brodiew

@ Shortridge - From Delaware It would be a long haul, but you also added the Jamboree in there and that is only a few hours away.

While I realize not everyone is going to be central to each location, the event should be long enough to offset the travel time to get there and back. If the event is big enough and it is something worth doing, the travel time/cost would be worth it. From where I am, roundtrip to Philmont is 42 hours. Was it worth it for us? Yes. Would we have gone if we lived in Delaware? Probably. We might have changed travel plans and used an aircraft vs a bus, but we still would have gone.

We go to Gatlinburg for Winterfest each year as well. 9 1/2 hours drive time each way, only 3 hours shorter than the drive would be to the Fall Fun Rally. So why not go the extra 3 hours?? They are doing nothing there that we cannot do here. At least in Gatlinburg the kids can do something they never get to do here. SKI!!! So the event makes the travel time worth it.

So as I said before... I am glad they have stepped up and are trying to get a National Event for the Ventures up and running. We need it and the kids want it. Now make it long enough so that when we show up we can get into it

@ shortridge - You say "Heck, looking at it like that, it's not feasible for Scouts from opposite sides of the country to attend Philmont or Jambo."

These are week long events and it is feasible to attend. To compare a 1.25 day event to Philmont or the Jamboree is crazy...

Make the "Venture National Event" worth the trip to get to it and people will come. My Crew is was all geared up and ready to go to this when they first started talking about it, but as soon as they found out it was scheduled to go just one full day... All that enthusiasm just disappeared.

We have been discussing this on the BSA Venturer Facebook group as well. It seems that the only ones really excited about this are the ones within a 5-6 hour drive.

A couple of points...

From the Panhandle of Florida it is a 12 hour drive by car, 14-15 by bus. If a Crew from Phoenix, AZ wanted to attend, they would be looking at a 22 hour trip one way (via car). Boston? 20 hours. ... You are looking at more time spent getting to the event than you actually spend doing stuff.

Per Amanda Vogt:

"As to the event schedule:

We are starting things around 6pm on Friday, and there will be multiple Friday night activities going until at least midnight, and we start back up on Saturday morning and have over 50 some things happening that day, with a closing show and multiple evening events that night (again until midnight). On Sunday we are still talking about having some type of activity going, but we have actually gotten the response from many units over the years (in and out of council units) that said they would prefer to just head home so that the youth have time to finish homework before heading back to school on Monday. So the event is really running for 6 hours on Friday, and 16 hours on Saturday."

I am sorry, but this really needs to happen on a 3 day weekend, with check-in on the Friday (or Thursday if Friday is part of the 3 day weekend) prior. This would allow 2 full days of fun/chaos and day 3 for travel. You can call it a "National Event", but if it is not feasible for Ventures throughout the the Nation to attend, it really isn't one.

It is obvious that I am not going to change minds here... I believe a few of you are just spouting the BSA policy because that is all you know to do.

While I do agree that helmets can help in certain situations, I do not agree that everyone should be made to wear them. It should be a personal decision and it should not matter if you are a card carrying member of the BSA or not.

If you have no idea what the slopes even look like at Gatlinburg, you have no room to even add your two cents. The head injury rate for skiers is so low it is laughable.

"A NSAA fact sheet says in 2006, there were 2.07 skiing/snowboarding fatalities per million participants, fewer than for bicycling or swimming. The group says a person is twice as likely to die from being struck by lightning as in a skiing or snowboarding accident."

If you want to say that you could be going fast and run into something or someone could run into you... it could be an argument if both parties were like rams and aiming with their heads... Who was it that mentioned Sonny Bono... Helmet is not going to help if it is your chest/face that hits the tree.

What next? Bubblewrap ski outfits? Maybe we just go to virtual skiing and never leave the lodge.

I have done it many of times as well... No helmet.. No problem..

One thing I have with this is this... Why can I not make my own decision. I am not on BSA property, I am not participating in a BSA event. BSA has nothing what so ever to do with the skiing at Gatlinburg, but because we are in the area as Scouts we now have to do this.

To me its just like seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Who am I to tell someone they have to wear em. It should be a personal choice for that person to decide. Now if BSA wants to mandate something while on BSA property, that would be a different story.

"And it not the hardness or otherwise of the snow that's the problem. It's trees, snow making machinery, snowmobiles, lift towers, even sit skis, etc. that kill people."

If you hit any of these items, chances are it is not with your head, but with the bulk of your body. Olympic skiers wear them because they are traveling at higher rates of speed and their helmets are designed to protect their heads in high speed falls and also cost alot more.

Seeing as we are from Fl, these boys and girls are not into speed, but into staying on their skis in an upright position.

I understand helmets will help in the right conditions. Your off trails, scrapping by branches, rocks all around... Good idea. Racing or jumping?? Yea... Good idea.

On the equivalent of a bunny slope with all woods fenced off, speed at a minimum, No... But I also believe it should be a personal decision to wear or not to wear.

While I agree that helmets are necessary while bike riding, dirt trails are very hard and so is concrete/asphalt. But this is snow and while it can get fairly hard, it is relatively soft when you fall on it.

Are we as Scout leaders going to start requiring helmets when swimming? Jumping off the diving board, you could whack your head, or if you decide to try the high dive.. That water is pretty hard from that height.

What about water sports like waterskiing or wakeboarding? I have about knocked myself out waterskiing in one of my wipeouts... But in 20+ years of recreational skiing I have never come close.

I personally find these knee jerk reactions more of an irritant than a help. I would love to see statistics on how many have actually been injured and how many would not if they had used helmets.

To take an excerpt from the link you posted...

Byrd backs up Levy and O'Sullivan's argument that what's going on inside the skier's head is as important as the equipment on the outside.

"Our position is the skier's behavior has as much or more to do with the safety of the sport as does any piece of equipment." he says. "The most important thing is being a responsible skier or snowboarder."

The association says that despite the increase in helmet use, deaths on the slopes have remained fairly constant.

"What we've found is that helmet usage did not affect fatalities," Byrd says.

He says helmets tend to be helpful in preventing lesser head injuries such as scalp lacerations or mild concussions. Recreational ski and snowboard helmets are manufactured to a standard that provides protection at 14 mph or less, whereas it is common to ski and snowboard between 25 and 40 mph, he says.

"So when you're going at that speed and you hit a fixed object like a tree, whether you're wearing a helmet isn't going to matter," Byrd says.

A NSAA fact sheet says in 2006, there were 2.07 skiing/snowboarding fatalities per million participants, fewer than for bicycling or swimming. The group says a person is twice as likely to die from being struck by lightning as in a skiing or snowboarding accident. link you posted...

I would support helmet use for more extreme snow sports, those who are more adventurous and like to go off trail a bit, or even those who are just in it for speed. But for the everyday skier they should be able to make their OWN decision or with their parents.

Mine are contemplating not even skiing at Winterfest because of this new rule. I have been asked by a bunch of them to look into how they could ski, but not be associated with Ventures.

The fact that they will be traveling as a group to Gatlinburg ind of leads me to believe that no matter what they do that weekend, they are Venturer Scouts and even if tehy pay as an individual would still have to follow those rules.

Does anyone else see a way around this?

(And yes.. I feel this rule is a knee jerk reaction and serves not real purpose).

Ok...

My crew is getting ready to head to Winterfest again this year. They are all looking forward to hitting the slopes and having some fun. What they are not looking forward to is this new helmet rule.

Now I realize some people have probably had some accidents over the past 50 years that helmets would have avoided, but making everyone where a helmet for one 6 hour session of skiing once a year is crazy. As it is, most of these kids are going to grab their beat up bike helmet (if they have one)and wear it... Very little protection there. On top of that they are going to have to forgo wearing a hat because they don't fit under the helmets.

I know myself, I have the X-Large Bell bicycle helmet and a very thin skull cap and I cannot wear both at the same time. I know a fair amount of the scouts will have the same problem.

So the question is up now... Are there any waivers I can have parents sign to allow these scouts to wear hats vs. helmets?