Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RememberSchiff

When beneficiary destroys Eagle Project

Recommended Posts

Knowing how much work can go into an Eagle project, I'm sure that this was very discouraging.  However, we must keep in mind that the project belongs to the beneficiary.  While we always hope that it will provide a long lasting legacy to the Scout who completed it, the needs of the beneficiaries change over time.  I have a relative who has a really hard time with this concept as well.  This relative will give a gift, but will get quite upset if the recipient does not keep and use the gift.  Once that gift is given, it belongs to the recipient/ beneficiary to keep, regift, or otherwise dispose of as they desire. It would have been great if the state had reached out to the Scout first and maybe they could have helped to resolve the issue without destroying it though. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised.  Long-term quality is hit and miss with Eagle projects.  Often an Eagle project is fixing short comings with an Eagle project from previous years.  

IMHO, it should have been anticipated that wet, shady areas can cause the boards to get slick.  They can become a falling hazard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The site crashes while I'm trying to read the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article, it appears that the scout built the walkways only 2 years ago.  That seems like a mighty short time for the walkways to have deteriorated to the point that they couldn't be maintained to a safe condition. Though yeah, in the woods, leaves drop, wetness happens, things get slick....maybe the state park guys were right in thinking there was a problem. Ya never know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state says that they weren't deteriorating but becoming dangerously slippery from rain or fallen leaves.  This is one of the issues with doing work for a government agency.  If it had slowly needed repair, then someone might have thought to get in touch with the scouts to get it fixed.  If someone thought it was a safety issue, then I imagine that order probably took less than 24hrs to issue. Someone said it was unsafe, a ranger went and determined it wasn't really necessary and a supervisor ordered it demolished. 

It wouldn't surprise me if someone actually slipped and got hurt.

In contrast, there are other eagle projects in various TN state parks around me that pose no safety hazard that have long since needed repair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started to see wooden steps in some of our State parks covered in galvanized mesh treads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a bridge on  a historic trail nearby.  It has steel frame and wood slat deck. The deck can be slick in rain, but it has a slight curve and dries quickly.  I think the type of wood , the chemical used in it's treatment, has a great deal with it's slickness when wet.  That's like saying the muddy trail should be marked "slippery when wet".  Duh.  

That said, any surface can be slick when wet.  This was a sad occurrence.   The State authorities could have contacted the Scout, they knew who he was..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's likely is one of two things.  Either someone did the following calculation:

1. If someone falls on a wood boardwalk we allowed to be installed, they might sue us for permitting it to be slippery or a tripping/falling hazard.

2. If someone falls on a natural trail, they can't sue us because "hey, it's the ground!"

or

Someone with some clout was out there and saw the leaf covered boardwalk and thought it was ugly because they just "wanted to enjoy the pristine wilderness in it's natural state".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, sometimes,  the beneficiary isn't really so keen on the project, but gives the scout the OK so that he can earn his eagle. They see themselves as helping out the scout rather than being the beneficiary of the scout's project. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back, I may not have been as sensitive to the project and the scout.   It is just that Eagle projects are a mixed bag.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark my words, the day is coming when the local Council will review projects for safety before clearing to start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, John-in-KC said:

Mark my words, the day is coming when the local Council will review projects for safety before clearing to start. 

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 9:46 PM, awanatech said:

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Yes, it would, because I very much doubt that most (or maybe any) councils have the appropriate level of expertise or resources to appropriately evaluate the risks for every Eagle project, and it should be up to the beneficiary to determine if the risks are acceptable to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×