shortridge

Beavah, My definition of a "policy document" is "a document that contains policies." What's yours, exactly? Again, no one has claimed that the G2SS is the final word in safety rules. But to say that it's not a "policy document," just because it's not written like a piece of legalistic mumbo-jumbo, only gives ammunition to the people here who seem hell-bent on discrediting the entire thing because they don't like what it says about sheath knives or campfires or what-have-you.

Sorry in advance for the length of this post. BadenP wrote: "... as to your question is the G2SS official or not I do not recall a statement in the book in the preface or introduction, or anywhere that unequivocally states that these are the official policies, rules, and regulations of the BSA and must be followed exactly as written at all times for all scouting events. ... I am sure that there are a few in here that will try to make the opposite case, however the book does not carry the imprimatur of the CSE or the Official seal of the BSA." Beavah wrote: "The Guide to Safe Scouting for Unit Activities is one piece of program literature. It ain't a policy document, nor is it a "primary" resource that supersedes others." Okay, fellas. Maybe I'm just stupid. Maybe my reading comprehension skills are dulled today. But what is so bleeping hard to understand about the G2SS? It does contain policies - not all of them, but some of them. It is an official BSA document. Why do both of you say otherwise? Here's the actual introduction to the G2SS, which spells it out sufficiently for my purposes. Boldface type is my own, added for emphasis. ============================= The purpose of the Guide to Safe Scouting is to prepare members of the Boy Scouts of America to conduct Scouting activities in a safe and prudent manner. The policies and guidelines have been established because of the real need to protect members from known hazards that have been identified through 100 years of experience. Limitations on certain activities should not be viewed as stumbling blocks; rather, policies and guidelines are best described as stepping-stones toward safe and enjoyable adventures. All participants in official Scouting activities should become familiar with the Guide to Safe Scouting and be aware of state or local government regulations that supersede Boy Scouts of America policies and guidelines. The Guide to Safe Scouting provides an overview of Scouting policies and procedures rather than comprehensive, standalone documentation. For some items, the policy statements are complete. Unit leaders are expected to review the additional reference material cited prior to conducting such activities. In situations not specifically covered in this guide, activity planners should evaluate the risk or potential risk of harm, and respond with action plans based on common sense, community standards, the Boy Scout motto, and safety policies and practices commonly prescribed for the activity by experienced providers and practitioners. ============================= Again: Simple. The G2SS makes no claim to being the be-all and end-all of Scouting safety rules or guidelines. Nor does it state that everything written in its pages must be followed at all times - some items are policies, some are guidelines. That is straightforward enough for me. I can't even understand why this thread was started, unless I missed OGE's subtle sarcasm.

For temporary relief of AE, wear all of your pins on your uniform hat. Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!

If all these boys are in the same patrol, one solution is to separate patrols in individual campsites. Each patrol would be responsible for everything on its own - setup, cooking, cleanup, campfires, whatever. No division of labor - just total division. If they don't want to work, they then have to deal with the consequences. Cold food? Miss the hike because they took too long cleaning up at lunch? Tents packed away wet? The rest of the troop doesn't have to suffer. And the slackers will soon be embarassed into getting better. Nothing like peer pressure ...

What we need are biodegradable water balloons, so you don't have to walk around the water wars field picking up bits & pieces for months afterwards. Anyone here a scientist?

Boy, we love dissecting the language, don't we? Unauthorized: "not having official permission," according to the World English Dictionary. No matter if you think it's stupid or not, you can't do it as a Scouting activity. Go with your family, go with your son's friends, go by yourself, just don't do it under the mantle of Scouting or use Scouting to promote it.

"Contract" is definitely the wrong term, IMHO. This should be a relationship based on the question "How can I help you?" If an Eagle candidate is "demanding repayment for the building materials," something's really screwed up. You have the right to walk away from this Scout if the situation is causing too much trouble. You are under no obligation to allow him to cause problems for you.

What on the good green earth is an "Arrow of Light Patrol"?

Garrison hats. Knee socks with red tops. A CO Handbook. Activity polos. Getting out of the camping gear sales business entirely.

"I'm with SeattlePioneer on the base premise here, which is that the forum often directs people with problems to go talk to their CO, despite the fact that it's a minority of the time that the CO would be a meaningful place to go." That doesn't change the fact that it's the right place to go. Telling people to go to the DE - many newbies' first response to a problem, as they don't understand the Scouting structure - will just frustrate everyone and waste time. Telling people to go to the UC may be less productive than going to the CO. At least every unit has a COR on paper. How many times have we heard of nonexistent UCs here? After that, who else is left? You want everyone with a complaint about unit leadership to call the council offices or the district chairman? Just because the Scouting-CO structure is broken doesn't mean it can't be repaired.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Exploding propane tank: (And for folks who just like to watch things explode, Mythbusters blows up a propane tank with a Gatling gun with incendiary rounds: )

I bet da pastor of your parish, SP, doesn't even pay close attention to other ministries. Too busy doin' what pastors do. So he let's da sacristy ladies do their thing, the knight fellows to do their thing and so on. No different for scouting. And yet I'd bet a pastor at least gets reports or updates from those different ministries and groups. He or she knows who the leaders are, and keeps in touch on a regular basis. It wouldn't take a tremendous amount of time to do the same with the Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Crew Advisor, CCs, etc. I've always liked the description in the official BSA material likening the COR to the head of the "Scouting department" of an organization. That's a very good way of thinking about yourself - as an integral part of a group, not a sideshow.

Let's not get too carried away here. Restrictions on campfires that units may be experiencing are due to local conditions (e.g., fire warnings) and increasing environmental awareness, NOT safety. A campfire might burn one kid. An exploding propane tank could hurt many more.

Try local festivals and big events in addition to sports stuff. There's a big local Native American festial in my neck of the woods that draws tons of people, who all park in a big open field. In the past, the local Scout troop has been in charge of parking, just directing folks and stacking up cars.

Engineer, I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong. There has been no change that shifts anything on the COs or increases their liability or whatnot. The sentence "The chartered organization is responsible for ensuring that sufficient leadership is provided for all activities" has NOT been added recently. According to a Wayback Machine search (http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090605145323/http://www.scouting.org/Training/YouthProtection.aspx) it has been part of the YP materials online since at least 2009. Again, it's not new.

Don't know if it's gone out yet, and maybe it's just my read on it ... but I initially interpreted the first paragraph - "for Pack leaders to have a fun night with their Cub Scouts" - as inviting along an entire den or pack, not just their kids. And we all know that some folks don't bother to read all the way through to the end. I'm curious - what are the Cubs going to be doing while you talk over the nuts & bolts of recruiting with their parents? Good luck!(This message has been edited by shortridge)

So what happens at age 21 that bestows magical leadership abilities and outdoor skills that Scouts didn't have at age 17 and younger adults don't have at ages 18, 29 or 20? I don't think I got any magic memo from on high when I turned that age. It would be one thing if Irving said that only adults with a certain level of training could lead overnight treks. But to say that an experienced 17-year-old Patrol Leader, trained and approved for an independent outing by his Scoutmaster and the parents in the patrol, lacks some skill or ability or judgment that a 21-year-old Scouter has automatically ... well, that's just stupid.

moosetracker, My point was more to the unintended consequences side of things. Yes, those two examples were OK under the old rules, which didn't address those situations at all. But the new rules, in their blanket ban on overnight activities without adult supervision, create the problem. Eagle92, As a W.S. summer camp "merit badge counselor," I took out a group of Scouts, unsupervised, by myself, to the most remote section of camp for their overnight - at age 15. Totally against all sorts of rules. I know most camps haven't been following the regs, but they may have to now.

Cosmetic in most cases? Sure, certainly. The topic certainly never came up when I was a youth. But there's no reason at all to get rid of the option for those Scouts who are sufficiently trained and experienced enough to do it. If National can point to even five examples of an independent patrol outing in the last several decades that ended with a severe injury, death or other major problem, I'd be really quite shocked. So with no good rationale behind it, to me the change is yet another indication of the gradual wimpification, indoorization, Cubification and overall dumbing-down of Boy Scouting. ====== That said, I'd love to see a summer camp or OA lodge file a formal protest over how the new rule restrict their abilities to carry out their program. Two examples of unintended consequences off the top of my head: (1) A resident summer camp offers a Wilderness Survival overnight on its property, under the leadership of the MBC on staff, plus a younger staff instructor (16+). That MBC is 18 years old. That's the setup at most council camps. But under the new rules, you need two adults, one over 21, to do overnights. Does the camp have to send its 21-year-old Scoutcraft area director and its 18-year-old MBC along on the overnight to comply with the requirements? (2) An OA lodge is conducting its inductions process, with small groups of candidates placed under the leadership of under-18 elangomats. That process involves an overnight experience. Do all candidate groups now have to be placed under the leadership of two adults, one over 21, to comply with the new rules?

Shame, shame on National. Bill Hillcourt is shaking his head sadly upstairs. "The experienced Patrol, under a trained Patrol Leader, has its own Patrol Hikes and camps from time to time. Those hikes and camps are the high spots in the Patrol's life. It's around the camp fires of the gang that Patrol spirit reaches its height, where every Scout comes closest to the heart of Scouting." - Scout Field Book, First Edition, 1957 printing "One of the greatest services you can do as a Patrol Leader is to try to turn your Patrol into a Camping Patrol, with each Scout a trained camper. ... On hikes you learn to take care of yourselves, to become self-reliant. You learn fire-building, cooking, axemanship and other camping skills. Now it's a matter of using these skills on an overnight expedition - first with the whole Troop, then later with the patrol out on its own." - Handbook for Patrol Leaders, First Edition (revised), 1952 printing ============================= To answer Engineer61's query: "The chartered organization is responsible for ensuring that sufficient leadership is provided for all activities." I don't have a G2SS hard copy to compare directly, but googling that phrase, it looks like that language has been around for several years.

Titles, shmitles. 'Long as the work gets done ... In my lodge, the Vigil Chief is the individual who presides over the Vigil ceremony - usually different from the Honors Chairman. The title of Vice-Chief is reserved for elected lodge and chapter officers. My lodge has three vice-chiefs, with each supervising a number of committee chairmen appointed by the lodge chief. There's a vice-chief for inductions, a vice-chief for service, and a vice-chief for program.

Bovine Travel Directors Of Any Gender, you mean.

Suppose that a troop does no camping but summer camp. Then it's not a troop. It's a joke. Even troops made up entirely of inner-city Scouts who live miles away from "wilderness" manage to go camping year-round. Even Scouts with substantial developmental and physical abilities manage to go camping year-round. There's no excuse for not doing it.

SeattlePioneer, Please don't twist my words around. Whether you're talking about fag, faggot, fagged or what-have-you, it's all part of the same word today, no matter the origins and roots. Saying otherwise in an innocent tone of voice - "Oh, 'fagged out' has nothing to do with the word 'fag' " - is utterly intellectually dishonest. Same with the relationship between "niggardly" and another similar word that's widely considered unacceptable. Try making that argument to a room of Boy Scouts. Their B.S. detectors will shut you down in a heartbeat. The etymology doesn't matter - what matter is how it's used today. And you can't deny that "fag" and its variants is a slur - just like terms for Italians, Jews and blacks and a hundred other words that you wouldn't even think of using publicly because you'd rightfully get smacked. "Fag" should not be acceptable in a Scouting context just because Irving and a segment of the national membership have given sanction to institutionalized bigotry against gay people. You clearly have a political agenda here and just want to argue. I'm not getting into a discussion of "homophobe" or any other word with you. I don't play with straw men. I've explained my reasoning and concerns, and that's all I have to say.

Mods, shouldn't this be in Issues & Politics? OK, try explaining to a 12-year-old boy that "fagged out" means tired, or that a "faggot" is a bundle of sticks, or that a "fag" is a cigarette. They'll snort disdainfully, walk away, and think you're an idiot. The word doesn't mean the same thing these days, and as people who work with youth, we need to realize that. When the dominant meaning of a word has taken on a negative or even questionable connotation, and there are plenty of other acceptable words to use in the language, we don't need to go out of our way to use the one word that many people find offensive. Especially when most people outside Scouting think we're bigoted against gay people to begin with, thanks to Irving. Do we really need to cultivate that kind of reputation? "I might add that when I saw the objection to this word, I took the time to look it up to see if it had a real hateful history of usage towards homosexuals. If that had been the case, the objection to its usage would be reasonable. But it doesn't. It simply doesn't have such an implication. With that understanding, it really seems unreasonable to object to the term, unless you want to suggest that it might offend the ignorant." Do a Google search for the string "faggot slur." See what comes back. I'll wait. OK. Do you still think it doesn't have a "real hateful history of usage towards homosexuals"? (As an aside to the people who think it's OK to use "fag" or "queer" because some gay people have appropriated the term for their own use: Would you also use a certain word that begins with the letter "N" because some black people have appropriated the term for their own use? Does it thus become OK?) I'm a writer. I work with words for a living, and thus try to be very sensitive to their meanings. I don't consider myself a member of the "language police" by any means, but I have seen far too many incidents where the English language has been used as a blunt object by people ignorant of its nuances.(This message has been edited by shortridge)