Beavah

Yah, sorry LIBob, I couldn't disagree more. Institutional safety is where we set up a deliberately "over the top" set of policies and practices to provide safety for people who have very little skill or experience. Summer camp swim areas are da perfect example, eh? Yeh provide a high ratio of lifeguards to swimmers, a very small, very visible swim area, etc. etc.... all because you're dealing with inexperienced children. That's not da real world, though. In the real world, people have experience and no longer need institutionalized over-the-top safety. In fact, we want people to become experienced so that we can dismantle institutionalized safety, which is expensive and very limiting. So yah, sure, we use SSD at camps with a large population of inexperienced swimmers. But if you've got a lad who is a strong swimmer, there's nothing wrong with him competing in the local triathalon, eh? They're very popular around here this time of year, all kinds of scout-aged kids competing along with adults. But in da swim section of a triathalon, yeh break all kinds of SSD rules. No swim buddy (can't since your goal is to leave your buddy behind!). No roped off swim area. Swimming in over 12 feet of water. Lower ratio of lifeguards and safety boats than what NCS calls for. Now, I suppose from what you write that you'd ban all triathalons and swim competitions or at least refuse to participate or let your son participate. That's your choice. I just think that Scouting should instead encourage such stuff, and prepare boys who are interested for such stuff. Make 'em strong swimmers so that they don't need da institutional safety net and can swim in a triathalon or on their own. Yeh mention gun safety, and when we set up an NCS gun range at camp we limit things to .22 bolt-action rifles with a bunch of strict procedures designed for beginners. That doesn't mean that it's right and proper to limit every experienced adult shooter to .22s and controlled ranges, eh? Now me, I'm an experienced paddler. I'm perfectly comfortable paddlin' solo on rivers I'm familiar with when it's well within my ability level. I'm an adult, eh? I'm not bound by institutional safety rules developed for inexperienced children. Thank goodness! That's what we Americans call "Liberty". Nuthin' like it. And nuthin' like the peacefulness yeh get paddling solo down a river at dawn or in the early evening, just you and your fellow Beavers. Of course, in Baden-Powell's day, "scouts" were experienced fellows who could and often did operate solo on behalf of da group, to gather information about da terrain and the enemy. I reckon there's a reason he chose "scouting" rather than "infantry" as his model for a boys' program. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Never slow down rank advancement - it is a disservice to the boys and is not allowed. Yah, I always get a knee jerk response to statements like this, eh? Could be because I've got old knees. Could be because I'm a jerk. I reckon there are times when it's appropriate to slow down advancement. When parents are pushin' it for sure. Also when a boy gets focused on checkin' da boxes as fast as he can rather than really learning the skills as best as he can. We want kids to get stronger, eh? Often that means encouraging 'em to dig harder and deeper rather than shallower and faster. I think most good SMs also have to have a vision of what it means to be a First Class scout, or a Life Scout, or an Eagle Scout. Da requirements provide snapshot frames and measurable moments, but da reality is more like a movie than like snapshots. If yeh have a great First Class movie then you'll have da snapshot frames to prove it, but if yeh ran around collecting snapshots yeh won't have the movie. So yeh might think, like Kudu does and BP did, that a First Class scout should be able to handle himself completely on a weekend outing without any help. A scout who can do that for real will certainly have the ability to plan food and cook it, pick campsites, handle basic first aid, navigate and all da rest of the snapshot requirements - AND know how to string 'em all together. But a lad who has just accumulated snapshots - done meal planning here, done some cooking there, navigated once for da requirement, etc. - he won't have the movie. And a SM with a good sense of mission and vision will care about the lad and slow down his advancement until he's got the movie - until he really is First Class. Anything else does the lad a real disservice. Beavah

Yah, thanks Scoutfish and E61 for helping us all think through this a bit, eh? A struggle I've always felt with simplistic instituional safety stuff like SSD is that it doesn't really prepare folks for da judgment and skills needed to be safe in da real world, where institutional resources and strictures aren't in place. Da BSA swim check is like that too, eh? It's an institutional mechanism for guaranteeing a minimal level of water skill and comfort that will be safe with institutional supports in place (though even then I get a bit annoyed when most camps ignore da "in a strong manner" piece and credit drowning in a forward direction for 100 yards ). Now yeh could say that everyone in da real world should always operate with full institutional resources and strictures. Every boater must have a buddy boat. Or yeh could say that our job is to prepare kids (and adults) to operate in that real world without institutional support. That our job is to teach Engineer61's son how to swim on his own in his backyard pool ... safely and with good judgment. That we want kids to learn how to boat safely on their own, and climb on their own, and trek on their own - eventually without the guided tour institutional safety of having "Qualified Supeervision". Yah, sure, and have the judgment to know when not to go on their own, too. Sometimes if we focus too much on da points of institutional safety, we forget to teach da real skills and judgment required for actual safety. Beavah

Yah, gotta agree with Eagledad, eh? The collapse of Scouts Canada has been a real tragedy, and an illustration of what happens when the "top" of da organization isn't in touch with its members. Our National Organization is somewhat less clueless, eh? At da same time, they're in some ways even more insular, just by virtue of our corporate model and our size. Da national office, to be honest, can be kind of depressing. Not the most healthy corporate culture. And the structure of the thing discourages a service-oriented philosophy. Some outside input makes it through occasionally from good folks puttin' in an awful lot of effort and developin' connections. Perhaps just enough for us to avoid da Scouts Canada mess, but sadly not much more. Thing of it is, there are some good folks in the pro and senior volunteer ranks, and quite a few fine folks. Da institutional structure just handicaps 'em badly. Beavah

To say the employees of today are so much busier than any preceeding generation is enabling them to be the self obsessed ego centric weinnies that the are Yah, don't hold back there, OGE! I remember when I had to hike 5 miles to school, uphill in a blizzard both ways! Much as we like to blame da young people, though, I don't think that the data supports it. As far as volunteerin' goes, there's some good data on that, eh? See http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/06_1203_volunteer_growth.pdf. Right now, we're at an all-time high in volunteering nationwide, across almost all age groups. Young and old people in particular are volunteering at record high rates, with mid-life folks volunteering near their historical highs (and volunteering more than us old farts, I'm ashamed to say). As you'd expect, with the exception of older folks, the more leisure time yeh have (shorter the commute, not having kids at home, not being economically stressed, etc.) the more folks volunteer. So quite naturally, teenagers and college students volunteer more than workers with kids at home, and folks with shorter commutes (like small towns) volunteer more than folks with longer commutes. One of da interesting things is that folks with longer-term ties to the community volunteer more, and since young folks these days are more mobile than we used to be, that has an impact. But despite that impact, the young folks do us proud. So not much reason to call young folks ego-centric weenies or to believe that us older folks are any better. In fact, the young people are by and large doin' as much or more volunteering than we did at their age, and are doin' more in their busy mid-life than we are in our older years. In fact, given that we older folks are pretty financially stable and don't have kids at home anymore, our numbers are a bit disappointing compared to theirs. Maybe we're the ego-centric weenies after all. As for work hours, a quick check on stuff that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has suggests that work hours have stayed pretty steady or declined slightly for males. Those are kinda funky statistics, because downturns in the economy show a downturn in work hours, so it's not always a measure of leisure time. But probably safe to say that we're not workin' harder now than we were in the past. Women, on da other hand, are a lot more in the workforce, eh? So da average family has less "at home" adult time, either because of both parents workin' or because of more single-parent homes. At da same time, families are smaller and happenin' a bit later in life, so the average 2 parent household has more economic resources and fewer kids to take care of. Put that all together, and I think what yeh get is something like this: 1) Modern suburban families have more money compared with time than we used to, so are more willing to spend $$ on professional kids programs than spend volunteer time on 'em, even though overall they volunteer at the same rate we did (and they support their kids volunteering significantly more as teenagers than we did). 2) Modern suburban families have enough time and fewer kids to be able to focus their time tightly on the kid, being more involved in scheduling the kid's time and driving 'em hither and yon and less likely to let the kid run around the neighborhood while they get work done. 3) The result of both parents workin', lots of volunteering, and especially the heightened hour-by-hour involvement with their kids feels more busy and burdensome. Again, not weenies, eh? Just a bit more hyper/micro involved with their kids on a daily basis than we were. Beavah

Then you never met my son's HS Science teacher,...Nor have you met my son's wrestling coach or my Jr. HS Band leader also Eagle scouts that would occaisonally help out, or the several teachers and public school employees that work at our Council summer camp and often work hours well beyond what they're payed Yah, SA, I think yeh misunderstood me. The claim was that by virtue of being a CO a public school would have special access to public school teachers as volunteers, eh? That they'd be recruited by the school administration and would to it to "look good for the boss." I don't believe that is the case. There are of course people of all walks of life who volunteer for scouting, largely because their sons are involved; sometimes because they were scouts and want to give back. Public school teachers included! But there are almost zero who volunteer because their employer runs a scouting program. Like I said, I've known a few private schools where the teachers became scout leaders at the behest of the administration in order to support their employer's program, but that's rare. In those cases the scouting or exploring program was run as a full-out "regular" school extracurricular activity, same as the baseball team or drama program. I've never seen that happen for a public school charter. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, and da moral of da story is drinking and boating don't mix, eh? That's a point that's missing from Safety Afloat if yeh feel it should apply to adults and non-scouts. Of course, Safety Afloat doesn't apply to adults and non-scouts. LIBob, nobody is hurling insults, and I'm sorry if it comes off that way. What we're doin' is disagreeing with your claims. In da original thread yeh made the claim that "Actually in each an every one of those scout drowning SSD was not followed. and the point of posting them was to show that even a simple google search reveals each year 1-2 scouts die because they or their leaders do not follow SSD or safety afloat. " When it was pointed out that in half of 'em SSD didn't apply, and in the rest it was adhered to, yeh didn't say "oops!"; when it was pointed out that your sources were incomplete and therefore your judgments incorrect yeh didn't say "sorry". Your data in each case actually disproved your claim. I think whenever a tragedy happens there's a natural tendency for people to try to find fault. For people close to the victims, that's part of da grieving process. Gettin' angry. In the story above the dad who was finding fault couldn't even remember that his son had recently had a birthday and was no longer a teenager. That's grieving. For people farther away from the victims, there is a sense of fear. None of us ever want to be part of a scene where a kid is hurt, eh? When we read about such things, we want to find fault. It makes us feel better. It makes us feel like it wouldn't happen to us, because we're better than that other scouter. While both things are natural, as someone who has dealt with accidents and such, they aren't healthy, and they don't lead to good conclusions. Accidents are complex things, with a lot of factors, eh? Even when there are mistakes in judgment, they are rarely simplistic things. Claiming that they are neither helps others prevent such things from happening, nor treats our fellow scouters with compassion and justice. I think there is real merit in lookin' at good case studies of accident reports for both lessons and trends, eh? For some examples, I'd encourage yeh to take a look at things like the American Canoe Association's River Safety Reports or da Mountaineers annual Accidents in North American Mountaineering report. Other organizations compile such things for other sports and activities from diving to boating to flying, and trade publications often contain individual accident/incident writeups that make for great analyses. I'd encourage yeh to check some of those sources out for how a good, useful, and non-judgmental accident or incident report is done, eh? Thus an appropriate response on your part might have been "Hey we agree. The leaders were trained they had rescue equipment thye jsut failed to realize teh river was too high and too fast." Nah, because we don't agree. There isn't any evidence that the river was too high or too fast for the group, eh? As I pointed out, a paddler on the scene said the stretch was safely runable by himself and a 10 year old. The mechanism of injury was a complete fluke. It was an accident. Truth is, there was no fault to be found. So we do not agree, eh? I think it was just a tragedy that could happen to any of us, and it does a disservice to the family of the lad and to the scouters of that troop to try to find fault and assign blame. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, in da parent thread, Horizon writes: I just picked up 4 boys in the 8th grade. My older Scouts convinced their buddies to join up due to the shooting sports and ski trips that we offer - that was something different to them. I think that we can find some great Scouts if we look beyond the local Packs. Maybe Horizon can speak some more to this, or maybe some other folks can jump in. Anybody have some real successes recruiting non-cub scouts into Boy Scouting? Care to share what works (and what doesn't)? Beavah

But when BSA had a good relationship with public schools, they had ready made charter organizations. Teachers could be recruited to help out (sure didn't hurt their relationship with the boss!), resources made available. Yah, Gern, I'm just not seein' it. To be honest I can't think of any teachers who ever volunteered on their own time to help a scout unit, even when da school itself was the CO. Not in public schools. Private schools, yah, we had a few, but the relationship was much tighter and the private school really ran it as their program, just usin' us for some support. Public school teachers expect to be paid for extracurriculars. Even in our more liberal urban areas, I can name on one hand da units lost to Dale. By and large, the charters just shifted to PTOs if they weren't there already, and the workers continued to be the same parent volunteers. Only thing that made a dent was when a few schools stopped backpack mail so it was harder to get da word out, but now most school districts recognize that's illegal, eh? So no change. Real declines we're seein' are along da lines others are talkin' about - fewer committed volunteer adults; kids and parents looking for more "organized" full-time activity without da same level of parent commitment. And to be honest, there are a lot more sports enthusiast dads willing to coach and pay $$ for junior than there are scouting enthusiast dads. Beavah

Yah, interestin'. Around here I think what we're seein' overall is a parental preference for "outsourcing." Whether it's daycare or youth programs, there is sufficient wealth that it's worth paying others to provide programs for your kids rather than spending the time yourself. Also feels like yeh have more "control" that way, with a fixed, highly-adult-organized schedule and such. Sports are a big part of it, but da same applies to music programs, bands, science camps, etc. The advantage of da "outsourced" child care stuff in addition to getting your time back (except for driving and cheering) is that it's fairly high intensity. If a lad is practicing soccer every day, his parents can see real, rapid growth in skill and fitness. So it feels "worth it" to both the boy and the parents. Yeh don't get da same sense of rapid growth and success from a weekly scout meeting and an outing a month, and certainly not from da cub program. Those are the biggies where we're at, though declining youth demographic plays a role, too. Don't see any effect from 3Gs, really. As many folks join or stay because of the BSA policy as those who object, and of da folks who disagree it's a deal-breaker for very few. They're makin' decisions on other grounds. I do think that da school-access issues different places have impacted the cub programs somewhat. Some folks in the outdoor industry have been tellin' me that there's been a very real decline in sales of outdoor gear over the past 10 years; in fact, some shops are stayin' alive only on the clothing sales. Hard to say how much of that is a shift to online, but even da online shops haven't been doin' that well. I think the notion of outdoor adventure recreation as something that every family does (as opposed to a few crazy people) is in decline. All those add up to trends that are hard to break, eh? I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen more decline. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Or it would be nice if folks actually paid careful attention to what SSD actually says, eh? It's expected that yeh mark areas in some reasonable way, eh? But how yeh mark 'em is up to the Qualified Supervisor. Some suggestions are given, but yeh aren't limited to those suggestions. It certainly does not require stringing ropes hither and yon. I think we're gettin' too caught up in details of mechanism rather than goals. Da goals of point 3 are to ensure that the capability of the swimmers matches the characteristics of da swim area. Focus on doin' that well, not on only one possible mechanism for doin' that well. Beavah

Yah, LIBob, you're just drownin' da rest of us in words, eh? I think it would be best if yeh kept da focus on one article. Moving from one popular press piece to another doesn't allow for any meaningful analysis. Shame yeh didn't do any additional research on some of da pieces. Yeh mentioned the Clackamas accident, but again I'm not sure of the point. The adults had SA training, and extensive experience on the river. The river was running at springtime flow rates, but springtime flow rates on a Class II river do not constitute "too high", eh? In fact, if yeh finished your research, you would have found this report from another paddler: I told the writer that with the proper training, skills and judgement it would be easily possible to successfuly negotiate this section of whitewater (I floated a 10 mile section just upstream with a 10 year old girl in a Jackson fun 1 the following day. Here's what really happened, based on experienced whitewater investigators: Wrapped around Finn's wrist was the rope from a throw bag, a rescue device he apparently grabbed as the boat went over. It later came out that a throwbag was deployed from another canoe once the original canoe capsized. The rope was then released by the original rescuer in the rescue canoe. The rope got tangled around the victims wrist, while the other end got chaulked and or tangled on a rock or debris. The rope shockloaded and trapped the victim about 6 feet under the water - (the River was 10 feet deep). The safety line -- which is 50 feet long with a weighted bag at the end was looped around Terry's wrist at one end and trapped underwater at the other. A device intended to save a swimmer in distress had trapped the boy six feet below the surface in water 10 feet deep. The Clackamas County medical examiner said Tuesday that the official cause of death was accidental drowning. It was a fluke accident, Richards and Brawner agreed. Even with the proper equipment, a boy died. Rescuers eventually untangled Finn from the line and pulled him onto a boat. Clackamas County Sheriff's media relations officer said "No amount of experience or type of floatation could have prevented this accident." So by readin' popular press accounts about an accident all the way across the country on a river you have never paddled, you've decided to disagree with da local county sheriff who had rescue personnel on-scene that watched the accident happen. And based on that knowledge, you feel it's necessary to castigate some fellow scouters for a truly tragic event. Perhaps yeh might want to think about that a bit, eh? Does that approach really do the scouting community a service? As for da young lad who fell of the whale watching vessel, he was apparently knocked unconscious and sucked into the propeller. No PFD was required by SA, and most PFDs won't save an unconscious person, let alone one who gets into da prop stream. The extra few pounds of flotation a PFD provides is nuthin' compared to those forces. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Merlyn in da original thread speculates it's because of 3G issues, but I don't think that really tracks. We all represent a good cross the nation sample of scouters. I'm curious what yeh all are seeing in your areas? There's no question that we're seeing a slow membership decline, with some accelerated decline in Cubs. Here are da last few years of figures: Cubs. Scouts. Venture. Total 2005 1,745,324 943,426 249,948 2,938,698 2006 1,701,861 922,836 244,266 2,868,963 2007 1,687,986 913,588 254,259 2,855,833 2008 1,665,635 905,879 261,122 2,832,636 2009 1,634,951 898,320 257,361 2,790,632 What are you seeing in your area in terms of causes, if yeh can identify any? Let's try not to turn this into an Issues & Politics thread, eh? Share what you're really seeing and your best guesses for what's happening in your area, but save da political debates. Beavah

Yah, but stories in da outlets you tend to read, eh? Forgive me for suggestin' it, but I reckon that your reading habits don't constitute a random sample . You're also more likely to weight such comments more highly than they merit.

Yah, Merlyn, anecdote is not da same thing as data. I wonder what sort of web sites and discussions you tend to frequent, eh? . I don't think yeh have an unbiased sample there.

Yah, da thing is that professional and high-quality sources don't rely on advertising revenue, eh? Unlike media outlets, they don't need to be sensational or entertaining, and they also don't worry about where or whether they appear in search engine listings. That's why if you really want to understand things so as to inform people and prevent drownings, it takes more effort. Not much more effort, mind, just a little bit. Yeh have to do some work to collect and evaluate data before yeh make any claims. The fact is scouts drown every year, frquently at scouting events and almost inevitably when one or more points of SSD/SA were not being followed. That's a claim. Now, what is your evidence? Da problem with your original post was that you made a claim that was not supported by the cases which you presented. In this case, what specifically leads yeh to believe that scouts drown "frequently" at scouting events? I'd suggest that in actual fact da safety record of scouting events is very good, and that drownings at scouting events are remarkably infrequent. When yeh actually do accident investigations, either as a professional or as part of litigation, yeh find that it's almost never as cut-and-dried as "he didn't follow SSD". Accidents are complex things, involvin' a lot of factors which add up in unfortunate ways. What you are presenting is overly simplistic and therefore not particularly helpful for either evaluation or prevention. Just MHO, of course. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Google is a wonderful search tool for finding things. It's just not a great evaluation tool, eh? To make sense of cases, yeh have to evaluate the quality of the source, the nature of the reportin', dig deeper, look for original or other sources. I'm not faulting google, eh? I'm offerin' a gentle critique of the way you're using it, because it's leading you to false conclusions. When we teach scouts to find newspaper articles, that's only the first step, eh? A good MBC will then sit with the scouts to evaluate the quality of the sources, and teach 'em to read critically and seek out more information as necessary. And not everything is on da web, eh? Sometimes, yeh actually have to pick up a phone or write an email. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

True when David Hanson drowned he was not on a scouting event nonetheless he was a scout and he did drown. Well, he once was a scout . But at the time of his death, he was a 20 year old man. Can I ask why yeh feel the need to malign an Eagle Scout's memory after such a tragedy by goin' out of your way to try to find fault with the man? How do yeh feel that's in keeping with the Scout Oath and Law? Discipline is somethin' we provide for children, eh? I can't see where yeh can make a claim that there was a breakdown in discipline between the two adults in this case. That would be somethin' like not following the captain's directions on the part of the crewman, and there's no evidence of that. Yeh have da words of a grieving father to suggest lack of experience, but da words of a grieving father are highly suspect, eh? That's the nature of grieving. They were on their float plan, navigating adequately. If yeh read SA, it specifies that the skill requirements for motorboating are those of Motorboating MB. Right there in bold, eh? (b) Powerboat operators must be able to meet requirements for the Motorboating merit badge or equivalent. . So there's no reason to believe that they did not meet the written requirements of Safety Afloat for skill proficiency. And we'll leave aside da notion that two 20-year-old adults need a 21-year-old to accompany them. Besides being foolish, all it would have gotten yeh in this case is another victim. Which brings us back to buddy boat, which we both recognize is not a common practice in adult motorboating. So we're back to why do yeh want to go so far out of your way to find fault with one of our Eagle Scouts who suffered such a tragedy at a young age? What do yeh feel it accomplishes? Beavah

Yah, thanks for confirming for everyone that certified lifeguards are not required by SSD. While the reports agree that the adults in charge were not certified lifeguards, they also agree that the adults were looking out and were enforcing discipline. No SSD foul there, though if yeh read the full thread you'll know my feeling with respect to what constitutes qualified supervision, eh? But that's my personal feeling (yours as well it seems), not the letter of da law. It's not clear whether the adults in this case had a line with them, but of course a rescue line is not a requirement for SSD, it's only an advisory guideline. Lines in the water, as demonstrated by your second Googled accident, are extremely dangerous. They are best only handled by professionals trained in their use and carrying knives to free themselves or entrapped swimmers. The accident report is available from da Iosco County Sheriff. Beavah

Nah, I don't think yeh need a whole bunch of special case rules for SSD/SA. The point is that yeh get Qualified Supervision who knows how to set up safety for that particular event. In the accident that you describe above, Safety Afloat did not apply, because it was a couple of adults going out boating together. The title "Scout Drowns" is also a bit off, eh? Safety Afloat is a BSA program feature, which is designed to help adults set up a safe boating experience for children. While some aspects of it have application to all boating, many don't. We don't look for "Qualified Supervision" for experienced adults. There's another problem with relyin' on popular press accounts to do accident analysis, eh? That's why yeh have real people who understand boating and accidents, like da Coast Guard, who do these things professionally. I usually wait for those reports. But I'll bite. (1) Qualified Supervision - does not apply. (2) Physical Fitness - no reason to assume they were not fit for boating. (3) Swimming Ability - the man was an Eagle Scout and therefore had passed this test. (4) Personal Flotation - was worn by both men. (5) Buddy system - no "buddy boat" was present. In this case, that would have made a difference, eh? That's not a common thing for adult recreational boating, however; in fact, it's almost never done except for PWCs, even when a camp is running somethin' like Waterskiing. Had their boat been 5 feet larger, it wouldn't have been expected for Safety Afloat either. (6) Skill proficiency - they should have met da requirements for Motorboating MB. They seem to have followed proper emergency procedures for the Mayday. If yeh read da requirements for motorboating MB, there's no reason to believe that the men didn't meet all of 'em. None of those requirements would have prevented this accident. (7) Float Plan - The two men left a float plan with a friend on shore that was useful in the rescue. (8) Equipment - Until we have da results of the accident investigation, we won't know da nature of the failure that caused the boat to sink. One might fault 'em on equipment on the principle that "if something went wrong, it must be your fault", but that isn't always the case. For night boating, I would have had a strobe on my lifejacket, but it's unclear whether that would have sped the rescue or not. (9) Discipline - doesn't really apply to adults, but the men were not under the influence and there's no reason to believe that they weren't exercising reasonable prudence. So da only speculation we might come up with is that a buddy boat in this case might have saved the day, even though that's a non-standard practice. Me, I'll wait for da professionals to finish their accident report, and spend my time prayin' for the young man and his family. Beavah

Actually in each an every one of those scout drowning SSD was not followed. Yah...hmmm.... no. In none of 'em is there clear evidence that SSD was not followed. Half of 'em weren't even scouting-related. Two of 'em were boating accidents where Safety Afloat, and not SSD applies. Da first boating accident was truly a "freak" accident according to da professional investigators at the scene. Part of da problem is with just doing a Google search and pulling the first article, and then not doin' any additional investigation or research into da individual cases. That's necessary! Initial popular press reports tend to be very limited in terms of both information and accuracy. Garbage in, garbage out and all that, eh? Yeh don't get good conclusions or analysis out of incomplete data. For example, let's take a look at da Lake Huron drowning since yeh brought it up: But it's a pretty safe bet they did not do buddy checks. The article implies there were no lifeguards. When yeh go and pull da accident report compiled by the Iosco county sheriff and da Michigan DHS, what you actually find is: [Mr. Bettison] reported that these campers had been instructed in the "Buddy System" and were allowed to go swimming in the State Park Beach area. Three youth were together near the edge of the swim area and were told to "come back" due to high waves. No violation of buddy system there. In fact, da accident report makes clear that the adult leaders had a whistle that was used for checks and other discipline. If yeh know how press reporters work, what da first article was saying was that there were no State Park lifeguards on that beach. None of the adult leaders were certified lifeguards, but certified lifeguards are not required by SSD. They had posted lookouts and were actively monitoring discipline. Would da outcome have been different if there was a certified lifeguard on scene? We'll never know. However da accident report says that the professional response by Coast Guard and the local fire rescue service "was made extremely difficult" due to the visibility limits caused by da wave action. It required a helicopter to guide rescuers to the victim even though he was close by. So odds are a certified lifeguard on the scene would not have made a difference. It's always easy to assume accidents are da fault of people on the scene. Makes us feel more secure and righteous in da face of tragedy that could affect any of us. I think we have to fight that tendency, and aim more for Trustworthy, Loyal, and Kind. Take the time to really investigate before makin' judgments. Stand by fellow scouters in a tragedy, and show 'em kindness and the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes, accidents are just accidents. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, LIBob, not sure where you're goin' with all that, eh? SSScout described no fewer than 4 lifeguards, so I don't know where yeh get "unguarded". If I may suggest, rather than just postin' a bunch of Google results, yeh actually do some analysis to pull out for folks what da lessons of each case study should be. That's more helpful. I don't think any of da cases support the point you're tryin' to make. Let's go through 'em: #1 East Tawas Drowning This was not a scouting group, eh? It was actually a LFL group on a private outing, so SSD didn't apply. Three lads in a buddy group were playin' around near the edge of the marked swimming area, when da adults who were supervising called 'em in. Two of the lads swam/waded to shore, but one was tired and got caught in waves near the marker buoy. Rescue was done relatively well and quickly, but the lad didn't survive. So what was da lesson yeh were trying to make? The swim area was marked, the boys were in a buddy group, the area was being supervised. The adult leaders were not trained lifeguards, but SSD doesn't require trained lifeguards per se (goin' back to my point earlier in the thread). Both help and rescue equipment were available and utilized. What lesson would yeh draw? About all we can speculate on is maybe the lad wasn't a strong enough swimmer, but that's not really clear. #2 Clackamas River Drowning Yah, this was a boating not a swimming accident, eh? The Clackamas on that section is a Class II river. The lad was in the canoe with an adult, which capsized. During the rescue, someone else in the troop threw a line to the lad, but lost control of the line and let go. The line wrapped around the boy's wrist, and the other end chockstoned between some rocks. As a result, the rescue line pinned the boy underwater in current. What lesson would yeh have us take from that? Da local sheriff reported that the accident was unforeseeable and unavoidable by a group of any experience level. About da only lesson is what all us paddlers know - that putting lines in water is dangerous, eh? They tend to get wrapped around people in the darndest ways. Yeh should never do it without both good training and a knife handy. Still, this was da right place to throw a line, and even the best folks lose control of 'em occasionally. #3 Man drowns when boat sinks off Kingston Yah, so this case involves a 19-year-old man who is driving a motor boat on a calm night. Neither he nor his buddy are drinking or under the influence. Both are wearin' PFDs. There's speculation that they might be inexperienced, but there's nothing wrong with their navigation. Their boat for reasons unknown springs a leak. They issue a timely MayDay, but da boat sinks. Delays in the SAR cause the man to drown as a result of cold water hypothermia. What lesson would yeh have us draw from that? Healthy men shouldn't go boating? Best to be fat so yeh can hold up to hypothermia longer? About all I can think of is that it would have been nice if they had had strobes on their life jackets, but it's not clear from da reports whether the rescue delay was from havin' a hard time locating 'em or not. And strobes aren't a SA or a Coast Guard requirement, eh? #4 17 year old dies in pool Yah, here again we have a non-scout outing, eh? The boy, an Eagle Scout and therefore a swimmer, is at a local pool, with marked swim areas and lifeguards present. For unknown reasons he loses consciousness underwater, but da lifeguards respond promptly and revive him. Unfortunately, he dies of complications. What's da lesson here? Maybe if he had a buddy the response could have been faster, but we all know that buddies do in fact get separated for a minute or two here or there. #5 Cub Scout dies in backyard pool Yah, I can only comment on da limited public record, eh? Here's a small backyard pool, and a well-planned cub scout event. Ten adults around. Swim activities are over, boy is getting dressed to go home, when for some reason he goes back to da pool to get something. He's discovered relatively quickly, but doesn't make it. What's the lesson here, pray tell? This is da nightmare of every parent of a young boy. One moment he's playing in the front yard, the next he runs out in front of a car chasing a ball. No amount of supervision can prevent that. Swimming activities were over, boys and parents were getting dressed and going home. What part of SSD tells us to put a lifeguard on an empty pool? #6 Camp Staffer panics in pond Yah, so here's another odd one. Two camp staffers decide to take a short cut and wade across a spur of a pond that is normally a dry lakebed, assumin' that it's going to be shallow. One of 'em, a strong swimmer, steps into a hole over his head and completely panics. In his panic, he drowns, despite da efforts of his buddy to save him and a relatively fast rescue. What lesson would yeh have us take from this one? Don't take short cuts? Honestly, da lesson here is probably "teach every boy to be a strong, comfortable swimmer so that they don't panic like this." Maybe the lad skipped Swimming MB and its clothes-on practice in favor of Cycling MB. But this wasn't a swim activity; it wasn't a camp activity at all. ----- I reckon I just can't figure out what point you're tryin' to make from these cases, eh? They're all over da place, and most of 'em fall in the "true accident" category. None of 'em were clear violations of any SSD/SA stuff, and most it's hard to find any real fault with anything. Care to explain? Seems like you're sayin' BSA rules would prevent all of these, as if by magic. I just don't see it. But then, I don't believe in magic. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, Engineer61, sounds more like excuses than anything. Up here in da north we get temps down in da double-digit negatives and oodles of snow. Doesn't stop troops from gettin' out camping. Yeh just be prepared is all, and adjust activities to the environment. Or, if your lads don't (yet) have the experience to be out, yeh rent a cabin as a shelter and then do activities outside. All kinds of things yeh can do in da southwest. Go canyoneering. Go climbing on a north face. Go whitewater paddling. Go caving! Go mountain biking in da morning and evening, but settle in somewhere cool for a siesta and some cardgames mid-day. Go for a full-moon night hike, from moonrise to moonset. Go up higher in altitude where it's a lot cooler. Go boatin' or waterskiing on some of those big dam lakes. As adults, we can always hold kids back because of our own worries/fears/inexperience, eh? But if we are willing to stretch with 'em in order to create fun and exciting program, it can be a great experience for both da kids and for us. Beavah

Yah, not a good theory of liability at all then, eh? Problably best not to make that kind of spurrious statement in da future. Being honest with folks about your own knowledge and experience and all that. SSD is an awareness training program, eh? It doesn't define a community standard or care for negligence purposes. Particularly in da case you mention, where it offers only guidance not policy (read your G2SS carefully). And while a notion that "recreational swimming" defines a special and different subclass of swimming is an interestin one, that's not supported in any of da literature or training. I expect it's something some Camp Director or AD in your area made up by way of explanation(?). I kinda like it for that, eh? But it doesn't have a lick to do with liability. Besides, as scouters we're not concerned with legal mishmash anyways, eh? Not da interest or expertise of most of us. We're just interested in keepin' kids safe. Plenty of ways of doin' that in a swimming hole. Beavah

Yah, again, I agree with yeh for da most part, though I don't really think there are SSD provisions for Marco Polo in my version of SSD. I was just curious about your oblique references to liability. In my experience, when the "L" word comes up in scouting circles we enter da Twilight Zone. Mystery, darkness, weird happenings, da VoiceOver of Rod Sterling. Scary stuff. Doesn't have anything to do with reality, of course. More like a campfire ghost story, eh? Beavah