This is one of the reasons that I am glad I was a Scout and spent a lot of time in the backcountry.

I grew up thinking that this is how everybody grows up, but having lived in several major world cities, it has never ceased to amaze me how few city-folk know any fundamental outdoor skills.

Selecting a campsite, leaving no trace when you leave, water purification and management, building and containing campfires, land navigation with a map and compass, how to safely use a rifle, knife use and maintenance, first aid... I learned all of these as a kid.

Spending that time "roughing it" really helps you appreciate the benefits of both preserving nature, as well as the wonders of modern civilization. It also builds some serious self-reliance skills, which have served me well in life.

Maybe we need a program similar to Scouting, but for adults that have lived all of their lives in or around cities? Would help to bridge the urban-rural divide in both directions. Does such a thing exist?

There are two good options for this, NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School) and Outward Bound. I went on an Outward Bound expedition where we kayaked for several days on Lake Superior, and I have a number of friends involved with NOLS. NOLS and Outward Bound are similar; they both teach outdoor skills in a group setting. Outward Bound has a little more emphasis on group dynamics, but they're both great programs and they offer a wide variety of courses in beautiful locations.

NOLS: http://www.nols.edu/

Outward Bound: http://www.outwardbound.org/

The Boy Scouts of America currently can't be supported by me no matter their merits because of their stances on gays and the non-religious.

I also don't support sex segregation in scouting.

Keep the BSofA for the people who want that sort of thing but let's support inclusive scouting organizations as well.

I am an Eagle scout who was openly an atheist while going through the program. A lot of this depends on your local leadership; the national organization stays out of it.

The program is a great program as noted above, for all its flaws. If you have a child interested, you can have a huge effect on the local program simply by becoming involved.

I would probably feel out the group first if you intend to do this, it wasn't a pleasant experience at the time.

Sorry but joining an organization that is openly exclusive to you and your values then trying to change it to be inclusive to you and change their core values seems very wrong. Having your child being an unwelcome outsider during your personal crusade. why not join, create, and support alternative scouting organizations that welcome you and your values?

But I do seem to meet a large number of young adults that could benefit from a similar experience to Scouting, in terms of learning valuable life skills, building self-confidence, and as a way of broadening their experience outside of urban life.

Lord Baden-Powell as he was or a hypothetical version of him with modern morality applied?

"No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have a religion....Religion seems a very simple thing: First: Love and Serve God. Second: Love and serve your neighbour." - from Scouting for Boys. And, generally, he seemed to consider that pretty important.

I'm not making any argument about what the Boy Scouts should or shouldn't do, but rather responding to the statement that Lord Baden-Powell would be disappointed by it or parts of it rejecting atheists, which is clearly false.

Things like

>Selecting a campsite, leaving no trace when you leave, water purification and management, building and containing campfires, land navigation with a map and compass, how to safely use a rifle, knife use and maintenance, first aid... I learned all of these as a kid.

I suppose.

Sorry, this goes against my core beliefs and I couldn't perosnally support or send a child to such an organization no matter what their other merits may be.

http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/11/02/beginning-next-y...

I was a boy scout in the Bay Area and we had openly gay scouts and almost all of the kids and parents were atheist.

From my link above:

>What’s new is that beginning Jan. 1, 2016, every rank from Tenderfoot to Eagle Scout (plus Eagle Scout palms) will include a “duty to God” requirement

I'm not aware of any perfect scouting-like groups nor of any imperfect ones that, all things included, would be better for my own boys than the scouting group across the street.

I don't have to take umbrage at everything that has some relationship to something I don't agree with. I guess there is more that one kind of "inclusiveness".

Hopefully this isn't too political, but I will try and answer your question.

Part of self-reliance is the ability to make your environment safe. This is why you learn first-aid, CPR, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to properly use a knife, etc.

In the United States, there are more firearms then people. This trend shows no signs of stopping any time in the near future.

Statistically speaking, in a group that focuses on outdoor activities and self-reliance, there will be multiple gun owners. Some will probably have concealed weapons permits.

Taking a gun into the wilderness is a sensible precaution. There are any number of dangerous critters, especially the ones with rabies.

While in the backcountry, you will also run into other people that are armed.

Our hypothetical non-gun-person is therefore going to be around guns.

Guns are dangerous.

Not knowing how to safely handle a gun makes non-gun people potentially dangerous to both themselves, and other people.

The responsible thing is therefore to learn how to safely handle a weapon, including how to unload and clear it.

They don't need to ever buy one, own one, or even like guns.

But knowing gun safety is right up there with knowing CPR.

You don't learn CPR by reading a book. You do it by practicing in a controlled environment.

Same for gun safety.

It just seems so much easier to just avoid wildlife in most places.

I've hiked in probably 30 of the 50 states, and have met a very small number of people openly carrying guns of any sort (maybe some had concealed pistols for defense against people; that's a reasonably common thing, and there's a permit for concealed carry in most states).

    There is a non-trivial portion of the population
    that feels encryption only exists to hide illegal
    activity. How would you convince them to use a VPN?

So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response:

Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale.

Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.

If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups.

Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers.

And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.

This is not true, and you should not allow someone to get away with statements like these. The Paris attackers made extensive use of unencrypted burner phones. Far from supporting it, this actually deals a fatal blow to the idea that terrorists could be stopped, if it weren't for that pesky encryption. They demonstrably can't.

I'm frightened that, as a meme, "paris attacks demonstrate the need to weaken encryption" actually got off the ground. It demonstrates the power of government propaganda is sufficient to completely invert the lessons of an event to suit them.

As a non-american scout my experience includes all the same things, except the shooting.

Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles.

They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.

We want to have certain things, and once you have accumulated the resources to get them, you can purchase them.

But I'll note that part of the reason the gun debate is so poisonous is advocates that are unwilling to draw a distinction between the use of guns against animals and the use of guns against humans - regarding any distinction between different types of guns or contexts of ownership as heretical.

"There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people."

I find it odd that you say people think rifles only exist to kill people. Pistols are used in the vast majority of shootings, and rifles in the vast majority of sport uses.

For what it's worth, there is also a non-trivial portion of the population that feels that confidence with weapons is an integral part of the American individualist spirit.

You are asking how do we convince people who refuse to use guns how to learn how to use guns safely...

Maybe you could just let them not use guns?

In our local area we have several drownings a year, tourists who don't understand the power of the ocean. That and people falling off cliffs. Our education system (UK) is very out of touch with nature. Very few students get to swim in the ocean, climb a cliff, light a fire or camp out in the woods.

The UK isn't big but I don't think you can generalise here because my experience is very different. Scout groups seem very popular (so popular it's really difficult to get your kid a place in one), schools offer the optional Duke of Edinburgh award which teaches camping/orienteering and is pretty popular, and in the UK a hell of a lot of people live pretty close to the ocean and know how to use it safely (surfing is very popular in Ireland and south cost of England/Welsh coast). When I was younger my friends and I would go camping a few times a year as did many other groups of friends (the reason was mostly so we could get drunk without getting caught but still we hiked 12 hours to get there, figured out how to cook, get water, build a fire, pitch tents etc.).

On the other hand I've been pretty shocked this Summer that every sunny weekend it seems half a dozen people get killed in the ocean here. I'm only in my mid-20's but maybe the education system has been lacking in recent years to cause this? Or is it maybe that kids don't play outdoors very much anymore so don't have an easy way to learn and practice the skills? In the 90's video games were just hitting/becoming affordable so we could build huts in fields, play football everyday, ride bikes, play on building sites, camp several times a year. Looking at younger family members they don't do any of these things. Maybe it's not education but lack of practice. Schools can teach you how to swim but if you never actually go to the ocean or a pool after learning you're going to be out of practice when you go and try to swim in the ocean in the summer.

Don't forget the Cadet organizations too e.g. https://armycadets.com

National Outdoor Leadership School perhaps?

Hiking: you're doing it wrong. Seriously, if you don't have to at least pee outdoors, it's not a hike.

While I love to hike, including way off the beaten path, it's worth recognizing that not everyone is able-bodied enough to take advantage of those aspects of our parks. So, it's totally cool that National Parks provide a means for folks with limited mobility to safely see some of our nation's most beautiful places. And, it's a valid reason to visit the obvious parks rather than going off on your own in lonely places.

National Forest land too. I grew up as the child of a federal employee in rural eastern Oregon, and I got a solid taste for "I can ride my dirt bike 50 miles in any direction and do whatever I want." Sadly, where I live now, I need to carry three different parking passes in my car depending on where I want to go hiking on the weekend, and somehow the $50K I pay in taxes every year can't absorb the fees of these things - I need to remember to go prostrate myself at each office every year to get them...

Please don't let this stop you. It's like people saying they can't go hiking because they can't afford "hiking boots". Whatever shoes you already wear every day are fine enough to get out there to start!

Throw a tent, a little stove and a box of food in your car and get out there. Maybe stick closer to bigger roads to start so you can always walk back if you car breaks down, but please get out there!

You'll figure out how to put your tent up after a few tries, and as long as you've got some food and water, you'll be fine.

Food, water and shelter aren't enough for camping. You also need: flashlight with spare batteries, a map of the surrounding region, a compass, extra clothing, sun protection and a first-aid kit. It's also a good idea to know where the nearest ranger station is so that you can haul ass there in case of an emergency.

You're discouraging people from even starting. They don't need all that gear and experience to get out and try it - in all honsety their first night will be just off a road next to their car - are they really going to get in trouble from not having a flashlight and map and compass? Just sleep in the car.

> the Mohave (where I backpacked/camped/rock-climbed for seven years) has 18 species of rattlesnakes, and one of those is the Mohave rattlesnake, which carries one of the most lethal rattlesnake venoms in the world.

Awesome! how many times did you see one? How many times were you in danger of being bitten? Quoting facts like that doesn't help teach people the realities of camping. Chances are the vast majority of people will never see one.

For reference, I'm from Australia, and lived in the Yukon for 4 years, hiking, camping and canoeing all over remote Yukon and Alaska. I've been face to face with bears about 10 times, seen tons of deadly snakes, waded across waist deep glacier melt rivers, etc. etc. I camped most nights from Alaska to Argentina, and now I'm camping my way around Africa. I've hiked many of the worlds most famous multi-day hiking trips. I've spent something like 1000 nights in a tent in my life.

Stop discouraging people from trying. Soon you'll be telling people they can't try swimming without buying goggles, they can't try golf without buying clubs and thousands of dollars of lessons from a pro, and they can't learn to drive without buying their own $30k car.

Encourage people to try something new. They don't have to start out in a store - they have to start out doing.

  are they really going to get in trouble from not having a flashlight and map and compass?

It's true to say that many routes wouldn't need that equipment, but many routes would be dangerous without it.

Asking people who, in this context, have little or no experience with outdoor trekking, to appropriately identify the necessary clothing, footwear, or safety equipment for a hike, is inviting accidents.

Mountain Rescue regularly picks up people from Snowden who are lacking the appropriate kit, such as hikers attempting it in winter wearing shorts and trainers [1].

I am fully in favour of encouraging people to "get out there and do it", but with appropriate guidance: advice from an outdoor shop, a rambling guidebook, a knowledgable friend…something that can steer them towards an activity that's appropriate for their fitness level, experience, and equipment.

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578247/Foolish-walk...

In addition, the assumption is that you're camping in an area where the area itself is inhospitable to life. There's a ton of camping and hiking opportunities on the east coast, and unless you break a leg or something, you can pretty much just pick a direction and walk ten miles and end up in somebody's back yard.

You should be able to walk through the woods for a few hours without having to gear up at the local outdoor's shop.

(Of course, that's not to say that there isn't a lot of damned good reasons to tool up, or that folks don't get dead even on the east coast. There's just a level of awareness that's involved in being outside that shouldn't come as a surprise to most. Our species is bred to be outdoors. Take it slow. Pay attention. It'll work out.)

No, I'm discouraging people from starting unprepared. Big difference.

>>Awesome! how many times did you see one? How many times were you in danger of being bitten?

I personally saw one maybe a dozen times. Camping mate got bitten by one because he didn't see it. He woke up at night, got outside the tent to take a piss and in the dark stepped on one. Within 30 minutes he was vomiting and foaming at the mouth, and had started losing sensation in the leg he was bitten in. The only reason he's alive today is because we remained calm, applied first aid and were able to rush him to a nearby hospital.

This happens to people rarely. But the point is that it can be fatal for someone who isn't prepared to handle the situation. In general, thousands of people die every year in the USA because they underestimate nature, don't understand the risks of the adventures they undertake and don't prepare accordingly.

Besides, think about it this way: if someone starts out unprepared and has a shitty experience as a result (e.g. they forgot to bring extra clothing and couldn't sleep at night because it was cold), they are unlikely to try again. Being prepared helps them enjoy the activity more, which in turn makes it more likely that they will do it more.

People absolutely should try, and the price of entry is really tiny, but the price of getting it wrong can be fatal. What's also possible is people simply being unnecessarily uncomfortable due to a lack of preparation and then never doing it again.

Heck, I had the latter experience myself: I'd been camping as a kid and got training at school and all that, but the first time I did it as an adult after a gap of ten years I was uncomfortable because I'd forgotten that nights are cold in summer.

Oh please, give it a rest.

We're talking about driving down a road with a car and camping near it for a night or two. Maybe going for a short walk. Like, you know, walking to the store. To say that the consequences of doing that can be fatal is exactly the same insane hyperbole as saying choking on lettuce can be fatal.

Yes, both can. The chances are remotely slim, and you shouldn't scare people off by mentioning it constantly.

As an experienced wilderness traveler, I consider teaching people about the potential risks to be the responsible thing to do. It might scare them off but that's better than them getting hurt or worse.

Besides, in my opinion being aware of the risks, no matter how minor, is considerably less scary than not being aware of them. People who are prepared will be more at ease and as a result they will enjoy the activity more. We are not talking about taking a six-month course on wilderness survival. We're talking about having some basic knowledge and equipment, neither of which is expensive or time-consuming to acquire.

Food, water, and shelter are plenty for car camping in most places.

Car camping in Death Valley in August? Or in the Colorado mountains in January? Of course not.

Know the environment, have some lighting, and go on. You're not wrong, but you're overselling the danger. Common sense and a general awareness of the climate will be enough to make a judgement on safety.

The most important thing about being out in the wilderness is this: it's better to be over-prepared than under-prepared. This holds true regardless of experience level.

It's true that car camping is considerably safer. But, in my opinion, making sure you have the "ten essentials" I listed is about forming the right habits. You may not need the extra shelter since you can sleep in your car, but when you decide to upgrade to tent-camping, you'll know to bring some with you.