction of those who just went through our Fall training and could have tested out. I think I will get some anger from them for not mentioning the option sooner.

Maybe you could soften it a bit by mentioning test-outs might be a possibility and asking the recent trainees if they think it would be a good idea. They'll probably say "Yes! Wish I had the option..." then when you announce the test-out option, they'll maybe at least feel like their input helped.

If they say no, ummm... hopefully they won't say no.

I'm a Unit Leader, and have been asked to Staff IOLS and Wood Badge...

At the risk of being labled a heretic... If I was in Mazzuca's place, and I was serious about these training requirements, I'd order all Wood Badge courses suspended until no units failed recharter because of a lack of training.

Seriously, the resources devoted to Wood Badge should be diverted to the basic training as long as there's a lack of available basic training. It doesn't do the boys any good to have a handfull of super-trained adults if units are folding left and right because it's too hard to get the volunteers trained.

Plus, it seems that the folks who run BSAs training operations are very proud of Wood Badge, and it might be a good motivation for them if they had to get the basic recharter requirements in shape in order to continue offering it.

On the other hand, if the recharter training requirements aren't really important enough to jeapordize Wood Badge for, then National should just drop them.

Mandatory YPT training isn't an onerous requirement. The training isn't dependent on districts or councils offering up the training - it can be taken online, anytime, day or night...

It's the other training requirements that are going to lead to interesting situations.

I agree about YPT, it's not onerous, and I actually thought it was valuable "training" (though I don't personally consider watching a video real training). The other requirements, the ones that require in-person instruction, are definitely the problems. So far, the in-person classes I've taken have been good, nothing has been a waste of time (note for Kudu, I have not taken Wood Badge), but they aren't offered anywhere near often enough. There's also a lot of material that could be done on-line.

... there will be units lost for lack of adults willing to volunteer, with a resulting drop in youth membership numbers - and at some point, if that happens more often than not, National may do a rethink...I suspect that eventually, many units will take advantage of the loopholes and have trained leaders in name only that aren't actually doing the job, but are on the charter as doing the job....

I may just go full circle. It started out with individual units responsible for vetting their own leaders. Now National is trying to enforce training, but doesn't seem to have the organizational capacity to deliver adequate training opportunities, so I expect they will create programs where units self-train (what moosetracker is trying to avoid) as the only way to meet the training mandates without losing units. So we'll end up with individual units responsible for vetting their own leaders, just with the added step of recording some official certificate as part of the process.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, because there are structural problems with a "professional" staff trying to set mandates for volunteers who deliver 99% of the program. Even the training in done mostly by volunteers. Mabye they could fire the corporate lawyers who advise a new CYA course for every contingency and use their salary instead to hire extra Training staff to reorganize the existing training into three tiers -

-unit internal training (basically the position-specific training - units are expected to self-train on this, keeping replacements adequately training. For new units, or struggling units, a UC could do this - isn't this functionally a big part of what a UC does anyway, help unit leaders understand their roles? Roundtables could devote breakout sessions to this as well, but condense it dramatically)

-Required on-line traiing (delivered on line or though a video library, covers YPT and paperwork topics like tour permits)

-Required hands-on training (WFA, the non-classroom portions of IOLS, etc. Stuff you have to get out and do).

Sorry I had to put in a plug.

Eagle92, I hope you put in the plug before you launched the boat, otherwise it might sink in PAMLICO SOUND.

Sorry, had to put in a pun:)

JMHawkins can you spread the rumor some more? What is the Wilderness FA requirements? That rumor hasnt filtered over to New Hampshire yet..

I'd rather not spread rumors since they might not come true, but to help you prepare for the contingency... G2SS recommends the 16-hour WFA training for backcountry trips. Assume recommendations eventually become requirements and plan accordingly! Work out a plan for how your troops get one or more SM/ASMs trained in the 16 hour course. The Red Cross supposedly offers a 30+ hour course that makes someone a qualified trainer, but it doesn't appear to be easy to get into that course, and it's expensive. When might this happen? No idea, that's the rumor part. But there's probably a long lead time in building out your capacity.

In the grand scheme of things, this is actually training that I'd be really excited to take (as much as I hate thinking about a boy being seriously injured far from help). I'd much rather spend 16 (or 30) hours doing this than standing around while one of the trainees reminds the trainer that you should check for widowmakers if you pitch your tent under a tree.

I'll paraphrase something I said on another thread. If you're going to make a rule you expect others to follow, you need to demonstrate that you're worthy of their respect in following it. Leaders need to be more responsible than followers, that's why they get to be leaders. It's a sad sack of a "leader" who expects his followers to go the extra mile to make up for his own lack of planning and execution.

Good leaders think through the implications of a rule before imposing it on the people they've been entrusted to lead. The problems Beavah mentioned about record keeping are present in our Council too (well, no suprise, it's a national DB). I'm doing recharter for our Pack and the amount of time I've had to spend emailing back and forth about YPT for people who've already taken it but just can't get it in the system is sad.

Then there's the lack of training opportunities for the volunteers. Our district has a pretty sparse schedule. They're trying to add sessions, but it's a burden still with people needing to go out of district if they aren't available the one weekend a particular course is offered this year. Then there are things like the (rumored) Wilderness FA requirements. Our district doesn't even have a qualified trainer and doesn't know yet how it's going to get enough to train all the units that need it. I feel for them, it wasn't their idea to add this, and the way it's been communciated has caused lots of angst and wasted energy.

And speaking of IOLS, I was recently at that training, and I can do Beavah's hypothetical example of kicking out a guy who succesfully conducted a bunch of outings one better. One of the other volunteers taking IOLS with me was a Venture Crew leader who does things like teach Powderhorn. Her skills are way, way beyond IOLS, and in a way that BSA has documented - they let her teach High Adventure!. Yet she has to devote two weekends of her life to get a credential intended for Webelos car camping. It was discouraging to see such bureacratic myopia at work (she was however, quite cheerful about it and made the best of it). Plus, two of the Scouts from the host troop who ran the cooking sessing (yes, teenage Boy Scouts were training us grownups) were amazing. That entire day was worth it just to see those two young men handle their job with such competence.

Still, I shake my head at the overall training situation. The people who claim the authority for making these mandates need to accept a whole lot more responsibility for planning and executing. They don't have armies of minions to do the work - they have armies of volunteers who can walk away. That would be sad for the boys, but I wouldn't blame the volunteers.

As far as standardization goes, I'm against it going any farther than it has. Some scouting programs are better than others, and we all cheerfully dissagree on why. But while we each individually may think the world would be a lot better if we were just in charge and could tell everyone else how they have to do things, the reality is that fighting over who gets to be king would take up so much time and energy, the end result would be a lot worse than just letting each other go on "doing it wrong."