" adult leaders should generally be fit enough to deliver an active outdoor program "?

[Eamonn 61]

" adult leaders should generally be fit enough to deliver an active outdoor program"?

OK I'll bite!!

I'm 52 years old.

Five feet eleven inches tall, weigh about one hundred and fifty pounds.

All in all I'm not in bad shape.

Back in the summer of 2006 the Ship with your's truly sea kayaked with all our gear almost seventy miles in five days.

I know that without me holding them back they could have got miles in. I know when I got home, for about a week I had pains where I didn't know I had parts!

I have had five back surgeries, I was popping ibuprofen (sp?) like it was going out of style.

I think that if I hadn't been with the Scouts to offer words of encouragement a lot of what we did do, wouldn't have got done!

I'm glad I did it.

But will make sure that I don't do it again!!

They want to go back this summer.

I'm willing to help and support them any which way I can.

I don't have to participate and pretend that I'm twenty-one years old to be an active leader!!

In fact I believe that they will be better leaders if I don't participate with them.

The program will be just as active!

I don't buy into this idea that adults have to participate to offer or deliver an active outdoor program.

Eamonn.

[packsaddle 753]

The message this thread was spun from was noting that leaders don't have to look like body builders or something along those lines. I'm 6'2" and 34-35" waist. But as for appearance...are we allowed to use the terms, "geek" or "dweeb"? I've been endowed with long legs, long arms, disproportional to my torso. My wife calls me an orangutan (actually more like gibbon). She's probably not too far off, but they're probably cuter.

 

But the question has almost nothing to do with appearance. And it is a good question that relates to program and delivery. This unit attempts to have a well-rounded, fun, active outdoor component. Some years we do better than others.

But while I have a personal idea about BSA, this unit, program, etc., I also see that the 'local option' approach could also produce units that have virtually no outdoor component. So in some ways, 'local option' is an issue that could have unexpected consequences for areas of the program that we never thought about - personal fitness and outdoor skills being a couple of them.

[Pack212Scouter 10]

While age and surgeries are one thing, exteme out of shape I have mixed feelings about. Some people truely cannot much help chronic obesity and can still offer much. But the flipside of course is how to you deliver the Scout Oath if you don't live all of it...including the "be physically strong". To me that means reasonable healthy & fit.

[Knight 10]

I don't think all the adult leaders in a unit need to be able to do an active outdoor program - but there should be enough sufficiently fit adult leaders available that it never comes down to not having enough adults to do an active outdoor program. Different leaders bring different talents and capacities. The Treasurer and Popcorn Chair fulfill immensely important functions and might never go camping - that's fine because I've never had to deal with those hassles.

 

On the other hand, I don't think a Scoutmaster who gets winded climbing two flights of stairs is going to deliver a good program unless he also has ASMs and other adult leaders who can take the boys on active outdoor programs.

 

Camping and outdoor activites are at the heart of the program.

[scoutingagain 20]

"but there should be enough sufficiently fit adult leaders available that it never comes down to not having enough adults to do an active outdoor program. "

 

Absolutely. And as Clint Eastwood said, " A man's got to know his limitations." If adult leadership is holding back the unit from high adventure activities due to their physical limitations, they either need to recruit adult leaders that and take on these types of activities or find opportunities the boys and take on without adult leadership from the unit.

 

For those interested here's a link to the Valley Voyageur program offered by the Daniel Webster Counil in NH. http://www.nhscouting.org/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.asp?LinkKey=17388&orgkey=1812 I have not had any of our scouts participate in this program(yet), but have heard good things about it and it is unique in that it does not require adult leaders from the unit to participate. I don't believe their allowed to participate. A crew of scouts older than 14, backpack for 5 days in the White Mountains on their own, with a pair of camp staff in tow, to help out where needed, but the crew is basically on it's own. They hike from site to site and participate in various activities similar to High Knoll or a mini-Philmont. The White Mountains are challenging terrain to say the least and anyone, youth or adult, hiking in these mountains had best be in good shape.

 

Eamonn, the first part of that quote include, "unless there are extenuating circumstances...", I would say multiple back surgeries and age to a certain extent qualify as "extenuating circumstances".

 

At 53, I carry around 15 - 20 lbs, mostly around the middle I'd like to get rid of. But I can still hold my own with the boys on backpacking trips, whitewater rafting and the occaisional pickup touch football game.

 

My statement had more to do with those units that Pack refers to. Those that may refrain from more challenging high adventure trips because they don't have adults who are able to physically take on those types of trips.

 

SA

[Pack212Scouter 10]

Let me add to my statement. I really do understand the desire to serve. My wife struggles with weight and I carry about 15-20 pounds that I wish I didn't. I guess there really isn't a good answer. You do what you can

[hotdesk 10]

I do think that the Scoutmaster should be fit enough to deliver an active outdoor program. He should be able (physically) to participate in most of the troop programs. This includes hiking, climbing, canoeing, caving, backpacking, etc. The Scoutmaster should be enjoying this activities with the troop's membership in order to get to know more about the scouts.

 

HOWEVER, Assistant Scoutmasters should be able to have a knowledge of some of the activities and a willingness to participate in those activities. If they are fit enough to a simple car campout and can provide useful information and help then so be it.

 

Committee Members and Officers don't need to and shouldn't be expected to meet any physical fit requirements. If they are willing to work behind the scenes and care for equipment, make reservations, produce a newsletter, etc. then let them do it.

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

Fifteen pounds? Twenty pounds? That's nothing. I'm more concerned with the guys (gals) who weigh 100 lbs more than they should, who can't walk 100 yards without getting winded and and for whom, a climb up two flights of stairs is like scaling Everest.

[FireKat 10]

"a climb up two flights of stairs is like scaling Everest." 

To some people watching me climb (or decend) a flight of stairs they might get that idea about me.  My trouble with stairs is due to a very badly broken leg a few years ago. It was broken across the joint and I am luck to be able to move the joint. The pay back for being able to move the ankle is unstability unless is is set down in just the right way or it folds up like there is no leg there. That happens to me all the time an scares all around me thinking I am hurt. No hurt but to pride and dignity. So I take it slow and sometimes use a cane to catch me if that happens (prefer a walking stick). I can still out distance (not speed) some that seem more fit. (don't suggest ankle braces as I have tried every one out there - not strong enough) I do execrises to work on strength but that will not fix the joint.  I want to go hiking but must take longer to watch placement. They go without me and I find a hiking path I can go at my speed.

[Bob White 20]

I agree that a leader should be fit enough to lead a quality program. But physical fitness is only one third of fitness in Scouting. Mental and moral fitness make up the other two thirds.

 

When I think of a leader being "fit enough to deliver the program"

I would rather have the physical fitness needing improvement rather than their mental or moral development lagging behind.

 

Scouts would do better to have a leader who was strong in his or her understanding of the values of scouting than in their ability to run up a hill side.

[packsaddle 753]

And yet, in the oath it is the first mentioned among the three.

[Bob White 20]

And you think that the elements of the Oath go in order of importance?

Whatever led you to believe that?

[packsaddle 753]

Just noting that your opinion is just that, an opinion, and doesn't make it so.

Actually the order in the oath could be the opposite. But as I see it, there being no other BSA indication of priority, they are in no particular order of importance - all of them are equally important. YOU are the one who is arranging the elements of the oath along an order of a personal priority.

And, I think that is just fine...I have no problem with the 'local option' approach.

[Bob White 20]

Packsaddle your attack on my post is uncalled for.

 

I did not disagree that a leader should be fit I merely pointed out there is more than one type of fitness to consider and that I believe if a leader is going to be deficient in any of the three, and still be able to be a good leader, that I would rather they need improvement in physical fitness rather than mental or moral.

 

"YOU are the one who is arranging the elements of the oath along an order of a personal priority.

And, I think that is just fine...I have no problem with the 'local option' approach."

 

Not so, I made no rearrangement, I simply pointed out there are three areas of fitness and that all should be considered in the qualities of a fit leader not just one.

 

I was unaware that there was a local option regarding this.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Bob White,

There are two ways to view the elements of the oath - in some order of importance or as equally important.

In your previous post you wrote, "When I think of a leader being "fit enough to deliver the program"

I would rather have the physical fitness needing improvement rather than their mental or moral development lagging behind."

 

To me it reads like a personal opinion about the relative importance of the elements of the oath. Or am I wrong? The part that makes it read that way for me is the "...I would rather have..." part. It really seemed like you were putting physically strong (physical fitness) at a lower priority than the mental or moral elements.

In your later response, you evidently do NOT place these elements in some order of importance. And in that we are agreed.