Gunny2862

Eamonn, Man has always had a distrust of "the other". It's so old sociologists are still trying to figure out how it started. If someone wasn't concerned in some situations, I'd think they were dumb. But it doesn't have to be about race, groups of rowdy youth (or inebriated people) do dumb things, whatever their race. But it shouldn't drive you to fear - it should drive you to continue with being aware of your surroundings and having a plan to follow if anything were to occur. Unfortunately for Trayvon, he ran into someone who didn't allow him to just keep walking. (This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

My issue with the whole thing is (from the information I have heard or read) that the Neighborhood watch person was instructed by the 911 operator (or whatever agency he reported to) to cease following the Youth who was walking. The incident between these two should have ended there. The youth possibly wound up beating on the neighborhood watch person, well, perhaps that opens the door to the shooting.(Read following sentence,please) But Watch persons are there to Observe and Report, not directly intervene - and having reported, he was told to disengage - he failed to do so. This fact alone would seem to make him criminally liable to me. But, then I'm no lawyer. I'm hearing there are more facts out there, but if having made a proper report, he was told to disengage, anything that occurred after that doesn't seem to influence my opinion on this unless the youth was observed, during the report, performing some kind of assault on someone else not previously mentioned which drove the ongoing intervention. But without some key like that this door seems closed to me - the Watch person failed to follow the instructions given by his reporting authority and began operating outside his legal protection..., But again I'm no lawyer. And all the facts aren't in.

1)In whether their child goes or not, always Parent final decision. 2) Personally I wasn't there I didn't see the kid, don't know his history - or med history, haven't seen if he's been in the water before or how he acted in the water. In my case, I'm not currently certified but have been a Lifeguard and a Life Guard Instructor plus significant lifetime water experiences make me fairly comfortable in the water. But every canoe trip I've taken(with BSA) so far has had at least one Currently Certified Lifeguard. I might (depending on observation of the youth) be willing to take a non-swimmer on a relatively flat-water canoe excursion. Just because I'm willing or not willing to take him has no bearing on whether the parent allows or doesn't allow him to go. But if there are more than the riffles we get around here, I (me)wouldn't take a non-swimmer on a for real whitewater trip.

Ditto perdidochas and OldGreyEagle

Not enough to make something like this possible, we'd have to raise our Cash per Scout ratio significantly(like 14x) to have that kind of cash on hand.

On fees for volunteers I side with all that is being said on this thread. BUT... Philmont or the other HA bases may seem to be out of reach or for some may actually be out of reach for the parent and Scout to go. But if you look at the costs involved, I found our Philmont trip in 2010 to be about correctly priced, given what they give you and the actual logistical work going on behind the scenes(which were amazing) and a decent value. For me the trick is the travel to and from - we did our trip in 2010 for the Expedition cost plus $160 per individual for Travel and food(2 nights 3 days) - the balance being made up by the Troop from fundraising. This years trek, they are using the Train and Shuttle and it will raise to the Expedition cost and about $250 for Travel and food (1 night,2 days)the balance(the part the Troop picked up is about the same as last time) being made up by the Troop from fundraising. The Philmont cost didn't rise but, the travel costs went up 56% but that's because the Adults and boys decided to go a more expensive route. If you and/or your youth want to do Philmont - don't look at the cost and quit - consider a two or even three year fundraising plan and find a way to make that experience happen.

Assuming the SE is in on this, a call to National and then I would have to consider my relations with the Local office.

I think you've discovered the dichotomy between those who can and do lead, and those who are natural born leaders. I am not a natural born leader. I have sought out leadership, and at times been placed in scenarios where I was required to lead. I can make it work. My experience with natural born leaders is that they do it so effortlessly they seem to not know they are leading. For us as Scout leaders, part of our job is developing those naturals to lead the right kinds of things... because they will lead someone to somewhere; and to develop the abilities of those who would lead in the right direction - if only they knew how to lead. Now if I only had this in a package and could sell it... but you have to work it with each person, according to who they are...

Firefox on an Mac, no Java enabled, still slower than a crawl...

Nope, Coffee is the first responsibility of the ASM - in doing so he shows his worthiness to aspire to other, "higher" callings..., snort... (This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

have Personally my nights under canvas tended to be +4 to +14 of the Troops number in any given year, after we include OLS and other training nights out, OA, pre-camp work, HA - Philmont, etc.

Over the course of the last six years, we've averaged 41 nights of outings or more (with still more available via OA or Tribe of the Lone Bear) (including 7 summer camp nights under canvas) each year, of those, somewhere between 2-6 nights would be cabin camps - usually our January outing and maybe a December (often we don't do a December outing due to our principle fundraiser conflicts and weather considerations) outing, one year we went to a far away MBU and were put up indoors.

In reading these, I am reminded of the disparity in how we do things. If giving Pack numbers, please specify, same for Troops or if you combine and are giving a total number. We are unaffiliated with any Pack, however, we have had Den Chiefs out to Packs when Troops that are supposedly affiliated with them wouldn't provided them any support, same for having a Pack camping night out with the Troop. We tend to draw a proportion of the Packs we support, but we never really expect that any of the potential Crossovers are "ours" until they show up at at Troop meeting after Crossover. If you are a small Troop in an area and you feel dominated by the larger Troops, well, quit it, that is quit feeling dominated - it isn't or shouldn't be a competition - just provide a good program of outings with regular advancement opportunities and find out what the boys you do have want to do. Then make that happen. If you do this, more will come... Oh, and about 30 in the Troop and we see various 20-25 of them every week - the rest(on any given week) have some Sports or Music or Debate or Family conflict.

My take on approving the major activities is analogous to the Committee approving the calendar, which is the youths assurance that the adults will provide and can see they have or will have the budget to support those youth chosen and planned activities. Not overly intrusive to me. Now if our youths could plan on driving themselves out of town, out of state, etc to do activities then maybe I'd think the approval of activities too intrusive but...

Context. Look I know we have to have some MD's, probably some RN's and LPN's and EMT's reading this. I'm the next best thing to a lay person, I've had either a Military or Red Cross or AHA cross certification of some type since 1984, mostly the Basic First Aid and CPR certs because I work in electronics... I've also kept current the AED cert for about a decade, and was an early trainee in the Combat Lifesaver program, and kept it as long as I was able to. WFA, for the past 3 years. None of which makes me a medic, or even what I consider a real first responder, especially since having retired from the military the CL hasn't been kept current. With all that out there, IMHO, based on my experiences, tourniquets are useful devices that far too many lay people use way too early in circumstances that a) could have used a lower level intervention b) cause additional damage and suffering that wouldn't have needed to occur if the proper level of intervention had been chosen instead. Never have I opined that we didn't need to have them available, but then, I also believe in the value of cauterization, in the world of the last ditch effort, but to open up that conversation we're pretty much up against the wall for trying to save someone. Never have I opined that a properly trained professional can't make a determination that a tourniquet is the right tool in short order, possibly, given the severity the first option. But I really don't think our typical Scout has the maturity to make that kind of evaluation. And most of our Scout Leaders, probably don't have enough training or experience that they should see "lots of blood" and go straight to a tourniquet, at least not without at least taking the 5-15 seconds to LOOK and THINK if another method wouldn't be a better place to start. (This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

JMHawkins and Eagle732, Exactly! Ding, Ding, Ding! Why is an EBOR second guessing all of the pre-approvals and the SM sign-off after it's all done. Which is what it should be when the SM gives that page 20 signature, which shouldn't go on until after the benefiting organization signs that it has met their expectations. What was the point? If that's the way it's going to work the Scouts EBOR members should also be his Eagle project counselors...

KC9DDI, I'm not saying it's even a last resort nor that it shouldn't be an option. It's not that you have to do them in order, but you should think of them and pick the appropriate tool, too often lay folk go for the sledgehammer when a roofing hammer might have been appropriate. What I'm saying is that for too many people it's always the first resort when you place them under the real stress of a real situation (and then some still can't do it right) or even when they know it's not a the real deal but a stress training scenario. Concur with John-in-KC and jblake47.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Bottom line, issue is that when taught they need to be last or next to last (Cauterization) and for actual settings where they are appropriate. I had folks even in the military who didn't think about pressure points, direct pressure, bandage, Quik clot, dressing, or using them in conjunction with each other, who went straight to the tourniquet when given "realistic moulage" scenarios. Stress somebody and they tend to go for the big dog rather than just going thru the procedures in order..., ongoing frequent training is key, which is why teaching lay responders advanced procedures is problematic. It's as though doing those last ditch scenarios, the spectacular, or don't do this unless everything else fails(and you'd rather go to court than watch your buddy die while doing nothing) stuff tends to stick in the students heads, but the basics go away. I think tourniquets belong in the First Aid bag, but they need to be on the bottom of it...

We had had People in the Council who were more than happy to recommend changes/additions/deletions to Eagle projects at the District and Council level to ensure a Boys plan was going to meet muster before the new change - and when it came out they formalized it with the same people doing the DEPC positions. But as JMHawkins notes: "That means, however, that approval of the basic plan is not sufficient to ensure that the project will pass muster at an EBOR Hmm, this is perilously close to what, at my old company, we used to call "playing fetch a rock." The Boss told you to fetch a rock, then when you brought one back, he'd say "No, not that one. Fetch a different rock." If you asked what sort of rock he wanted, he'd say "You're a professional, you should be able to figure that out." He might give some hints here and there, but would never officially tell you want he wanted. Of course, he wasn't telling you to fetch a rock, he was telling you to come up with a proposal. It was a symptom of dysfunctional management where the boss delegated responsibility without delegating authority (NOTE: that's a bad thing). Basically, he'd keep saying "no" and send you back to redo your plan until you came up - officially on your own - with what he wanted. But since it was "your" plan and not his, if it didn't work, he could still blame you for it. Seems like a bad idea to "pre-approve" a project that might not meet muster when it's done." I find it an incredibly bad idea that we get several levels of pre-approvals, and the project can be nixed not by an observer on the day of the event for failing to meet it's criteria or for observed lack of leadership displayed, but literally years later by a board that wasn't perhaps even in Scouting at all at the time... This means that an observers sign off, on the ground, at the time of the project stating that the project was completed according to the plan and the requisite leadership requirements were observed - IS WORTHLESS!? And that we are then delegating, power over that to the EBOR? If an EBOR denies an award it shouldn't be over the quality or scope of an Eagle Project - it should be over something the program is about! (Character anyone?) And there's no way a follow on observer reading the write up can make those judgments as well as the observer on the ground who saw the project being done. If the Scout proposes it, gets pre-approvals, does it, shows leadership in doing so(in the opinion of a Scouting Observer (SM, CC, AC?), gets a completion sign-off by the SM(indicating that leadership was displayed) and it's accepted by the DAC(which, IMHO shouldn't be an obstacle either) then literally months or years later another group of folks can deny based on this??? Ridiculous! Another criteria, like failure to meet some other Standard, sure. But based on a Project that was planned, pre-approved by the adults, post approved by adults and then later, another group says "No", it's crazy.

For us, when the Scout is ready for or wants a SM conference they ask for one, in almost every instance unless they waited until I am literally picking up my last things and starting to turn out the lights after a regular meeting, I give them one right there. Same thing for campouts - I 'll do a SMC just about anywhere, or anytime(did one walking on a Trail at Philmont - he had to wait for his BOR). If I truly can't do it right then, then I ask them if they are free during the week and can we set an appropriate time and place, otherwise they get to wait a week. The BOR is handled pretty much the same way by our CC, but usually the SM conference ends with "Now go straight over there and ask "name" the CC for an appointment for a BOR" now that may be a technical violation, but if the kid is very young, very shy or has some disability that we are working with, that would make that I problem I may go with him and do it for/with him, so it's not like we're using it to slow anybody down or weed anybody out. It's not that I couldn't walk over and schedule it for the Scout, but that the Scout sometimes wants to do it next week and while we DO want him moving thru the process we don't want to run the process over him either, plus it sets him up for what he has to do later when he starts working for his Eagle or any other large project Hornaday, etc... In almost every case where enough adults are available, the BOR happens right then as soon as the CC is asked for one, if the SMC happens early enough the CC might even call in an adult if there aren't enough there right then, but otherwise they'll generally get it the next week. For our AC we stress as we recruit that we want to recognize, reward and reinforce what we want(in this case advancement)(but that if we are going by the Scout Office any of the Adults will get the desired items so it's not completely on the AC) and that the best way we see to do it is that as soon as the Scouts walk out of the BOR - passed, we recognize them right then with at least a proclamation, we get the Award set ASAP and try to get the Patch to them at the next meeting as an immediate reward, and then reinforce with the Mother's pin and Advancement card at the next CoH. So I guess our bottom line is that at this time serving 30-40 Scouts we aren't so large that we have to have those processes in place, but I can easily see how a larger Troop, especially an adult understaffed one, could easily run into serious issues without a framework in place.

I'm lucky, I'm actually seeing stronger projects from within the Troop, but, we're definitely vetting in advance with our Districts Eagle Project Coordinator(DEPC) (these four appointed older Volunteers sign and pre-certify for the DAC on Eagle Projects in our District - we can use any of the four). For us, the Scout comes up with an idea, tentatively pitches it to a recipient, comes back and asks the SM for a read on whether the rough idea is worth fleshing out, The Scout works out the major framework (basic outline) and pitches it to our Troop Committee including our Advancement Chair, we shoot any necessary holes or point out what the DEPC is going to ask and send him on. Once he gets a signature from the DEPC he is free to complete the project and as long as it is done in accordance with what was pitched to and signed off by the DEPC, we are assured he'll get his completion sign off and that it won't be a problem with his EBOR. When the DEPC does vet the project and in my judgement being there he does what was asked and shows leadership in the process and then there is a problem with a final signature - that's when I'll get grumpy.

Can't address this specific case without specifics, duh. but in general all boys deserve the opportunity to earn an Eagle Award. Now whether or not they can capitalize on that or not, well, that's up to them...

Well, linearity IS important in calibration... and the follow-on weighing operations.

At the risk of being ridiculous(maybe reDUMBculous) and having been a certified scale technician. 1) Properly certified scales, handled properly, subject to the same environmental conditions, and certified in place will read together barring scale malfunction or misplacement of the weight. So unless you can't properly certify the scales including performing ACCURATE and PRECISE calibration, there isn't a problem using multiple scales. 2) Proper certification, even of a gram scale, includes cornering. Even a scientific scale in an air box, unless otherwise directed in it's manual, should not just read correctly in the center of the weight plate(up to a certain percentage of it's capacity at which it is understood that certain tolerances apply) but at all four corners also, up to a certain percentage of the capacity of the scale where of course tolerances apply. The issue is that people who don't REALLY know anything about a scale will think that they can certify a scale. AND then people who want to get by with .000001 of a difference wouldn't pay an additional $20 each to get the local Scale company to provide a properly set -up scale and maybe even a tech to operate it for an hour or two - - and if they did would still complain that the guy didn't know what he was doing..... Derby's are crazy, accept it and move on...

Well clearly we've forgotten the Important discriminator - Which of the Troops haven't had a FOS presentation this year, and doesn't have it calendared either???