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 you may want to consider for summer camp is to have available a handful of clean, dry clothes (especially t-shirts, sweatshirts and socks). This isn't anything you'd have to spend a lot of money on - a couple bucks will get you a dozen pairs of socks at Walmart, and you could probably get a bunch of various sized tshirts and sweatshirts donated from troop families, or even from thrift stores for a few bucks. Having a few pieces of clean, dry clothing helps after one of those "teachable moments" where one of your newer scouts failed to correctly estimate the effectiveness of his waterproof boots, or prepare for sub-optimal rain and temperature conditions.

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 misleading in this discussion.

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 post to you), but I would point out that anecdote is not evidence. I too have some experience working with at-risk youth, both in the Scouting context and outside of it. You said that you have NEVER had a single problem -- I, unfortunately, cannot say that about my own experiences. So, why do you conclude that I am without credibility - because my experience has been different from yours?

Seeing as I agree with you in as far as I think that every youth who wants to be involved in Scouting should be given the opportunity - I just think it might be more beneficial to try to address people's concerns and misconceptions with reason rather than attacks :-)

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 in your troops and crews, but you don't know much squat about the goings on in mine. Chances are there's going to be some widely different squat going on in different people's units. Each person's unique background is going to influence their position on this point.

That said, I'm not so sure about an attitude where we want to preemptively decline to take on or remove a Scout from a troop based only on a suspicion that his "background" might in some way cause him to jeopardize the safety of the rest of the troop. In my opinion, and youth who is committed to actively contributing positively to the troop is welcome. But, should it at some point become clear that the Scout is no longer interested in making positive contributions to the troop, I think that there are circumstances where the troop would be justified in dismissing the Scout.

I very firmly believe that Scouting, despite being a fantastic program in general, is not a very effective "diversion" or "intervention" program. Not every adult is gifted with working with youth who need diversion or intervention, and I doubt that most volunteer Scouters really had that kind of work in mind when they signed up. I guess if you are skilled in that type of work, and think that combining it with Scouting is a good idea, then God speed to you, but just because you have been successful in that area does not mean, ipso facto, that the troop down the road will be as well.

So for me I can't think of very many situations where a Scout's behavior outside the troop would jeopardize his membership in the troop - if the Scout wants to be there, and wants to contribute positively to the troop and to his patrol, then he's always welcome as far as I'm concerned. But once he starts showing otherwise... I guess I'd rather ask the one Scout who's not buying into the program to leave the troop, rather than having several Scouts who do enjoy the program choose to leave on their own.

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 the uniform pants, but were a little heavier material, didn't have the silly velcro pockets, and ended up being more comfortable to wear. They were a little more expensive that what I wanted to pay (I think it came to $45-$50), but they are a huge improvement over what the BSA offers, and are practically visually identical - certainly "close enough" for Venturing uniforming standards. They also look great with both the older and newer Venturing shirts. They could probably even pass for "business casual" as well. I also saw them at REI - I think its actually the "North Face" brand, so they should be easy to find in a lot of places.

Just a recommendation if you're looking for something that could pass as uniform, but is a little more practically made. Also if anyone happens to see something similar at a lower price, I'd love to hear about it - I'd like to pick up a second pair, but I'm not sure I want to shell out another $50 for them...

I also love the previous version of the Venturing pants - they weren't the most comfortable, but they sure held up well in my experience. But I like these new one I found even better.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

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 giving feedback about a product targeted specifically at Scouters. But, for some reason, you couldn't just let a decent discussion continue, or just die out on its own?

Its a shame when mildly bad situations are made worse for no good reason...

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 afford much credibility to an SM that wouldn't want his Scouts to know how to treat sunburn or a twisted ankle as part of the Wilderness Survival MB.

Because I can get no help on this from National Council, I was hoping someone here could help.

Help with what exactly? You have very reasonable expectations of your Scouts, and are not adding to or modifying any of the requirements. The only problem I can see is with making a huge issue out of a non-all-inclusive list of possible injuries that may occur in the course of a given activity. They can make those lists of examples as long as they want, but someone will always be able to come up with some possibility that's not on there. That's why we use humans with the ability to use some common sense and good judgement to counsel Scouts as they work on merit badges...

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 need to get involved over something so small...

Or am I missing your point?

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. The conventional wisdom seems to be that developing a youth-led troop out of an adult-led troop is quite the lengthy process (in reality - yes, I know that if people would just do what GBB and BP suggest, the problem would be solved overnight. But reality, unfortunately, isn't so simple). Wouldn't at least getting to the BSA's minimum recommendations be a good initial goal, and then if the troop wants to diverge from the BSA's formal methods and move to more "traditional" methods, they'll at least have a bit of a foundation to get there?

And there's nothing wrong with including Ethical Choices, Aim, Leadership and Character in Scouting - but I think these theme should supplement a strong outdoors program, not replace a strong outdoors program...

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 opportunity to practice for your upcoming conversations with the COR and CC, if nothing else :-)

If we follow your logic of ALL the legitimate things that could happen we would be paralyzed and never go anywhere.

Nope, if you follow my logic you will take into consideration a set of reasonable risks and contingencies. Which, for all I know, is what the CC is doing, but has just come to a different conclusion than yourself. Be very cautious before trying to rely on reductio ad absurdum.

but in fact they are winging it!

Maybe, but again, not enough information to say for sure. Can I ask how many trips in the troop's history have involved air travel? How many involved only having a single adult with the majority of the crew for one leg of the trip? Is there any real precedent for this situation within your unit?

I have taken an HONEST look at this and much of what you claim is not relevant, surely is.

How so?

Doing anything else makes you a leader that shoots from the hip and then is unable to rationalize the right thing to do.

Yeah, I'm just not buying it. Different activities, which involve different people, different locations and different logistics warrant different standards. Sometimes those standards need to be developed on the fly, without any prior evidence, because the unit has never faced a given situation before. I would imagine the CC has some rationalization for his decision, and wish that I had an opportunity to hear it.

Beav - I agree with what you're saying. This is not a normal situation, and generally people should not be doing the things that rraffalo says they are. But, honestly, something about this particular story just doesn't smell right. In a situation like this, I would expect to see either a pattern of poor seat-of-the-pants decisions by the CC/COR, (which rraffalo gives no indication exists), or some mitigating circumstances that would explain CC/COR's decision (which also haven't been presented). In fact, based on what I can infer from rraffalo's posts, the troop sounds to be generally functional and active. Which is why I'm having a hard time believing that the CC/COR have just all of the sudden, for no reason at all, chosen to take this course of action. I'm just getting a vibe that there are some important pieces of the puzzle that we're not seeing here that could change the whole dynamics of the situation. And I'm just not prepared to jump on the bandwagon and criticise the way the CC/COR is handling a very logistically complex, expensive, high adventure outing that theoretically has been 12-18 months in the making.

Again, rraffalo, I'm not trying to say that you're in the wrong here. I will say that your underlying attitude and goals don't always seem to be aimed correctly, and that your pattern of trying to twist around some perceived legal mumbo-jumbo isn't a particularly good way to achieve your goal. At the same time, though, I'm not prepared support your position without hearing some of the other sides'.

FWIW - my opinion generally isn't even worth the paper that its not being printed on :-)

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 why the CC would want to further limit the chances of something going wrong.

Remember, the CC's job is to assist and serve the process.

The CC's job is to ensure that the troop operates in a way consistent with the BSA's policies, and also with the CO's policies and general vision for Scouting within the organization. His job is NOT to rubber stamp paperwork that meets some minimum requirements, and ignore other applicable policies, as well as good judgement.

But, for some reason he is expecting something he has not demonstrated requiring in the past, and his new, higher standard does not work for me being unemployed.

Again, I can think of plenty legitimate reasons for doing this. And, again with all due respect, but the committee cannot and should not make decisions based on one single adult leader's status in regards to one single trip. I am truly sorry that you are unemployed at the moment, but that's not really high on the list of relevant factors when the troop and the CO determine the standards that this trip should be held too.

Do you always do what higher leaders of yours tell you, even when they are requiring you to do something that is unnecessary and beyond the requirements of the governing body or policy?

It sounds like the CC is enforcing the policies of the CO, your question here is not relevant to the situation. The CO may set higher standards than the BSA, they are well within their right to do this. The fact that you believe that they have not done so before does not mean that they may not do so now.

I still think you need to take a deep breath, and step back, and take an honest look at the situation. Look at what's really relevant. "Well trained" airline pilots and crews helping you supervise your scouts? Not relevant (or accurate). The BSA's non-caravanning policy that you keep mentioning? Not at all relevant to this situation. Auto transportation to summer camp or local campouts? Not relevant. Someone else's council's approval? Not relevant. The fact that you, your wife and your son would prefer that you be on this trip? From the troop's perspective, that's not relevant either. So, before your next conversation with the COR, why don't you take some time to examine their potential legitimate concerns, and be prepared to help address those. There's no need to bring up anything else.

It seems to me at the attitude this far as been to continually gear up for a fight. At first you were preparing for a fight with council, and begging forum members to post their own experiences that you could use as ammunition. But council didn't need to fight with you. So then you want to fight with the CC, but it seems that he's refusing to fight with you. And now you're getting ready to fight with the COR. My advice: stop viewing this as a battle. The troop really shouldn't be viewing you as a parent who wants to accompany your son on this trip - they need to be viewing you as a leader and an advisor who will share responsibility for the entire crew. The CC is charged with ensuring that the best possible leaders oversee the crew at this event, and the CC and CO seem to feel that the best possible leader for this trip is one who will be involved in the entire travel process. Can't say for sure if this is reasonable or not, but they are within their rights to set that standard. I think that if you want to get anywhere with them, you need to stop viewing this as a personal battle that you must win at all costs. Instead, approach it by looking at what is best for the crew as a whole. Show them that the option you presented is better for the whole troop (not just for you, your son or your wife) than the options that they bring up. But, be prepared to honestly evaluate whether their solution is a better option for the whole troop.

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 modelling.

I'm not saying you've been treated fairly in all of this, and I can understand why you're angry, but at some point you're going to have to move on. You can do that however you want, and maybe that means you move on to another unit, but you shouldn't be planning on bringing up the incident for the rest of your Scouting career any time you perceive some inconsistency in the way the troop operates.

We obviously are only hearing one side of the story. We don't know the CC's motivations for sure, but its already been pointed out that there are potentially some VERY GOOD reasons for taking the CC's course of action. Be honest, can you really not see the differences between driving Scouts to a weekend camp out, or even to summer camp, versus a cross-country trip the ultimately ends at a high adventure base? Can you not see why the committee may want to have higher or just different standards for such a major event as compared to a weekend camping trip close to home?

Why doesn't the Boy Scouts have a way to govern such misuse of power by one of its leaders or even a CO?

With out knowing the whole picture, I'm not prepared to stipulate that there's a misuse of power going on here. And, based on the way the Chartered Partner program works (as flawed as it may be), the BSA at the council and national level by necessity has very very limited influence over their Chartered Partners.

I think you're being unreasonable in trying to demand that the troop have identical standards and procedures for routine camp outs versus a high adventure activity that's probably been in the planning phase for the past year or more. I would expect the troop committee to take into consideration the extreme nature of the activity itself, the complicated transportation logistics of getting to and from the activity, and even the personalities and capabilities of the Scouts and leaders participating in the event when approval various parts of the whole event. So, while it is quite possible that you got the short end of the stick in this situation, its NOT clear that there is some abuse of power going on here. I personally like to presume that people are acting with the best of intentions, unless irrefutable evidence suggests otherwise. Thus far, you've shown that the CC might potentially be a little over-cautious in some respects, but have not shown that his actions are entirely unreasonable.(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

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 information presented here, I would personally disagree with the CC's decision in this case, but you can't fault the guy for trying to ensure a safe, smooth trip for his crew, even if BSA insurance will protect his pocket book if something does go wrong...

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 policy or program would be, and identity any specific problems you are trying to solve.

That's what I mean by "in the long run" -- what's the broad vision, or the long term goal for wanting to develop such a program. With out knowing what it is you want to accomplish, how can you judge whether a given canned "E-Chit" program will help you get to where you want to be? Like I said, you're going to hear suggestions from "no electronics, EVER" to "eh, whatever they want," and everything in between. That's why its important for your troop to decide what "a proper use of electronics" means to them - because there is no real official standard to go by.

'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 encourage training. Also, remember to encourage CPR training for the youth members of your units. Cub Scouts may be too young, but from Boy Scout age and up - there's no reason to NOT have them trained in effective CPR.

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 that are not shared between the two courses (which makes sense - youth training and adult training are two very different things). In my council anyway, we do use the powerpoint and video resources from National in NYLT (my feelings on that are for another thread...)

As moosetracker alluded to, NYLT generally doesn't have the same entrenched "sacred" traditions that WB seems to, and NYLT staff typically don't occupy the same elite, elevated status that WB staff seem to have. (I know I'm making some sweeping generalizations here, I'm not trying to cause any offense, but I am just calling it like I see it).

We need to remember that the course isn't about us or for us, it's about the participants and for the participants.

I'm going to disagree a little bit with Eamonn, because I think that NYLT staff stand to gain as much as NYLT participants when participating in NYLT. While I agree that the emphasis should be on providing an excellent training for the participants, I continue to see how our youth and adult staff benefits from the experience of staffing the course. I know that I have.

I won't suggest accepting an invitation to staff one course over the other, but I can tell you that NYLT would still be a valuable experience for you, and I'm sure that your help would be appreciated.

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 blocks.

Don't bring up any real or imaginary liability concerns unless the council brings them up first. If they do, you kind of are stuck with following their rules if you want their approval on the tour plan.

I think it will be helpful to me when I approach council to show how many other troops have done something similar to what I'm suggesting

I honestly doubt it will matter. It would be like going to traffic court and saying that you shouldn't have gotten a speeding ticket because a whole bunch of other people also speed. If the council feels that what you are doing is in violation of the rules, you either need to accept that and adjust your trip plan, or you need to show them that you are not actually in violation of any rules. Saying that a bunch of other troops also violate the rules isn't really relevant, and won't get you anywhere. But I think its probably unlikely that this conversation would ever come up - my guess is that they'll just tell you what they need to see on the form for your situation, and send you on your way.

There are some legitimate concerns about the number of leaders who will be present at various points during the trip. I don't think that there's inherently a youth protection problem, but you do need to be aware of some of the hypotheticals that Beavah mentioned, and weigh whether you want to accept the consequences of those events, should they occur. If you do decide to move forward, just remember to Be Prepared to address those types of situations, should they arise.

Basically, I'd just say to stop stressing over hypothetical worse case scenarios. Just make a phone call to your council office and see what they say, and go from there. No sense in preparing for a major confrontation or conflict when there's no reason to predict that one will occur.