KC9DDI

What about if someone puts one of the propane tanks from a lantern in the fire? There's all kinds of avoidable risks in Scouting, and going for a week camping is inherently more risky than staying home. Many risks can be mitigated by proper training and supervision, common sense, and discipline. No need for a blanket ban on anything because of a single occurrence of poor judgement.

Just a general observation about your list - many items seem like something your unit should be doing anyway, for every camp out. Many of your first aid items sound like part of a well-stocked first aid kit, which should be coming with the unit to every camping trip. Sounds like it might also be a good opportunity to re-enforce the importance of personal and/or patrol first aid kits - part of that whole "be prepared" thing :-) Same thing with having a roster of your Scouts - sounds like something that the SPL and SM should have put together for each and every outing. One other thing yo

The council I was previously involved with would provide such forms to registered units upon request. Not going to speculate on the legalities of where the form must come from - but that may be an option for you in this case.

Baden - again, speaking only for myself, I hope that you did not feel attacked by my posts, that wasn't my intention. And I don't think that my words could have been construed as an attack I'm not so interesting in pontificating as I am in trying to figure out the basis of your position. It sounds like quite an accomplishment to work with so many high-risk youth and never have a single problem. So I'm basically just trying to track down the secret to your success, and also trying to figure out why you are questioning my credibility, as I don't believe I've posted anything dishonest or

E61, just like yourself apparently, seems to believe that a high risk youth brings gang members, drugs, booze and who knows what else to the troop and that is just plain untrue nonsense. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't believe that. I'm not sure how you would have gotten that impression from what I posted, but that is definitely not my position. but you are both without any credibility. Speaking to "credibility" -- I don't think you're wrong in your position (though I would be interested to see your answer to some of the questions I asked in my previous pos

if all thew scouts are 100% perfect, then the leaders have nothing to contribute towards the scouts do they? Seems like quite the hypothetical question! How many 100% perfect Scouts have you ever met?

Look at the history of scouting Powell took ALL the boys off the streets of London no matter their backgrounds and under his guidance he had no trouble. Could you share the evidence that led you to this conclusion? After almost 30 years as a scout leader the young men and women who had a troubled past NEVER once caused a problem in any of my troops or crews or EVER put any of the other youth at risk. So once again you don't know squat about what you are talking about. There's no logical connection between your first and second sentences. I don't know squat about the goings on

I have been very unhappy with the current official Venturing uniform pants. After one day of hiking through some moderately tall grass/weeds, I felt every prickle or thorn on every plant through the pants, and also ended up with plenty of frays and pulled stitching in the pants material. I happened to be browsing through a Dicks Sporting Goods and came across pants that appeared to be identical to the uniform pants, just without the Venturing/BSA logos. In the same rack, from the same manufacturer, were a couple of similar styles of pants. I found a style that was almost identical to t

LOL. I'm rude? From a spammer? Well, now, there's this thing about pots and kettles... And there's this other thing about two wrongs and a right... :-) I would think that if the site owners or moderators had a big problem with this thread, they could have taken care of it without your help, Beavah? I can't say for sure what scoutgroove's motivations were when he started this thread, but I have can see no reason to believe he intended to do anything rude, malicious or unethical. Maybe he violated some social norms and unwritten rules around here, but I have no problem reading and g

Fair enough, but I still don't think its a substantial issue. A qualified MB counselor should be familiar with common injuries that can occur in the course of the MB's subject matter, and should verify that the Scouts are familiar with first aid to treat them. A list (that's not all-inclusive) of examples of injuries is provided as a starting point. If someone's trying to tell you that you can expect the Scouts to know first aid for any common ailment that's not on that list of examples, then I'd say that the problem is with them - not with you or with the requirements. I wouldn't affo

I'm not really sure what your question is... Does it have something to do with testing a Scout's knowledge of first aid topics outside of the examples listed in the requirements? If this is the case, I would say you hit the nail on the head - the requirement reads "Show that you know first aid for and how to prevent injuries or illnesses that could occur in the backcountry" and then lists some examples of common injuries. I'm surprised that an SM would nit-pick over something as small as knowledge of first aid for burns and cuts. Not sure why your council or National would want or

Maybe that's just a "bug" with the ScoutStuff website, and they're actually not restricted if you buy them in a brick-and-mortar scout shop? Actually my council's store gives them out for free to whoever asks for them....

Despite all the advice you are getting about training being the answer, most "Scoutmaster Specific," "Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills," Wood Badge, and NYLT courses are built on "First Year Program" outdoor skills. The idea is that the "purpose" of Scouting is "Ethical Choices," or "The Three Aims," or "Leadership and Character," not what Baden-Powell or Green Bar Bill called "Real" Scouting. Not disagreeing with you Kudu, but would some of these training courses at least be a step in the right direction? Because it sounds like the troop isn't even at the "First Year Program" level

rraffalo - I'm really just trying to play the devil's advocate. I've seen where a very one-sided account of events gets presented here, and everyone jumps on the same bandwagon, only to later learn one crucial piece of information that completely changes the whole picture. Personally, based only on the info presented here, I would say that I disagree with your CC's course of action. But I'm not prepared to judge the guy without knowing his side of the story. As I've said, I think there are some legitimate concerns that could justify the CC's course of action Look at it as an opportuni

rraffalo - With all due respect, I still seem to think you're missing the point. Sure, air travel is safer than automobile travel by certain metrics. But I don't think the two-deep policy is targetted towards potential airliner or automobile crashes. I think its instead targetted at the numerous other complications that can occur as part of air travel - delayed flights, diverted flights, lost luggage, etc. Yes, you're planning on having 2-deep coverage at both gates, but you can't guarantee that you will. And with something as high-stakes and high-cost as a sea base trip, I can understand

What would you do if you were me if in the future you saw one of your Troop leaders traveling alone in a vehicle with several scouts? Why would you want to go out of your way to make trouble? There's nothing in BSA policies that would prevent this, and apparently your CO allows it as well. And there's no real safety issue. So, really, what would you gain? All you'd be doing is trying to twist some pseudo-legalese that you perceive exists because of one specific event and basically just using it to annoy people. Which doesn't seem like the kind of behavior a Scout leader should be mod

BS-87, as a Wikipedia editor might say: [Citation Needed].

When reading news reports yeh have to distinguish between a judgment and a payer. That is an important distinction, but I think that some people might prefer to take actions that will limit the chances of them appearing before a court in the first place, regardless of who's ultimately going to foot the bill. Having insurance shouldn't be viewed as having permission to act irresponsibly. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the CC's general thought process in this case (even if he hasn't thought through all the legal nuances that have been explored in this thread). Based on the infor

red feather - You might first guide your PLC to come to a consensus on what constitutes "the proper usage of electronic devices in the scouting venue." Some may say that electronics are never appropriate while Scout camping, some may make exceptions for special occasions, some may say certain devices may be used for emergencies only, others may be OK with allowing electronics with few restrictions. I think that the first step needs to be for you and your PLC to develop a vision in a broad sense of how your troop should view electronics, identity some general goals pertaining to what a good p

've had to remediate a lot more folks on the written test than before the changes. This is actually a good thing! It means that people are being made to learn the new method, whose effectiveness is strongly supported by concrete evidence. Scoutfish - keep up the good work! As more and more people become trained in effective CPR, hopefully we'll see a nationwide trend of improved survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Evidence already shows the importance of having a a large portion of the population trained, so it would be great to see more Scout units and other organizations

I have to agree with BDPT00. I'm skeptical of the "Uniform Police" as much as anyone else, but I also think its important that those on the training staff do not knowingly give out incorrect information. I personally don't get too fussed up when a given uniform isn't quite to specification, but there is in fact a correct way to wear the uniform, and I don't think training courses should deliberately encourage incorrect uniforming.

I'm not sure what your aiming for in the long run? Selectively giving Scouts permission to use iPods/laptops/etc at Scouting events? Or something else?

moosetracker - I'm not sure I see the connection. It had been my understanding that WB, like NYLT, was narrowly focused on developing unit-level (pack, troop, crew) leaders, rather than district or council-level leaders...

I'm a long time NYLT staffer, but have no exposure to WB. In my council, the NYLT staff is almost entirely youth. We have adults serving only as SMs and ASMs. We actually run two troops simultaneously in one course, so we have a few more adults in administrative roles - but all of the other staff are youth who have previously completed NYLT as participants. It is, in fact, a youth-led operation, and we try to model an ideal Scouting unit by truly letting the youth take the reigns. NYLT does use the same general course material as WB, but as I understand it there are some elements

It sounds like there's a lot of mountains being made from molehills, by all parties involved. Here's what I would do: Call the council office, explain that you are a unit leader with a question about a tour plan, and ask to speak with someone who can address it. Explain your situation to that person, and phrase the question as "How should we fill out the paperwork for this situation?". Fill out the paperwork accordingly, inform the CC that so-and-so at the council office explained that this is how it needs to be done, and take it up with the COR if the CC is still putting up road block