New member- bushcraft qualification advice?

[Springchicken]

It is pretty obvious that experience is the key element to becoming a 'bushcraft instructor'; it is a truth that extends to nearly every area of work. The challenge, then, is to provide a more meaningful qualification system that places greater reliance on accumulated experience over a 'bit of paper' at the end of a week.

Maybe a solution would be to borrow from the climbing and mountaineering bodies. I remember the importance of the log book as I worked my way up to my MIC. Yes, there were a few courses on the way but clocking routes and time in the log book was of paramount importance, particularly when it came to assessment.

It would work well in the bushcraft context, too: you attend a course that would either equip you with new skills or broaden your horizon about the ones that may be required. You are then given your log book, in which you document your outings to the wilderness, with the proviso that you must bushcraft in a variety of different environments - deciduous wood, conifer forest, sea shore, mountain and, say, moorland for the U.K. - in all the different seasons. At the end of the allotted time - how long, I don't know - you return for a week's assessment in summer and another one in winter. Assuming you satisfy the criteria for these assessments, you are duly awarded that (dreaded) 'bit of paper'.

That might - and I stress 'might' - produce better informed 'instructors'. The challenge then is to make them in to effective teachers.

As an MIC, I am not teaching people how to climb or walk or whatever; I am guiding them safely across and up difficult and challenging terrain. This relies on me ensuring that my client is safe at all times and that he/she has an enjoyable day(s) out in the mountain environment.

A bushcraft instructor is teaching a wide range of skills and disseminating a similar range of knowledge. To do this effectively, they need to adopt a range of, occasionally differentiated approaches to ensure that their client feels confident about what they are doing. That, in itself, is challenging as no two people learn in exactly the same way. Experience here can be useful but so is being taught how to teach. Some acquire that skill naturally; for others, it can be a struggle. If you are aiming to run a bushcraft school or business, it is this element of your 'qualification' that will be remembered by your clients. It won't necessarily mean you are a better bushcrafter - just a better teacher.

Having done the course and filled my logbook over a fair period of time, I was awarded my MIC 'bit of paper'. It is only a sheet of processed wood pulp and has no inherent value; however, my logbook is something I still flick through occasionally. Its narrative makes me smile.

 

[Greg]

It is pretty obvious that experience is the key element to becoming a 'bushcraft instructor'; it is a truth that extends to nearly every area of work. The challenge, then, is to provide a more meaningful qualification system that places greater reliance on accumulated experience over a 'bit of paper' at the end of a week.

Maybe a solution would be to borrow from the climbing and mountaineering bodies. I remember the importance of the log book as I worked my way up to my MIC. Yes, there were a few courses on the way but clocking routes and time in the log book was of paramount importance, particularly when it came to assessment.

It would work well in the bushcraft context, too: you attend a course that would either equip you with new skills or broaden your horizon about the ones that may be required. You are then given your log book, in which you document your outings to the wilderness, with the proviso that you must bushcraft in a variety of different environments - deciduous wood, conifer forest, sea shore, mountain and, say, moorland for the U.K. - in all the different seasons. At the end of the allotted time - how long, I don't know - you return for a week's assessment in summer and another one in winter. Assuming you satisfy the criteria for these assessments, you are duly awarded that (dreaded) 'bit of paper'.

That might - and I stress 'might' - produce better informed 'instructors'. The challenge then is to make them in to effective teachers.

As an MIC, I am not teaching people how to climb or walk or whatever; I am guiding them safely across and up difficult and challenging terrain. This relies on me ensuring that my client is safe at all times and that he/she has an enjoyable day(s) out in the mountain environment.

A bushcraft instructor is teaching a wide range of skills and disseminating a similar range of knowledge. To do this effectively, they need to adopt a range of, occasionally differentiated approaches to ensure that their client feels confident about what they are doing. That, in itself, is challenging as no two people learn in exactly the same way. Experience here can be useful but so is being taught how to teach. Some acquire that skill naturally; for others, it can be a struggle. If you are aiming to run a bushcraft school or business, it is this element of your 'qualification' that will be remembered by your clients. It won't necessarily mean you are a better bushcrafter - just a better teacher.

Having done the course and filled my logbook over a fair period of time, I was awarded my MIC 'bit of paper'. It is only a sheet of processed wood pulp and has no inherent value; however, my logbook is something I still flick through occasionally. Its narrative makes me smile.

It is impossible to learn everything that is encompassed within the unmbrella term.of Bushcraft without a lifetimes worth of experience and even then you will still be a student with more to learn.
Who is going to do the assessments? You would need experts from every field and in every environment, experts who themselves don't have that piece of paper to designate them as an assessor.

Qualifications in 'Bushcraft' are quite simply put...Ridiculous!

 

[Springchicken]

It is impossible to learn everything that is encompassed within the unmbrella term.of Bushcraft without a lifetimes worth of experience and even then you will still be a student with more to learn.
Who is going to do the assessments? You would need experts from every field and in every environment, experts who themselves don't have that piece of paper to designate them as an assessor.

Qualifications in 'Bushcraft' are quite simply put...Ridiculous!

I'll grant you that the concept of a 'bushcraft instructor' does present challenges but I have at least offered an imperfect solution that might ameliorate the situation. What would you suggest? It is easy to damn things as they stand but perhaps it might be more constructive to suggest a way to avoid having the paper-bearing incompetents 'teaching' or 'instructing' courses that can be wholly inadequate.

It seems that a lot of bushcraft course providers offer a gateway for folk who are interested in some of the range of skills encompassed by the subject; some clients will continue to pursue their interest after the course, others will not. One thing is certainly true: no 'instructor' worth his or her salt would ever claim to be omniscient when it comes to this vast range range of subjects.

Perhaps we should simply accept that paper-clutching instructors will all have weaknesses or areas which don't engage them as fully as they might but they do know more than the clients who invested their time and money in the course provided.

 

[Toddy]

I always thought that Bushcraft was an umbrella for among the last bastions of capably sane people

It wasn't a tick box list of, 'every effort is a win, deserves a medal', type of mentality, of massaged egos.

I'm still of that mind, but reality says that folks who want to make a business of it need both funding, insurance and clearance by some social authority that says they have checked that person's history and found nothing untoward that would make them unsuitable to teach children, vulnerable adults, etc.,

Even just demonstrating craft stuff in public I need the latter two, and public liability for millions of pounds.

So, whether I like it or not; and honestly, I don't; people look for 'certificates'.

Personally I think they're an easy option for those who don't have much reputation to gain 'credentials', and for some already in the 'Industry' to push since they're the ones who are aiming to profit from providing aforementions certificates...and courses.

I think there are almost two bushcrafts now.

One totally experience led and encouraged and lifelong interest, and one where the certificates (are they like Munro bagging? where too many people rush through them to claim their proficiency, and then have to shamefacedly admit that they can't remember most of them....and then quietly go back and actually enjoy each hill properly ? ) become the goal, not the life, the breadth of season on season, year on year quiet accumulation of skills, of knowledge, of growth.

M

 

[Tengu]

Most degree courses in Archaeology are to make Graduates; not archaeologists.

My course was vocational, and most of my fellow students now work in Heritage.

We were taught loads of different things, but very little archaeology. How to fill out forms. lab work, piblic speak, research, statistical analysis etc.

I work in a museum and oddly they took little note of my back ground; but I did a few months voluntary work with them to show i could do the work, and more importantly, fit.

 

[Toddy]

It used to be said of University Graduates that the degree just proved you were clever enough to do it, and your first employer actually taught you the job.

 

[TLM]

It used to be said of University Graduates that the degree just proved you were clever enough to do it, and your first employer actually taught you the job.

In the same spirit: a university degree is somewhere between 5000-10000 terms, it shows a certain amount of learning ability - in the best case.

I guess there is a little truth in all of those.

 

[Broch]

It used to be said of University Graduates that the degree just proved you were clever enough to do it, and your first employer actually taught you the job.

True to some extent. There's knowledge and the application of knowledge. There's no way I could have done my first job if I hadn't studied and gained the theoretical knowledge beforehand. My first job gave me the opportunity to apply that and consolidate it into practical use. And, in my profession, I had to have a piece of paper that showed I had gained the technical knowledge before anyone would give me a job; and quite rightly.

I think Wilderness Skills and Country Craft Skills (I don't really recognise the overarching term 'Bushcraft' other than for a convenience in speech) fall under the same process except that instead of a piece of paper one needs proof of 'dirt time'. Greg gained that in the forces, other people gain that through years of different experiences. But one certainly doesn't gain that from attending a weekend, or even a week-long, course. All one can gain from that is some snippets of wisdom that make the 'dirt time' more productive in my oppinion.

 

[Greg]

I'll grant you that the concept of a 'bushcraft instructor' does present challenges but I have at least offered an imperfect solution that might ameliorate the situation. What would you suggest? It is easy to damn things as they stand but perhaps it might be more constructive to suggest a way to avoid having the paper-bearing incompetents 'teaching' or 'instructing' courses that can be wholly inadequate.

It seems that a lot of bushcraft course providers offer a gateway for folk who are interested in some of the range of skills encompassed by the subject; some clients will continue to pursue their interest after the course, others will not. One thing is certainly true: no 'instructor' worth his or her salt would ever claim to be omniscient when it comes to this vast range range of subjects.

Perhaps we should simply accept that paper-clutching instructors will all have weaknesses or areas which don't engage them as fully as they might but they do know more than the clients who invested their time and money in

True to some extent. There's knowledge and the application of knowledge. There's no way I could have done my first job if I hadn't studied and gained the theoretical knowledge beforehand. My first job gave me the opportunity to apply that and consolidate it into practical use. And, in my profession, I had to have a piece of paper that showed I had gained the technical knowledge before anyone would give me a job; and quite rightly.

I think Wilderness Skills and Country Craft Skills (I don't really recognise the overarching term 'Bushcraft' other than for a convenience in speech) fall under the same process except that instead of a piece of paper one needs proof of 'dirt time'. Greg gained that in the forces, other people gain that through years of different experiences. But one certainly doesn't gain that from attending a weekend, or even a week-long, course. All one can gain from that is some snippets of wisdom that make the 'dirt time' more productive in my oppinion.

I had several years of 'dirt' time before I joined the Army...the Army gave more opportunities to challenge my knowledge & skills in different environments & climates which I then carried on when I left.
I actually didnt know about bushcraft until I met John Fenna in 2006.

 

[TeeDee]

I think Wilderness Skills and Country Craft Skills (I don't really recognise the overarching term 'Bushcraft' other than for a convenience in speech) fall under the same process except that instead of a piece of paper one needs proof of 'dirt time'. Greg gained that in the forces, other people gain that through years of different experiences. But one certainly doesn't gain that from attending a weekend, or even a week-long, course. All one can gain from that is some snippets of wisdom that make the 'dirt time' more productive in my oppinion.

I do agree with all that has been said in someways - But.. ( and I'm sure Gregg is more than qualified ( in experience ) to teach what he is doing from his resume ) ,, how close to the line the other way would one feel comfortable in accepting instruction from someone with a military background but in actuality has very limited experience of actual wilderness skill / country craft / bushcraft skill sets.

The " I was in the Military " so don't question my authority type mindset I hope has been put top bed.

( Also on the flipside - The " I have a bit of paper stating I'm qualified " ( after a 20-40 hour course ) is as much of a poor justification )

Soldiering and patrolling is a different skill set - so unless its directly aligned with those desired skills its a lot of faith placed in a different skill tree.

Ideally its reputation from happy customers that should be the marking stick. The down side is what you don't know as a newcomer is what you don't know , so how can you gauge or judge ' good/professional' instruction?

IMO

 

[Toddy]

I had several years of 'dirt' time before I joined the Army...the Army gave more opportunities to challenge my knowledge & skills in different environments & climates which I then carried on when I left.
I actually didnt know about bushcraft until I met John Fenna in 2006.

I didn't know it was called Bushcraft until I surfed into the forum over twenty years ago
It was just interesting stuff that took everything from wildlife and wild living to traditional skills using natural resources. At the time I was demonstrating Ethnobotany and working with folks from Historic Scotland to the Countryside Rangers.
The forum was like opening a Christmas stocking; full of good stuff
The folks at the first Scottish meet up introduced me to shinies, and Ray Mears books, and craft skills I didn't have then.

 

[Springchicken]

While out this morning, walking my dogs, I came to the conclusion that pretty much every skills-based profession - law, medicine, mountain guiding, accountancy, architecture and teaching to name but a few - requires that certificate. After that, it is down to the individual to develop, refine and hone their skills to be the best they can be or want to be.

So, the piece of paper is an acknowledgement by whichever governing body - for bushcraft, I suppose it is the NCFE or the IOL - that the holder has satisfied the basic requirements to practise that profession. It is the start of their chosen professional journey, not the end point, neither does it ensure the quality of the instruction given. The individual's success will depend on what experience they accrue and how they utilise it; being a 'reflective practitioner' is the key to ensuring that degree of success.

In light of that, perhaps the certificate does have a value to the individual...?

 

[TeeDee]

In light of that, perhaps the certificate does have a value to the individual...?

I think the question is more - does the method and process for qualifying for the certificate ACTUALLY provide adequate instruction and education.?

There are many parallel situations from Plumbing , Aviation engineering , Tree surgery etc etc etc

 

[Toddy]

Cross posted with TeeDee....meant to reply to earlier ones.

Science students keep a Lab Book, Archaeology students keep a similar one, but more essay work.

I honestly don't think that 'Bushcraft' can be a defined curriculum. Survival training, well yes, but that depends on both the location and the reason, iimmc ?......wilderness wandering is one thing, survival until a serviceman can be rescued is another.

 

[Pattree]

It used to be said of University Graduates that the degree just proved you were clever enough to do it, and your first employer actually taught you the job.

I have heard this so often from employers.

I deeply regretted the merger of universities with the polytechnics but by the time it happened it was too late. Polys were by that time offering Masters Degrees and Universities were attempting vocational training. They’d eroded this specific differences.

When an employer takes on a graduate, they are adding educated new blood to their organisation. The (appropriately selected and utilised) graduate brings new ideas, current thinking and avenues for opportunities and organisational development.

Training the graduate is the employers job. Polytechnics used to function to support training but alas no more.

 

[Broch]

Agreed. When I was recruiting years ago, I would hire university graduates for some roles and purposefully select HNC qualified for others - sometimes that practical mix of education and hands-on fitted better.

 

[Greg]

While out this morning, walking my dogs, I came to the conclusion that pretty much every skills-based profession - law, medicine, mountain guiding, accountancy, architecture and teaching to name but a few - requires that certificate. After that, it is down to the individual to develop, refine and hone their skills to be the best they can be or want to be.

So, the piece of paper is an acknowledgement by whichever governing body - for bushcraft, I suppose it is the NCFE or the IOL - that the holder has satisfied the basic requirements to practise that profession. It is the start of their chosen professional journey, not the end point, neither does it ensure the quality of the instruction given. The individual's success will depend on what experience they accrue and how they utilise it; being a 'reflective practitioner' is the key to ensuring that degree of success.

In light of that, perhaps the certificate does have a value to the individual...?

Difference being..all examination requirements for those professions you mentioned are independently adjudicated by a board of examiners.
NCFE & IOL Bushcraft Quals are adjudicated by the individual provider....who make up their own course prices...there is no external independent examination adjudication by an official regulated governing body!

 

[FerlasDave]

Difference being..all examination requirements for those professions you mentioned are independently adjudicated by a board of examiners.
NCFE & IOL Bushcraft Quals are adjudicated by the individual provider....who make up their own course prices...there is no external independent examination adjudication by an official regulated governing body!

This was the next thing I was going to point out. I’m not sure what qualifies an individual to build a course for NCFE or what hoops you’d need to jump though etc to become a course provider. But perhaps this is something you could do and build your own courses?

 

[Springchicken]

I cannot speak for courses endorsed by the IOL but those associated with the NCFE do have a degree of rigour attached to them.

To have a course validated by the NCFE, the provider has to produce a detailed curriculum and assessment criteria that are scrutinised by the college; then, there is the process of negotiating the details to ensure that what is being proposed satisfies the college's own criteria. These are set necessarily high as the college does not wish to diminish its standing as an endorsement body.

During the running of the course, a member of NCFE staff appeared to supervise proceedings and interview the course participants.

From my experience of the process, I would say that the NCFE ensured the the course was delivered to a high standard. Although the external assessor was not fully 'au fait' with all elements of the syllabus we followed, the questions in the interview about the course provision and delivery were searching and my answers carefully recorded.

Bushcraft, as a concept, will be nigh on impossible to assess for any number of reasons already stated. It is also a relatively new subject area so its assessment and validation is in a nascent stage. If interest in it continues, the bodies appraising it will become better and more fully informed about the myriad elements.

Perhaps the ideal 'instructors course' can never exist but there remain some useful courses out there to inspire people to go on to share some of the delights that come under the bushcraft umbrella.

 

[Falstaff]

I don't see why there cannot exist both recognised and regulated bodies and other un-recognised courses training/experience companies and individuals, as there are in some other industries.

Examples of this are HETAS, GasSafe, and some manufacturing trade associations. There may be several regulated membership bodies potentially competing for members with each other in the same business marketplace.

As distinct from say, CORGI, Institute of Chimney Sweeps (ICS), and others which are un-regulated membership trade associations, with no legally recognised standing or qualification.

Any form of bushcraft business who do not wish to join a legally recognised body can still run their own business, and might join an unrecognised/unregulated say, trade association.
Any suggested qualification, certificate etc. issued by the unregulated business or trade association will not have any legal recognition.

I do understand why some would not accept Greg's experience etc as sufficient. Of their nature, they are very risk averse for fear of losing their own regulated and recognised standing.
If they have no experience or research relating to alternative knowledge routes then they cannot judge their validity and therefore are obliged to say no. This of course calls into question their own skill sets and competence, but could always be honest and say "We don't do "Arctic" not part of our skillset".

Greg - As a risk example, from my own experience and lack of inside knowledge. on say, Arctic training back in your days, did some Ruperts from REME sometimes get an easy pass for political expediency ?
Who might then on discharge potentially claim all sorts of skills and experience they never had in order to build a business or position?
I've certainly known and worked with some of those, usually getting/given management positions and not being competent without a good NCO type to support them. They are a world away from those who've been on the pointy end of things.