Stre-t-c-hing the G2SS at OLS

[GaHillBilly 10]

Hey All;

 

Recently completed an OLS weekend. Too my surprise it was much more helpful than my prior encounters with Council training had been: not perfect, but surprisingly good.

 

But, I ran into a couple of situations where we were told that XYZ was THE policy, and what we MUST follow, primarily in the wood tools and LNT sessions. I know that these requirements are not in the Scout Handbook, and careful searching has assured me that they are not in G2SS either.

 

All the instructors were Wood Badgers, and I gather that these standards were ones they'd been taught there.

 

Here are my questions:

 

1. Are there any other authoritative documents that determine such things, for example the length of a knife a boy can carry, or can we take it all with a grain of salt, and establish our own troop policy, within the limits of the G2SS bold items (thx Bob White!)?

 

2. Are there any non-documentary methods, within either the Council or the BSA, for establishing policy in such areas?

 

3. Does Wood Badge commonly function as National's backdoor method for inserting undocumented policy into Council and District operations?

 

4. Is there any practical way to get around the conflict between the absoluteness of LNT teaching and the 'wink-wink' actual practices of fire building, cat holes, and the like?

 

5. Is there any AUTHORITATIVE documentation concerning what is required for awarding and removing the Totin' Chip and Fire'm Chit?

 

There were numerous other 'requirements' and practices taught at OLS that are not present in the listing at Scouting.org, in G2SS, or in the Handbook. There are conflicts, with respect to the "Chip" and the "Chit", even with the Scouting site which does not mention LNT, and the cards themselves which require subscription to LNT.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

Mini-rant: As I've noted before, I don't like LNT because it's impossible, if taken literally, which means that we're promising to do what we know in advance that we cannot actually and factually do. So, any such promise has an embedded intent to take it 'figuratively' and interpret it 'liberally'. The Outdoor Code is far better written, because it's feasible to actually keep it.

 

It really bugs me that there are so many areas of 'say one thing; do another' in BSA practice. It especially bugs me that some of these conflicts are a result of the adoption of principles in LNT that are in obvious conflict with much Scout practice, both with respect to individual troop practice, and with respect to various MB and Advancement requirements.

 

I didn't say anything when the LNT instructor talked about recent campouts and campfires he'd participated in, where their ACTUAL practice -- while not abusive IMO -- clearly violated the rather extreme 'no fires unless you pack your fireplace in and out, and cut no wood' LNT practices he recommended. This sort of hypocrisy seems to have become so embedded in the BSA that these guys don't even notice any more.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

1. Are there any other authoritative documents which determine things like what length knife a boy can carry?

 

Yah. Da laws of your state.

 

Also local councils can make additional rules which apply to council-owned properties, and the National Camp Standards for long-term camps (aka "Summer Camp") may be either more or less strict than G2SS.

 

Aside from that, policies which affect units from da BSA side (as opposed to CO side) are all compiled in G2SS.

 

2. Are there any non-documentary methods for establishing policy?

 

What, like oral tradition? No.

 

3. Does WB teach undocumented policy?

 

No. But poor instructors might.

 

5. Is there authoritative documentation for Totin'Chip / Fire'm Chit practices?

 

Yah. It's on the cards. See

http://scouting.org/boyscouts/advancementandawards/meritbadges/firem.aspx

http://scouting.org/boyscouts/advancementandawards/meritbadges/totin.aspx

 

And of course the Boy Scout Handbook & Fieldbook.

 

4. Is there any practical way to get around the conflict between the absoluteness of LNT teaching and the 'wink-wink' actual practices of fire building, cat holes, and the like?

 

Leave No Trace is an ethic, eh? It's not a set of rules. It says that an ethical outdoorsman does everything in his power to leave no trace of his passage on the land, so that other visitors can enjoy and benefit from camping as much as he has. The actual practices of how to do that properly vary accordin' to what the environment is in the area, and the type of activity. While leavin' no trace is a goal, the principles of LNT are all fairly straightforward to put into practice. What's hard about "Plan ahead and prepare?"

 

I agree with you that adopting this ethic is in conflict with a lot of past BSA practice, and even a few of our T-2-1 requirements, eh? Yah, and to be sure, lots of old-time WBers haven't kept up their outdoor skills or bothered to learn. For that reason, BSA has an absolutely awful reputation among the majority of land managers as bein' the worst sort of campers, and I know more than a few senior rangers who would ban us from the woods if they could find a legal way to do it. As it is, a lot of 'em are adopting strict limits on group size, which acts as an indirect way of forcin' us out.

 

Some of these discussions are goin' on at National, eh? I expect to see da T-2-1 woods tools stuff go away the next round, leastways it's bein' talked about. Most of da other materials are gettin' cleaned up so as to be LNT-consistent. Our hypocrisy problem stems primarily from da "old dogs," though. I reckon it will continue until we replace guys who grew up hacking at trees and havin' big bonfires with ones who've shed a tear after seein' their old campin' haunts become denuded trash heaps.

 

In the mean time, nothin' says your unit can't be a good example, eh? Maybe if yeh at least get your lads to "do as we say" they'll be the ones to drag the BSA into better ethical choices in the woods.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

First of all, if hypocrisy is embedded in the BSA, why do you remain a member or ask advice of us hypocrites, then again I may just be sensitive this morning so perhaps my comment is too reflexive,

 

1. This is what BSA says about knives in the Guide to Safe Scouting, Online version

 

Knives

 

"A sharp pocketknife with a can opener on it is an invaluable backcountry tool. Keep it clean, sharp, and handy. Avoid large sheath knives. They are heavy and awkward to carry, and unnecessary for most camp chores except for cleaning fish. Since its inception, Boy Scouting has relied heavily on an outdoor program to achieve its objectives. This program meets more of the purposes of Scouting than any other single feature. We believe we have a duty to instill in our members, youth and adult, the knowledge of how to use, handle, and store legally owned knives with the highest concern for safety and responsibility.

 

Rememberknives are not allowed on school premises, nor can they be taken aboard commercial aircraft."

 

Now, Some Councils and Council Camps have come up with rules regarding the length and type of knives that may be used. Thats up to them, but as far as the BSA is concerned, if its a legal knife, its' ok by them but local rules apply as always.

 

2 see above

 

3. If its undocumented, how can it be policy? Unoffical Offical or otherwise and what does Wood Badge have to do with this?

 

4. Not sure what you mean by the absoluteteness of LNT, there is no absolte, it's an ethic that you live with and do the best you can, who said it was absolute, if you are backpacking Denali its absolute and a few other places but they are few

 

5. Is this about "taking away" Totin Chip cards? There is no documentation about how many corners to cut off or any of that nonsense, if the youth can't safely handle a wood tool, either he gets taught how to or he doesnt use it, no documentation required

 

So, if you dont beleive in LNT, does that mean you would prefer to come to a campsite where previous names have been carved into trees and multiple fires have been started all over the site instead of in a single place? I agree that LNT advocates can go over board, I mean why go in the forest if the CO2 you exhale might upset the bance of the gas equilibrium?

 

I commonly wear bright, hunter's orange coats or other outerwear because I want to be seen or have others see me. I have been told that is against LNT principles, they will have to learn to live with it

 

 

[FScouter 24]

The biggest problem with LNT is the name. The Leave No Trace program does not mean leave no trace at all. It means minimize your impact. The LNT principle Minimize Fire Impact specifically says to use existing fire rings, use dead & down wood, and keep the fire small. This should be easy.

 

The LNT principle Dispose of Waste Properly advises that a cat hole is a good method to use; just dont dig one next to the creek.

 

While it may be impossible to truly leave no trace, it is a rather simple matter to follow the seven principles of the LNT program.

 

Heres a link to the BSA LNT principles:

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/~/media/legacy/assets/boyscouts/resources/21-105/21-105.pdf.ashx

 

[Bob White 20]

1. There are authorative documents on such things as the length of knife blades, just not in the BSA. When carried in certain settings there are often local laws that would place certain size or types of blades as illigal. But no such documentation exists in the BSA.

 

Troops are free to set their own rules but they can be suoperceded by the rules of an activity or property owners. for instance the troop may allow fixed blade knives under 3.5" but the owners of a campground can prohibit fixed blade knives.

 

2. I do not know what you mean by a non-documentary method or how one inserts an undocumented policy?

 

3. Wood Badge teaches leadership skills, not outdoor skills and not poliices.

 

4. Leave no Trace is method of outdoorsmanship. It is the policy of the BSA to support good outdoor skills and courtesies in order to preserve the quality of the outdoor experience for others. Crossing a meadow in a widespread line abreast is an element of LNT, it is a wise and courteous outdoor practice. It is not a POLICY of the BSA. The policy is that BSA supports that leaders know and practice LNT methods as a matter of good outdoorsmanship in the backcountry.

 

5. The requirements for receiving the Totin' Chip card is written on the card. When you read the card you will also see that it says " The Scout's "Totin' Rights" can be taken from him if he fails in his responsibilityis." Who takes it, how it is taken, when it is taken, how it is re-earned is up to the individual troop. Nowhere does the BSA say to give a scout 4 chances to misuse a dangerous tool before he loses the right to use it and must retest on the requirements.

 

 

I agree that you will sometimes see adult leaders who should know better do thing incorrectly. Why for instance it seems that adults in the OA are incapable of starting a fire without the improper and prohibited use of chemical fuels is a mystery to me. We teach 10 years olds how to start fires using tinder and kindling, but adults at The many OA conclaves I have attended have yet to figure it out.

 

We watched a leader in another troop doing a woods tool demonstration at a camporee embed an ax into his knee cap moments after our SPL warned him that he had the incorrect knee on the ground and was in danger of hurting himself.

 

As for the trainers at your course...I believe I have mentioned in the past that most important element in the success of any Scout program is the selection of the adult leaders. IOLS is no exception.

 

As for your dislike for the Leave No Trace Program. You really do not understand it. First it's not a BSA program. It is a program that the BSA uses to teach backcountry ettiquette as well as basic planning skills for backcountry activities. www.lnt.org

 

It is not impossible to follow, it is not even difficult to follow.

Here is Leave no Trace..

1) Plan and prepare for the trip

2) Travel and camp on durable surfaces

3) Dispose of waste properly

4) Leave what you find

5) Minimize campfire impact

6) Respect wildlife

7) Be considerate of other visitors.

 

Which of thse practices do find impossible to be mindful of GaHillbilly? Are you unable to plan your outing? Do you find you cannot keep your vehicle on the road? Are you inconvenienced by packing out your garbage? Are you compelled to gather wildflowers and take them home? Do require a bonfire to cook your stew? Is your camping experience not complete until you have teased a squirrel? Do you not feel a responsibility to leave the area you have enjoyed as nice for others as it was for you?

 

What exactly do you find impossible to do within the principles and practices of Leave no Trace?

 

And how does your misunderstanding of LNT differ from the trainers misunderstanding of the Totin' Chip that you saw at your training course?

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[SR540Beaver 116]

I always find it amusing that those who are critical of the BSA program always blame Wood Badge. GO! You'll find out what it really is as opposed to what you "think" it is and then will realize how silly you sound making it the boogyman of scouting.

[GaHillBilly 10]

Bob, you're baiting, but I'll rise to it anyhow! You wrote, "Which of thse practices do find impossible to be mindful of GaHillbilly?"

 

First, LNT is not Leave Minimal Trace -- that would be LMT -- it's Leave NO Trace. In English, "no trace" is NOT the same as any of the following:

- "little trace"

- "minimal trace"

- "minimized trace"

- "reduced trace"

- etc.

 

Rather "leave no trace" is logically and linguistically IDENTICAL to "leave no indication whatsoever of your passing".

 

LNT is EITHER (take your pick) a marketing slogan that every one 'knows' is not really true, like the old Pepsi slogan, "Pepsi. The Choice of a New Generation" OR it's meant literally, but interpreted insincerely. Either way, I don't like it. Trustworthiness is certainly not compatible with insincerity, and I don't think it's compatible with Madison Avenue implicitly deceptive marketing, no matter how commonly accepted that is.

 

But, the problem is not just a philosophical or ethical one.

 

Many of the rules present in the document FScouter are ones I've long followed, even without benefit of LNT or OC. Most of these rules could just as easily be derived from the Outdoor Code. But, some cannot, and it's those that worry me.

 

Here's an example from the BSA document FScouter referenced:

 

#6 Respect Wildlife: "You are too close if an animal alters its normal activities."

 

So, let's return to your bait, Bob. You imply I can't follow those rules, but let's see what you say.

 

If you tell me you CAN enter the woods, and comply with that rule, I'm going to tell you -- and be able to prove in any wooded area around here -- that you are an ignorant Scouter.

 

If you tell me you CAN'T follow that rule, then you've gone a long way toward proving my point: where LNT ethics make sense, they are not different from OC ethics. And where LNT adds something, what it adds, excludes Scouts from nature.

 

So, take your pick, Bob.

 

Am I correct?

 

Or are you ignorant?

 

 

GaHillBilly

[GaHillBilly 10]

SR540Beaver wrote "I always find it amusing that those who are critical of the BSA program always blame Wood Badge."

 

SR540Beaver, before you "find it amusing", you might want to "find it"!

 

In this case, you didn't, because I didn't "blame" anyone. I noticed a coincidence:

1) all (or most) of the instructors were WBers.

2) a number of the instructors taught undocumented 'requirements'.

 

But, because I know a bit about logic, I understand that "coincidence" is not "causation". In other words, I knew that the relationship between WBers and undoc'd requirements might be incidental rather than derivatively causal. Therefore, I did the reasonable thing: I asked of those who know more about it, if this coincidence was more than that.

 

But -- please note -- I ASKED; I didn't blame. Under the circumstances, it was a reasonable and prudent question, since Wood Badge attendance was the apparent common factor among those adding requirements. I confess to some suspicion about Wood Badge, mostly as a result of what I've read here, but partly from observing local Wood Badgers in my District. But, suspicion is not criticism, much less "blame".

 

Kudu has accused WBers of being Scientologist-like in their hypersensitivity to criticism, and even questioning. It would seem you are adding a data-point in support of his contention . . . assuming of course that you are a WBer.

 

So, before you are amused next time, you might want to make sure that what you find amusing is actually present. Laughing at what is not present is not a sign of mental health.

 

GaHillBilly

[SR540Beaver 116]

GHB,

 

My apologies for using "you" too much in my comment. It was meant generically for the many instances on these forums where the folks like Kudu and a few others see Wood Badge as the boogeyman of scouting and suspect it as the evil that is killing scouting. Yes, I am a Wood Badger (I'm a Beaver from course SR540) and have staffed two courses with a third opportunity in 2010. Having been a Scouter pre-WB and then attending WB and then staffing WB, I have a perspective from both sides of the fence. I can assure you that any misinformation you may have received at the hands of a WB'er conducting an IOLS course (which I have staffed also) has nothing to do with what they were taught at WB because they are apples and oranges. As has been mentioned by other posters, WB is a leadership skills course. That is ALL it is. IOLS is a course to teach scouters working directly with boys how to teach the skills needed to meet Tenderfoot to 1st Class ranks.

 

Since I do know exactly what WB actually is, I can and do find it amusing when people who have not attended either blame of find coincidences involving WB. Look, I'm not trying to be a WB elitist snob. I know the value of the course, but I recognize not everyone wants to attend and that there are excellent non-WB scouters out there. I just get tired of people thinking it is some sort of elite crowd and standing on the outside looking in and being critical when they really don't know what they are talking about. Hence my suggestion to those who "think" and "suspect"......GO. I promise they will be surprised at everything WB is NOT that they thought it was.

[Bob White 20]

Luckily for me your are incorrect. You also seem to be the one baiting.

 

You put far too much stock in the name given the program (not a name the BSA gave it mind you) than you give to its elements and their application. I do not know if you have taken the actual LNT course, or if you understood it the first time around. You might give consideration to taking the actual course or taking it again.

 

As an example. For principle #6 Respect Wildlife, here are the core elements...

 

*Observe wildlife from a distance. Do not follow or approach them.

 

*Never feed animals. Feeding wildlife damages their health, alters natural behaviors, and exposes them to predators and other dangers.

 

*Protect wildlife and your food by storing rations and trash securely.

Control pets at all times, or leave them at home.

 

*Avoid wildlife during sensitive times: mating, nesting, raising young, or winter.

 

For even more detail read the text at this link http://www.lnt.org/programs/principles_6.php

 

Tell us if there is anything there that you could not manage to do. I, and lots of others, seem to have no difficulty practicing it, why do you?

 

The goal of bowling is to roll a perfect game. Does every bowler accomplish that goal? Of course not, but that does not mean that they cannot improve their skills, enjoy the activity, and be considerate of others as they do it. And amazingly for many, the more they practice the better they get.

 

LNT is no different from that. Striving for the goal makes us better and more responsible outdoorsman whether we achieve the ultimate goal or not.

 

Stop fretting on the title and consider learning the actual skills of its program.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Lisabob 13]

GAHillBilly, I'm sure you've heard the phrase "correlation is not causation." Applied to this case, it means that the people who are WB-trained tend to also be the ones who are available and committed and have (most of?) the knowledge necessary to be good trainers in other aspects of the BSA's adult training program. Additionally, they are a known quantity with large networks of other scouters in the district and council, which is one side-benefit of attending WB. So Wood Badgers probably get called upon in higher percentages than non-Wood Badgers, to help run programs, provide training, staff committees, and do a bunch of other Scouter activities.

 

The part about correlation and causation: Any faulty information that an IOLS trainer might have promulgated are his or hers, and not the result of what he or she was taught at WB. The fact that you noticed a lot of trainers are also Wood Badgers is perhaps related to the people being chosen as trainers, but content of IOLS and WB are entirely different.

 

Beyond that, I do understand your general frustration and maybe LNT should really be called Leave Minimal Trace, but that's not the BSA's decision because it is not the BSA's program. Aspirational names are common place though, and I think maybe you're missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Maybe a better way to think about the ethic of LNT is that the gist of it can be better understood through the Scout Law. Scouts are trustworthy - they can be trusted to take good care of the land they traverse, whether public or private land; courteous - they know how to camp and behave outdoors in ways that are not obnoxious to others; obedient - they follow local laws regarding their outdoor behavior; thrifty - they don't treat the natural world as a throw-away item, but rather conserve and protect it for future generations to enjoy; clean - they pick up after themselves in an appropriate manner when outdoors; and maybe also reverent - they respect and revere who or whatever they believe to have created the natural world, as reflected in their actions.

 

 

 

 

[GaHillBilly 10]

Lisa, I agree with most of what you said -- and had already made the point that correlation is not causation. But I think you'll agree correlation offers a reason to investigate whether there is only incidental correlation, or if there is also causation. And, that was what I did in my original question.

 

BobW, your misdirection aside (quoting all the wildlife bits EXCEPT the one I quoted) if you think you can walk in the woods without causing any "animal [to] alter its normal activities" -- unless you choose to regard fleeing possible predators as 'normal activity' -- there's not much I can say that's likely to enlighten you.

 

You are just too ignorant. But, then I gather that that's one of Kudu's complaints, that modern Scouters know so little woodcraft, that Wood Badge can't possibly be about skills in the woods.

 

But, I guess you are in good company, and will fit right in with the SM who taught my son that Chinese privet hedge was actually a native plant called "boxwood", and that the river cane growing along the Hiwassee was really "sugar cane". He became pretty irritated when my son suggested that otherwise, and told him to be quiet and learn something.

 

So, you fit right in! I'm sure you'll be able to follow G-W's plan, and can help Geology MB candidates to sort all the rocks in to "big rocks and little rocks and rocks that hit you"

 

But let's take a look at the bits you did quote:

 

 

*Observe wildlife from a distance. Do not follow or approach them.

 

Gotta love this one. Let's see, I can either observe animals from a distance, or not. If not, then I can't observe them, since at my age, the minimum distance for focusing is about a foot. A foot is a distance, so, yep, I'm good there.

 

But next bit is a little more difficult. In the areas I know, if you are in the woods, you are ALWAYS approaching some animals, and often following them. Deer, commonly. Turkey, often. Robins, chickadees, squirrels, chipmunks, salamanders, always. Beaver, muskrat, blue heron, northern water snakes, barred owls, sometimes. Mink, green heron, wood ducks, rarely.

 

Gotta problem there. The ONLY way to avoid approaching some of these animals EVERY time I go out is . . . to not go out.

 

But, I suppose you use another "way", BobW. If you are just too uncrafty to KNOW that those animals are there (or were, till they heard you) you can just continue to imagine yourself in compliance.

 

I guess that's the new BSA LNT principle: "what you don't know, won't hurt nature"? If that's the principle we're supposed to be following, I've met a lot of Scouters who know so little there's no danger of them ever hurting nature.

 

 

Never feed animals. Feeding wildlife damages their health, alters natural behaviors, and exposes them to predators and other dangers.*

 

Well, I can do that. In fact, I pretty much always do so, since I'm not much of a fisherman. But, I guess I'll have to quit what fishing I was doing, since I usually use live bait, and since I always end up "feeding" the fish, a lot more than they end up feeding me!

 

But, as a matter of fact, the blanket statement that "feeding wildlife damages their health" is nonsense. Animals pretty routinely starve over the winter. (Maybe you didn't know that, BobW.) Last winter was pretty bad around here. This year, for whatever reason, all the mast and fruit crops are extremely heavy, so things will be better. But, I know of people who did feed deer from the park their property adjoined. Yep, I guess that "damaged their health" by keeping them from starving!

 

But, I can certainly agree that doing so "altered their natural behavior". Under the circumstances, the natural thing would be for them to starve.

 

Now, more reasonable statements than this have been around for years, with no help from LNT. When I went to the Smokies as a child 50 years ago, us kids were told very clearly, "don't feed the bears".

 

 

Protect wildlife and your food by storing rations and trash securely.

Control pets at all times, or leave them at home.*

 

Well, gee, I knew that one as a child, too. But, I guess all my grousing about people who camped with noisy dogs was actually evidence that I loved the LNT in my heart, and in secret, long before it was written?

 

 

*Avoid wildlife during sensitive times: mating, nesting, raising young, or winter.

 

Well, BobW, I gotta love it. I couldn't think of a better way to say, "BobW's a goober", than you've done here by claiming you keep this one.

 

Here's a clue, BobW. If you are in the woods, you are NOT avoiding wildlife. They're there, even though you apparently too clueless to know it.

 

And BobW, here's another clue: that wildlife you are not avoiding, is ALWAYS either mating, nesting (or denning) or raising young . . . or in winter. That's kinda how it works. In fact, if you've noticed it non-urban examples of the species homo sapiens are pretty much always doing one these things, too.

 

So, Mister Urban Scouter, if you go to the woods ANY time, you are violating this one, too.

 

 

Sheesh. City slickers!

 

 

GaHillBilly

(This message has been edited by GaHillBilly)

[Bob White 20]

Yeah Hillbilly I am beginning to understand where the problem is here. For one thing. I am able to discuss the contents of the LNT without calling people names.

 

I am confident most people see how you are going out of your way to to warp what the LNT practices refer to. For instance you asked me if I can go into the wood without altering an animials normal activities. Well when you look at what the LNT means by that, sure I can.

 

I have spent hundreds of days and nights in the outdoors without intentionally approaching wildlife in a way that was meant to frighten them, injure them, disturb their nesting, disturb there young, damage their food sources. It's called outdoor skills, and the Scouting program has taught these skills for years.

 

Sure I have unknowingly walked up on an animal that was hiding itself in the brush but it was unintentional and not done to upset the animal. And that is all the LNT is saying. Don't intentionally irritate the animals. It's truly hard to believe that you do not actually realize the difference. Your persistence in ignoring the simplicity of these practices puts yourself in a very unflattering light.

 

Have you ever seen a bear in the wild? I have. I stood and enjoyed her and her cubs at a distance. I did not attempt to see how close I could get. At the distance I was at both the bear and I felt safe I knew where she was, and I am sure she knew where I was. I did not cause her to change her activity with her cubs, leave her area or change her state from calm to defensive or aggressive.

 

On the other hand I watched a man with a throw-away camera try to see how close he could get to a Bison to take a picture. Here is a tip you won't get from LNT...NEVER approach an animal while looking through the wide angle lens of a cheap camera. I am sure that Bison looked a hundred feet away when he charged and hit that guy, and not the 20 feet away that he actually was.

 

That's what the LNT is talking about when it says not to try and approach an animal.

 

You do yourself a great diservice by making comments about a topic you obviously do not yet understand. That goes for LNT training as well as Wood Badge Training.

 

Goober? Ignorant? It seems your ability to discuss a topic is predicated on the hope of insulting others into submission rather than for you to be bothered with addressing the points of the discussion. An unfortunate characteristic, but I guess you must play with the hand that is dealt you.

 

If you have any actual questions on LNT I am sure there are numerous scouters on the forum who like myself would be happy to help you learn more about it, without the need for your insults.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Gee, the goal of Leave No Trace is to Leave No Trace, implied in that statment is that we are chasing perfection (See 2007-2008 New England Patriots). It's what we aspire too while recognizing we will never reach it. Attempts at perfection, although futile, are no less noble and that is the core of LNT (leastwise the way I understand it). To minimize impact, leaving no impact would be best but is impossible.

 

Sorry you have had botanical errors along your scouting path, but why blame that on Bob White?

[SWScouter 34]

GaHillBilly, are you picking nits just to be a nit picker or to be something else? To me it seems you are being overly pedantic.