Twocubdad

Vinny reminds me of another issue -- matching the boys up with instruction on the requirements they need. Clearly you can't craft an individual program for each Scout, but if they boy is spending too much time on requirements he has already completed, he's going to be bored and cause a problem. I know, it never hurts to review the stuff you've always learned, yadda, yadda, yadda. Kids will tolerate some of that, but not much. If you have leaders with the expectation that in five days they boys will get through First Class, you need reset those expectations. That's nuts. An SM would be an idiot to go along with completing T-2-1 in a week, even if the camp was promoting that. I do think it reasonable to get through most of one rank in a week, except for the requirements which clearly cannot be completed (like tenderfoot fitness requirements.) One thing our camp does which I like is to give every first-year Scout one of those little pocket version of the T-2-1 requirements. The counselors use that for sign-offs, leaving it up to the home troop and SM to accept the sign-offs from camp or requiring someone in the troop to double-check the skill and sign the boy's handbook. I tend to accept the he-either-did-it-or-didn't requirements, like the 5-mile hike, but re-test skill requirements, like first aid.

About once every four or five years we give the first year program at our camp a try. I've been disappointed every time we do. The biggest problem I see with the program is staffing. It always ends up being a dumping ground for the youngest, least skilled staff. T-2-1 skills can be taught by the 14-16 y.o. staff, right? Not necessarily and not necessarily well. I've got 14y.o. troop guides at home working for free. Why pay for summer camp? The new guys deserve more. Second problem is class size. Our camp figures 8 guys is a patrol is standard, right? That may work for a 90 minute troop meeting, but doesn't seem to work for a half-day x 5 camp program. It' very difficult for young staff member to keep a handle on seven other guys while trying to show any sort of individual attention to one guy. Third, and I think this is the big one, our first year program runs for four hours all morning, 8:30 to 12:30. That's too long. You can't keep the boys' attention that long. The counselors end up breaking up the sessions with games and other activities. The guys aren't at Scout camp to brush up on their dodgeball skills. I'd break the class up. An hour of T-2-1 stuff, then off to a first aid class. Another hour of T-2-1 the down to the waterfront. After lunch maybe sign the guys up for an entry-level handicraft or nature MB. Maybe mix the MB's in the morning schedule. Mix it around and keep it fun.

I agree there needs to be some lower-priced product for the folks who don't care to spend $15. At $3.50, I buy cookies from every Girl Scout I see, just to be nice. I think the old $5 boxes were the $20 variety pack broken up. We were threatened to not break up the case but did it anyway. It was the perfect price point for folks who just wanted to support Scouts. Our popcorn colonel would reassemble the cases from the returned individual packs and at the end of the season we would just donate the odd packs to the local VFD. I know everyone is feeling all warm as fuzzy about the program to take folk's small contributions and buy popcorn for the troops, but you do understand the business angle there, right? Before, if I gave a kid $10 donation instead of buying popcorn, the whole $10 went to the pack. Now, by buying popcorn for the troops, the $10 is split between the council and the vendor. A pack would come out ahead by keeping the money and making a donation to the USO or Marine Corps League or other organization. By the way, ScoutFish, at $35.00 for 100 boxes, I'll take all the thin mints you can get your hands on.

Go to Google Earth, find your neighborhood and count the houses.

I don't understand. Does your son's webelos den meet with the Boy Scout troop? Otherwise, this doesn't make much sense. Regardless, and as the others have said, if you are familiar enough with troop operations to know the committee chairman or membership chairman, or the Scoutmaster if not, you may want to mention that since your son recruited the new kid, you know he's not yet 11, hasn't finished the fifth grade and didn't earn the Arrow of Light. Consequently, you're concerened that a mistake was made in his registration. You and your son thought you were recruiting him into Webelos. A friendly hint? Don't mention the advancement at all. I know you're just trying to be helpful, but by bringing up who earned what makes it sound like sour grapes that the new kid got something your son didn't.

I've never understood the byzantine accounting used for summer camps. It seems no one really knows what it really costs to run camp. Summer camp fees seem based on the cost of the summer camp program -- staff, material, food, etc. But then maintenance gets mixed in one budget, ranger salary into another, capital improvements another. And all scrambled around to the point that no one can say how the costs are really allocated. I understand the camps are operated year-round and that summer camp is in sessionly only six weeks. Any given weekend through the year we have several troops using the camp. But it is disingenuous to allocate the overhead costs of several troops camping in the woods the same as a week of summer camp. In the first place, the marginal cost of those troops is close to zero. Maybe they run the water or leave some trash in the dumpster. But they're not using the dining hall, the administrative building, the health lodge, or the adult staff cabins. Use of the program areas is minimal. Does it really cost anything for a troop to meet under a shelter for instruction time? It seems to me the real cost of a week at summer camp would be a handy number to have. If nothing else, it would be a good tool to tell folks that their $240 fee only covers half the real cost of camp and the rest is covered by FOS and popcorn. Falsely telling folks summer camp is self-supporting leaves them scratching their heads when the FOS presenter tells them their contribution goes to support camp. Which is it? My suspicion is the reason for the subterfuge is -- like everything -- political. If the council showed the true extent to which Boy Scout summer camp is underwritten, everyone in all the other programs would howl, and rightly so. I bet the true subsidy would be shocking, if known. When I ran day camp, like all programs, we were required to show a profit. Why? Well, we had to cover the overhead of the camps. No, our camp was held at a city park and we paid the fee out of our budget. Well, then we had to cover the staff time for the folks at the office who handled registration for us. HECK NO, they don't touch our registration. Any time the staff got involved with our registration they fouled it up. But we have to pay for ouR DE's time at camp. For three years we never saw our DE (he worked at Boy Scout camp) and he showed up he cost us money in extra coffee and doughnuts. Why are Cub Scout programs profit centers when the summer camp is run through a huge subsidy? Especially when the lions share of FOS and popcorn sales can be tracked by to the Cubbies?

And therein lies the danger of issuing over-reaching, restrictive regulations -- people evade or ignore them. Anyone remember the nation-wide 55mph speed limit? According the the medical form, we are "stongly encouraged" to enforce these guidelines for "all other events." ALL other events? I suppose that includes troop meetings? Scout Sunday? Is anyone following that recommendation for your unit?

First, understand there is no official crossover ceremony which is why you're not finding much on it. It is whatever the pack decides it is. If the pack wants to focus on graduating from Cubs rather than moving on to Boy Scouts, that's a decision you get to make. Our pack still generally uses the same program I wrote way back when I was the Cubmaster. It combines Arrow of Light and Crossover (yes, I know some folks don't like that) into one ceremony which we hold during the Blue & Gold banquet (and other people don't care for that, either. To each his own.) There are three distinct parts of the program, although an audience member may not recognize that. First the boys earning the Arrow of Light and their parents are called forward for that presentation. Then the parents are excused and any remaining Webelos who did not earn the AoL are invited forward. The pack presents all the boys a Boy Scout Handbook (whether or not they are joining a troop -- maybe the handbook will ignite a spark) and a short bio of their Cub Scout career is read. Next the boys who are joining the troop are called out. They walk across the ceremonial bridge where members of the troop replace their Webelos hats and neckers with troop hats and neckers. The boys who are not joining the troop quietly take their seat. Once the new Scouts are all on the troop side of the bridge, the Senior patrol leader leads everyone Scout Oath and Law. A couple times when boys have gone to different troops, the both troops are represented on the Boy Scout side of the bridge and are welcomed to their respective troop in the tradition of that troop. I like this because I wrote it -- no, I mean -- I like this because it doesn't draw attention to the boys who are sliding in and out of the ceremony. A boy who doesn't earn the AoL (which doesn't happen often, usually a boy who joined as a Web2) slides in and takes part in the graduation ceremony and crossover. A boy who isn't joining the troop receives his AoL, graduates from the pack, then eases out the side. Everybody's happy.

The parents who never bother to understand the program beyond the list of requirements. They see the program as one big To Do list to get out of the way. It's these folks who see scouting as just a resume item. I've literally had parents like this tell me they want their son to make Eagle ASAP so he can move on and do other things. Then there's they parent with an MBA and 20 years as a certified financial planner who thinks Personal Management is a cake walk and is ticked we're making his boy jump through all these "hoops". (Of course this guy is too important/busy to be a counselor.)

It is also important to remember we're not really talking about "man-hours" here but "scout-hours." Big difference. About 4:1 or better. If I can look at a project and think to myself " I can hire two of my regular guys and and they could do this in two days," then it's probably of a reasonable scope for an ESLP.

Question: My husband just came inside from cutting firewood and seems to have cut off his leg. Does anyone know a good bio-hazard cleaning company. Answer to your questions: Sure, Guts 'R' Us Cleaning, 800-Goo-Gone. Tell them I sent you. Answer you will get here: For the love of God! apply direct pressure to the wound. Use your bare hand if necessary or slap a cloth on if you have one. If the cloth become saturated, don't remove it, add another one on top. Get someone to call 911, or call yourself as soon as you can. (Etc., etc.) If you ask a question of a bunch of folks with a great deal of expertise and experience, why wouldn't you want their best answer?

Sneaky! I like it. E732 - I like to see 150 hours or more, although our council's unofficial-official mark is 100 hours. My reasoning is most boys seem to put 40-60 hours into a project personally. I think a good show of leadership can be demonstrated over two 6-8 hour days leading a crew of 6-8 people. That puts you in the range of 100 man-hours for the workers. Just as important, I like to see projects while will require at least two good days. The project needs to be big and complicated enough that the candidate will encounter some problems which require him to analyze and solve. It also requires him to keep his crew together and motivated for a period of time. None of which is hard-and-fast. If a smaller project comes along which allows the scout to demonstrate his leadership adequately, I'm all for it. I approved one project for about 60 total hours in which the Scout and a two others taught hour-long read classes for a semester. I felt that the Scout would be required to maintain the project over five months required a greater level of leadership that a conventional construction project.

Love the fear of heights analogy, Stosh. I taught swimming for many years. I had a lot of tricks to get kids over the fear of the water, but throwing them in the middle of the pool wasn't one of them. My favorite was to give the kid a free pass to afternoon swim. After awhile, I'd catch them in the pool splashing around with their mates and say, "okay, now let me see you float on your stomach." Frank, the big question for me is where the parents are on all this (or does the boy live with his uncle)? Are they B-D's psycho parents who spend all their time out front of the boy, picking up stones and sticks in his path and making excuses, or do they want him to learn to swim? Depending on the parents' attitude, I'd be leary of going down the medical exemption trail for something like this. If you don't believe a medical exemption is warranted in this case, I wouldn't suggest it. It's too easy for folks to find a sympathetic doctor or therapist who will sign any dang thing. Been there, got the shirt and patch.

Clemlaw and I are over here in the curmudgeon corner having coffee and pie. I don't get it. What's the point of these fancy arrows? In another thread Basementdweller mentions he puts something like four hours into EACH arrow? As BD asks in that thread, WHY? Fortunately, during my time as Cubmaster and pack committee chairman, we never got involved in any of this. Seems like a whale of a lot of work for someone to create a katchkie the Webelos' parents will really appreciate. But for real, where's the program basis for this? Which core value does all this effort support? Our pack did do a number of things for the Webelos who earned Arrow of Light and for those who did not but were moving on to the troop. The AoL recepients received a really nice embroidered patch, suitable for uniform wear, with the sunrise above the arrow. The sunrise had seven rays representing the seven days of the week and reminding the Scouts to do their best every day. Only the boys who earned Arrow of Light received this. The boys who were continuing on to Boy Scouts were all given a Boy Scout Handbook by the pack as a going away gift. The troop also give those Scouts new troop hats and neckers. And everyone, regardless of Arrow of Light or joining the troop, were given a shadow box for all their Cub Scout memorabilia. The shadow boxes had been hand-made during the fall by the Webelos I's on the way to earning Handyman activity pin. No, they weren't as fancy as the $45 shadow boxes in the Scout catalog, but they were just as nice as they ones those Scouts built and gave to the class of Webelos ahead of them. I would suggest the things we presented the boys DID support the program. Of course the embroidered patch was the AoL badge. The handbook, hat and necker were needed as Boy Scouts. And of course the shadow boxes, besides being a nice gift, were part of the Webelos I program.

Unfortunately, Beav's right as to what is now allowed for ESLPs. I'm not sure when the 503©3-ish definition became exclusive and providing service for individual deleted. Some of the most meaningful Eagle projects I've seen were for well-deserving individuals. Helping someone personally is can be so much more rewarding than building picnic tables in the park which some person may or may not use sometime sometime in the future.

Twocub Now you are just being melodramatic, You betcha! But not nearly as melodramatic as the original "Nightline Invesitgates" piece. Of the Scoutmaster, parents and physician, which of the three is in THE WORST position to judge the fitness of the young man? And don't tell me only the Scoutmaster understands the physical requirements for the activity! In the words of Col. Sherman T. Potter, horse hockey. Is there anyone with a fifth grade geography education who doesn't understand the implications of a 20-mile summertime hike through the Everglades? Anyone who doesn't will be disqualified from jury service for mental defect. The new/now old medical forms, just above above the physician signature, states, "I certify that I have, today, reviewed the health history, examined this person, and aprove this inndividual for participation in:" and then lists 12 separate activities, including hiking and camping, wilderness/backcountry treks and climbing and rappelling. The doc has to affirmatively check each activity for it to be allowed. And the Lord knows we've all dealt with parents with their own agenda or a really distorted idea of what is best for their boy. I've had parents leave stuff off medical forms because they didn't want us to hold their sons condition "against him." I've had parents include only that their son takes polysillyastroturfplopinephrine or some dang thing as if I'm supposed to know that this med is the only thing which keeps the boy from going postal on the whole troop or immediately dropping dead. And knowing these parents, I know they intentionally obfuscated their son's medical situation for their own reasons. Of course, B-P, I'm going to question hard sending a 250lb. marshmallow on a challenging backcountry trek. But if it gets to the point of the SM making that call, something is terribly, terribly, and possibly tragically wrong with the other folks in that boy's life who also have responsibility for his health and well-being. Me taking another two days of vaction time to get WFA training won't fix that.

Okay back to the OP -- Here's an idea: why don't we require training for the PARENTS? Think of the problems we would solve if parents hand some modicum of understanding of what the program. There's now the push to officially register folks as "Scout parents" so why not have training to go along with the position. But from a liability/health/safety standpoint, any true waiver of liability or assumption of risk must come from informed consent. So let's inform them. Here are the activities your son will participate in. Here's the level of training the leaders have. Some of these activities will take place in locations well more than an hour from medical help. If parents have such a poor understanding of what their sons' are doing and are working under the mis-assumption that all SMs are NOLS trained and have trained and equipped ALS paramedics with them, we have a responsibility to educate them. Parents need to understand they have a responsibility to ensure their son is in shape for the activities they send him on. The parents need to be prepared by having the right gear, showing up for prep meetings and even drinking lots of water the day before. You know, engage. I don't mean this to undermine the Scouts' responsibility for these things, but as always with minors, the buck stops with the parents. Think that will scare off a bunch of parents? Okay. Don't let the screen door catch you in the butt. Will parent buck at the idea of sitting through a class before their boys can become a Scout? Welcome to our world. In another related thread the talk is of requiring Scouters to have 2-day wilderness first aid training and the advisability of troops having EMTs on board. Actually, our troop is working toward this, although we haven't considered including the risk information. (Frankly, I think developing that syllabus would be beyond us.) Right now the parent training would include a troop-developed introduction to the Scouting program then standard modules on Youth Protection, troop committee training, merit badge counselor training and board of review training. The idea is that at the end of the day (hopefully half day) the parents would all be fully trained to step into any of the roles we would ask of them.

I gotta cut Sasha a little slack. It's not as if she would walk down the sidewalk and randomly pick someone to sue. There has to be at least some underlying liability. And despite what you may think, you'll be hard-pressed to find an attorney who would take a case with no basis in fact purely for a shakedown. Too great a chance of working for free. I think many of us are old-school enough that if someone rear-ends us at a light and our injuries are minor and insurance covers our losses, we'll let it go. Assuming the accident was truely an accident we're not going to sure for pain and suffering and all the mumbo-jumbo you see on TV. Just from a philosophical standpoint, we're not going to contribute to the problems of the legal system by going after every last dime. But if it's your child who is injured and facing a lifetime of medical bills, I, too, would be hard-pressed to stand on some notion that we need to single-handedly fix the legal system. By the way, regarding the McDonald's coffee case, I remember hearing interviews with the jurors in which they said the attorneys for McDonald's were all a bunch of condescending jerks. They treated the whole process as if it was beneath them. The jurors said they knew the woman's case was weak, but by the end of the trial the were so fed up with the McDonald's lawyers they found for the woman just to stick it to the lawyers. You can look upon that as it's own version of tort reform, too.

So now we're second-guessing parents and physicians who sign the medical forms verifying the Scouts are physically fit to participate in Scout activities? I apparently went out for coffee during the segment of SM training where they taught us assess the physical condition of boys and to read between the lines of a medical form. This sorta makes the trailside diagnosis and treatment of medical emeregencies seem easy.

I'll be the one to mention the 800-pound gorilla in the thread-- I read the opening post here and my first thought was, "nutjob." Pack195, if you're still reading, my apologies if I have mis-characterized you or your post. You may be a very nice, intelligent, rational person, but after almost 10 years reading posts here, one develops a sense of these things. Perhaps you're were in a hurry when you posted here, or perhaps you've become accustomed to texting and using very abbreviated descriptions. But what I read was a short, unsubstantiated accusation against another Scout leader and a quick shift to victimhood. That the district chairman is involved and has sided "against" you puts me "on guard" too. If you care to take a little more time and post a more thoughtful description of your problem, I'm sure you will get everone's best and unvarnished advice. Again, if I have offended you, my apologies, but I believe we owe the truth.

And that's really my point. I've been trained in first aid as some level for 40 years. Knock wood, but I've never seen anything more serious that a cut requiring a couple stitches -- the worse one was my own thumb. No clinical experience what so ever. Let me re-phrase my question to you professional guys -- what is your experience riding up on a scene and taking over for a basic first aider? Particularly a medical situation like cardiac problems, heat stroke, stroke or the like where the symptoms aren't as obvious as an arterial bleed. I a Scouter invested the time to take EMT-level training, but never used it beyond the classroom, is he or she really going to make a big difference in the field?

Not related to the current conversation, but -- Did I read correctly that there were five on the hike? Two leaders and three boys? Anyone want to bet the other two boys were the sons of the leaders? Does anyone think these guys didn't take every precaution for this Scout the did for their own sons? Of course, those of us who are Scouters know we would -- and routinely do -- apply the same level of care and responsibility to all the boys in our care regardless. But, still.....

I have a slightly different tact onthe first aid issue. I started to spin another thread, but this seems appropriate here. In the thread regarding the young man in south Florida who died on a Scout hike, presumably of heat stroke, much is made of the Scoutmasters' failure to recognize and properly treat heat stroke. But how easy is to to do that? Sure, we can all rattle off the classic symptoms of heat exhaustion or stroke, but in the field, with actual patients, how easy is it for a layman with only book training to recognize and diagnose a medical conditions? This is purely hypothetical, but in the situation in the parent thread, I can easily imagine myself out with a bunch of boys in the heat of the summer when one or more of them complain of being hot, tired and thirsty. A couple of them have headaches. Clearly these guys are in the beginning stages of heat exhaustion and dehydration. So we find a shady spot for everyone to rest and cool down. Everyone is drinking plenty. Everyone is hot and on a day hike we don't have a thermometer, so we don't really know what anyone's temperature is. With the maybe a litte sunburn and the exertion, no one notices one Scout who is maybe a bit more red-faced than the others. All the Scouts are quietly resting in the shade, so it's a half-hour before the SM rousts the guys and notices that the one boy is lethargic and disoriented. We start focusing on him, getting him to drink, pouring water on him to cool him off. He throws up and we roll him on his side where he becomes unresponsive. Clearly, now we have an emergency situation and send for help, but the boy goes into convulsions..... Sorry for torturing a hypothetical here, but I'm trying to paint a picture where a leader has acted reasonably, in my opinion, and done what he was trained to do. But having never seen a real case of heat stroke, he miss the subtle symptoms which should have told him the boy was in real trouble. My hunch is many medical emergencies (and I'm differentating medical emergencies from traumatic injuries) are like that. I'm curious to hear from Resqman and Scoutfish and some of you other guys in the emergency services about the difficulties of real-world diagnosis for a nonprofessional first aider.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Ya' kno', UTE.

I don't know, guys, I read the complaint too and it seems like standard boilerplate to me. I don't know more now than before. It does not mention any new information, pretty much what you would assume for any situation like this -- negligent planning of the hike, negligence in conducting the hike, faliure to notice symptoms of heat stroke, failure to adequately treat heat stroke, etc. Essentially, these guys were in charge and the young man died. The real issues, what should they have or have not done and what did the do or not do aren't addressed at this point in the process.