GernBlansten

Good point on making it a requirement to meet all the prepratory hikes and physical training. We are going to Philmont this summer and have already completed two hikes last fall with 4 more planned this spring. Scouts are required to complete 75% of the training hikes. It also makes sense to require a Canoing MB before going to NTiers or Swimming before going to SeaBase. We didn't require Canoeing before NT this year and some of the scouts didn't have it. We had a training day at a local pond for those scouts. It really showed when they had to learn on the water how to J stroke and unswamp a canoe. Not a show stopper and they were a quick study. Next time, perhaps we will require it. My issue is tying some other requirement like attendance to troop meetings or general attitude as a qualifer for a HA. HA should not be a reward. It should be just another part of your program.

Depends. When properly equipped and trained, winter camping can be as much fun and exciting as any other time of the year. No bears, no bugs, no crowds. In the lower 48, temps can get dangerously cold, but only for those who are ill prepared. But I'm the type who likes a challenge and I find only those scouts who also enjoy a challenge find winter camping fun too. That being said, winter camping can turn into the worst experience of your life if you forget one critical piece of equipment or do something stupid like getting wet. Its a fine line. I've stood on both sides of it.

We have never had a scout we didn't think should go on a HA due to behavioral problems that could not be managed on the trail. But, IMHO, most of our scouts are pretty good kids. I think the only reason to make attendance a factor is if there are limited slots in the HA. Give them to the scouts who are more active. But if there are ample slots, why restrict it? An HA might spark the scout to be more active. Not sure I like this carrot/stick method. An HA should not be a reward for good behavior. Poor behavior should be addressed independently. In many cases, I can see a going on a HA as a method to correct behavioral issues. We have rejected a HA request from a scout who already had attended it (Philmont) and gave the slot to a scout who hadn't. That scout understood it.

We had a similar parent who made people uncomfortable. He would quietly sit in the back of the committee meeting but when he had an issue with something, his response was way off the charts and confrontational usually involving raised voices and hurt feelings. I came to the opinion that he had serious mental problems. Luckily, he never confronted scouts, only committee members. He finally left our troop after getting upset at a COH when his son didn't receive enough accolades for his popcorn sales effort. Seems most of his angst was our troop being boy led and a bit disorganized at times. The ironic thing was he was a CM for one of our feeder packs. Needless to say, we didn't try very hard to retain him because of the hurt feelings, although we did tell him that he should seek another troop for his son and not drop out of scouting.

Consistancy in Walmart suppliers varies. The last blue pads I saw at Walmart were nowhere near the density or thickness of the pads at camping stores. Walmart probably got them cheap because other camping retailers rejected them. However, I'm sure their buyers have purchased some quality ones from time to time. Just do some shopping and see if they are a good deal. I'm all for doubling your pad system in the winter. In summer I use a backpacking inflatable that would be way too cold for winter. But put it on a closed cell pad and it works great.

If they meet the HA requirements, we let them go. No sense in holding them back. If the HA is great, we have them hooked until they age out.

Beware of the cheapo Walmart pads. They are thinner and not as dense as a camping store might carry. Although two might make the thickness of one quality one.

The Outdoor Code As an American, I will do my best to - Be clean in my outdoor manners. I will treat the outdoors as a heritage. I will take care of it for myself and others I will keep my trash and garbage out of lakes, streams, fields, woods, and roadways. Be careful with fire. I will prevent wildfire. I will build my fires only where they are appropriate. When I have finished using a fire, I will make sure it is cold out. I will leave a clean fire ring, or remove all evidence of my fire. Be considerate in the outdoors. I will treat public and private property with respect. I will use low-impact methods of hiking and camping. and Be conservation minded I will learn how to practice good conservation of soil, waters, forests, minerals, grasslands, wildlife, and energy. I will urge others to do the same. Learn it. Live it. Love it. It should follow the Pledge of Allegiance at every Scout meeting.

Absolutely NO on the cot. A cot will circulate cold air under him. The best pad you can get is the $15 closed cell blue pad. If you go to REI or some other quality shop, they have the foam that won't crush between your fingers real easy. If it crushes easily, its not closed cell. It isn't meant for comfort, but for insulation. Get one that is full length, not a shorty. Weighs practically nothing and lasts a lifetime. I'm still using a blue pad I bought 30 years ago. You can put your summer pad like a Thermarest on top of it if you need some cushy like I do. But kids do just fine with just the blue pad.

Ok, here's how sleeping bag insulation works. The loft in a bag, either created by down feathers or polypro fibers, trap air molecules and keep them from moving freely around the space. The air molecules are the insulation not the fibers/feathers. The warm air your body creates cannot escape through the trapped molecules. The transfer of heat from the warm air to cold air is very slow because the heat must transfer from one molecule to another, like a long fire brigade line. So the more loft you have, the warmer your bag will be. The same insulation on the bottom of the bag is crushed by your weight and don't hold hardly any air molecules (poor insulation). Air mattresses have lots of air molecules but they aren't trapped and move freely around. They transfer heat from inside the bag out quickly. That's why its important to put a material that holds the air molecules stationary. The cheap Blue foam closed cell pads do this well. Open cell pads like Thermarest also let the air molecules roam and thus are not as warm as closed cell pads. This is also a good reason to store your bag unstuffed. Prolonged compression defeats the ability of the material to create loft thus reducing its ability to hold air stationary. Dirty and wet bags also deteriorate this loft.

At last years klondoree, we had 10 below weather. Not enough snow to bury things so we put them in the troop trailer. Everything froze solid. Insulated coolers didn't stop it. We put eggs and raw sausage links in the coolers then in the trailer. They froze solid. Water jugs froze solid. Had we not pre-filled our pots with water before bed, we wouldn't have a way to get water in the morning. On a personal note, I had a -5 sleeping bag, I put it inside a 32 degree bag. I was in polar fleece, socks, gloves and hat. I was at the limit of comfort that night. I put a nalgene filled with water between the two bags. That morning, it was frozen solid. Needless to say, I resisted the middle aged trot that night.

Keeping your 5 gallon jugs from freezing? Flip them upside down and bury them in the snow. Fill your coffee pot and pots with water before you go to sleep. Those you can put on the stove to melt in the morning. Before bed, heat water and put in nalgenes for everyone's sleeping bag. BTW, a solidly frozen JetBoil carafe takes much longer than 1.5 minutes to boil in 10 Below zero weather. It takes about 10 minutes, but the hot coffee that comes from it is probably the best cup of coffee you ever had!

Ah, the allure of the Great Plastic Sextant. Like any consumer electronic, the more you pay, the more features you get. Most you will find cool, but unnecessary. I would suggest looking for PC based topo software first that is GPS compatible, like National Geographic Topo!. Then look for an economy GPS that will connect to the PC. All major brands will work. The GPS will download a track to the software and you can view it on the PC. The other nice thing about PC based topo software is you can print a copy of the map for every member of your party. Can't do that with GPS based maps. Another neat thing you can do with the PC software is set up way-points graphically, then download them to the GPS. Then print the maps for reference on the trail. This can be real handy when climbing mountains as you can tell exactly how far and how long you are from the summit before you get there. Can give some incentive to weary people in your party. When I first got my system 10 years ago, I used it for back country skiing, backpacking, sailing, mountaineering. Downloaded every route before hand. Then I lost interest and I don't even take my GPS on trips anymore. It just seemed to take some of the adventure out of the trip. Map and compass and a pedometer is just fine for me now.

I put myself in the position of the two hikers and tried to figure out what I would have done differently. Splitting up would have been the wrong choice. First rule in rescue work is not to put yourself into a position to be rescued. Splitting up puts both in more danger. She had already spent 5 weeks alone, give her food and water, go get help. Staying with her would only provide companionship and emotional support. So the only other choice is for both to stay with the victim until she can join you. Unlikely considering her condition and their meager supplies (being at the end of their trek). Those men chose wisely.

You make some good points Fuzzy, but I'm still not convinced that the council is without liability here. Change hats for a moment to being one of the parents of these scouts or counselors. I would be enraged that I entrusted my minor son to a council camp who allowed him to violate rules (lack of proper supervision) resulting in a $14,000,000 wildfire. I'd be scared to death that the trail of liability would lead to my family. I'd be spinning up my own lawyers to seek damages against the council for negligence to cover my own potential loses.

In no way do I think the CO is responsible for this particular act. It happened at a council scout camp. (as far as we know) I understand that willful law breaking of an employee would relieve the employer of some if not most liability. That is if the employer had taken reasonable steps to train and supervise the employee. However, in this instance, I would ask these questions... Did the BSA/Council camp inform their employees of the fire ban? Did the BSA/Council camp train their employees of BSA regulations of fire management? If so, can documentation of this training be presented? Did the BSA/Council camp properly supervise minor employees to verify regulations are followed? If those questions can be answered in the affirmative, then I could see the council and BSA be relieved of liability and liability shifted to the counselors. If any of those questions were answered in the negative, then that opens a wide fissure for lawyers to place liability on the BSA/Council.

Two scenarios... Ice cream stand staffed by minors. I'm the owner. Scenario one: A youth loading the ice cream machine mistakenly puts in dish soap instead of ice cream mix. Another youth serves that mix to customers. Customers get sick and sue. Who's on the hook? Scenario two: A malicious youth puts ground glass in the ice cream mix. Another youth serves that mix to customers. Customers get sick and sue. Who's on the hook? In both cases, me as the ice cream stand owner (or ultimately, my insurance company) will have to pay. The reason? I failed proper oversight of my minor employees.

At risk of commenting on "facts" we really don't know... It seems that these "counselors" were employees of the summer camp run by a council of BSA. They were put in charge of the scouts and had responsibility over them. As employees, they represent the organization and the organization takes responsibility for their actions. Those employees should have been aware of the fire ban, should have been aware of regulations against fire play, should have been aware of proper campfire (cold out) methods. If I have a minor employee who doesn't follow company policies and injures a customer, my company is still fully liable. Granted the employee is fired and I may seek judgement against him, but me as the owner am still liable for damages. What I find disturbing is that the BSA lawyers might be attempting to avoid responsibility because these employees were minors.

Well that certainly makes a huge difference on liability and responsibility. I was not aware that this was on public land used by a summer camp. If this is the case... BSA will lose this case. Council will have to pay, no ifs, ands or buts. The CO is off the hook as it looks like this activity was sanctioned by the camp counselors. There is no defense of an alternate source to the fire. The scouts admitted to having a campfire during the ban. No other people have access to the area. Its their fault. BSA will be lucky if the blowback is contained to Utah. This council should lose its access to the land. What's ironic is during the same summer of 2002, I was forced from my home due to the largest fire in Colorado history. Evacuated for 2 weeks. Burned to within 3 miles of my house. That fire was started by a forest ranger. She was dejected from reading a Dear Jane letter from her husband and burned the letter in a firepit during a ban. The letter blew out of the pit and started a 140,000 acre wildfire. She was just released from prison and is currently in the parole system. Those scouts are lucky they only face a fine.

A side effect of the BSA holding the CO financially liable would be all CO's taking a more active role in scouting. My CO for example, probably wouldn't just rubber stamp adult leaders. The COR and IH might actually show up at a committee meeting. Or on the other hand, we might find units get dropped by their COs for fear of liability. Its a bit of a tight rope for BSA isn't it?

I can't see how a ban on all BSA activities in Utah parks could be upheld, constitutionally. That would mean punishing those people who follow NLT because of the actions of this one unit. Even though I am a member of BSA, I'm also a citizen who has rights to public land. They cannot infringe on those rights regardless of my associations. Now I could understand and support a ban on these particular scouts from accessing public land. BSA policies were clearly not followed, LNT was ignored. BSA may still be on the hook but I think the CO should shoulder the brunt of this financially. If this disregard for BSA policies is rampant amongst LDS units, then BSA should take a stern look at their partnership with the LDS church. We cannot afford this kind of exposure. Hopefully this kind of event is a wake-up call to them and us. The last thing BSA needs to do is lawyer up and deny responsibility. Take our lumps, make the changes necessary make sure this never happens again. Apologize to the people of Utah. Somehow I feel the tour permit process is going to get very complicated.

This is very bad for scouting. Clearly, the troop, the boys and the CO is on the hook in some way. A question for the legal beagles.... If the troop got a signed tour permit from council, is council on the hook? If the troop didn't get a tour permit, could the council even be held liable? Does the tour permit even matter in a case like this? And lastly, did the council revoke the charter?

Married men live longer than single men. But married men are a lot more willing to die. MARRIED MEN DON'T LIVE LONGER...IT ONLY SEEMS LONGER.

I was delighted to find out that BSA adopted LNT as their outdoor ethics when I joined. Our troop teaches them, lives by them. Recites the Outdoor Code at every meeting. Of course, talking the talk is different than walking the walk. I'm constantly challenged when taking scouts backpacking to LNT. They just don't think sometimes. Got some evil looks when we camped where no fire ring existed and I said, "Sorry guys, no fire tonight." BSA does have an image problem with other outdoor organizations. Sure it does. I've experienced it myself. Perhaps its just because we can be singled out by name, or perhaps we have units in our ranks who violate LNT, or perhaps its all the political BS that we've reaped upon ourselves. I've even had people come up to me at campsites and say "You guys are pretty good campers, for Boy Scouts." I've also gotten the rolling of the eyes from rangers. Isn't if funny that we are the only organization, that I'm aware of, that teaches youth outdoor ethics? Does your troop recite the Outdoor Code at each meeting? Do you hammer home LNT at every campout?

I've only been involved in BORs within our troop so I don't know if we are the exception or the rule. But its my opinion that by the time the scout gets to the BOR, its just a formality. Nobody ever fails. I like the idea of the troop youth leadership conducting the BOR. Let them decide who advances. Perhaps with an impartial adult advisor and the SPL. Even better, make up the BOR of those youth with one rank greater than the candidate. A BOR of Star scouts for a Star candidate. Eagle scouts for an Eagle candidate. Pull from other troops if you don't have enough scouts at a particular rank for the BOR. Would that be the optimal boy lead troop?