" Controlled Risk"

[Eamonn 61]

I very reluctantly no longer use the term Safe Haven and have moved to Controlled Risk.

I really wish that Scouting was a Safe Haven where no body got harmed in body or in spirit. But I accept that this is just wishful thinking.

I want the Scouts in the Ship and all the kids we serve to have fun, face new adventures and challenges.My thinking is if we can provide this the other part of Scouting (The Purpose) will follow. I know if we don't provide this that the Scouts will become bored and quit and any chance of getting to the "Good Stuff" is lost.

For the most part I think the BSA has done a good job in helping to control the risk, with the rules, regulations and guidelines that are in place.

I have to admit to maybe wanting to see more hands on practical training's and as yet I'm not a lover of some of the on-line training's.

I fail to see how sitting in front of a computer really does prepare anyone for Safe Swims or Safety Afloat? But maybe I'm just of an age that this new stuff? Doesn't sit very well?

Still I'm sure if we started to require people to attend more training's and become certified with a practical training the program offered to the Scouts would suffer. Even if the risk was more controlled and lessened.

A lot of the forms and paperwork we use is supposed to help control the risk.

I see how some of it does make the Leader in charge more aware of what is going on (I'm thinking about Health Forms) and this is a good thing. I see how they (the forms) do make the person in charge sit down and do some planning.

I fail to see how a Tour Permit for a weekend camp-out does anything more.

Councils don't have any way of checking the information and it seems no one outside of Scouting knows that something like this is in place. If God forbid anything should happen. The tour permit is of no use. - Try calling your Scout Service Center outside of office hours.

The parents of the Scouts we serve place a lot of trust in us the leaders who take their kids away.

I at times have joked that I want to bring the same number of Scouts home as I take away, only I can't guarantee that they will be the same kids.

To date other than a few minor cuts and bruises and one broken leg (Followed by a nasty bang on the head -When the Scouts visited the Lad in the hospital!!) I have managed to bring them home in good shape.

I'm not sure if or how I would manage dealing with having a Scout get seriously harmed or injured?

Controlling the risk is very serious business, it encompasses just about everything we do.

Maybe? That's what BP had in mind when he came up with "Be Prepared".

Ea.

[LongHaul 10]

I, on the other hand, refuse to stop using "Safe Haven" but also use "Controled risk". I see "Safe Haven" as a YP term and "Controled Risk" as a planning and preparation term. Safe HAven applies to how we interact with each other and the idea that each of us is safe from mental or physical abuse for other scouts. We organize outings with physical safety and well being in mind along with physical and mental growth. Going on a ski trip can address "Safe Haven" but must also address "Controled Risk". People die on the slopes as one SM in my District can unfortunately atest.

[prairie 10]

Controlled Risk or maybe Managed Risk would describe the program I knew in the 1970s. I think its imposible to deliver a good outdoor program totaly risk free, part of becoming a good Boy Scout is knowing the risks, dealing with the proablems and learning skills to keep the dangers to a minumim.