Camping merit bagde requirements?

[Any Mouse]

I'm looking at the requirements for the camping merit badge and I'm
wondering how anyone earns it. Specifically,

"Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet."

I know that this is one of a list of options but isn't a gain of 2,000
a bit extreme?

I live on the east coast and I have to drive about 100 miles before I
can even see 2,000 feet above sea level. So for any of my guys to
gain 2,000 feet, we have to start in Annapolis (Sea Level) and hike to
Western Maryland where we can top out around 2,500 feet.

Looking at the others in this group, it seems that no one in my troop
should have earned the Camping merit badge in at least the past five
years.

=On any of these CAMPING experiences, you must do TWO of the
following,
= Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet.

See above.

= Backpack for at least four miles.

We do that often

= Take a bike trip of at least 15 miles or at least four hours.

Never have we gone biking on a camping excursion.

= Plan and carry out a float trip of at least four hours.

Float trips are always seperate trips with no camping involved.

= Rappel down a rappel route of 30 feet or more.

The only time that any of our guys rappel is at summer camp.

[Any Mouse]

It's ba-DG-e. Gotta learn to type.

[D Taylor]

Post by Any Mouse
I'm looking at the requirements for the camping merit badge and I'm
wondering how anyone earns it. Specifically,
"Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet."
I know that this is one of a list of options but isn't a gain of 2,000
a bit extreme?
I live on the east coast and I have to drive about 100 miles before I
can even see 2,000 feet above sea level. So for any of my guys to
gain 2,000 feet, we have to start in Annapolis (Sea Level) and hike to
Western Maryland where we can top out around 2,500 feet.
Looking at the others in this group, it seems that no one in my troop
should have earned the Camping merit badge in at least the past five
years.
=On any of these CAMPING experiences, you must do TWO of the
following,
= Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet.
See above.
= Backpack for at least four miles.
We do that often
= Take a bike trip of at least 15 miles or at least four hours.
Never have we gone biking on a camping excursion.
= Plan and carry out a float trip of at least four hours.
Float trips are always seperate trips with no camping involved.
= Rappel down a rappel route of 30 feet or more.
The only time that any of our guys rappel is at summer camp.

You are putting more into the badge than is required. For example, if your
boys rappelled at summer camp, and since long term camping is allowed to be
used to satisfy the requirements, then they completed one of the two
requirements. If they were also on a camping trip where they have
backpacked four miles or more, then they have completed both requirements.
Further, the requirement states "Show experience in camping by doing the
following:" The requirement does not state that the experience has to be on
a Troop or Patrol campout. So long as the boy completed the requirements
somewhere, then they have earned the merit badge.

[S. M. Henning]

Post by Any Mouse
Looking at the others in this group, it seems that no one in my troop
should have earned the Camping merit badge in at least the past five
years.
=On any of these CAMPING experiences, you must do TWO of the
following,
= Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet.
See above.

OK, your troops topography is vertically unchallenging.

Post by Any Mouse
= Backpack for at least four miles.
We do that often

OK, this is one.

Post by Any Mouse
= Take a bike trip of at least 15 miles or at least four hours.
Never have we gone biking on a camping excursion.

However you will have to admit this is easy to do. You don't need to
carry the packs, they can be in a truck or trailer or whatever.

Post by Any Mouse
= Plan and carry out a float trip of at least four hours.
Float trips are always seperate trips with no camping involved.

However they are more fun if they involve an overnight.

Post by Any Mouse
= Rappel down a rappel route of 30 feet or more.
The only time that any of our guys rappel is at summer camp.

That counts. It is a camping experience! They don't have to carry
their packs when they rappel. OK, this is two.

[Any Mouse]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by Any Mouse
The only time that any of our guys rappel is at summer camp.

That counts. It is a camping experience! They don't have to carry
their packs when they rappel. OK, this is two.

Alas, very few take the rock climbing/rapelling/covert insertion
course.

[D Taylor]

Post by Any Mouse

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by Any Mouse
The only time that any of our guys rappel is at summer camp.

That counts. It is a camping experience! They don't have to carry
their packs when they rappel. OK, this is two.

Alas, very few take the rock climbing/rapelling/covert insertion
course.

What? Your original post states they do. Quote" = Rappel down a rappel
route of 30 feet or more.

The only time that any of our guys rappel is at summer camp." What then is
the purpose of your question?

[Any Mouse]

What then is the purpose of your question?

Egads, you are dense. Are you one of those truckdrivers that you were
badmouthing earlier?

My question was about the mountain climbing requirement.

Now go watch some oval track racing.

[S. M. Henning]

Post by Any Mouse
Alas, very few take the rock climbing/rapelling/covert insertion
course.

What a shame. Our camp has everyone that wants to do rapelling. This
is one of our big selling point for camp. They love it. They love to
brag to their non-Scouting friends about it also.

Just about everyone does swimming, boating, rifle range and rapelling.
You haven't been to camp if you haven't done these. They have
recreation periods in addition to the merit badge periods.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by Any Mouse
Alas, very few take the rock climbing/rapelling/covert insertion
course.

What a shame. Our camp has everyone that wants to do rapelling. This
is one of our big selling point for camp. They love it. They love to
brag to their non-Scouting friends about it also.
Just about everyone does swimming, boating, rifle range and rapelling.
You haven't been to camp if you haven't done these. They have
recreation periods in addition to the merit badge periods.
--

Why not archery?

Hugh

[S. M. Henning]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by S. M. Henning
Just about everyone does swimming, boating, rifle range and rapelling.
You haven't been to camp if you haven't done these. They have
recreation periods in addition to the merit badge periods.

Why not archery?

Monday afternoon, from 2:00-5:00 PM, our Range Officers are prepared to
meet the needs of new campers for their first time on the range.
Tuesday-Thursday, 2:00-5:00, Friday 2:00-4:30 PM, is open shooting.
(rifle, shotgun, black powder and archery)

Just about everyone does archery, trading post, campfire, and dining
hall also. Any others I missed.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by S. M. Henning
Just about everyone does swimming, boating, rifle range and rapelling.
You haven't been to camp if you haven't done these. They have
recreation periods in addition to the merit badge periods.

Why not archery?

Monday afternoon, from 2:00-5:00 PM, our Range Officers are prepared to
meet the needs of new campers for their first time on the range.
Tuesday-Thursday, 2:00-5:00, Friday 2:00-4:30 PM, is open shooting.
(rifle, shotgun, black powder and archery)
Just about everyone does archery, trading post, campfire, and dining
hall also. Any others I missed.
--

Since you put it that way, how about latrine? I'd hate to think your
Scouts were full of never mind.

Actually I thought maybe you didn't have archery for some reason.

Hugh

[Emma Pease]

Post by Any Mouse
I'm looking at the requirements for the camping merit badge and I'm
wondering how anyone earns it. Specifically,
"Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet."
I know that this is one of a list of options but isn't a gain of 2,000
a bit extreme?
I live on the east coast and I have to drive about 100 miles before I
can even see 2,000 feet above sea level. So for any of my guys to
gain 2,000 feet, we have to start in Annapolis (Sea Level) and hike to
Western Maryland where we can top out around 2,500 feet.

The gain is 2,000 feet but does that have to be in one swoop? In
other words if you climb several hills/mountains before/after reaching the
summit where the sum total of elevation gain is > 2,000 feet would
that count?

For example, climb 500 feet to top of hill 1, go down 300 feet to a
shoulder, climb 500 feet to top of hill 2, go down 600 feet to a
valley, climb 700 feet to top of hill 3 (high point of trail), go down
700 feet, climb 400 feet to top of hill 4, then down 500 feet back to
the beginning. Total elevation gain is 2100 feet but the low
point/high point difference is 800 feet.

Certainly many of the local hiking groups around here rate hikes by
summing the gains and not just calculating the low point and high
point of the trail since the former gives a better idea of how tough
the hike will be.

For example from one group:

The hike rating system is as follows:

1 = Less than 5 miles of total distance
2 = 5 to 10 miles
3 = 10 to 15 miles
4 = 15 to 20 miles
5 = 20 to 25 miles
(etc)

A = Less than 1000 feet of total elevation gain
B = 1000 to 2000 feet
C = 2000 to 3000 feet
D = 3000 to 4000 feet
E = 4000 to 5000 feet
(etc)

http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/dayhiking/September2004Schedule.html

The hike on that page for today (in the Santa Cruz Mountains) is
listed as a 7F and explicitly states "The hike will be approximately
31 miles and 5400 feet of elevation gain". No mountain in area where
the hike takes place is close 5400' (though some are close to 3000')
but the hike will have lots of ups and downs.

Emma

[Any Mouse]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:16:10 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease
The gain is 2,000 feet but does that have to be in one swoop? In
other words if you climb several hills/mountains before/after reaching the
summit where the sum total of elevation gain is > 2,000 feet would
that count?

I don't read it that way but I'm not a hiking guru. If you measured
altitude gain like that when flying, you'd smack into a few mountains.

[S. M. Henning]

Post by Any Mouse

Post by Emma Pease
The gain is 2,000 feet but does that have to be in one swoop? In
other words if you climb several hills/mountains before/after reaching the
summit where the sum total of elevation gain is > 2,000 feet would
that count?

I don't read it that way but I'm not a hiking guru. If you measured
altitude gain like that when flying, you'd smack into a few mountains.

What Emma said is correct. Look at it this way. If you had a 500 foot
hill and climbed it 4 times but took a bus down each time you would
count it since it is identical to climbing a 2000 foot hill. What Emma
said was that you would walk down each time as well as up, much more
work.

In any case it is up to the discretion of the merit badge counselor to
decide what is appropriate in each area. They have the authority to
interpret how to satisfy the requirements, but can't change them.

[USR1942(MC_CET)]

Reminds one of the saying " the devil is in the details" or the right
way and the army way?

Some camporee competitive vents were won or lost on the exact
interpretation of the meaning of the words...

MCCET
PMTNPO

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by Any Mouse

Post by Emma Pease
The gain is 2,000 feet but does that have to be in one swoop? In
other words if you climb several hills/mountains before/after reaching the
summit where the sum total of elevation gain is > 2,000 feet would
that count?

I don't read it that way but I'm not a hiking guru. If you measured
altitude gain like that when flying, you'd smack into a few mountains.

What Emma said is correct. Look at it this way. If you had a 500 foot
hill and climbed it 4 times but took a bus down each time you would
count it since it is identical to climbing a 2000 foot hill. What Emma
said was that you would walk down each time as well as up, much more
work.
In any case it is up to the discretion of the merit badge counselor to
decide what is appropriate in each area. They have the authority to
interpret how to satisfy the requirements, but can't change them.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:16:10 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease

Post by Any Mouse
I'm looking at the requirements for the camping merit badge and I'm
wondering how anyone earns it. Specifically,
"Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet."
I know that this is one of a list of options but isn't a gain of 2,000
a bit extreme?
I live on the east coast and I have to drive about 100 miles before I
can even see 2,000 feet above sea level. So for any of my guys to
gain 2,000 feet, we have to start in Annapolis (Sea Level) and hike to
Western Maryland where we can top out around 2,500 feet.

The gain is 2,000 feet but does that have to be in one swoop? In
other words if you climb several hills/mountains before/after reaching the
summit where the sum total of elevation gain is > 2,000 feet would
that count?

Getting into something like this with Emma is bound to be a loser -
but I rush in anyhow. 8-)

If one "gains" a dollar a week, and spends nothing, and doesn't invest
in an interest bearing account, it appears he would have "gained" $52.

If one "gains" a dollar a week and spends a dollar a week he would
gain nothing except experience.

It seems to me that gaining, but losing, nets to zero - which is what
I think your example does. He has climbed 2000' but he has not
"gained" 2000".

What if one steppeed up and down on a 1' high stool 2,000 times?
Should that qualify?

I agree that BSA has difficulty writing clearly and without ambiguity.

Hugh

[Emma Pease]

Post by Any Mouse
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:16:10 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease

Post by Any Mouse
I'm looking at the requirements for the camping merit badge and I'm
wondering how anyone earns it. Specifically,
"Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet."
I know that this is one of a list of options but isn't a gain of 2,000
a bit extreme?
I live on the east coast and I have to drive about 100 miles before I
can even see 2,000 feet above sea level. So for any of my guys to
gain 2,000 feet, we have to start in Annapolis (Sea Level) and hike to
Western Maryland where we can top out around 2,500 feet.

The gain is 2,000 feet but does that have to be in one swoop? In
other words if you climb several hills/mountains before/after reaching the
summit where the sum total of elevation gain is > 2,000 feet would
that count?

Getting into something like this with Emma is bound to be a loser -
but I rush in anyhow. 8-)
If one "gains" a dollar a week, and spends nothing, and doesn't invest
in an interest bearing account, it appears he would have "gained" $52.
If one "gains" a dollar a week and spends a dollar a week he would
gain nothing except experience.

Except what he bought by spending the money. I'll also note that the
IRS counts both as having earned $52 and will tax him accordingly.

Post by Any Mouse
It seems to me that gaining, but losing, nets to zero - which is what
I think your example does. He has climbed 2000' but he has not
"gained" 2000".

So if after reaching the summit he then walks back to the bottom
(instead of taking the cog railroad) he hasn't gained anything?

Post by Any Mouse
What if one steppeed up and down on a 1' high stool 2,000 times?
Should that qualify?

The requirement states climb a mountain and while a 'hill' in some
areas is a 'mountain' in others I don't think a high stool counts as a
mountain or even a hill anywhere.

My reading (not that I can be a merit badge counselor) would be that
the aim is to reach a local high point (mountain) and to expend at
least 2000' of upward vertical effort in doing so. The scout is
expending the same amount of vertical effort if he breaks it into
several hills or if he does it on one swoop. The latter however is
impossible to find in many areas of the US (though in some states such
as Florida even the former is still impossible unless one climbs the
same mound 20 or 30 times).

Emma

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease

Post by Any Mouse
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:16:10 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease

Post by Any Mouse
I'm looking at the requirements for the camping merit badge and I'm
wondering how anyone earns it. Specifically,
"Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet."
I know that this is one of a list of options but isn't a gain of 2,000
a bit extreme?
I live on the east coast and I have to drive about 100 miles before I
can even see 2,000 feet above sea level. So for any of my guys to
gain 2,000 feet, we have to start in Annapolis (Sea Level) and hike to
Western Maryland where we can top out around 2,500 feet.

The gain is 2,000 feet but does that have to be in one swoop? In
other words if you climb several hills/mountains before/after reaching the
summit where the sum total of elevation gain is > 2,000 feet would
that count?

Getting into something like this with Emma is bound to be a loser -
but I rush in anyhow. 8-)
If one "gains" a dollar a week, and spends nothing, and doesn't invest
in an interest bearing account, it appears he would have "gained" $52.
If one "gains" a dollar a week and spends a dollar a week he would
gain nothing except experience.

Except what he bought by spending the money. I'll also note that the
IRS counts both as having earned $52 and will tax him accordingly.

But the tax is on earnings, not gains. His gain would be after tax in
this case which would be a negative "gain". Negative gain ???

Post by Emma Pease

Post by Any Mouse
It seems to me that gaining, but losing, nets to zero - which is what
I think your example does. He has climbed 2000' but he has not
"gained" 2000".

So if after reaching the summit he then walks back to the bottom
(instead of taking the cog railroad) he hasn't gained anything?

For the purposes of the requirement he has. At one point he had gained
2000' - get the requirement signed quickly before walking back down.
8-)

Post by Emma Pease

Post by Any Mouse
What if one steppeed up and down on a 1' high stool 2,000 times?
Should that qualify?

The requirement states climb a mountain and while a 'hill' in some
areas is a 'mountain' in others I don't think a high stool counts as a
mountain or even a hill anywhere.

In New Orleans the stool might be a mountain since many square miles
are below sea level.

Post by Emma Pease
My reading (not that I can be a merit badge counselor) would be that
the aim is to reach a local high point (mountain) and to expend at
least 2000' of upward vertical effort in doing so. The scout is
expending the same amount of vertical effort if he breaks it into
several hills or if he does it on one swoop. The latter however is
impossible to find in many areas of the US (though in some states such
as Florida even the former is still impossible unless one climbs the
same mound 20 or 30 times).
Emma

I submit that is why they have multiple ways to pass the requirement.

If the Scout climbed 1,000' but had to return to base camp for his MP3
player, then climbed back to the same spot. I see him as climbing
2,000' but he only "gained" 1,000'.

Unfortunately I am too close to arguing "intent" and I never argue
intent.

Hugh

[Emma Pease]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
It seems to me that gaining, but losing, nets to zero - which is what
I think your example does. He has climbed 2000' but he has not
"gained" 2000".

So if after reaching the summit he then walks back to the bottom
(instead of taking the cog railroad) he hasn't gained anything?

For the purposes of the requirement he has. At one point he had gained
2000' - get the requirement signed quickly before walking back down.
8-)

Obviously the BSA will have to station a merit badge counselor at the top of
every 2000' above plain peak :-).

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by Emma Pease

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
What if one steppeed up and down on a 1' high stool 2,000 times?
Should that qualify?

The requirement states climb a mountain and while a 'hill' in some
areas is a 'mountain' in others I don't think a high stool counts as a
mountain or even a hill anywhere.

In New Orleans the stool might be a mountain since many square miles
are below sea level.

Any oceanic trenches off the coast line?

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by Emma Pease
My reading (not that I can be a merit badge counselor) would be that
the aim is to reach a local high point (mountain) and to expend at
least 2000' of upward vertical effort in doing so. The scout is
expending the same amount of vertical effort if he breaks it into
several hills or if he does it on one swoop. The latter however is
impossible to find in many areas of the US (though in some states such
as Florida even the former is still impossible unless one climbs the
same mound 20 or 30 times).
Emma

I submit that is why they have multiple ways to pass the requirement.

Would be interesting to know how people interpret it in the field. I
suspect in areas where 2000' above base camp mountains are common will
go with the one swoop method. Oregonians for instance might camp at
Four Mile lake and climb Mt. McLoughlin

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/McLoughlin/Locale/framework.html

to fulfill the requirement (nice lake, nice hike, good view, not for
those afraid of heights).

Those in areas a bit short on good mountains but having some
reasonable hills might allow the cumulative method.

Those in New Orleans or Florida better plan some long distance outings
or fall back to the other options.

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
If the Scout climbed 1,000' but had to return to base camp for his MP3
player, then climbed back to the same spot. I see him as climbing
2,000' but he only "gained" 1,000'.
Unfortunately I am too close to arguing "intent" and I never argue
intent.

It does seem to require a bit of a judgment call at times.

Emma

ps. I count 14 states whose highest elevation is below 2000'.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:39:36 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:23:40 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
It seems to me that gaining, but losing, nets to zero - which is what
I think your example does. He has climbed 2000' but he has not
"gained" 2000".

So if after reaching the summit he then walks back to the bottom
(instead of taking the cog railroad) he hasn't gained anything?

For the purposes of the requirement he has. At one point he had gained
2000' - get the requirement signed quickly before walking back down.
8-)

Obviously the BSA will have to station a merit badge counselor at the top of
every 2000' above plain peak :-).

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by Emma Pease

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
What if one steppeed up and down on a 1' high stool 2,000 times?
Should that qualify?

The requirement states climb a mountain and while a 'hill' in some
areas is a 'mountain' in others I don't think a high stool counts as a
mountain or even a hill anywhere.

In New Orleans the stool might be a mountain since many square miles
are below sea level.

Any oceanic trenches off the coast line?

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by Emma Pease
My reading (not that I can be a merit badge counselor) would be that
the aim is to reach a local high point (mountain) and to expend at
least 2000' of upward vertical effort in doing so. The scout is
expending the same amount of vertical effort if he breaks it into
several hills or if he does it on one swoop. The latter however is
impossible to find in many areas of the US (though in some states such
as Florida even the former is still impossible unless one climbs the
same mound 20 or 30 times).
Emma

I submit that is why they have multiple ways to pass the requirement.

Would be interesting to know how people interpret it in the field. I
suspect in areas where 2000' above base camp mountains are common will
go with the one swoop method. Oregonians for instance might camp at
Four Mile lake and climb Mt. McLoughlin
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/McLoughlin/Locale/framework.html
to fulfill the requirement (nice lake, nice hike, good view, not for
those afraid of heights).
Those in areas a bit short on good mountains but having some
reasonable hills might allow the cumulative method.
Those in New Orleans or Florida better plan some long distance outings
or fall back to the other options.

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
If the Scout climbed 1,000' but had to return to base camp for his MP3
player, then climbed back to the same spot. I see him as climbing
2,000' but he only "gained" 1,000'.
Unfortunately I am too close to arguing "intent" and I never argue
intent.

It does seem to require a bit of a judgment call at times.
Emma
ps. I count 14 states whose highest elevation is below 2000'.

If a counselor, I would not pass a person who did the accumulation
route.

My solution would be to go to a place which has 2000' heights. The 5
Eagles in my family have all been to Philmont and climbed to about
10,000'.

If any of them HAD to pass the requirement we would have gone wherever
necessary.

Your position sounds like one I might have taken if you had not. Out
of curiosity, Emma, is it really your position or do you just enjoy
noting the less obvious possibilities or do you just enjoy the
academic exercise?

In any event it certainly points out another ambiguity in BSA
requirements.

Hugh

[S. M. Henning]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
My solution would be to go to a place which has 2000' heights. The 5
Eagles in my family have all been to Philmont and climbed to about
10,000'

But they started above 6,500'. Not many who trek Philmont gain 2,000'
in one day. That is the problem with many places. Even though they
have 2,000' peaks, the don't reach sea level. Philmont's elevation
ranges from 6,500 feet to the top of Baldy Mountain, 12,441 feet.

The requirement says: "Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000
vertical feet." When I went to school 1,000 + 1,000 was equal to 2,000.

The requirement says to gain 2,000 feet, not a mountain 2,000 feet tall.
You could even climb Washington Monument 4 times. The height from the
lobby to the observation level is 500 feet or 50 stories (152.40
meters).

[Any Mouse]

Post by S. M. Henning
The requirement says to gain 2,000 feet, not a mountain 2,000 feet tall.
You could even climb Washington Monument 4 times. The height from the
lobby to the observation level is 500 feet or 50 stories (152.40
meters).

You haven't gained 2,000 feet in your examples. You gained 500 feet,
lost it, got it back, lost it again, etc. The gain is only 500 feet.
BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the Washington Monument isn't a
mountain.

[D Taylor]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
My solution would be to go to a place which has 2000' heights. The 5
Eagles in my family have all been to Philmont and climbed to about
10,000'

But they started above 6,500'. Not many who trek Philmont gain 2,000'
in one day. That is the problem with many places. Even though they
have 2,000' peaks, the don't reach sea level. Philmont's elevation
ranges from 6,500 feet to the top of Baldy Mountain, 12,441 feet.
The requirement says: "Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000
vertical feet." When I went to school 1,000 + 1,000 was equal to 2,000.
The requirement says to gain 2,000 feet, not a mountain 2,000 feet tall.
You could even climb Washington Monument 4 times. The height from the
lobby to the observation level is 500 feet or 50 stories (152.40
meters).

I have researched several web sites and this site seems to be the most
informative:
http://www.kleinman.tv/sys-tmpl/physicalconditioningprogram/
This person is a mountain climbing hobbyist and uses the same verbiage the
merit badge uses, that is "vertical feet". I am certain Hugh and any mouse
will point out their perceived flaws in this person's logic, but this person
is part of the sport and therefore is considered more of an authority tan
either Hugh or any mouse in my opinion.

[Any Mouse]

Post by D Taylor
This person is a mountain climbing hobbyist and uses the same verbiage the
merit badge uses, that is "vertical feet".

Since quoting the dictionary has become popular . . .

from the OED

verbiage (vûr´bê-îj, -bîj) noun
1. Wording of a superabundant or superfluous character, abundance
of words without necessity or without much meaning; excessive
wordiness.

[D Taylor]

Post by Any Mouse

Post by D Taylor
This person is a mountain climbing hobbyist and uses the same verbiage the
merit badge uses, that is "vertical feet".

Since quoting the dictionary has become popular . . .
from the OED
verbiage (vûrŽbê-îj, -bîj) noun
1. Wording of a superabundant or superfluous character, abundance
of words without necessity or without much meaning; excessive
wordiness.

First of all, when someone slips into grammar police mode, it typically
means they have lost the argument and have little if nothing left to
contribute to the discussion. This holds true with you on this discussion.
Secondly, true to form you have eliminated the portion that is relevant to
the point, that is the second definition of "verbiage" from Webster's Ninth
New Collegiate Dictionary is a "manner of expressing oneself in words:
DICTION<concise military ~>". Face it, you are wrong once again.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
My solution would be to go to a place which has 2000' heights. The 5
Eagles in my family have all been to Philmont and climbed to about
10,000'

But they started above 6,500'. Not many who trek Philmont gain 2,000'
in one day. That is the problem with many places. Even though they
have 2,000' peaks, the don't reach sea level. Philmont's elevation
ranges from 6,500 feet to the top of Baldy Mountain, 12,441 feet.

I had a typo - we climbed Baldy in 1 day. I think my grandsons did
also. I don't know the elevation we started.

What is the significance of "one day"? That is not in the requirement
as posted.

Post by S. M. Henning
The requirement says: "Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000
vertical feet." When I went to school 1,000 + 1,000 was equal to 2,000.

But 1,000 - 1,000 + 1000 = 1,000. You climbed a total of 2,000' but
only GAINED 1,000'. The requirement is to GAIN 2,000' - it is not to
CLIMB 2,000'.

Would you pass a Scout who climbed a 10' pile of dirt 200 times? How
about 20' high climbed 100 times? Or 50' climbed 40 times? IOW
precisely how high must a pile of dirt be to call it a mountain?

I understand that not all people have a mountain close by. I think
that's why there are multiple ways to pass the requirement.

Hugh

[S. M. Henning]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
But 1,000 - 1,000 + 1000 = 1,000. You climbed a total of 2,000' but
only GAINED 1,000'. The requirement is to GAIN 2,000' - it is not to
CLIMB 2,000'.

Gains are offset by losses and the result is the net, whether it is a
gain or a loss. So you could have gains of 2000' and losses of 3000'
for a net loss of 1000' and still have gained 2000'. Gains and losses
are different and are added seperately. It is like apple and oranges.
Both are fruit, but you don't count oranges when you want to know the
number of apples. You don't count losses when you add gains.

People who climb from the Timberline Lodge, Oregon, to the top of Mount
Hood climb 4,240 feet but they always hike back down. Their net is 0'
but they have climbed or gained 4,240' and decended or lost 4,240'. You
don't say they didn't gain 4,240' because they came back down.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
But 1,000 - 1,000 + 1000 = 1,000. You climbed a total of 2,000' but
only GAINED 1,000'. The requirement is to GAIN 2,000' - it is not to
CLIMB 2,000'.

Gains are offset by losses and the result is the net, whether it is a
gain or a loss. So you could have gains of 2000' and losses of 3000'
for a net loss of 1000' and still have gained 2000'. Gains and losses
are different and are added seperately. It is like apple and oranges.
Both are fruit, but you don't count oranges when you want to know the
number of apples. You don't count losses when you add gains.
People who climb from the Timberline Lodge, Oregon, to the top of Mount
Hood climb 4,240 feet but they always hike back down. Their net is 0'
but they have climbed or gained 4,240' and decended or lost 4,240'. You
don't say they didn't gain 4,240' because they came back down.

Since we are getting nowhere this will be my last post on the subject.

In your example there was a gain at one point of 4,240'. If one
climbed half way twice, the maximum gain would be 2,120' - never
4,240'.

I guess I've climbed Mt. Everest because I've climbed more than the
total height. Move over Sir Edmund Hillary and Tensing Norgay.

If you play the slots, win $100 and put it in your left pocket, but
you spent $50 out of your right pocket to do it, you have gained $50,
not $100 - unless you are my wife.

Stockholders would approve of your method for paying dividends.

Hugh

[S. M. Henning]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Stockholders would approve of your method for paying dividends.

So does the IRS. They have separate columns for gains and losses.
Saying a person gained 50,000' doesn't mean that they climbed from an
ocean trench to the top of Mt. Everest, it means they climbed a total
ascent of 50,000'. In the case of the merit badge, they are using
"gain" as opposed to the term "net gain". The term "net gain" exists
because it is not the same as "gain". When you imply the term "net
gain" you are adding requirements which we all know is not allowed.

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Since we are getting nowhere this will be my last post on the subject.

Are you a man of your word? ;)

[Jim in MO]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Since we are getting nowhere this will be my last post on the subject.

Thank heavens!

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Post by Jim in MO

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Since we are getting nowhere this will be my last post on the subject.

Thank heavens!

Since it's not on the subject I will comment. Who held a gun to your
head to make you read this thread? You might get someone to help you
look for a (probably) gray key on most keyboards with the letters
Delete and use it. But that won't work if I am required reading at
your house.

And please remember you started the hurrah - I just responded.

Hugh

[D Taylor]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by Jim in MO

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Since we are getting nowhere this will be my last post on the subject.

Thank heavens!

Since it's not on the subject I will comment. Who held a gun to your
head to make you read this thread? You might get someone to help you
look for a (probably) gray key on most keyboards with the letters
Delete and use it. But that won't work if I am required reading at
your house.
And please remember you started the hurrah - I just responded.
Hugh

Quibble
1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial
distinctions and objections.

As an Eagle Scout who is proud to have sired two successive generations of
Eagles you should recognize that quibbling is for men without honor.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Post by D Taylor

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by Jim in MO

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Since we are getting nowhere this will be my last post on the subject.

Thank heavens!

Since it's not on the subject I will comment. Who held a gun to your
head to make you read this thread? You might get someone to help you
look for a (probably) gray key on most keyboards with the letters
Delete and use it. But that won't work if I am required reading at
your house.
And please remember you started the hurrah - I just responded.
Hugh

Quibble
1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial
distinctions and objections.
As an Eagle Scout who is proud to have sired two successive generations of
Eagles you should recognize that quibbling is for men without honor.

Call it what you will - someone who jumps my case will get jumped
back. You should recognize that chickening out is for cowards. You may
have lace on your shorts but I don't. And I'm not politically correct.
And I enjoy confrontations if I can get the other fellow to start them
- like you just did.

I'm proud of the sons and grandsons. But they earned their Eagle
because they joined BSA - it was a given when they decided to join.
Whether they could earn more palms than I did was the only question.

The oldest never missed a meeting from the time he joined Cubs to when
he joined the Air Force a few months before he was 18. I'm sorta proud
of that because I doubt that anyone else has done it. There's not a
lot of pride in only doing what everybody else can do.

Hugh

[Jim in MO]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Since it's not on the subject I will comment. Who held a gun to your
head to make you read this thread? You might get someone to help you
look for a (probably) gray key on most keyboards with the letters
Delete and use it. But that won't work if I am required reading at
your house.
And please remember you started the hurrah - I just responded.

I want to remind you that Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, and Kind are 4
of the points of the Scout Law. From the bulk of your posts, though,
it seems that you have forgotten those points. I think that you should
give that eagle badge to the person holding your badge's empty box,
and when you relearn the Scout Law, and begin to exemplify them in
your life again, you can get your badge back.

I have lurked in this newsgroup off and on for several years, but
rather than posting ad nauseam on anything and everything, I don't
post anything unless I have something useful to add. I thought that my
comment was quite useful, as it expressed my feeling about your posts
on that thread (and most of your posts in general) and probably
expressed the feelings of many others.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Post by Jim in MO

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Since it's not on the subject I will comment. Who held a gun to your
head to make you read this thread? You might get someone to help you
look for a (probably) gray key on most keyboards with the letters
Delete and use it. But that won't work if I am required reading at
your house.
And please remember you started the hurrah - I just responded.

I want to remind you that Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, and Kind are 4
of the points of the Scout Law. From the bulk of your posts, though,
it seems that you have forgotten those points. I think that you should
give that eagle badge to the person holding your badge's empty box,
and when you relearn the Scout Law, and begin to exemplify them in
your life again, you can get your badge back.
I have lurked in this newsgroup off and on for several years, but
rather than posting ad nauseam on anything and everything, I don't
post anything unless I have something useful to add. I thought that my
comment was quite useful, as it expressed my feeling about your posts
on that thread (and most of your posts in general) and probably
expressed the feelings of many others.

It might represent the feelings of those who are not smart enough to
use the delete key or those who are compelled to read everything I
post because they wish they had the intelligence and courage to say
what I say. Fortunately there are several others who, although we
might differ about some things, are not so lacking in intelligence.
They make for a good discussion.

I'm not here to rubber stamp every stupid idea or interpretation that
people, especially non-scouts, come up with - you may be that maudlin.

Instead of making some intelligent comment you said "Thank Heavens" -
and you try to justify it as an intelligent observation. On second
thought that probably is your limit.

Now, do you want to keep going or might you be man enough to let it
stop here?

Hugh

[Jim in MO]

... ...

Case in point! I did not see anything Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, or
Kind in your reply.

[DHatheway]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
My solution would be to go to a place which has 2000' heights. The 5
Eagles in my family have all been to Philmont and climbed to about
10,000'

But they started above 6,500'. Not many who trek Philmont gain 2,000'
in one day. That is the problem with many places. Even though they
have 2,000' peaks, the don't reach sea level. Philmont's elevation
ranges from 6,500 feet to the top of Baldy Mountain, 12,441 feet.

I had a typo - we climbed Baldy in 1 day. I think my grandsons did
also. I don't know the elevation we started.
What is the significance of "one day"? That is not in the requirement
as posted.

Post by S. M. Henning
The requirement says: "Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000
vertical feet." When I went to school 1,000 + 1,000 was equal to 2,000.

But 1,000 - 1,000 + 1000 = 1,000. You climbed a total of 2,000' but
only GAINED 1,000'. The requirement is to GAIN 2,000' - it is not to
CLIMB 2,000'.
Would you pass a Scout who climbed a 10' pile of dirt 200 times? How
about 20' high climbed 100 times? Or 50' climbed 40 times? IOW
precisely how high must a pile of dirt be to call it a mountain?
I understand that not all people have a mountain close by. I think
that's why there are multiple ways to pass the requirement.
Hugh

I've frequently seen "gain" used to describe the "uphill portions" of a
hike, making it possible to get significant "gain" on a circular hike. If
the Merit Badge requirement is for "net gain" (which would be the gain over
the course of the hike), it should say "net gain."

The bottom of Minnesota is at about 500 feet, down near the Iowa border and
the tippy top of Minnesota is at about 2600 feet, up near Canada. You can
get a "net gain" of 2100 feet in Minnesota if you hike 300 or so miles.

Not all Scouts (or their Troops) are blessed with plentiful resources to do
all things - or even leave Minnesota.. Philmont is an experience that's
going to cost a Scout $800 or so. That might be money better saved for a
Scout's college education.

As near as I can make out, the job of a Scouter is to make opportunities for
Scouts. If a Merit Badge Counselor isn't asking "What's going to be a good
experience for these Scouts?", "How can I find opportunities for these
Scouts?" and "What's going to challenge this Scout?" and acting accordingly,
then I don't believe he should be a Merit Badge Counselor.

[John O]

Post by DHatheway
The bottom of Minnesota is at about 500 feet, down near the Iowa border and
the tippy top of Minnesota is at about 2600 feet, up near Canada. You can
get a "net gain" of 2100 feet in Minnesota if you hike 300 or so miles.

Well, at least you don't live in Illinois, where the max gain is something
like the height of a highway overpass. :-)

-John O
Used to live near Mount Prospect...elevation three feet.

[S. M. Henning]

Post by John O
Well, at least you don't live in Illinois, where the max gain is something
like the height of a highway overpass. :-)

Illinois has lots of lakes. Every cloverleaf has 4 of them. ;)

[D Taylor]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by John O
Well, at least you don't live in Illinois, where the max gain is something
like the height of a highway overpass. :-)

Illinois has lots of lakes. Every cloverleaf has 4 of them. ;)

Hey now! I have lived most of my life in Illinois. John, it sounds like
you didn't get far out of Chicago, lol. Southern Illinois has some
fantastic hiking opportunities. The Shawnee Hills for example are very
challenging. http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cwe/rra/site28.html
S.E., I will have you know the cloverleafs have only one borrow pit per
exchange, lol. Actually, again Illinois has some wonderful lakes.
http://www.sportsmansconnection.com/CDRom/illinois_list.html

[John O]

Post by D Taylor

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by John O
Well, at least you don't live in Illinois, where the max gain is something
like the height of a highway overpass. :-)

Illinois has lots of lakes. Every cloverleaf has 4 of them. ;)

Hey now! I have lived most of my life in Illinois. John, it sounds like
you didn't get far out of Chicago, lol. Southern Illinois has some
fantastic hiking opportunities. The Shawnee Hills for example are very
challenging. http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cwe/rra/site28.html
S.E., I will have you know the cloverleafs have only one borrow pit per
exchange, lol. Actually, again Illinois has some wonderful lakes.
http://www.sportsmansconnection.com/CDRom/illinois_list.html

LOL, I've driven to SIU and Springfield a few times, and there's a line
somewhere, and the geography changes rapidly at that point. But those first
few hours down I-65... :-)

Of course, it's just as flat where I grew up (SE Lower MI), and the
southwest corner of Ontario almost feels concave.

-John O

[DHatheway]

Post by John O

Post by DHatheway
The bottom of Minnesota is at about 500 feet, down near the Iowa border

and

Post by DHatheway
the tippy top of Minnesota is at about 2600 feet, up near Canada. You can
get a "net gain" of 2100 feet in Minnesota if you hike 300 or so miles.

Well, at least you don't live in Illinois, where the max gain is something
like the height of a highway overpass. :-)
-John O
Used to live near Mount Prospect...elevation three feet.

Have you considered hiking to the top of the Sears Tower twice? I suppose
campfires are forbidden at the summit, though.

:-)

[Emma Pease]

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:39:36 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease
Would be interesting to know how people interpret it in the field. I
suspect in areas where 2000' above base camp mountains are common will
go with the one swoop method. Oregonians for instance might camp at
Four Mile lake and climb Mt. McLoughlin
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/McLoughlin/Locale/framework.html
to fulfill the requirement (nice lake, nice hike, good view, not for
those afraid of heights).
Those in areas a bit short on good mountains but having some
reasonable hills might allow the cumulative method.
Those in New Orleans or Florida better plan some long distance outings
or fall back to the other options.

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
If the Scout climbed 1,000' but had to return to base camp for his MP3
player, then climbed back to the same spot. I see him as climbing
2,000' but he only "gained" 1,000'.
Unfortunately I am too close to arguing "intent" and I never argue
intent.

It does seem to require a bit of a judgment call at times.
Emma
ps. I count 14 states whose highest elevation is below 2000'.

If a counselor, I would not pass a person who did the accumulation
route.
My solution would be to go to a place which has 2000' heights. The 5
Eagles in my family have all been to Philmont and climbed to about
10,000'.
If any of them HAD to pass the requirement we would have gone wherever
necessary.
Your position sounds like one I might have taken if you had not. Out
of curiosity, Emma, is it really your position or do you just enjoy
noting the less obvious possibilities or do you just enjoy the
academic exercise?

I would say it is my position and I note that the interpretation I use
is what a fair number of hikers use. Also it does increase the
chances for scouts from very poor backgrounds who cannot afford to go
to mountainous areas with 2000' peaks above base camp to fulfill the
requirements (many of them probably can't afford a reasonable bike
either to do the 50 mile ride).

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
In any event it certainly points out another ambiguity in BSA
requirements.

Emma

ps. I grew up in New Jersey so finding 2000' peaks would have been a
problem except on an extended trip. I certainly did 2000' foot peaks
above base but that was family camping during the summer not with
scout camping.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:32:14 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:39:36 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease

Post by Emma Pease
Would be interesting to know how people interpret it in the field. I
suspect in areas where 2000' above base camp mountains are common will
go with the one swoop method. Oregonians for instance might camp at
Four Mile lake and climb Mt. McLoughlin
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/McLoughlin/Locale/framework.html
to fulfill the requirement (nice lake, nice hike, good view, not for
those afraid of heights).
Those in areas a bit short on good mountains but having some
reasonable hills might allow the cumulative method.
Those in New Orleans or Florida better plan some long distance outings
or fall back to the other options.

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
If the Scout climbed 1,000' but had to return to base camp for his MP3
player, then climbed back to the same spot. I see him as climbing
2,000' but he only "gained" 1,000'.
Unfortunately I am too close to arguing "intent" and I never argue
intent.

It does seem to require a bit of a judgment call at times.
Emma
ps. I count 14 states whose highest elevation is below 2000'.

If a counselor, I would not pass a person who did the accumulation
route.
My solution would be to go to a place which has 2000' heights. The 5
Eagles in my family have all been to Philmont and climbed to about
10,000'.
If any of them HAD to pass the requirement we would have gone wherever
necessary.
Your position sounds like one I might have taken if you had not. Out
of curiosity, Emma, is it really your position or do you just enjoy
noting the less obvious possibilities or do you just enjoy the
academic exercise?

I would say it is my position and I note that the interpretation I use
is what a fair number of hikers use. Also it does increase the
chances for scouts from very poor backgrounds who cannot afford to go
to mountainous areas with 2000' peaks above base camp to fulfill the
requirements (many of them probably can't afford a reasonable bike
either to do the 50 mile ride).

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
In any event it certainly points out another ambiguity in BSA
requirements.

Emma
ps. I grew up in New Jersey so finding 2000' peaks would have been a
problem except on an extended trip. I certainly did 2000' foot peaks
above base but that was family camping during the summer not with
scout camping.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht

I grew up in the MS Delta - that's 5,000 sq. miles of flat.

Hugh

[S. M. Henning]

Post by Emma Pease
Oregonians for instance might camp at
Four Mile lake and climb Mt. McLoughlin

or walk up the highway or a ski trail from Government Camp (4,000') to
Timberline Lodge (6,000').

I used to work this area when the Forest Service had a station at
Government Camp. We had a guy on our crew who during the WWII had
climbed Mt. Hood (11,240') from Timberline Lodge (6,000') every day the
weather was clear to man a lookout to watch for incoming Japanese
bombers. Fortunately, he never spotted any.

[Phil Schuman]

I had the same thread about all this awhile back -
it was interesting that they removed the "camping" stuff,
and added the bike riding, canoeing, and hiking -
I felt the same way - I could not see how our Scouts
had actually "earned" the Camping merit badge
using the new reqs.....
I'm sure this thread will have the same replies
and discussion as before - but it still seems
that the Camping MB has turned into something
very different that related to "camping" -

[S. M. Henning]

Post by Phil Schuman
I had the same thread about all this awhile back -
it was interesting that they removed the "camping" stuff,
and added the bike riding, canoeing, and hiking -
I felt the same way - I could not see how our Scouts
had actually "earned" the Camping merit badge
using the new reqs.....

If you look at the requirements that were changed in 2000, the only ones
that were dropped were building fires in the woods and pooping in the
woods and a couple new things were added:

2) the layout a patrol campsite was replaced by learning Leave No Trace
and the Outdoor Code. This is a good step forward.

5) The clothing section was augmented with a discussion of "layering"
and a requirement to present your pack for inspection before a trip.
Again, good steps forward. Nothing was dropped.

6) The tents section was augmented with learning about water
purification, pack frames and sleeping bags. Again, good steps forward
and nothing was dropped.

8) The section on building fires and latrines was replace with a section
on liquid fuels, and camp stoves. Again this was to bring this section
in line with "Leave No Trace" and the "Outdoor Code." Again, good steps
forward.

9) The only change was that on one campout to hike 1.5 miles in and out
was replaced by doing 2 of the following:
a) hike 4 miles in and out, b) mountain camp, c) bike camp, d) raft
camp, e) rappeling campout, f) conservation project campout.
So actually nothing was dropped and lots of good ideas for fun
activities were added.

Requirements 1), 3), 4), 7), and 10) were not changed at all. So you
see that the only things that were dropped were the requirements of
building fires in the woods and pooping in the woods. That is all. In
some areas of the country, even areas that have mountains, people are
not allowed to build fires or poop in the woods. They have fire bans
and permanent latrines.

The Scouts of today like to do 2 things, the same old stuff and new
stuff. For most of them the same old stuff is traditional camping with
hiking and tents. The new stuff is bike camping, canoe camping,
white-water camping, mountain camping, COPE camping, etc. So Scouting is
trying to raise the bar to provide Scouts the old stuff the like and the
new stuff they want. In case you didn't notice, the old stuff will
satisfy the requirements just fine. The new stuff is electives and fun
ones at that. Let's not take the fun out of Scouting just because it
involves change.

The best way is a balanced amount of tradition and change. It is the
only way we move ahead and not loose our behind (should have said roots)

[Phil Schuman]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by Phil Schuman
I had the same thread about all this awhile back -
it was interesting that they removed the "camping" stuff,
and added the bike riding, canoeing, and hiking -
I felt the same way - I could not see how our Scouts
had actually "earned" the Camping merit badge
using the new reqs.....

If you look at the requirements that were changed in 2000, the only ones
that were dropped were building fires in the woods and pooping in the
2) the layout a patrol campsite was replaced by learning Leave No Trace
and the Outdoor Code. This is a good step forward.
5) The clothing section was augmented with a discussion of "layering"
and a requirement to present your pack for inspection before a trip.
Again, good steps forward. Nothing was dropped.
6) The tents section was augmented with learning about water
purification, pack frames and sleeping bags. Again, good steps forward
and nothing was dropped.
8) The section on building fires and latrines was replace with a section
on liquid fuels, and camp stoves. Again this was to bring this section
in line with "Leave No Trace" and the "Outdoor Code." Again, good steps
forward.
9) The only change was that on one campout to hike 1.5 miles in and out
a) hike 4 miles in and out, b) mountain camp, c) bike camp, d) raft
camp, e) rappeling campout, f) conservation project campout.
So actually nothing was dropped and lots of good ideas for fun
activities were added.
Requirements 1), 3), 4), 7), and 10) were not changed at all. So you
see that the only things that were dropped were the requirements of
building fires in the woods and pooping in the woods. That is all.

In

Post by S. M. Henning
some areas of the country, even areas that have mountains, people are
not allowed to build fires or poop in the woods. They have fire bans
and permanent latrines.
The Scouts of today like to do 2 things, the same old stuff and new
stuff. For most of them the same old stuff is traditional camping with
hiking and tents. The new stuff is bike camping, canoe camping,
white-water camping, mountain camping, COPE camping, etc. So Scouting is
trying to raise the bar to provide Scouts the old stuff the like and the
new stuff they want. In case you didn't notice, the old stuff will
satisfy the requirements just fine. The new stuff is electives and fun
ones at that. Let's not take the fun out of Scouting just because it
involves change.
The best way is a balanced amount of tradition and change. It is the
only way we move ahead and not loose our behind (should have said roots)

good discussion - as before -
and I agree to learn more about the balance of cooking vs nature

My only focus is with regard to the #9 req -
which seems to me, to take the focus off of camping,
and now require a little of the other MB's like
hiking/backpacking
canoeing
cycling
climbing

I'd rather see more of things related to a "campsite"
or wilderness survival vs the other items tossed in #9...
Taking this both ways - why is "camping"
not then part of the other MB's - cycling, climbing, canoeing...

[S. M. Henning]

Post by Phil Schuman
My only focus is with regard to the #9 req -
which seems to me, to take the focus off of camping,
and now require a little of the other MB's like
hiking/backpacking
canoeing

no, it is floating and could be done in rafts, etc.

Post by Phil Schuman
cycling
climbing

no, it is reppeling, coming down, not up.

Phil, 9 requirements focus on camping. 1 requirement says that the
camping must involve some variety. That is the spice of life.

Post by Phil Schuman
I'd rather see more of things related to a "campsite"
or wilderness survival vs the other items tossed in #9...

Now you are defeating your own argument. Wilderness survival is a
different badge where one does not have a tent. It is not camping. It
uses an improvised shelter, not a tent.

Post by Phil Schuman
Taking this both ways - why is "camping"
not then part of the other MB's - cycling, climbing, canoeing...

Because camping is required and the others are not. So a very limited
amount of variety is a requirement for Eagle. All they are saying is
that to get the Camping MB you need to do one different thing besides
just walking with a pack. Just one. That is not emphasis, that is
opening ones eyes to opportunity. If you don't like backpacking, you
can do two different things.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Post by S. M. Henning

Post by Phil Schuman
I had the same thread about all this awhile back -
it was interesting that they removed the "camping" stuff,
and added the bike riding, canoeing, and hiking -
I felt the same way - I could not see how our Scouts
had actually "earned" the Camping merit badge
using the new reqs.....

If you look at the requirements that were changed in 2000, the only ones
that were dropped were building fires in the woods and pooping in the
2) the layout a patrol campsite was replaced by learning Leave No Trace
and the Outdoor Code. This is a good step forward.
5) The clothing section was augmented with a discussion of "layering"
and a requirement to present your pack for inspection before a trip.
Again, good steps forward. Nothing was dropped.
6) The tents section was augmented with learning about water
purification, pack frames and sleeping bags. Again, good steps forward
and nothing was dropped.
8) The section on building fires and latrines was replace with a section
on liquid fuels, and camp stoves. Again this was to bring this section
in line with "Leave No Trace" and the "Outdoor Code." Again, good steps
forward.
9) The only change was that on one campout to hike 1.5 miles in and out
a) hike 4 miles in and out, b) mountain camp, c) bike camp, d) raft
camp, e) rappeling campout, f) conservation project campout.
So actually nothing was dropped and lots of good ideas for fun
activities were added.
Requirements 1), 3), 4), 7), and 10) were not changed at all. So you
see that the only things that were dropped were the requirements of
building fires in the woods and pooping in the woods. That is all. In
some areas of the country, even areas that have mountains, people are
not allowed to build fires or poop in the woods. They have fire bans
and permanent latrines.
The Scouts of today like to do 2 things, the same old stuff and new
stuff. For most of them the same old stuff is traditional camping with
hiking and tents. The new stuff is bike camping, canoe camping,
white-water camping, mountain camping, COPE camping, etc. So Scouting is
trying to raise the bar to provide Scouts the old stuff the like and the
new stuff they want. In case you didn't notice, the old stuff will
satisfy the requirements just fine. The new stuff is electives and fun
ones at that. Let's not take the fun out of Scouting just because it
involves change.
The best way is a balanced amount of tradition and change. It is the
only way we move ahead and not loose our behind (should have said roots)

I certainly wouldn't want a loose behind if they did away with
latrines. 8-)

Hugh

[bainite]

Try www.meritbadge.com. It lists the current requirements only for all merit
badges. Your local scout office should also have a printed book of just the
requirements.

Post by Any Mouse
I'm looking at the requirements for the camping merit badge and I'm
wondering how anyone earns it. Specifically,
"Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet."
I know that this is one of a list of options but isn't a gain of 2,000
a bit extreme?
I live on the east coast and I have to drive about 100 miles before I
can even see 2,000 feet above sea level. So for any of my guys to
gain 2,000 feet, we have to start in Annapolis (Sea Level) and hike to
Western Maryland where we can top out around 2,500 feet.
Looking at the others in this group, it seems that no one in my troop
should have earned the Camping merit badge in at least the past five
years.
=On any of these CAMPING experiences, you must do TWO of the
following,
= Hike up a mountain, gaining at least 2,000 vertical feet.
See above.
= Backpack for at least four miles.
We do that often
= Take a bike trip of at least 15 miles or at least four hours.
Never have we gone biking on a camping excursion.
= Plan and carry out a float trip of at least four hours.
Float trips are always seperate trips with no camping involved.
= Rappel down a rappel route of 30 feet or more.
The only time that any of our guys rappel is at summer camp.