JMHawkins

rancest, did the course cover the topics I mentioned above? Primary and Secondary Assessment, Spinal precautions, environment, stay/go fast/slow, would care, scene management?

How long was the overall course? 16 hours?

We're using ECSI instead of ARC, but in Chief Seattle it has a ton of MOFA influence. For the most part, the treatment skills aren't significantly different than standard urban First Aid, but the resource management is (and the patient's stability is one of your resources). Really, the functional skill differences between urban and wilderness First Aid are:

1. Rapid, but effective, discovery and treatment of life-threatening problems. The patient has to survive longer before the medical miracles of a trauma unit or even an ambulance can help them, so the lower the sink on the scale, the worse their chances are. You have limited resources to "fix" the systemic problems.

2. Understanding spinal precautions (the D in ABCDE) because "don't move him" is okay when the EMTs will be there in five minutes, but not when they'll be there Tuesday.

3. Very quickly protecting an injured person from the environment (e.g. hypothermia), the E in ABCDE. Injuries render them more susceptible to environmental problems.

4. Stay/Go, Fast/Slow. What's your plan for getting help? Are you going to call for help, or are you going to self evac, and what's the urgency? Understanding what sorts of injuries call for different responses is important.

5. Long-term wound management. If it's going to be a while before you can or wish to get help, preventing infections is a bigger issue.

6. Scene management. Maybe this should be #1 - you're the guy, you're in charge, you have to make decisions to maximize the help the patient(s) get while minimizing the risk of creating new patients. Pro's won't be on-site to relieve you for a while, so you need to take more than a short-term view of managing the scene.

If your course didn't touch on those, then you should ask for better. But if it hit those points, then it's teaching the right skills.

Sure, adults get something out of scouting, but "it's for the boys" is a reminder to make decision based on what's best for the youth. Adults and their wishes come second.

My dad was a public school administrator. His mantra for decision making was, what's best for the students? If you had a decision between A and B, and both were equally good for the students, then you could pick whichever one you liked best. But if A was good for the students and B was not, then you picked A even if you - the paid employees of the school district - liked B better. You did that because the students were why the school existed in the first place. If you weren't making decisions in their best interests, then you were doing the wrong thing.

I think it's the same for scouting. Though we may get a great deal out of it as adults, the reason it exists is to serve the youth, so we'd best make decisions that are in the best interests of serving the youth. Otherwise, we're doing the wrong thing and we will lose support from the rest of the community.

ScoutNut, it's no use quoting chapter and verse from the rulebook. When the end result still comes down to:

1. webelos are encouraged to spend the night with a troop

2. Webelos can use climbing tower and rifle range

3 Webelos cannot do both on the same weekend???

then the rules are fouled up. It's one thing to say "Boy Scouts can do these things, Cub Scouts can't" but the rules don't say that. They just say "Cub Scouts CAN do these things, but only when Boy Scouts aren't around." That's a different message.

Making rules is something people should do with a high degree of humility. It's hard, and you make mistakes. Better to acknowledge and correct them when they're pointed out.

Has anyone pointed out to BSA that requiring yearly physicals from a doctor is a waste of scarce resources? My doctor thinks I need a physical once every three to five years. When I went in this year, strictly to get his signature on the BSA form, it meant he spent an hour looking at me that he could have spent helping someone who needed it. There is something of a doctor shortage today, especially among GPs.

I think the current policy is immoral. Should be once every three years, unless some condition warrants more frequent exams.

to me the training is too much like how they are negatively changing scouting in total - to much of the sit and "learn" - one and done style... and not the learn, do, teach to really learn

For some reason, I now have a song running through my head. "B - I - N - G - O, B - I - N - G - O, and Bingo was his name-O."

Is there a receptive audience to put in the time and effort to gain the skills?

OGE, I think there is, but not if it's going to be time spent sitting around being lectured at. If they're out having fun, they might be willing to put in the time. Sort of like, well, the Scouts themselves. Though probably not as noisy or messy.

desertrat77,

I need a few moments to develop my own thoughts on what SM Mentoring might be like. Or maybe it's a SM Apprentice program... not sure.

But the problems OGE mentioned - the sheer time commitment needed being beyond what almost anyone would be willing to accept - is a good reason why a pure training-based approach isn't going to work. It's one thing that attracted me to the idea of a mentoring/apprentice program. The volunteer gets to have fun while he's learning.

We are sort of doing this right now. We had a family move in from out of the area and one son joined the Troop. He has an older, adult, brother who moved with the family and would like to be involved with the troop, but he doesn't have outdoor experience. So he's signed up as an adult leader and we're teaching him the skills as we go camping and hiking.

I think one of our big problems is the lack of - I won't say trained, instead I'll say unskilled - leaders. AZMike is correct when he said

"Formal training is a way to short cut the time needed to learn skills, but there is NO SUBSTITUTE for [extensive] experience..."

He was talking about specifically lead climbing, but the same is true for most skills, outdoor or indoor. How extensive the experience needs to be varies with the particular skill, but ya can't become effective in something unless you practice it.

The WRFA training was developed by outside groups, and I think it's so popular because it does deliver real learning. There's a cost, it's a 16 hour course, and those 16 hours won't make you an expert, but they do provide a foundation in real skills that few people have. Unless you're unlucky in your instructors, you should come out of a WRFA course with a good grounding in, plus some simulated experience with, primary and secondary assessment, as well as basic concepts about how to manage a medical emergency beyond the easy reach EMTs. Interstingly, WRFA is really part of a continuum of training, with higher level training covering mostly the same topics but in greater depth with more background. That additional training is outside of BSA, but the WRFA training you can get through BSA will serve as an entry point into it.

That's much different than IOLS, eh? I've said before that I wouldn't trust my son's safety in the woods to someone who's only outdoor experience was IOLS. Like Oak Tree, I can't figure out the purpose of the current course, other than some fig leaf for liability issues. And I don't think many other organizations would look at IOLS as any sort of stepping stone to more advanced outdoor topics.

I do think the sort of training AZMike and perdidochas are talking about would be extremely valuable, and give more adults the skills and confidence to take scouts on real outdoor adventures.

The question for me is this - if BSA created more outdoor training, would be be more like WRFA (which is actually one of the newest training courses offered/required), or would it be more like IOLS?

And beyond any question about training, there's still the issue of experience. No amount of training BSA can offer will make a greenhorn into a skilled outdoorsman, let alone outdoor leader. That person is going to need nights camped, miles hiked, and obstacles overcome, to be skilled. The best we could do with training is give them the confidence to start camping, and a foundation to build their skill on, but even then, it's best if they have an experience person along for a while to mentor and backstop them. And boyond those skills, beyond outdoor ability, there's an entire other critical skillset with relating effectively to the scouts. As hard as it might be to teach someone to lead climb, I think it's even harder to teach the patience and wisdom needed to be good advisors to the youth.

Which makes me think of - I believe - Stosh, who mentioned how much more fun he was having camping and what not after he stopped doing it as a Scouter. Too many forms, too many rules, too many restrictions, and those piled on top of the stress and aggrivation that is inevitable with a thundering herd of scout-aged boys around. Training neophytes can't compensate for driving experienced woodsmen, and especially experienced woodsmen who are good youth mentors, out of the program.

I think instead of training, what we probably need is a Scoutmaster Mentor program.

Should we visit other troops that meet on a different night?

As others have said, only as a last resort. He already has friends in his current troop, correct? If he enjoys camping with them, thats a good reason to stick with the current troop. Meetings are just meetings. Of course important stuff happens at meetings, but the outings are more important. Plus, he could always meet with his patrol separately from the official Troop meeting.

Should I meet with the Scoutmaster of our current troop?

You? No. Your son, absolutely! Of course, maybe he could use a little coaching from mom first, depending on how self-sufficient he is.

Most of our pack losses are due to boys losing interest in the program. Even when we're doing "fun" activities, I think some boys are just worn out with learning, paying attention, and cooperating in a group by the time evening comes around.

JMHawkins - what made you think Beavah was liberal?

Hmmm, I suppose it was his stance on the Tea Party, but in reading more carefully I see he considers himself a "northern GOP."

Well, just goes to show it's no good trying to stuff a Beavah into a Pigeon hole.

BadenP,

Our unit gets contributions from a similar "matching hours" policy from some folks who work for a different company (not Intel). It's pretty nice, but we assume it won't last forever. If nothing else, sooner or later economic pressure will probably force a change. We generally use the money to subsidize a Scout's first summer camp.

"I'm pretty sure the next one will be how to teach the Personal Management merit badge using video games!"

Ha! Anyone ever seen the video game The Sims? You run this guy's (or gal's) life, and the single most important thing is time management. Gives you a real odd sensation when you realize how much time you're wasting in real life playing a video game about time management for an imaginary person.

Now I'm confused, I thought Beavah was a liberal.

Quick, somebody print up a program, I'm losing track of who I'm supposed to like and who I'm supposed to hate. If we can't get some labels reapplied, I might have to start judging folks on what they actually think instead of what team they root for.

Anyway, this part

Instead of makin' everything a war, have da courage of your own convictions and enough belief in da rightness of your own ideas to try to convince people without threatening them with loss of access or loss of funding. Evangelize without attempting to force conversions. Do unto others' groups as yeh would have 'em do unto yours.

is true. Whatever you think is "right", you need to convince others with reason, not force. If you have to resort to intimidation to win people over to your view, you're going to lose in the end, and cause a lot of damage in the process. It's one of the reasons I favor a Local Option - it tells both sides "go convince the CO's to run it your way, then convince the parents and youth to join. Don't come to us looking for a mandate."

But alas, the warriors on both sides seem to want some authority figure to tell them they're right and the other guy is evil, wrong, and deluded.

I hope we can help our Scouts see a better way of going about disagreements.

I suggest a booth at a town fair or event.....bring your pinewood track.....have some cars to race....or seattles stomp rockets......

All excellent ideas. Our pack did stomp rockets at the town parade/fair and they were a big hit. The other pack in town has run raingutter regattas too, which are pretty fun. The only real problem with the PWD track is making sure you have enough room, they're kinda big, but if you plan ahead and work with the event organizers, maybe you can make it not just a booth, but part of a Kid's Fun Area.

The other thing we do is provide Color Guards for various civic events. We have a decent relationship with the schools here - when the elementary school had the grand re-opening after some extensive remodeling we were the color guard. Same thing when the new Public Library opened.

Don't overlook yard signs. I mean, maybe not this time of year, but once all the political signs are down you might organize an open house and put up some yard signs advertising it - check with your DE, they may have some free for Cub Scouts.

Lads that have been out a while and then get sucked back in because of friends or a change of circumstances. Not to "finish Eagle" but because somethin' about scoutin' was still in their blood that they couldn't shake.

The fellow who ran the IOLS class I took had a story about this sort of thing. A couple of scouts dropped out after a couple of years, but one of their friends stayed in and stayed active. By and by, he earned Eagle, and invited his friends to his ECOH. Part of the ECOH was a slideshow of the new Eagle Scout's entire scouting career, from his first campout all the way forward. His friends saw some old pictures of themselves out having fun in the woods as new scouts, plus saw more recent pictures of their friend having great adventures after they'd dropped out. It reminded them how much fun they had camping, and they were kind of jealous of the stuff their friend was still doing.

"You can always sign back up." the SM told them.

And they did. Aged out active and having fun.

But if those strong units wont be bothered to help provide leadership at the district level, there isn't going to be a district to provide services.

The key word in that sentence is "leadership." The question the District folks need to ask themselves is, are they asking units to provide leadership, or are they asking them to provide warm bodies to do the work under the direction of the existing District Leadership.

If the previous district leadership was trying to rope units into providing volunteer labor without accepting input from the units, they may have soured the well. In that case, you'll have extra work to do repairing the relationships first.

We did a week on Ross lake last month and two adults (cooking 6 breakfasts, 6 dinners, and 6 mornings worth of coffee) used about 12 oz of isopro total (and we weren't being particularly frugal with the fuel either - it was a kayaking trip and we had plenty of extra fuel). About $1 per person per day fuel costs.

Besides, if you are going to do any backpacking, you can't take the big green Coleman stoves, so you need backpacking stoves anyway. You can buy a lot of fuel for the cost of having two sets of gear, one for dump camping and one for backpacking.

Priced out the supplies for a wooden model...over $70 per box, $35 in plywood sheeting alone.

Almost halfway to brand a pair of brand new backpacking cook kits for the patrol! The stoves will probably fit inside the pots for storage...

AZMike,

I agree that the overall quality of discussion on this topic is not always very high. However, I am very much interested in reading what you have to say, especially in re: "A lot of the information on how to deal with the abuse situation that WAS accurate and effective got brushed aside as new psychological and social theories came to the forefront in the 1960s and 1970s."

This subject is distastful and uncomfortable, but it is a reality we need to face. I do not want to leave young men vulnerable to predators, nor do I want to see good men chased away through overzealous prosecution and misguided vigiliance. Likewise I don't like to see malcontents use something like this to score cheap political points.

So information is valuable. I do hope you'll stick through and share more of what you have.

Take a plastic tub deep enough to hold the stove on-edge, then expoxy in some vertical dividers (plywood, most likely).

Or, do boxes-inside-boxes. Buy smaller tubs to hold smaller gear that go inside the bigger tubs.

OTOH, it might be cheaper than you think to switch over to backpacking stoves. If you're still doing mostly dump camping, you can use cheap pots, you don't need titanium ultra-light stuff. A pair of 1.6 L steel pots (e.g. http://www.campmor.com/outdoor/gear/Product___90196 - $25 each) and $40 pocket rockets will do for a Patrol. $150 per patrol isn't chump change, but when you subtract out the cost of tubs, or materials to make the wooden boxes, it might not be so bad.

It might be a good time for each of us to take a few moments and think about what it is we - personally - want to get out of these forums. We come from different backgrounds, different politics, we have different opinions on lots of stuff. We can certainly find no shortage of topics to argue about, but is that what we're here for?

Speaking of which, has your DE had his REQUIRED meeting with the IH? Maybe good for a non-unit person to take the guy to lunch. That may put him in a little better "listen and learn" state of mind.

I'm having a good laugh. Our DE, while a fine fellow and an asset to the district, is on the young side. Early twenties. Not sure how well it would go over if he was trying to put a 67 year old retired military type with an apparent attitude into "listen and learn" mode.

Regardless, it is his job, and depending on his skill set, he might do some good. But I would not really expect the average DE to solve the problem as presented here.

Frankly, as I read the BSA advice for how to run a district, "retired Scoutmasters" aren't recommended as district leaders. Instead, you should have able and ambitious business and community leaders taking charge of making the district run and recruiting volunteers.

Ha ha, the "retired Scoutmasters" who make our district work are also successful business leaders. Perhaps the problem with BSA Corporate is that they're so focused on fund raising from business leaders that they've lost sight of the fact the skills those business leaders have are even more important than their money.

The message is "Hey, you've got lots of money. Why don't you give us some of it so we can help young boys grow up to be great men like you!" But it ought to be "Hey, you've got skills and experiences. Why don't you help pass those on to young boys so there's another generation of strong leaders."

Anyway, back to your problem trying to find ways to make things work. I would suggest you start by trying to revitalize the Boy Scout program in the District. I know that's 180 degrees opposed to your general approach, which is that Cub Scouting is the foundation and Troops will fail if they don't have strong feeder Packs, but hang with me a moment.

Your District is not going to be effectively staffed with adult Pack leader alumni, because they're either busy with their son's new Troop, or else have dropped out of Scouting altogether. It's going to succeed or fail based on your retired Troop leaders, who can be convinced to stick around after their sons age out. If you don't have an effective Boy Scout level program, you're not going to have effective District level volunteers. Forget this nonsense about finding "community leaders" for your staff - if they don't understand the Scouting program they're going to do more harm than good. I'd suggest you find the most successful couple of troops in your district and go meet with them. Let them know you need UCs and ask their leaders to consider doing a turn as a UC when the time comes for them to turn the unit over to new folks. Once they're engaged as UCs, see if you can upsell them on a bigger commitment. Then try to convince them that the Cub Scout program is vital to the troops...

Yeah, it's a long-term deal. You can't fix it overnight.

I'm in a different district than SP, though in the same Council. I think from the Troop angle, our district functions pretty well. I notice that most of the District level volunteers are what you might call "semi-retired" Scoutmasters. They were very active in troops years ago, but their sons aged out long ago. Many are still active with their units as ASMs or committee members, but for the most part the day-to-day unit program is someone else's job now. Meaning the district folks have time to devote to their district jobs without taking away from their units. And being mostly former unit folks, they have a pretty strong unit-centric view of things and maintain a strong focus on the District helping units rather than the other way around.

On the Cub Scout side of things though, it's not quite the same. You don't get many "retired" Cubmasters. They move on and become SMASMs if they stick with Scouting. From his posts, SP is generally more involved in the Cub Scout program, so I can understand why he might have more struggles. We have a huge dearth of Pack UCs in our district (but our Troop has two great district guys sort of fighting over who gets to be our troop UC). I think it's just plain harder to find Cub Scout level volunteers, and quite rare for Pack unit volunteers to wrap up their tenure with the Pack and move on to District roles. And yet, the BSA program continues to put more and more emphasis on Cub Scouting, needing more and more program support...