MileHighScouter

Scoutnut re Health & Safety Training: "This course is to be offered to all unit leaders, district staff, and council staff. All leaders should receive this training every two years." It does NOT say "REQUIRED", "MANDATORY", or even "MUST". It states "OFFERED" and "SHOULD", which is BSA speak for it would be nice if they would take it, but we are not forcing it at present. I can understand why they have not made it mandatory..."

What is your point Scoutnut? Unit leaders should not be trained in health or safety. We want to tell everyone that unless BSA writes them a letter and expressly tells them to take it, its not "required."

I think when BSA tells you to take a course, you ought to take it. Of course, some leaders are independent cusses and learned it all back in 1927 and don't need no stink'n train'n. Right?

Any leader that follows that line of reasoning blows his insurance and defense when something bad goes wrong. And in our Council, is probably not a leader.

Health & Safety Training is required every two years.

Unfortunately, if you can cut and paste into these message blocks, I don't know how to do it. If you want a copy, send an email to denver4und@msn.com.

If you get the H&S Syllabus, you will find the following written on the inside cover page:

"All leaders should receive this training every two years....This course is to be conducted in concert with the District/Council Training Plan."

Unfortunately, it is national policy (followed by every council I've heard of) to list only the Training committee trainings when somebody asks "what makes a trained leader". Just like CPR and 1st Aid which are required for all leaders who come in contact with boys, this one is also not listed in those responses.

The relevant book is the "Troop Committee Guidebook" BSA Pub. 34505B

The relevant training is "Troop Committee Challenge", which all committee members are required to have.

The Guidebook says:

Page 9: "How Your Scout Troop Works. The Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster is the adult leader RESPONSIBLE FOR the immage AND PROGRAM of the troop." [NO ONE else decides program; the SM is the final decision maker on program.]

Page 13: "Troop Committee Organization and Responsibilities. The troop committee is the troop;'s board of directors and supports the troop program....The troop committee does the following:...

"ensures quality adult leadership is recruited and TRAINED.

"ADVISES [not directs!] the Scoutmaster on policies relating to Boy Scouting and the chartered organization.

"Suuports the Scoutmaster in working with individual boys and problems that may affect the overall troop program."

Page 14: "Chair [of the Troop Committee] Duties:...

"Organize the committee to see that all functions are DELEGATED, COORDINATED AND COMPLETED." [The CC has NO authority to dictate anything, not policy and definitely not the role of the SM or the Troop program.]

"Maintain a close relationship with the chartered organization representative and the Scoutmaster......"

COMMENTS: I have found that in Scouting many, many, many times the real problem is that nobody really just finds the right book and reads it. Clearly, weasel99, someone should buy the book (its not free) and then at the next committee meeting have the entire committee and the SM go over it and discuss the committee's operations. Also, discuss training and make clear that anyone who doesn't complete training in the next 90 days will be unregistered.

I have found that such a course almost always solves the problem. Good people realize the problem and in good spirit deal with it. Real jerks refuse training. Real, real jerks refuse to listen to the book, and then you can get help from your Unit or District Commissioner [remember them?] to persuade the person they must resign or face a formal challenge before the governing body of the chartered organization.

Either the SM or the Chartered Organiation Rep can bring the matter to the governing board of the CO. Remember, up above, the SM is directly appointed by the CO and answers to it, not the committee. The SM therefore does not report to the COR and cannot be blocked by a gate keeper.

Good luck, jim

The relevant publication is the "Troop Committee Guidebook" Pub.No. 34505B BSA.

The relevant training (required for CC and all Committee Members) is the Troop Committee Challenge. If the CC is not trained, there should be no problem explaining that leaders are required to be trained and if she isn't then she can't be registered or in the position.

The Guidebook explains the system for CC appointment and removal:

Page 9: "How Your Troop Works. The Scoutmaster. The Scoutmaster IS THE ADULT LEADER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMAGE AND PROGRAM OF THE TROOP." The CC never is in charge of deciding program.

Page 7: "The Chartered Organization" "Your Troop is "owned" by a chartered organization, which receives a national charter yearly to use the Scouting program as part of its youth work. ...Each chartered organization ... selects a Scoutmaster, appoints a Troop committee of at least 3 adults, and chooses a chartered organization representative." The Chartered Organization Representative is NOT authorized to remove or appoint UNLESS the chartered organization has delegated that power to him or her (which is usually a really bad idea.)

Page 13: "Troop Committee Organization and Responsibilities. The troop committee is the troop's board of directors and supports the troop program. ... the troop committee does the following: ...

"ensures that quality adult leadership is recruited and TRAINED....

"ADVISES the Scoutmaster on policies relating to Boy Scouting and the chartered organization....

"Supports the SCOUTMASTER in working with individual boys and problems that may affect the entire troop."

Page 14: "Chair [of the Troop Committee]. Duties:...

"Organize the committee to insure that all functions are DELEGATED, COORDINATED AND COMPLETED.

Question was where is the husband/wife rule in GSS?

COMMENT: The rules pertaining to two deep leadership are found at page 1 and page 3. (Other references exist, but pertain to particular activities and don't impact question.)

The idea that husband/wife teams should not be the only adults on outings is not a rule in the GSS; it is contained in the syllabus of the Health & Safety Training Class that ALL registered Scout leadrs are requried to take every two years (it is NOT the same as the Youth Protection Training class). This is probably the class most often neglected when a leader is being trained.

The syllabus suggests that where another adult is available, its best to not use married couples. However, there is no prohibition (probably because there are a lot of small and remote units with limited leadership available).

This is my last post as I'm going to unsubscribe form this hread.

HEY, look at the header it says "Scouter Network". I have no interest in politics or religion, I have an interst in Scouting. There are so many fine blogging threads outside of Scouting -- I wish all those who just want to read their own small-minded, biggotted, insular, hateful crap would go there.

BOY SCOUTS know: "..... to help other people at all times..." and "A Scout is ... helpful, friendly, courteous, kind...." Too bad few posters know those phrases.

Adios, jim

Novice Cubmaster -- Absolutely!

The number of Boy Scous has now dropped to less than 1 million boys -- in a nation of 350 million plus people. Less than half the Boy Scouts attend summer camp. Cubs are doing little better, reporting in at 1.6 million, with less than a third participating in day camp. Venturing is at a quarter million. So, add it up, of the 4.6 million youth members that BSA reports to Congress, only about half are in traditional scouting units. All the rest are in the Exploring/Learning for Life division, which is co-ed and runs mostly after school programs in elementary schools.

We have enough trouble recruiting scouts, keeping them in the units, keeping developers and neighbors from closing scout camps, and all the rest, do we REALLY need to be constantly bringing politics and religion into every darn thing!

This thread started out with a real problem for a unit leader. It then roared off into left field on the pledge of allegience, when religious consciousness occurs, and politics. Yeeessssh.

Remember, in polite company one never discusses religion or politics. Wonder when we forgot that.....

Eagle92, you did a great job with the initial advice. It seemed unclear, from other's comments whether the young man was in treatment for the attempt. If so, great, save the following for next time; but if not, then.....

I vehemently disagree with the comments: "The young man needs professional counseling. No not really." & Calico: "do not recommend counseling".

http://teenadvice.about.com/od/suicidedepression/a/cry4attention_4.htm

http://depression.about.com/od/suicideprevent/a/howhelpsuicidal.htm

http://www.familyfirstaid.org/suicide.html

After 20 years of decline, teen suicide is again on the rise. See http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/11/after_2_decade_decline_teen_su.html

Suicide talk and attempts cannot be treated lightly. Some sources say that as many as 75% of those who discuss or try suicide will eventually suceed.

COMMENT: BSA has a Youth Protection program. If you believe that the Scout is not receiving professional help because mom is (1) unable to deal or cope; (2) didn't take the attempt seriously; or (3) doesn't want to "make it worse." Then I believe you should call social services and report the matter. This young man attempted to reach out to his scout leader. NO BLAME goes to the scout leader, we all get those calls and without an express threat then we deal with sympathy, expression that they should come back when they can, etc. BSA FACT CHECK FOR SUICIDE: http://www.scouting.org/FILESTORE/marketing/pdf/20a.pdf

IS SUICIDE PART OF Youth Protection? Yes. See Comments from Commissioner Service Newsletter re New Venturing Training: "Venturing The Personal Safety Guidelines DVD for this age-level was strengthened by adding a segment on teen suicide prevention and completely revising the material on Internet safety. Scenarios also address acquaintance rape

and sexual harassment."

Also on BSA website: Mental Health/Suicide and Other Youth Issues, speech by US Surgeon General 2005, part on suicide:

"Mental illnesses affect almost every American family. It can occur at any stage of life, from childhood to old age. No community is unaffected by mental illnesses; no school or workplace is untouched.

"Every year, between 5 to 9 percent of American children have a serious emotional disturbance. These figures mean that millions of children are disabled by mental illnesses every year.

"President Bush has said, "Americans must understand and send this message: mental disability is not a scandal -- it is an illness. And like physical illness, it is treatable, especially when the treatment comes early."

"Over the years, science has broadened our knowledge about mental health and illnesses, showing the potential to improve the way in which mental health care is provided. However, despite substantial investments that have enormously increased the scientific knowledge base and have led to developing many effective treatments, many Americans are not benefiting from these investments.

"Suicide is still the third leading cause of death among 15- to 24-year-old Americans. Suicide costs us more than 30,000 lives each year. That's almost one person every 15 minutes. And once every 45 seconds someone else attempts suicide. And even if the life is spared, the heartache and pain is so severe that the spirit may never fully heal. Like so much of the death and disease in our nation, suicide is preventable. It's prevented by understanding and identifying risks and then taking the necessary protective measures. Working together, we can save these lives."

I WOULD SUGGEST that Eagle92 you call the local suicide prevention office in your city or state, there are many and often associated with major hospitals, teaching hospitals, etc. I'd ask what should I do.

I believe that Calico's response was incomplete. I agree with all the privacy and not assigning boy comments, but if she is saying, and I might just be interpreting, to just lump along like normal with just an extra eye out, then I believe that part is just wrong. Every special class I've taken on suicide says that espcially with teenagers it cannot be ignored or not treated. In 2004 suicide was the 5th leading cause of death in the US for young to mid range teens.

Here is the MAYO CLINIC'S DEPRESSION/SUIDE ADVICE from website: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/suicide/MH00058

LOOK especially at the last 4 paragraphs or so of the Mayo article:

"Suicide: What to do when someone is suicidal

When someone you know appears suicidal, you might not know what to do. Learn warning signs, what questions to ask and how to get help.

By Mayo Clinic staff

Hearing someone talk about suicide can be distressful and upsetting. Hearing someone talk about suicide can be distressful and upsetting. You want to help him or her stay safe and get professional treatment. But you may not be sure how to help, whether you should take talk of suicide seriously, or if your intervention might even make the situation worse.

Certainly, not everyone who has thoughts of suicide or talks about suicide actually attempts it. But most people who take their own life have expressed their intention at some time. That's why it's important to take any talk or threat of suicide seriously, especially when someone has depression or another mental disorder, is intoxicated, or is behaving impulsively or recklessly.

While it may not be possible to prevent all suicides, your active involvement may make a difference in saving a life. Learn effective, compassionate ways to intervene and guide someone toward professional help when he or she may be considering suicide.

Know who's at risk of suicide

Understanding who's at a higher risk of suicide can help prevent a tragedy. While you don't necessarily need to constantly monitor someone who's at higher risk, you may be more alert for possible problems. Factors that may increase someone's risk of suicide include:

Previous suicide attempts

Having a psychiatric disorder, such as depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or personality disorders

Alcohol or substance abuse

A family history of mental disorders or substance abuse

A family history of suicide

Family violence, including physical or sexual abuse

Firearms in the home

A significant medical illness, such as cancer or chronic pain

Learn warning signs of suicide

You can't always tell when a loved one or friend is considering suicide. But here are some typical warning signs:

Talking about suicide, including making such statements as "I'm going to kill myself," "I wish I were dead" or "I wish I hadn't been born"

Securing the means to commit suicide, such as getting a gun or stockpiling pills

Withdrawing from social contact and wanting to be left alone

Dramatic mood swings, such as being emotionally high one day and deeply discouraged the next

Being preoccupied with death, dying or violence

Feeling trapped or hopeless about a situation

Increased use of alcohol or drugs

Changing normal routine, including eating or sleeping patterns

Engaging in risky or self-destructive behavior, such as using drugs or driving recklessly

Giving away belongings or getting affairs in order

Saying goodbye to people as if they won't be seen again

Developing personality changes, such as becoming very outgoing after being shy

Also, don't always expect to see warning signs of suicide. Some people keep their thoughts of suicide secret or deny having suicidal intentions even when directly asked. And many who consider or attempt suicide do so when you thought they should be feeling better during what may seem like a recovery from depression, for instance. That's because they may finally muster the emotional energy to take action on their suicidal thoughts.

Ask questions when someone seems suicidal

The best way to find out if someone is considering suicide is to directly but gently ask. Asking them won't give them the idea or push them into doing something self-destructive. To the contrary, your willingness to ask can decrease the risk of suicide by giving them an opportunity to talk about their feelings. If someone denies having suicidal intentions but you're still worried, continue to gently raise the issue.

You can ask open-ended questions about their feelings or specific questions about suicide. Here are examples of questions you can ask someone you're concerned about:

Are you thinking about dying?

Are you thinking about hurting yourself?

Are you thinking about suicide?

Have you thought about how you would do it?

Do you know when you would do it?

Do you have the means to do it?

How are you coping with what's been happening in your life?

Do you ever feel like just giving up?

If a friend or loved one is considering suicide, he or she needs professional help. Remember, it's not your job to become a substitute for a mental health provider. Also, don't tell him or her that you promise not to tell anyone. The safety of your friend or loved one is of the utmost importance. Don't worry about losing a friendship when someone's life is at stake. Besides, carrying a secret like this is a big burden for you emotionally.

Take action through safe, supportive steps

If you believe someone is at imminent risk of suicide or harming himself or herself or has made a suicide attempt, don't leave the person alone. Call 911 or your local emergency services provider right away. If necessary, take the person to a hospital emergency department yourself.

If possible, find out if he or she is under the influence of alcohol or drugs or may have taken an overdose. You may have to remove items that could become weapons of self-destruction, such as guns, knives or pills. But don't put yourself in harm's way by doing so.

If the danger of suicide or self-harm isn't imminent, offer to work together to find appropriate help, and then follow through on your promise. Someone who is suicidal or has severe depression may not have the energy or motivation to find help on their own.

Ways you can help include:

Finding a qualified doctor or mental health provider

Taking him or her to appointments

Sorting through health insurance policies or benefit information

Many types of help and support are available to people considering suicide. If your friend or loved one doesn't want to consult a doctor or mental health provider, suggest finding help from a support group, crisis center, faith community, teacher or other trusted confidante.

There's no way to predict with certainty who will attempt suicide. And although you're not responsible for preventing someone from taking his or her own life, your intervention may help him or her see that other options are available to stay safe and get treatment.

Be supportive and empathetic, not judgmental. Listen to his or her concerns without interruption. Reassure him or her that help is available and that with appropriate treatment he or she can feel better about life again. Don't be patronizing by telling someone that "everything will be OK," that "things could be worse" or that "you have everything to live for."

Direct questioning, supportive listening and gentle but persistent guidance can help you bring hope and appropriate treatment to someone who believes suicide will offer the only relief."

Part IX of the Guide to Safe Scouting has the rules for skating and skate parks. I'd give that section to the PLC or the Patrol to use in their planning.

Tell 'em to go for it.

I worked on this issue for many years as an SM. I came up with 2 rules.

1. All New scouts go in new scout patrols. That's why BSA invented the Troop Guide. New scouts in established patrols leave the troop more often because they are not part of the established group, as younger kids they get ribbed more and end up washing the dishes more, and if they had a good webelos patrol, what is the point of breaking them up? I had several webelos patrols go all the way through the troop to Eagle. Obviouly, many patrols are recombined or shuffled later, but a good newbie patrol with a good troop guide and summer camp in the first year (required in our troop) is a recipe for strong scouts who want to stay around.

2. When patrols get smaller due to attrition or scouts in patrols are looking for a change, the SPL holds a resuffle meeting. The meeting has two rules. The BOYS figure it out without any adult participation, and when its done EVERYONE has to be happy. Sometimes its quick, sometimes it takes a couple of meetings. But I've never had it fail.

My experience with roundtable discussions and training events is that our council runs about 2/3 new scout patrols and about 1/3 leaders assign patrols.

"Until you've walked a mile in his shoes..."

I had a Troop in D.C. 30 boys, 1 white and the rest black (I'm white).

My Troop in Colorado, at the same time, had 1 sikh, 2 muslims, 6 catholics, a bunch of different flavors of protestant, asians, blacks, whites, hispanics.

It takes empathy and work to make everyone feel welcome. You know you've succeeded when the kids stand up for each other (summer camp staff making fun of the sikh).

Meet with the dad and mom, perhaps at their house. Tell them that you are glad they are with your unit because their son will be a real addition to the group.

Ask them to particpate as leaders (several others pointed this out) but also ask them to come to meetings if they don't want to be leaders. I learned a lot about black culture in 4 years in D.C. with my boys. Hopefully your boys will have a chance to learn also.

Look for problems and catch them early. (at that evil summer camp I actually screwed up big time when the camp director was using subtle hints that our Sikh scout was being ostracized by his staff, and I missed it. The boys actually dealt with it in the class.)

Eagle 92, if I came across as preachy, its not intended. My problem with hatchets is that if BSA isn't willing to tell me how to teach it, then I'm not sure I should be trying to do it -- especially with something as dangerous as a hatchet. But I also see the point of teaching all tools. That has its merits. Conservatism is a virtue in my business.

Tomahawks aren't hatchets! They are made and intended to be thrown and therefore aren't woods tools. GSS

One person mentioned being OVERWEIGHT. I'm not sure how many folks know it, but the BSA NATIONAL NEW HEALTH FORMS have been published, the website is http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34605_Letter.pdf

This form is to be required annually (I think) and contains the height-weight limits that have been in the Philmont and Sea Base forms now. The height weight limits now apply to all events: (1) over 72 hours; or (2) med attention is no available within 30 minutes; or (3) strenuous activity such as service projects or work weekends constitute the event. :0

I think that BSA is really trying to force us overweight leaders to get in shape or quit working with units. I guess that's probably good but I hate the prohibition part of their approach. Although about 5 years ago a leader dropped dead on a trail at our summer camp with my guys following right behind, they probably didn't need that.

I would expect to see blood pressure cuffs and scales at summer camp soon, just like at Philmont.

mmHardy wrote: "What's the point of this thread? To Push buttons?"

Well, I thought it might be an opportunity for leaders working with scouts to exchange information and questions about health, safety and training. After the tone of the comments became abusive and belittling, I checked out other places on this website. There is an admin section, with nothing but messages about newbies who leave because of the refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue are receive only crap. So, I don't have any idea what the point is. Apparently, its to make fun of folks for trying.

Hi all,

I think the following items may help the discussion.

When I looked at the Wolf Requirements, here's what I found:

DUTY TO GOD (Page 94)

Complete the Character Connection for Faith

Know. What is "faith"? With your family, discuss some people who have shown their faith - who have shown an inner strength based on their trust in a higher power or cause. Discuss the good qualities of these people.

Commit. Discuss these questions with your family: What problems did these faithful people overcome to follow or practice their beliefs? What challenges might you face in doing your duty to God? Who can help you with these challenges?

Practice. Practice your faith while doing the requirements for "Duty to God."

Talk with your family about what they believe is their duty to God.

Give two ideas on how you can practice or demonstrate your religious beliefs. Choose one and do it.

Find out how you can help your church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or religious fellowship.

Second, here is the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle:

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which a member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership. http://www.scouting.org/media/relationships/manualforchaplainsandaides.aspx

Finally, here is the link to the BSA legal page that talks about the requirement that you have to believe in God to be a member. http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-195.asp

The FAQ part of the page says in its entirety:

Frequently Asked Questions

On this page we will answer the questions most frequently asked about Boy Scouts' legal issues, from its views and policies to individual cases. In the coming days we will add new sections dealing with current and past cases.

Q. Can an individual who states that he does not believe in God be a volunteer Scout leader or member?

A. No. The Scout Oath represents the basic values of Scouting, and it addresses the issue of duty to God before duty to country, others, and self.

Q. Why is duty to God important to Scouting?

A. Since its founding in the United States in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America has had an ongoing commitment to encouraging moral, ethical and spiritual growth. The Boy Scouts of America believes that the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Law are central to Boy Scouts goals.

Q. What harm would come of admitting young people who are unwilling to do their duty to God?

A. The Scout Oath and Law have served as the foundation of Scouting for 94 years. It would be a disservice to over five million youth and adult members of Scouting to allow members to pick and choose among the elements of the Oath or Law.

Q. How does the Boy Scouts of America define religion?

A. Boy Scouts of America is not a religion; it is a nonsectarian association of persons who believe in God. The Declaration of Religious Principle describes God in a broadly interfaith way as the ruling and leading power in the universe to whom we are grateful for favors and blessings.

Q. What religions are involved with Scouting?

A. Virtually every religion is represented in the Boy Scouts of America, from Catholics and Protestants, to the Armenian Church of America and Zoroastrians. The Religious Relationships Committee, which includes over 30 religious groups represented in Scouting, determines whether a religion is an appropriate partner for Scouting, and reviews any duty to God material which is to be used in Scouting for consistency with Boy Scout policies.

Q. What allows the Boy Scouts of America to exclude atheists and agnostics from membership?

A. The Boy Scouts of America is a private membership group. As with any private organization, Boy Scouts retains the constitutional right to establish and maintain standards for membership. Anyone who supports the values of Scouting and meets these standards is welcome to join the organization.

Q. Don't Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists?

A. Boy Scouts of America is one of the most diverse youth groups in the country, serving boys of every ethnicity, religion, and economic circumstance and having programs for older teens of both sexes. That Boy Scouts also has traditional values, like requiring youth to do their "duty to God" and be "morally straight" is nothing to be ashamed of and should not be controversial. No court case has ever held that Boy Scouts discriminates unlawfully, and it is unfortunate here that anyone would characterized Boy Scouts' constitutionally protected right to hold traditional values as "discriminatory." That is just name-calling.

COMMENT: As a CM and SM (12 yrs) I never asked anyone what they believed. I assume that if a scout repeats the oath, then he believes something. In my view a cub scout probably does not have the mental maturity to decide that they are an aethist.

Practical problem: I would suggest that the CM sit down with the parents or guardians, without the scout, and discuss the BSA's policies. This might be a great time for the family to explore their beliefs and what they are teaching their child. I'd give the family a year to figure out what they believe well enough to articulate it.

If they refuse, or are mad, then they'll be leaving. BUT it is crucial that the unit NEVER be seen as kicking someone out over this issue. If you allow that, then you will likely schism the unit, have lots of good folks leave because they don't like discrimination, etc.

I'd involve my district commissioner in the situation asap and get some guidance. I know our council for instance has folks trained to assist in this situation.

Good Luck, jim

Shortridge wrote: "Sorry, but you searched for the wrong word. The modern term is "hand ax," not "hatchet." That term IS included in the G2SS (p. viii, in the age-appropriate activities chart). And the BSA STILL sells hand axes today - two types, in fact."

You were right. I tripled checked. In the older version, the two items were on the same line. Now they are different entries.

Go figure.

However, I can't say I'd change anything I said. Although my trial example might give the SM a chance at winning.

What I don't get is how the GSS can list it in the chart, but ignore it in all text. Not to mention the failure to list it anywhere in any of the other docs I mentioned.

Oh well, again sometimes it seems not to make sense.

jim

Hi guys,

nldscout wrote: Senior Forum I didn't have a question at all, especially since your stating your the expert with all the answers. But I note your "Opinion" on if hatchets shout be allowed. Thanks for the "Opinion", but its not the right answer.

COMMENT: Never said I was an expert, go read the first post.

I'm still right, and now you know why I said what I said about sheath knives above. Never said the BSA didn't sell hatchets. What I said was

1. No mention of Hand Ax, Hand Axe or Hatchet in BSA Handbook.

2. No mention of teaching Hand Ax, Hand Axe or Hatchet in Tot'n Chip Requirements.

3. No mention of the Hand Ax, Hand Axe or Hatchet in the ITOLS syllabus, which is the principal outdoor training materials for all adult Boy Scout leaders.

4. I searched to find a use of hand ax or hatchet. I found that the GSS appendix chart in 2003 said that "Axe, Hand Axe" were approved for Boy Scouts and Venturers. However, the current GSS appendix chart says "Axes" only.

The point I was making was safety. I have no respect for the supply division, after all everthing they buy is now made in China. However, like the sheath knife, the scout stuff folks may sell it, but no one is saying its safe or good or prudent to let your boys have it. Since the GSS is the safety policy I wouldn't want to be the one on the witness stand in the following exchange in the lawsuit over a missing finger on a promising pianist:

Q: So Mr. Scoutmaster, you had a hand ax in the scout trailer and you let the scouts use it whenever they like?

A: Yes.

Q: And on the day in question, Johnny set up the ax yard and used the hand ax and cut off his finger.

A: Yes.

Q: Can you point to a single document, anywhere in scouting, that trained you to train boy scouts to use a hand ax?

A: No.

Q: Can you point to a single document, anywhere in scouting, that trained you to train boy scouts to use a hand ax?

A: No.

Q: Can you point to a single document, anywhere in scouting, that said that it was policy of the BSA to let boys hand axes?

A: No.

Q: But you went ahead and let your scouts play with hand axes?

A: They weren't playing, they were using them!

Q: Ok, so can you point to a single document, anywhere in Scouting that says its ok for boy scouts to use hand axes?

A: No.

Q: So, Mr. Scoutmaster, do you have any explanation at all for the jury about why you let your boys play with hand axes?

A: Yes, the BSA still sells them.

Q: So, Mr. Scoutmaster, your testimony is so long as someone sells a product legally, its suitable for boys to use on campouts?

A: Well, yes.

Then we skip to the closing jury argument:

So, ladies and gentlemen, you heard about the "supervision" provided to Johnnie. He was 11 years old. You heard his teachers say he was another Sergei Rachmaninoff. You heard that his career as a pianist is over - at age 11. You also heard that the Mr. Scoutmaster's idea of safety for boys is "that if its sold then its ok." Yep, that was the quality of supervision on that day, a SM who believes that alcohol, cigarettes, porn are all ok for boys on camp outs, just like playing with hand axes. I submit that there was no real supervision that day, and that Mr. Scoutmaster was grossly negligent in letting the boys under his care play with hand axes.

OK, SO WHAT IS THE POINT? That a bunch of us old farts like hand axes and want to play with them? Or that they are safe? Or that the BSA is sending two different messages: first, BSA stands for Buy Stuff AlltheTime; and second, don't teach or use hand axes.

I never said the BSA always makes sense. But teaching boys and allowing them to use hand axes makes no sense to me as a Scout leader -- and remember, if you are out of policy on the GSS, then the BSA's liability insurance won't defend you.

So, you choose. But that's what this thread is all about. Discussing and airing training and safety issues. I'd say this issue got aired well! thanks all for participating.

jim

By the way, you should contact the ASM and work out with him what he can, and cannot do. SMC's would seem to be out of bounds if he's not around enough to be working with the scouts on a regular basis.

Well, I'm not sure the ASM is the problem, is he?

The dad is the problem. And you can't get a palm without "being active in the troop for x months".

You can require the scout's smc to be with you. You and the troop committee can tell the district that the scout has not completed the requirements.

You can also tell the dad to knock it off.

jim

I guess I'm getting the real problem.

If he's registered, then he's an ASM. If he's not active, that's between him and the SM and Committee.

If the SM lets him to SM conferences, then he can. If not, then not.

They are "Scoutmaster's conferences" The SM decides who does them. When I was an SM, I did them. No one else.

Hi,

There is no age. An adult leader in Boy Scouts must be 18. Once a leader, the adult is able to hold any position. SMC's are the province of the SM. If the SM delegates to ASM's, then its to all or particular ones as he may choose. Age is irrelevant.

jim

Hi The Scout. Must be getting tired, now we are making up facts and changing history. One example says it all. You wrote: "Whose armory was it in Concord? It was one of the Massachusettes Provincial Council formed by the colonists, it was not an imperial one." Huh. Says who? The only "armories" were those erected by public works, which were the crown, throw royal colonial governors. The Brits went to secure THEIR guns, cannon and ESPECIALLY powder. The powder was key, as most folks didn't have that much, like any commodity its expensive. Only the government stock piles enough for war.

"You wrote: "(And maybe take a Constitutional Law class!)" I did that, did you? I got through law school and poli sci in college. Got mostly A's. Also got mostly A's in my history degree. Visited the colonial historic sites. Seen the armories. Read the history.

Our debate is over.

Name calling? Oh, Bushwacker. Ok, I could say AWOLer in Chief. Or perhaps Coke Head In Office. But heck, its clear that I don't respect him, couldn't. He's a crook, a liar and a facist. But that's just my opinion.

As for combat and the cost of war. Well I'm an Army Vet. Missed all the wars in my 20. But I know that if you go to war then you do three things:

1. You tell the people why you are going, and you don't lie about the reason. Vietnam may have been dumb, but the purpose was stated, and when the purpose was rejected by the people, we left. Sadam never had WMD's. He never had anything to do with Al Quaida or the Taliban. Bush ordered his folks to lie to us and to the UN. We fell for it.

2. You commit the troops only when they are properly equipped, led, and have a mission that is possible for troops. The army is not a police force. Its terrible at governing anyone. It doesn't nation-build. It breaks things well. Our troops were sent to war without body armor or armored humvees when those things were available. APCs which are armored and protect against RPGs were never sent to Iraq, they continue to sit in the US and Germany. Our Troops were sent to war led by politicians, not generals. CIA agents ordered soldiers to abuse prisoners and the coward Rumsfeld protected the CIA and court-martialed the soldiers. AND you take care of your wounded. Instead Bush cut VA benefits, VA hospital funding, and told the Reservists that they weren't active duty troops so they didn't get medical benefits. Most are still waiting.

3. And you have to recognize that you have to pay for the war, and you have to decide how you are going to pay for the war. Bush not only didn't care, he simultaneously handed out trillions in tax cuts and handouts to buddies and friends at the same time that he was spending trillions on war. Then he tried to make up the deficit on the backs of the middle class.

By the way, I giggle every time Clinton gets used to try and justify anything that Bush did. Bush will go to his grave with people still talking about his predecessor. What does that say about Bush's legacy. Everything, as far as I see.

Bush's federal spending and size of government were 5 times the size of Clinton's. However, name the last President to authorize, fund and field an entirely new army division? Yep, Clinton.

Even with past spending adjusted upward for inflation, the $630 billion provided for the military in 2007 exceeds the highest annual amounts during the Reagan-era defense buildup, the Vietnam War and the Korean War, combined. And OMG, Reagan WON the Cold War with his buildup.

You want to talk about the fact that Clinton had no war. WRONG. Clinton went to Boznia and Serbia, stopped the genocide, created new nations, helped them start themselves, and withdrew. AND DID NOT HAVE ONE CASULATY FROM COMBAT OPERATIONS. Clinton, of course, had an advantage. He had Colin Powell as the general, and let him have his head, and he didn't have Rumsfeld, meddler and crazy czar of war-ness to run his war into the ground.

By the way, remember when Clinton tried to kill Osama with a cruise missle, and Congress went nuts and told him to stop? There were key Republicans shouting that we couldn't attack another nation without warning and without a declaration of war (they were talking about Afganistan at the time). Clinton was explaining about the Taliban and Al Quaida back then, but Congress was focused on blue dresses -- after all first things first. Remember when Clinton's advisors told Bush and his guys, in writing and in meetings, that Osama was going to attack and they needed to get him first? Remember when Bush and Co ignored Osama and the records, intelligence, and etc. and then 9/11 happened......

I'm a Republican, but my party left office with Reagan and never came back....

Hi Skeptic,

Well, if the BSA has decided to ignore hatchets, and take all mention of them out of all requirements for use of wood tools, then I think the first issue is Scouting use. I see no need, hence no need to allow or teach. A hatchet at the end of the day requires one to get too close to the legs and to put a hand on the work to be struck with the hatchet. That's too dangerous.

I agree, once upon a time, we all lived in houses with fireplaces, etc. But we don't know, and kids don't learn to whack a chicken neck (although wringing is better)or make kindling for the stove or fire.

As for woods tools, no argument I teach them all. Including the Paul Bunyon. That's my favorite trick question, to show the class in ITOLS a double bitted axe, and then ask if its ok to use in the BSA!

jim

Hi, The Scout. I love to debate. But I prefer actual facts when I do. Your statement that the US Constitution does not contain the "right" to declare bankruptcy shows that you do not know your facts. For bankruptcy see Sec. 1, Art. 8. For Alcohol, please see Amendment 21.

You also said: "Who cares if there is blood in the gutters?" I assume you are using the type of argument known as "devil's advocate". We all care. We promised to care. Both in the Oath and the Law.

You also said: "The 2nd Amendment does not say we have the right to bear arms unless their is blood in the gutters." That's right. It also does not say that Congress cannot impose regulation on the right.

You also said: "Your comparison of the bankruptcy clause to the 2nd Amendment shows you have no understanding of either." That, my friend, is an ad hominem attack. Its a personal attack which has nothing to do with the debate. Lets agree that we can debate and still be civil.

I had mentioned that all the stuff that BrentAllen said we would not accept if regulated, were in fact already regulated. Your comment that none of the "rights" were enumerated is off-point. The point is that they are regulated. For your argument that because the Second Amendment is the Constitution it can't be regulated, I would ask you to look at other Constitution rights that are also regulated by statute. You didn't like bankruptcy. Here's more:

The Fourth Amendment which ensures that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

However, the Patriotic Act says that the Feds can now arrest you without a warrant and hold you without notice, right to appeal, or even the right to communicate to anyone. The Act says that the Feds can break into your house at night, take anything they like and bug your house, without a warrant and without notice to you or any court. Where the Act requires warrants it says that no probable cause is necessary. So, my point is that if the Congress can gut the 4th Amendment, why can't it regulate the 2nd?

Another example, the Fifth Amendment. It says

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Well, the Congress and the Supreme Court have said that you cant have a jury in about 20 areas of the law; that military law applies to the military in peacetime as well as wartime; that it is not double jeopardy to try a person for murder in State Court, and if the case is lost, retry the same person in federal court for the same murder; that you have no right to plead the fifth in about 20 areas of the law, even though the answers may incriminate you and be used against you; etc. So again, if Congress can gut the 5th Amendment, why cant it pass laws interpreting or regulating the rights under the 2nd Amendment?

You said: Again, none enumerated rights in the Constituion. Freedom is not voting for representatives who take our freedom away. Well, here our differences are more subtle. Freedom without law is not freedom, its anarchy. The issue is whether a representative democracy, which is what we adopted in the Constitution is better than a direct Democracy in which the people vote on every issue. The Founders didnt adopt the later because they didnt trust, well, you. They trusted the landowners and gentry, not the public.

I had explained that the Patriot Act is nothing but a facist manifesto, providing unstoppable and unlimited powers to the executive without checks and balances, just like the Nazis did when they took over their legislature. You responded by arguing that Roosevelt did worse with Japanese internment camps. Again, apples and tumbleweeds. I agree the internment camps were illegal. The Supreme Court dodged the issue until after the war, then agreed. Just like the Supreme Court dodged the issues on Gitmo until it was clear that Americans didnt like Gitmo and what it stood for, then they agreed.

You said: you have no understanding of histroy. Patriot Act is indistinguishable from Nazi powers? Is this a joke? Try reading the Nazi legislation. Start with the Enabling Act. That one alone will show you that you are wrong.

COMMENT: Ok, lets read them. The following is from the website http://jack-dalton.blogspot.com/2005/06/patriot-act-vs-german-enabling-act.html

and it provides a COMPARISON OF THE NAZI LEGISLATION AND THE PATRIOT ACT:

GERMAN ENABLING ACT: The Decrees of 1933 (a) The February 28 Decree. One of the most repressive acts of the new Nazi government, this one ALLOWED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.... the president was persuaded that the state was in danger and, hence, that the emergency measures embodied in the decree were necessary. Under Article 48 of the constitution, the decree would have been withdrawn once the so-called emergency had passed; any hope of this happening was prevented by the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship following the Enabling Act (see below). IT WAS IN FACT NEVER WITHDRAWN AND REMAINED UNTIL THE END AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NAZI TERROR AGAINST ORDINARY CITIZENS WHO RAN AFOUL OF THE REGIME.

ARTICLE 1: In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48,* of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence, endangering the state: Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the CONSTITUTION OF THE GERMAN REICH ARE SUSPENDED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. THUS, THE RESTRICTIONS ON PERSONAL LIBERTY [114], ON THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION OF OPINION, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS [118], ON THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY AND THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION [124], AND VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF POSTAL TELEGRAPHIC, AND TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS [117], AND WARRANTS FOR HOUSE SEARCHES [115], ORDERS FOR CONFISCATION AS WELL AS RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY [153], ARE ALSO PERMISSIBLE BEYOND THE LEGAL LIMITS OTHERWISE PRESCRIBED.

*Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919: If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, IF NECESSARY, TO INTERVENE WITH THE HELP OF THE ARMED FORCES. TO THIS END HE MAY TEMPORARILY SUSPEND, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 ...........

PATRIOT ACT: 3.. Section 218 AMENDS THE PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIREMENT BEFORE CONDUCTING SECRET SEARCHES OR SURVEILLANCE TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE OF A CRIME;

4.. Sections 215, 218, 358, and 508 will PERMIT LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TO HAVE BROAD ACCESS TO SENSITIVE MENTAL HEALTH, LIBRARY, BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, AND EDUCATIONAL RECORDS DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO STREGTHEN THE PROTECTION OF THESE TYPES OF RECORDS;

5.. Sections 411 and 412 give the Secretary of State broad powers to DESIGNATE DOMESITIC GROUPS AS TERROIST ORGANIZATIONS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POWER TO SUBJECT IMMIGRANTS TO INDEFINITE DETENTION OR DEPORTATION EVEN IF NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED;

and 6.. Sections 507 and 508 IMPOSE A MANDATE ON STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES WHO MUST COLLECT INFORMATION ON STUDENTS THAT MAY OF INTEREST [not use, not necessary, just interest!] TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Please call your Senator and Representative, voice your opposition. For years I have been asked "Why did the German people not act?" Are you acting ? Please do

So, The Scout, you tell me how the two Acts are different? The Patriotic Act, or the essential parts anyway, were drafted during Reagans term by the War Heads a group of men Reagan did not trust and did not like, and whom he refused to appoint to important officeds. He threw the bill away. He called the War Heads unAmerican and scary. Rumsfeld, Cheney and several others in both Bush Administrations were those War Heads. Unfortunately, 9/11 allowed the undercover fascists to jump forward while their fellows were unwilling to actually read the act and oppose something called the Patriot Act.

The Scout, sorry, but I majored in History. The Brown Bess was a British Army weapon, soldiers did not take them after their service, they went to armories. The Bess was a smooth bore musket, useless for anything except massed volleys of fire by massed troops. A Colonist would want to hit his deer or squirrel, that took a rifle, with a rifled bore, not a smooth bore musket. Wikipedia explains about the Bess: The 1785 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, a contemporary work which defined vernacular and slang terms, contained this entry: "Brown Bess: A soldier's firelock. To hug Brown Bess; to carry a fire-lock, or serve as a private soldier." Accuracy of the Brown Bess was, as with most other muskets, poor, primarily due to the lack of sights and the use of undersized military ammunition for ease of loading. The effective range is often quoted as 100 yards (91 m) but was often fired en masse at 50 yards (46 m) to inflict the greatest damage upon the enemy. The combination of large caliber of the projectile, the heavy weight of its lead construction contributed to its low effective range. Military tactics of the period stressed mass volleys and massed bayonet charges, instead of individual marksmanship. The large soft projectile could inflict a great deal of damage when accurate and the great length of the weapon allowed longer reach in bayonet engagements.

Nope, Colonists kept their Besses in the Armory, and their rifles over the door. Yes, Ive heard of the Minutemen, and they have never been defined as having the Brown Bess as their weapon. In fact the sniping attacks that demoralized the British after Concord and Lexington would not have been possible if the Colonists had been carrying the military weapon. See the website http://www.concordma.com/magazine/janfeb02/brownbessmusket.html for a great discussion on misuse of the term Brown Bess and who actually used them.

You said: Remember why the British Army marched to Concord in the first place? To take away the weapons the colonists were storing there! They knew that the best way to keep a people down is to disarm them. EXACTLY, PRECISELY, YOU GOT IT! The weapons they wanted to take away were in the armory at Concord. The Brits needed to grab the armories because thats were the cannon, the military weapons, and the big stores of powder were held by the Colonial governors for their militias. The Brits never tried to disarm the Colonials of all weapons. As the Encarta Encylopedia explains: The Battle of Concord took place during the American Revolution on April 19, 1775. It was the first serious engagement of the revolution, which followed Paul Revere's famous ride warning of a British attack. The battle was fought at Concord, Massachusetts. American minutemen prevented British troops from crossing the bridge over the Concord River to seize the colonists' ammunition and military stores. The British retreated to Boston, harassed by fire from colonial militia.

Facts are good. Ad Hominem attacks are not.

OMG. I echo mmHardy. Sure are short memories out there. Bushwacker took over with a budget surplus, and a deficit lower than Bushwacker's father had left it. The economy was booming and employment was up.

Bushwacker left office after trashing the economy. It was good policy to fight a war off-budget? Give trillions to oil companies for "exploration" while they were reaping record profits? Forgive taxes on both oil companies and Haliburton et al.?

There is no doubt what's wrong with the economy. Its in the same shape was it was, for the same reasons, as when Nixon, a Republican, imposed wage and price controls.

Somebody in this thread said: "According to Dick Morris, the effective new tax rate will be somewhere around 60-62%."

COMMENT: BS. Warren Buffet says BS, and he applauds the efforts to rein in the excesses of the last admin, and he was saying it for the last several years. He has more money than Dick Morris (Who?).

Sombody said: "To me, this has many chilling implications:

-Small businessmen will no longer be willing to invest in entrepreneurial endeavours, thus NOT creating new jobs and "trickle down" cash flow to suppliers."

COMMENT: I own a small business. Do you? Trickle my patootie. I'm paying almost double for health insurance over the last 10 years for my employees, I'm paying more taxes (Bushwackers "cuts" were never cuts every one was an increase for small business and the middle class), and I've got less business because my customers are unemployed and losing their houses. Anything that Obama does can't make it worse.

Somebody said: "-Charitable organizations will struggle and many will die."

COMMENT: Old news. They did, about 7 years ago, right after the Bushwacker took the deduction for charitable deductions out. At the same time turning over the housing of the homeless to the private sector (and don't start on homeless, there are as many women and children homeless in Denver, CO right this minute as men. And not nearly enough shelters.

Somebody said: "-As investors move their money to foreign companies and hard commodities such as gold, the value of US companies will continue to spiral downward, resulting in massive unemployment."

COMMENT: Huh. Apples & quamquats. The stock market crashed due to junk securities, allowed for the first time in US history since the great depression by Bushwacker, who then also cut regulation and oversight out. REsult, quick buck artists -- who then got Bushwacker to give them a trillion dollars in bail outs to line their pockets with. Stocks are in the dumper because the entire world economy has crashed. Most Americans with 401Ks have been in foreign companies for years, companies like GM, Exon and all major oil companies, AIG, Haliburton, Chrysler, Ford,....

Somebody said: "-The construction and real estate markets will evaporate as the advantages of home ownership are stripped away."

COMMENT: where on earth did that come from? Real estate values have been dropping in this country for the last 7 years. Its just started dropping faster recently. It has to do with no jobs and high prices and junk loans. Not "incentives." Incentives my patootie.

SS: "-The continuing international devaluation of the US$ will lead to hyper-inflation and bankrupt the country (let's hope the Chi-Coms keep buying our worthless debt paper)"

COMMENT: read a paper. The Chinese (who by the way manufacture almost everything we buy -- and EVERYTHING the BSA buys and sells, are in a huge financial crises because they invested in US debt. As is the rest of the world. I'd praise Bushwacker for that one, but it was an unintended by product of his desire to let the uberrich use China to avoid regulation of products (lead or melamine anyone?).

ON A POSITIVE NOTE. Those of us with 401ks should be CAREFUL not to sell too quickly. They will come back. When they do, your losses are made up. Sell and the losses are locked in.