Re: Scout drowning at camp in Oregon
Jon R. Smith (jrsmith@GTE.NET)
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 20:22:21 -0400
This is truly a tragic event. My prayers go out to his family,
especially the boy's father as, according to news article cited, he was
at the waterfront area during the swim.
But I'd like to address two things. The news article, as found at the
web site mentioned, said, "The boy's body was recovered by Lane County
sheriff's divers in 17 feet of water about six hours after he slipped
beneath the surface." My reading of the new 1998 Guide to Safe
Scouting states "Swimming is not permitted in water over 12 feet
deep..." Allowing swimming in 17 feet of water probably did not
contribute to the boy's drowning but it may have contributed to the
length of time it took to recover his body.
The second thing is that the article states, "John Miller, Lane County
Search and Rescue coordinator, said visibility in the water was no more
than a foot and divers had to search the bottom by feel, using a grid
pattern. They found the body about 220 yards offshore." Again, my
reading of the GSS states, "Swimming is not permitted...in turbid water
where poor visibility and depth would interfere with emergency
recognition or prompt rescue..." So, is an approximately one foot
visibility turbid or not? Earlier in the GSS, when talking about
diving, it states, "Be sure that clear-water depth is at least 7 feet
before allowing anyone to dive into the water." Could this possibly be
the BSA definition of "turbid"?
One has to wonder, assuming the article is factually correct, could a
successful rescue have been effected if the BSA swimming-area
parameters were followed.
To be complete in this, I have to say that the GSS states, "Bold type
denotes BSA rules and policies." The only information that is bolded
in the GSS relevant to the points I raised, and using facts from the
article, is, in detailing the swimming areas for the three BSA
categories of swimmers, a statement that the third area should be "deep
water not more than 12 feet for swimmers." I assume the "turbid"
preclusion is only a guideline that leaves the reader to define it
him/herself.
YIS, Jon Smith, Valrico (Tampa), FL
P.S. If you haven't read the new GSS, I recommend you do.
In looking at the 1996 edition, the guideline about turbid water is not
present.
The 1998 edition is a revision and not a more current printing of a
previous edition.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City |
