Beavah

Yah, interestin'. In da rest of the world, WFA is not considered a "certification". Interestin' that the ARC seems to be thinking of it that way, yet is retaining the "certificate of completion" language from the rest of the WFA world. Don't take this the wrong way, BrentAllen, but loosely speakin' a few years of being a SM with a couple of high adventure trips would be way, way, way less experience than a typical WFA instructor for any of the (other) national providers. And you're clearly in an ARC chapter that's takin' things seriously and tryin' to do a good job. That's why I worry a bit about quality more generally. Especially when yeh add in that it's on the short side (only 16 hours) for a WFA course and that 16 hours includes some additional evaluation elements. It suggests that somethin' is getting cut. Some of that is inevitable, eh? We need a lot more instructors to offer a lot more courses. But then I'd be inclined to go da other way on the other elements, and take a bit more time with the course and not add the evaluation elements, to compensate for the limited instructor experience. Beavah

And do me a favor, please don't quote the "Advancement is just 1 of the 7 methods" mantra to me like I'm some novice idiot. I know the 7 methods. Well, apparently not, since there are in fact 8 Methods. I think my actual quote was somethin' like 'the other 7 methods (besides advancement) still work'. But easy there, nolesrule! All that's in good humor, eh? No "novice idiot" implied. Just a gentle observation that if we really feel Eagle/advancement is the be-all and end-all of whether a lad stays in a troop (because he'll quit if he can't get it), then that troop isn't usin' the other 7 as well as it should to meet the boy's needs. Some people respond poorly to negative reinforcement, and it can have the opposite of the desired effect. So when the lad gets his license revoked and gets sentenced, it's goin' to make him go out and drink and drive some more? Negative reinforcement is part of life, eh? Young folks have to learn to deal with it, whether it's being grounded by their parents, gettin' a poor grade, being turned down by their first choice college or havin' their girlfriend dump them. But whatever yeh think of the value of negative reinforcement, not receiving an award is not negative reinforcement. Awards are things we use for positive reinforcement, eh? They're not somethin' that a boy is entitled to. If the lad was entitled to an award, like some member of da aristocracy, then not receiving it would be negative reinforcement. But that's not the case here. I swear, that notion that kids are entitled to awards will be the death of advancement method. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Interestin' documentation, clemlaw. Thanks for takin' the time. So da things that stood out for me were (in no particular order): -- The boy had a gallon and a half of water, and had drunk most of it by the time of the incident. That seems like reasonably adequate intake. -- The boy had lots of granola/powerbar type things, and had eaten almost none of 'em. That doesn't seem like adequate intake. -- The lad was gone well before rescuers arrived. -- There's no mention of vomiting in the reports, unlike da popular press reports. Instead there's mention of possible airway obstruction ("snoring") prior to respiratory arrest. -- The lad was workin' on Hiking MB piecemeal. It had been "more than a couple of months" since his last 10-mile training hike. -- Cell phone reception was spotty. While the adult at the scene was eventually able to get a call out for help, the responders were not able to contact him again, and ended up obtaining directions to the incident site from the scouter who had hiked out for water/help. -- As often happens, it's hard to manage resources during an incident. The two other boys and one other adult leader left and continued down the trail, hiking independently, leaving only one adult leader with the boy having difficulty. -- Da trail is on a limestone karst ridge in that area, and is dry, with no available water. -- The boy was nearing 18 and needed the MB for Eagle, which may have driven the decision to hike in the early summer season. -- The lad's father did his MB prep work for the hike, not the boy. -- There is nothing in the report that suggests the lad was symptomatic at the 10-mile point. -- The adults turned down the offer of victim/survivor services from the park and county authorities. ----- Yah, hmmm... So here we have a lad under time pressure to finish Hiking MB because his 18th birthday is approaching. The lad is out of shape, doin' the final 20 mile hike for the merit badge many months after his last prep hike (which undoubtedly was in cooler weather). That's a major factor, since physiological acclimatization to heat requires 8-10 days of exercise. His dad did at least some of the MB work for the boy, including the preparation/planning work for the 20 mile hike. The boy seems to have been carrying adequate water and drinking it, but not eating. The group as a whole had adequate water, but not excess. The trail is not that remote, they were doing an out-and-back hike, and the incident occurred around five miles from a well-developed trailhead with a visitor's center. At that point on the return leg, the lad got really weak and couldn't go farther. They stopped to rest, but realized fairly quickly that there was a problem, and one adult and the other two boys were sent for help and water. Cell phone reception in the area was at best spotty, and the three sent for help/water (especially the adult) seem to have "booked it" down the trail. Some time after they had left, the boy became unresponsive and went into respiratory arrest from causes unknown. Could have been airway obstruction secondary to exhaustion, could have been heat stroke, could have been hyponatremia. Of the set, I might guess the latter based on the apparent lack of heat acclimatization and lots of water consumption with little food. The one adult left at the scene started CPR, but we have no measure of how effective it was. Desperate, that scouter eventually successfully got a cell phone call out for help, perhaps when pausing CPR from fatigue. I do see some lessons here, but I'm not sure I see negligence, eh? The leaders and other members seem to have been prepared for the hike (and successful in completing it). And they seem to have responded reasonably given their level of experience and trainin'. The lessons would be understandin' hyponatremia and the role proper acclimatization plays in preventin' it. The lessons might also include scene and resource management durin' an incident. Leavin' the poor SM by himself with the victim wasn't the best use of resources, eh? Sometimes I think we worry about supervision and no one-on-one to the point of being dangerous. And da folks goin' for help got a bit strung out as well. Another lesson might be that yeh should avail yourself of victim's services when yeh can. Don't turn down help when this sort of hard thing occurs. The last lesson is perhaps da hardest, eh? It's important for the boys who are doin' wilderness travel to do the planning themselves. They need to know requirement #1: recognizing and responding to heat illness, in themselves and others. They need to know how to plan food and drink properly themselves, because they need to know how to use that food and drink in the field. They need to do da planning for fitness and acclimatization for the badge because they need to understand da reason for it. Yeh can't just tick off the last box in the "partial" many months later. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, seem like fine projects to me! dlearyous, sometimes it is hard to figure out the real intent of some of the BSA wording if you're not familiar with the issues. The intention is that an Eagle project not be done for Scouting, and not be done for a private person, private club, or for-profit business. Yeh might think in terms of da IRS 501©(3) rules, or anything to which yeh could reasonably give a charitable contribution, eh? Because that's what we want Eagle projects to be, service-oriented charitable contributions, not somethin' that is a private benefit. So one of these projects was for the range maintained by the base community for a whole variety of community users. That's just like doin' a project for a public park. And another provided assistance to a police training facility. Just like doin' a project to help your local police, fire, or EMS. No problem with either of 'em on that basis. Now 26 total man-hours assembling prefab target kits someone might consider a bit "light" for an Eagle project in terms of the leadership component, but that's up to da folks on site who know the conditions and the boy. Beavah

That's a reasonable group, eh? Reb Gregg has been one of da leaders at WRMC for years, and Forgey and Tilton are well known. So it looks like it'll meet the standards of a normal WFA course, even though it's at the bare minimum in terms of time required. WFA by its nature is not a "certification", eh? There are no performance standards, the way there are for WFR, EMT, or other certifications. Yeh get the certificate of completion if yeh take the course, regardless of whether or not you can demonstrate the skills or knowledge. I don't get the "The content of this course may not deviate, either through additions or deletions, from the approved curriculum." That's just nonsense. Yeh have to give instructors the ability to adapt to the needs of the class they're teaching and to the likely environment those folks are goin' to be experiencing. The notion of a "teacher-proof" curriculum where yeh just follow the text has been debunked so many times it's laughable. That's not the sort of thing that professionals would likely put in, especially for a senario-based course that requires a degree of instructor judgment. So I can only assume that it was a BSA thing, or that ARC figured on using a lot of not-very-experienced instructors and thought this would work. Beavah

I've always been of the opinion that how one conducts oneself after making a mistake is more telling about their character than someone who has never made a mistake. Yah, that's true, eh? But doesn't that include how the fellow approaches Scouting? If he's really in Scouting only for the Eagle badge and will quit if that is closed off to him, that to me says a lot about his character, eh? And it isn't flattering. If, on the other hand, he chooses to stay in Scouting and work hard even though Eagle is no longer an option, because he is Loyal and he wants to give back and he respects those who have held him accountable for his choices, that tells a different story. Eagle like all if advancement is just a tool, eh? We can win the goal of developing young men of good character without giving them awards. The other 7 methods still work. One local troop had a lad get drunk and high outside of scouting time, but found it on his Facebook page. He was dealin' with some issues, but they stepped in, called in the parents, dropped him from his POR. They told him, a Life Scout who had just turned 17, that Eagle was off the table. He stayed in the troop. He worked extra hard, even though he no longer had a position. He led the young scouts in the instruction on the dangers of alcohol and drugs. He went to AA, kept himself clean, knocked his grades out of the park. He did all that our of commitment and loyalty, expecting no reward. The SM called him in with a few months left and told him to get goin' on finishing his Eagle work. I got to sit on da EBOR the day before his 18th birthday, and there was no question he was an Eagle Scout. He's kept himself clean since, and continues to give back to Scouting. But none of that outcome could have occurred had the scouters in his unit not stood up initially for the Oath and the Law, eh? In calling him to task, in making Eagle mean something. Beavah

Oh, Eagle92, I think SPL knows that, eh? I think he's just makin' a more impassioned statement of what I mentioned on da previous page. There's a difference between the standards of proof required before we allow the government to deprive someone of liberty and the standards of proof required before we decide not to give someone an award for outstanding citizenship. I have a former friend who has always gotten off from the court on DUI, either through effective representation, poor police work, or pleading to a lesser charge. He's a former friend because my standards of proof for friendship are different than the court's, eh? As they should be. Beavah

Yah, thanks BrentAllen, that's helpful, eh? The advantage of ARC is that it's inexpensive compared to the private providers, and of course they have a nationwide network which is hard for the smaller, specialty providers to duplicate. Those things can also be a quality disadvantage. Eagle92, ECSI has thus far impressed me as being a "hack" outfit. While I like the book, the course and instructor certification process are pretty weak. Sorta a "mail order degree" type of place, which really relies on the ethics and capability of the contracting institution to do a good job. Now to be fair to them, they only contract with universities and similar community organizations, so that seems to be part of their business model. Yeh might even compare 'em to the BSA (just kiddin'). I always get a bit nervous when da BSA tries to "go it on their own" with this stuff. We really don't have the expertise to do it well. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If you hand coffee out the window to people in a vehicle that's going to be moving, it's reasonable to expect that some of that coffee will wind up on top of someone's genitals. Nah, not sure I buy that, clemlaw. I'm not convinced that it's reasonable to expect someone will stick their coffee between their legs rather than use the cupholder. Heck, by that measure of "reasonableness" givin' them a coffee or food in a moving vehicle when you know it may be a distraction to their driving makes the poor restaurant responsible for any subsequent traffic accident, eh? People liked McDonald's coffee because it was hot, eh? It would stay warm durin' that long commute. Heck, on campin' trips, I always boil water for my coffee or hot chocolate, so I'm servin' it even hotter than McD's! Yikes. Better go get the warnin' labels! One of you fellow scouters might sue me if yeh dump your coffee down your pants because you're laughin' so hard around da campfire (our campfires are always fun, eh!). I wonder if that means our campfire needs a waiver, too? I get really annoyed these days by chain restaurants that refuse to serve me a rare or medium-rare burger or cut of beef, eh? That's what I want as a customer. Darn it, I think I have the right to make a purchase contract with a restaurant to get food served the way I want it. I know the risks. Car companies make cars that can drive above the speed limit on da highway. So does that make 'em responsible for every accident to a speeding motorist? Where does it end? These days yeh have to have warning labels on ladders. Do we get to the point where no ladder can have a top two steps because despite the warnin' label, some nitwit will stand on the top step while trying to install a 150 lb air conditioning unit above a concrete driveway? That's certainly possible, eh? But is it reasonable? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah, I am still not getting your point and for that I am sorry. No need to apologize, Hawkrod. Some folks find my writing sort of opaque. I think they just have trouble with da accent, eh? Yeh should hear OGE talkin' about how incomprehensible I can be! My point is the same as moosetracker's and Scoutfish's. To give a good answer or a trustworthy answer, we need details. Very few things are so very extreme as to have absolutely clear cut responses. Even da worst of YP issues requires a great deal of knowledge, planning, and coordination to respond to effectively, for those of us who sadly have had to deal with such things. In Scoutin', yeh almost never run across that stuff at the regular volunteer level. Instead, yeh see people just being people. Makin' bad assumptions, communicatin' imperfectly, having different goals/values/visions/backgrounds, not havin' enough experience, not understandin' the program beyond their little corner of it, etc. Never assume a felony when things can be explained by just a disagreement between "personalities." I think almost all of us read pack195's post as being one of these ordinary things, as TwoCubDad describes. Why proceed with wisdom and caution? Because we aren't da ones witnessing a crime, eh? We're the ones listening from afar to the hearsay evidence given by one party to a dispute. So we have to act in that way, eh? In order to adhere to the Oath and Law, we have to be Mentally Awake. We have to try to understand enough to be truly Helpful. We have to be Loyal, Courteous, and Kind not just to the poster, but to our brother and sister scouters who are being accused of wrongdoing. Or at least we have to hear enough to figure out what the best advice should be. Beavah

Acronym Alert: ARC = American Red Cross WFA = Wilderness First Aid, generally a 16-30 hour course WFR = Wilderness First Responder, generally an 80 hour course that offers certification SFA = Standard First Aid, a basic course in first aid for in-town emergencies, typically 6-8 hours CPR/AED = Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Automatic External Defibrillator training, typically a 3-4 hour course. SOLO, WMI, WMA, etc. = Major national providers of wilderness first aid training WMS = Wilderness Medical Society, a professional association for medical professionals with an interest in wilderness and remote care medicine EMS = Emergency Medical System, or professionally trained workers in that system EMT = Emergency Medical Technician, a professional first responder (can be EMT-W for wilderness trained, -P for paramedic, etc.) So I'm just curious, eh? For those who have an EMS or WFR, etc. background, has anybody looked at the ARC WFA course compared with the WFA courses offered by the various providers that have a lot more experience (SOLO, WMI, etc.)? I'd like to know what you think. I guess I'm a bit concerned about the rush to ARC programs by scouters, just because what I've seen of the ARC offerings is that they're pretty poor. Materials are weak, and course quality is hit or miss depending on the instructor. ARC really isn't very experienced at da wilderness/remote care side of first aid, nor is the BSA. So that partnership seems to be lackin' input and expertise from da folks who really have been doin' this stuff for years. For example, are any of the WMS bodies consulting on the project? What are you folks seein' out there? Beavah

we are talking about adults and I am sorry, if a crime is actively being committed, I do believe you should call the police. It does not matter if you have "standing" It does to the police. What we're talkin' about here is not a crime being "actively" committed as in a bank robbery in progress. We're talkin' about someone who may have stolen something from someone else. It's up to the person who has been stolen from to file that complaint, eh? If I say to the police that Joe robbed my neighbor but my neighbor says he hasn't been robbed, then not only have I wasted the time of law enforcement I've slandered Joe. So here we have a district leader who the OP thinks has stolen something (presumably from the district), but the district officials don't think anything has been stolen. That's just like mythical "Joe", eh? In order to give a helpful answer, and in order to give a "correct" answer, it is necessary to know more. In the meantime, it's worthwhile to caution the person about making public accusations. Da YP issue is similar, eh? The real, proper, best advice answer depends on da circumstances and the laws of the jurisdiction in which you reside. Are yeh talkin' about child abuse (i.e. abuse of their own child by a parent or guardian) outside of scouting? Are yeh talkin' about physical abuse within a scouting context? Are yeh talking about reasonable suspicion? Or about witnessed/reported abuse? Are we talkin' about sexual battery, or about sending the boy to bed without supper? Yeh see, reporting to the SE is only required for physical abuse within a scouting context, and even there yeh balance it with da CO's primary interest in da case of unit scouting. All da other stuff has different answers which don't include reportin' to the SE. Then there's the case of the Scoutmaster who was left alone at the meeting hall because the parents never showed to pick the kid up, so he drove the boy home. A technical YP violation, where calling the cops, calling the SE, calling CPS, and calling the CO are all inappropriate. At most, someone should chat with da SM about the best ways for the unit to handle such things in the future. So yeh see, even for somethin' as reasonably black-and-white as YP issues, if yeh want a real answer or the best advice, like moosetracker says, yeh need to explain the context. And anybody who just gives yeh an answer without asking for the details is not being Mentally Awake, eh? Or at least they're not givin' advice that's likely to be Trustworthy. Those details matter. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Patrol Method works because the lads are doing more. If yeh have an adult-led hike, then the adult is making the decisions. When to stop. How fast to go. Who leads and who sweeps. When to turn. How to navigate. When to drink. How to support the tired scout. Out of every hour, each boy gets a few minutes of activity when the adult calls on him to answer a question or make a decision. So that's a few minutes of learning an hour. Patrol Method, yeh will sometimes see peers leeching off each other, with one or two boys doing the work. But it doesn't last very long. So out of that same hour, in a functioning youth-led patrol, most of the boys are participating/contributing most of the time. The younger fellows are learning, the older fellows are leading, the middle fellows are showin' the younger fellows by example and learning from the older fellows by example. Each boy is not only occasionally being taught, he's spendin' a lot more of his time developing experience. In the end, I think that does make Patrol Method safer than adult-run or troop method, eh? Just because yeh have so many more people around who have real knowledge and experience, and who the boys will listen to. When there's just one or two adults leading, they can lose track of some boys, or get overtaxed by a situation. Watchin' a couple of parents try to direct 30 boys is amusing, but not very productive eh? The time each boy spends usefully is small, and the amount of effort da adults have to spend thinking about 30 different boys' safety is daunting. We've got a local troop and crew that does Patrol Method fairly well, even for technical things like rock climbing. Da traditional way to maintain safety for climbing (at camp, for example) is to adult-run it, but allow only one or two boys to climb at a time. That way, at any given time, da ratio of experienced instructor to climber is essentially one-to-one. Of course, that also means that there is a long line of boys waiting in line doin' not much of anything. The troop I'm thinkin' of instead has patrol leaders and APL's who are all fairly experienced climbers; and middlin' boys who have done a lot of climbing, and younger boys who might be learning. So rather than have 2-3 adults supervise 2-3 climbers with 27 boys waiting around, each patrol can have their PL and APL set up a climb, their middlin' boys outfit the young fellows, and the adults walk about and check rigs rather than run about trying to set rigs. Instead of 3 adult supervisors there are 3 adult supervisors plus 8 highly experienced PL/APL supervisors plus 16 fairly experienced and alert middlin' lads all working and watching out for things. The novice climber: experienced person ratio is better than one-to-one. In that setup, each boy gets to do and learn a lot more and wait around a lot less. Younger boys get to learn the basics while middlin' boys develop skills and older boys develop leadership ability... so not only are they doin' more, they're doin' things that match where they are developmentally. Where in the adult-run, troop-method or camp setup, every boy is treated like a little kid beginner. That's why patrol method works, eh? Each boy gets to do a lot more and work at his appropriate developmental level. That's also how advancement is supposed to work too, eh? Leastways, when da adults don't get into it. Beavah

Yah, I'll agree with Eagle92,eh. Engingeer61, you're just not understanding da research properly, because you're probably readin' da popular press accounts rather than the real stuff. There was a good Scientific American article a year or so back that explained that da MRI brain studies show the outcome of learning, eh? The more a lad learns, the more brain development they show, until age 25 or so. After that, things get "locked in" and it's harder to learn. Some things, of course, get locked in much earlier, eh? Like language skills. If yeh don't learn a first or second language fairly young, those parts of the brain get "locked in" and it's much harder to really learn an accent-free second language. But if yeh do experience multiple languages early on in life, yeh can become truly proficient, eh? As anybody who has traveled and talked to kids in other countries learns. I met a street urchin 7 year old in Morocco who was fluent in at least 7 languages, even though da language centers of his brain were not done developing. So kids are very good at reasoning, eh? Da age of 7 is the traditional "age of reason", and for most of da history of the world an adolescent has been treated as a functional adult, and properly so. If yeh travel in countries where kids aren't mollycoddled yeh will be truly amazed by what young folks are capable of. What da research really warns us of is how hard it is for adults to learn new things because our brains have stopped developing', eh? We tend to misapply our experience from areas we do know to areas we don't know, and overestimate our competence. Leastways, that's what my colleague in cognitive psychology tells me . It's also an issue for kids who are overprotected or who get into drugs, eh? If they make it past certain cognitive development points without having learned important things, they may be handicapped for da rest of their lives, because their brain structure got "locked in" without learning. There's a reason why most great advances, from Alexander the Great to Einstein, came from people who were younger than 25, whose brains were still learning. That didn't make 'em less capable, it made 'em more capable. Beavah

I know that I would sue in a heart beat if that is what I needed to do to get the money my child needed for medical treatment. Yah, hmmmm... Sasha, I understand your sentiment, eh? We all would consider robbing banks if we felt we had to to protect our kids. But that's what this is, eh? Robbing. Stealing. Extortion. Just because our kids are ill or injured does not mean we are entitled to have other people pay us for their needs. Nor does it mean that it's OK to use da court system or the media to attempt to extort payment from others just because our kid needs it or we want compensation after we lose a child. Civil tort law is there so that citizens can recover when someone else has genuinely caused them harm, eh? It's not a lottery, nor should it be confused with charity (a child has a need therefore someone should be genrous and pay). We allow civil suits so as to prevent people from taking real disputes into their own hands. It's our responsibility as parents to assume risks, eh? If we send a lad on a hike with some other parent volunteers instead of paying $4000 for the Outward Bound trip, then we have assumed the risk of having non-professionals lead our boy in return for the free service. If we pay for and send then on the OB trek, then we assume the risk that things can happen in the mountains that no professional guide service can prevent. Including ordinary human error in judgment by the guides. It's our job as parents to maintain adequate health coverage for our kids, or to take care of then when they are hurt, or to beg for charity if that's what it takes. Compensation is not owed to us for the ordinary risks of our choices, including the risk of others' simple mistakes. I hope we would all avoid robbing banks or extorting payments from others, no matter what our need was, or how much it seemed the bank "doesn't need the money". As you did. And I thank yeh for making that difficult, and deeply ethical choice, as hard as it was. I hope your son is recovering well from whatever happened. Beavah

Yah, that's interestin', eh? I note the change in the online COR training materials, but I also note that there is no change in the annual charter agreement for this year, which expressly states that the general liability coverage is primary for volunteers. So given da relative reliability of the BSA's web materials and the more binding nature of the charter agreement, I'd guess that there hasn't really been a change and the coverage is still primary for volunteers. Or at least da BSA is legally on the hook for it anyways. That having been said, it has gone back and forth over the years, and given the way da economic downturn has impacted insurers, I could see a change as being possible. As always, I wish da BSA would stop being coy about this stuff and be up-front and timely with its information. I'll try to remember to call and find out on Monday, eh? Unless Richard wants to jump in . Beavah

Yah, like Scoutfish I have dealt with many a parent who believed money was "stolen" when non-refundable deposits were not returned or when fundraising dollars weren't passed along to another unit or when dues or registration were not refunded to da parents when a boy withdrew. And yep, odds sre they leave scouting in a huff, sayin' bad things about scouting volunteers. Those to me are the a same sort of thing as the young lad whose doohickey is "stolen." But if others don't see da comparison, I understand. Neither it nor I am perfect. Hawkrod, I wasn't referring to anything you posted at all, eh? I read the whole thread without particularly lookin' at who wrote what. So if yeh thought I was making personal reference to you, I apologize. I was thinking about some of da positions expressed across several posts, and then I wrote what I thought, eh? I expressed my thoughts about da actions I wrote about. Not about other posters. Not about da actions other posters proposed. My thoughts, about what I wrote. It's a group discussion, eh? There's no other way to write. If I had wanted to do a two-way, I would have said "I disagree with Hawkrod's position because...". Instead I just offered my own thoughts based on readin' a dozen different posts. Now, Hawkrod, I will respond directly to your last post here, eh? I really didn't understand your second paragraph at all. I'm not sure where YP and BSA policy come in or how yeh got that out of anything I wrote. Seems like "twisting" to me, eh? . But since yeh seem to want direct answers to questions: If a crime is being committed, is it wrong to call the police? It depends. Sometimes yeh don't have standing to file a complaint. Other times, like if yeh catch one of your scouts shoplifting a candy bar at a rest stop, prudence suggests a different course of action. No, I have not slept in a Holiday Inn Express. Yes, there are some cases of suspected child abuse where, depending on state law, I would advise someone to only notify CPS and not contact the Scout Executive. I think I've been clear on that in many posts on da subject; the generic national BSA training is not adequate for giving specific advise in each jurisdiction for each case. Da folks I've spoken with at national agree with me, BTW. Now, let me respond more personally to yeh, Hawkrod. I really don't mind that yeh misinterpreted or twisted my words and intent. It happens, eh? That's life and humanity. It doesn't repulse or upset me at all. We all read from our own perspectives, and our own experience and backgrounds. And sharing those differences is how we learn. You assume that this poster is just like you and what you faced, eh? Might or might not be true. I hear yeh when you worry that maybe when someone comes with a problem and we are cautious or try to look at things from all kinds of different angles, that may be off-putting if the person is looking for affirmation or a simple answer. I just don't think that if you're looking for affirmation or a simple answer that yeh bring a question to a few thousand people who don't know yeh and who have vastly different experiences. I think you'll be happier with da forums if yeh realize that, try not to take what is a general discussion personally, and be understandin' if others from a different perspective offer different advice. Be kind to 'em, eh? Even if they didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Beavah

Yah, Hawkrod, when yeh ask a group of people for advice, that's what you're goin' to get, eh? Advice. Not necessarily what yeh want to hear. Not necessarily support. Not necessarily a direct answer to a (very loaded) question. Most of us, if a lad were to come to us and say "My doohicky was stolen!" would ask more questions. Where did yeh last see it? Why do you think it was stolen? That's because we have experience, eh? We know that more than half the times a young fellow comes with such a story his doohicky is buried in his pack or was left behind somewhere by him. So we ask more questions so that we can help him resolve the real underlying issue, even though we're not respondin' directly. Lots of us with experience hear da OP's post in the same way, eh? We care, but we're lookin' for the underlying story so we can really help. Yeh see, claiming that other boys left scouting because of this "theft" is what is called hearsay, eh? And it's so unreliable that it's not admissible as testimony or evidence. So we actually don't really know why other boys may have left. Against that, we have evidence that all of the other people who have heard the allegations have rejected them, and considered them inappropriate enough to pursue action against the original poster's membership in Scouting. So without additional information, da best advice is to ask for more information while encouragin' the person not to (continue to) put themselves in a position for which they may suffer serious consequences. To my mind, that shows kindness to and caring for the poster, eh? Not attacking. What would be hurtful and bad advice is to tell the poster to run off and call the SE and the cops without more information, and thereby have him/her put their scouting membership or standing in the community in further jeopardy, or expose them to recovery for the damages they inflict on someone else. Often da best advice is not the advice you want to hear. Now, with more information, we might be able to give better guidance, eh? Until then, we're left doin' the best with what we've got. Beavah

Interestin' Blancmange. Thanks for postin'. So the Florida scouters actually followed da protocol by the book for ARC standard first aid.

One of the hard things about environmental and exertional stresses is that different people respond differently, eh? Whether it's heat, or cold, or altitude or whatever. One person can be doin' just fine, and the fellow right next to him who is doin' the exact same hike collapses and is in trouble. Until you've actually seen a bunch of cases "live", yeh really aren't likely to make a correct and timely diagnosis based on basic First Aid training. That's why professional certifications include clinical time treatin' real patients in the field or ER. Florida case could have been heat stroke. Could also have been hyponatremia (low sodium serum level from too much water drinking without enough food/salts). Could also have been cardiac-related. And da way it initially presented, it could also have been tired and out of shape. Even a doc isn't goin' to make that diagnosis in the field without equipment. Core temperature and skin temperature can be quite different, eh? And even if the diagnosis was made, I'm not sure any field treatment would have been successful. Definitive treatments involve intravenous therapy and packin' the person in ice. Heat stroke, cardiac issues, and severe hyponatremia are time-critical things, eh? Sometimes there's just no cure. Remember the Boston Marathoner who died of hyponatremia despite drinkin' Gatorade and having medical help right there and a hospital around the corner? I think we should encourage and even fund scouters to pursue a level of first response training that makes them comfortable. I'd love to see every scout and scouter with WFA. There's no reason at all why WFA shouldn't be da standard for First Aid MB at least. I think it would be nice for every high adventure leader and participant to have WFR or better. It'd be a good training investment for us to support those who want to pursue that level of training. But to expect it of everybody? Da costs exceed the benefits. I don't think yeh can point to a single scouting fatality and say that better first responder training definitely would have changed the outcome. I see it more as a personal confidence and good citizenship thing. The other problem I've noticed with most of da first aid training is that it tends not to focus on kids or common ailments. Kids are different than adults, and da most common things yeh see in the field aren't usually given as much time as some other stuff. Like heat injury vs. CPR. CPR cert. will take yeh a few hours, while even in WFA heat injury might be covered in less than half an hour. I don't know if it's even touched on in ARC standard first aid anymore. Again, nuthin' wrong with CPR, it's good for citizens to know it to give in-town heart attack victims a chance. Just sayin' that most first aid trainin' isn't well tailored to what's most needed in a scouting environment. Beavah

It should be a collaboration, eh? Between parents (who know things about their kid that the scouters don't know), scouters (who know things about the boy and camping that the parents don't know) and youth leaders (who know all the things about the boy that none of the adults know). Parents over- and under- estimate their kids' abilities all the time. I've seen parents try to push a reluctant kid on outings he had no business being on, and fearful parents hold their kids back from outings the boy would have found a piece of cake. Scouters are usually better, because they've actually seen the lad in the field. Most likely error is that scouters tend to give the lad the "benefit of the doubt" because they want a boy to succeed (or don't want parent grief). So sometimes they don't say "no" when they should. Happens particularly on high adventure trips when an immature or out of shape lad really wants to come with his peers. Experienced scouts are often da best judges, eh? Kids tend to be fair and honest, and they've seen the lad in the field most closely. Of course, all three sometimes make mistakes because they remember what the boy was like last year, eh? And they forget that the boy this year is very different than the boy last year. Yeh get da best results when everyone works together and listens well, yeh use advancement method well as a guide, and yeh do a few prep trips. Beavah

As a unit leader that insurance is secondary to any personal insurance Unless they've changed somethin' recently, as a registered scouter the liability coverage is primary, not secondary, for everything except motor vehicle accidents. For MVAs and for non-registered adults serving as leaders, it's secondary. B

Recharter fee is the same nationwide, eh? $15 per kid for the year. Plus $1 if your council or troop does the limited accident insurance thing. If yeh want "professional", as in paid staff hired for experience and trained to industry norms with protocols in place, then it's not $150 eh? It's $1500 per week. Call it $250 per day. So annual dues for a troop that goes campin' 10 weekends plus summer camp would be $6500, plus transportation. Then add another $500 or $1000 for meetings. Why so much? Yeh need to pay people to take off time to take and maintain EMT-W certification. The latter is at least a month of training and many thousands of dollars per person in training costs, plus CE time to maintain it. Then yeh have to add on outdoors training. A basic NOLS Outdoor Educator's course will cost yeh another $4K plus another month of time. Then if yeh want to add sport-specific training like ACA swiftwater instructor/guide/rescue or a NOLS rock climbing and rock climbing instructor course, add in another couple of months and another 8 grand. That just gets yeh training, eh? If yeh actually want experience both in the outdoors and working with kids, then yeh have to pay enough to recruit it from a relatively small pool. And even so, you're probably goin' to get some pretty young folks who are still forming their judgment skills. Then yeh have to add in BSA program training and review. And like I said, even da best of the professionals have accidents and fatalities. NOLS has had a few fatalities over da years, and they run only a fraction of the number of client-days in the woods that the BSA does, with a much older clientele. The Florida case is tragic. I think our institutional response to the family and to the media was flawed. But I've seen experienced professionals miss da diagnosis on heat illness in similar conditions, and we're not even sure if this was heat illness or some other underlyin' condition brought on by the exertion. Without all the information, I'm not seein' "stupid". What I do see is about a million very capable volunteers doin' their best to offer a fine, safe, wonderful program at less than cost. But if yeh don't like it, da professional guide services are there for yeh for only $10K a year if yeh can generate enough volume of interest. At least at those rates I'd expect attendance and commitment would be higher than we see in Scouting. Beavah

Yah, John-in-KC, never heard of that, but agree da math is a bit off. If that's the case, I reckon we're in trouble. Accordin' to the new Journey to Excellence materials, the current average troop size in the country is 14 boys. B

[cue the Imperial March] da da da dun da da dun da da... Yeh definitely get the king geek award for that Star Wars reference. And the image of Evil Emperor Darth Mazzuca supported by Lord Vader-Bourlon is precious! Reminds me of da other great quote (the Amidala Principle?): "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause!" In questing for absolute security from bad things happening, we can willingly sacrifice the best of who we are. Beavah