Beavah

Yah, so had this topic come up recently at a camporee cracker barrel. What would yeh recommend for a good, solid camera for scoutin' activities? For adults? For scouts? And of course, let us know da reason why with a brief review! Beavah

Yah, two issues, eh? If da breakfast is important to the safety of the outing (yeh have a high-calorie-expenditure day comin'), or the lad is important to the team for breakfast (like he's got to help cook, or he's got to help tear down camp while others cook), then I think da PL has to get the fellow up. Usin' whatever means he and his fellows feel are reasonably appropriate . If the breakfast isn't important because it's a lazy day or the lad isn't important to the team for breakfast, then I think yeh should take a serious look at improvin' the level of your program. Seriously, if there isn't a good reason to get up and get breakfast on time, your program is probably pretty lame, eh? Yeh need to push the lads more by doin' more fun, energetic stuff that demands they work together and be organized and timely. If the lad still stays abed, then he misses the meal and the activity, eh? I certainly wouldn't have back-up pop tarts or whatnot available. As to how yeh handle Mrs. Engineer61, I reckon I'm not goin' to venture advice in that area . Beavah

Yah, I think as an ASM your job is to support the SM or to look elsewhere for your volunteer time, eh? A scout is trustworthy and loyal and all that. Yeh don't say who the sponsor is for your unit. It's not unusual for a unit that is sponsored by a church to take the lads to services on a Sunday. And often two-deep and other logistics means that everybody has to go. A Scout is Reverent. Even if you're not a member of that church, you joined their program, so yeh attend just to be supportive of 'em. Think of it a bit like going to the wedding of a friend from work. Yeh might not be a member of his/her church, but yeh go anyway in order to support your friend. Of course if you're not a church-sponsored unit and this is just da SM's "thing", then it's up to the unit's sponsor to do somethin' if they don't like it, not you. In that case, somebody else better be ready to be Scoutmaster. Beavah

Yah, sometimes it's just enough to say, in person or in a note, "hey, thanks. That was really great, and made the perfect day for my son." Between dads, eh? If yeh want to teach your son a good lesson, have him write a thank you note to the other boy. Same short-and-sweet kind of thing. We don't teach kids to write enough thank-yous these days. Of course da best way to honor their kindness is to pay it forward. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The original poster was pretty well attacked and critized and run-down as a fraud and a faker and a whole lot of other things. Yah, late in da thread. Idle keyboards are the devil's workshop. At the same time, earlier in da thread lots of folks were doing the same thing to the SM, the folks in the troop, and the district, eh? None of it was very scoutlike. let's just say that I think that the fact that he/she/them/it/what-have-you joined up a few months after the parent thread got started up, and the fact that 50% of their posts as of 4/21/2010 has been to continue to suggest that something remains rotten in the state of Denmark (Hello OGE!) speaks volumes. Not sure what volumes it speaks, eh? I think it shows a lot of professionalism and restraint, while one troop member was complainin' in public to all and sundry, and folks from many states away were running down a SM and a successful program (that mdsummer's kids are still a part of). Folks of good will can have disagreements without anybody being evil, eh? Sometimes good people just have different views, or different goals for a program. Most of us said from da beginning that we expected someone to give the lad Eagle along the way. That was both a comment on da circumstances that John-in-KC pointed out, and a comment on the way the national office handles things these days. Active, after all, means "registered." I wanted to personally thank EVERYONE on this forum for all the support and help throughout this entire process. I have learned a lot and I am proud to have earned the rank of Eagle Scout. It was a long road but it was completely worth it. Justin, congratulations as well. As Calico and others have pointed out, a lot of really wonderful people earned their Eagle through the appeals process. That's what it's there for, and you should never be ashamed of it. Good luck to you in college, and may yeh always live up to what the rank of Eagle should be, so that nobody ever questions it in the future. Best, Beavah and a good ol' Beavah too!

Yah, in da sturm and drang over this in da media this week, I sorta liked this article from the balanced, thoughtful perspective. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041602027.html Beavah

Yah, studentscout, I think you're just not gettin' Christianity. Possibly because of da poor example many Christians give sometimes, us being human and all. It is a duty and a kindness to other folks to counsel the doubtful, instruct the ignorant, admonish the sinner and all that. We even call such things "works of mercy." If a fellow is alcoholic and it's ruinin' his life, it is a mercy to confront him and intervene and try to get him help, eh? In fact, doin' that is much kinder than "live and let live" and letting him end up in a gutter or in a wreck killing someone else while DUI. It is a duty and a kindness to others to stop the thief and incarcerate him... not just to protect others, but to help the person change his own behavior and come closer to God. It is a duty and kindness to admonish the fellow who is cheating on his wife, or the college student who is promiscuous. Now sometimes an alcoholic will tell yeh to go stuff yourself, eh? Sometimes the thief won't repent. Sometimes the adulterer likes it. At that point justice and kindness demand yeh visit on 'em the consequences of their actions. Alcoholics lose friends. Thieves get punished. Promiscuous folks lose friends who believe in respect for others and loyalty. So if you're a Christian, homosexuality or heterosexual promiscuity are sinful things, eh? They hurt the person who participates in 'em. So it's a kindness to tell 'em it's wrong. If they struggle with it but try to do better, yeh help and support them. If they tell yeh to go shove it, then they lose friends who believe in loyalty or traditional hetero "family values." We don't feel they're the right example for our kids in particular. Later on, if they change, yeh welcome 'em back with kindness and mercy. Christ admonished sinners. Even heaped anathemas and condemnations on a few, when in their arrogance they refused to recognize their failings or were proud of their sins. He welcomed and forgave those who repented, no matter how awful their failure had been. Dat's a hard balance to strike, eh? A fine line doin' the right thing between justice and mercy. Christians don't always get it right. A lot like being a parent, eh? When do you punish, when do you forgive? When do yeh forgive but still impose consequences? When do yeh just let the natural consequences happen? When do yeh bail your kid out of those consequences? It's hard, and as a parent yeh won't always get it right. Gets even harder when yeh try to figure what's right in terms of civil government or society. Good Christians are never goin' to be perfect. We just keep tryin' to do better. Beavah Since this is sorta an early hijack, folks interested in da court case should check out the "Interesting Case" thread. http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=273321 (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BadenP, except Scouts Canada meets all those things you mention and they've been shrinkin' faster than we are. Me thinks that there might be other reasons for the UK success. Beavah

caps are completely optional. i don't believe in them myself. i've always been a fan of e e cummings. da only thing I object to is ALL CAPS. too much like SHOUTING. hurts my eyes. beavah Uniforming is a method we use to teach da youth, Wolf_Leader_120. Do whatever yeh think will help you best accomplish your goals for the kids. Bears are sometimes gettin' old enough that the blue cap starts feelin' too "little kid" to 'em, so go ahead and use the black one if yeh think it'll do the job.

Yah, I can imagine da same arguments being made in the court of Ferdinand and Isabella, eh? Why "waste" money on high-risk exploration with this Columbus fellow? Why not consolidate the domestic gains and economy after the Spanish Crusade? Same arguments in da time of Jefferson and Meriweather Lewis. Jefferson was always a small-government advocate. Why finance a major, high-risk exploration? Fact is historically that da only countries that matter long-term in the world are the ones that take such risks and finance such exploration. Beyond provision of infrastructure, it's da other thing that is uniquely the province of government. Da private sector just doesn't have the resources or boldness for long-term, high-risk research and exploration. The country that explores drives its economy, drives its educational system, spurs innovation. Da country that navel-gazes at its domestic needs withers and dies. China knows this. That's why they're mountin' expeditions to go back to the moon, but do it better than we did. And of course, if yeh control space it's like controllin' da seas of old... yeh control everything else. And yeh never know what yeh will find. Spain found gold where it was only lookin' for a shortcut to spices. Now, if yeh really want a waste of money, it's starting-and-stopping big research like this. Training up a new, young crop of scientists and technicians and explorers and then cutting them, so they go to Europe or Asia to continue their work. So when Bush set NASA on the course for Mars, he cause da agency to focus its aim and resources. For Obama to stop and make 'em shift gears (or mothball everything) wastes 8 years of effort. Yeh can cut my Medicare at any time if yeh keep the nation movin' forward into space and other high-risk, high-tech research and development. It's a ten-times better investment in our future and da future of freedom. Beavah

Yah, I had da same reaction as Calico. Seems like the fellow is goin' way out of his way to imagine something "sexual" in a completely innocent context. Folks who do that to my mind merit an extra level of scrutiny and supervision when around young people. Most of da rest of us would never think that way about a kid, eh? So it makes me wonder when somebody does. Glad things were resolved OK Albert_H. Still, hope yeh consider my first paragraph thoughtfully. Beavah

Pros: Makes the first-day check in experience much smoother, avoids da feel of group-hazing that swim checks sometimes have for nervous young lads. Recognizes da reality that troops are runnin' water activities all the time based on the swim checks they conduct, so why not use 'em for camp? Also saves yeh if you have storms during check in; yeh don't have to re-arrange program. Cons: Swimmin' in a lake is different than swimmin' in a pool, so a swim check done in a pool might overestimate a lad's ability to handle open water swimmin', especially in places where the lakes are cold. Some folks think scouter volunteers are incapable of tellin' when a lad can swim 100 yards. Personally, I like it when da troops have an option to test before camp for the kids. Never seen it be a real problem. I'm slightly less comfortable with it for da adults, because some fellows overestimate their own ability, rememberin' back when they were a bit younger . Never seen that be a real problem either, though. Beavah

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW v. LEO P. MARTINEZ, ET AL., Scheduled to be argued Monday in front of the Supreme Court. There was a reasonable editorial in today's Wall Street Journal (maybe someone can copy the editorial in?; I was readin' the paper edition). At issue is whether a public educational institution can deny recognition as an "official student group" (with attendant benefits of access to da university at privileged rates, access to funding through student activity fees, etc.) even though it excludes some students from voting membership and leadership positions who do not subscribe to da organization's statement of values. Arguments in da merits briefs are in many ways very similar to da arguments made by different parties on da scouter.com forums. As is often the case with these things, the plaintiff's side (the students) has been relatively poorly lawyered, garnering summary judgment against at the district court level, a relatively brief treatment by the 9th Circuit affirming, and a somewhat weak brief before SCOTUS. Hard for the little guy to be able to afford the same level of representation as the State, eh? So it's interestin' that the court reached out to take this case. It'll be interestin' to see how da oral arguments go. There's some room for da court to dodge or decide on narrow technical grounds, but I'm not feelin' it. Could also give 'em a chance to reverse or scale back Dale. But this court has been hard to figure, eh? Sometimes they seem to stretch a bit. This case could go so far as to establish a constitutional right to school sponsorship of a religious organization on an equal-access/equal protection/expressive association basis. Be interestin' to see if any of the amicus briefs are bold enough to ask for that. Shame if they didn't. Anyway, closest thing we've seen in a while to da issues that have been raised here by some of da regular gadflies. Not quite the same issue, eh? In this case, what's being litigated is whether the school is required to sponsor/"recognize" such a group, not whether it is prohibited from sponsoring. Of course there are also cognizable differences between a graduate school and a K-12 school. Perhaps one for da group to watch nonetheless? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I have to admit that I find the discussion here (and in some of da NH blogs) to be discouraging examples of "citizenship." I suppose I'm just an old fashioned critter from a bygone day, but I still believe that our individual and collective duty is to help those in need, especially the guests that come to visit our lands. If yeh come to my state, or any state in the Central Region, we will live up to those ideas and standards. We behave with such kindness and generosity to others because it's part of who we are and what we believe in. To help other people at all times. But, if for you as a citizen all that matters is enlightened self-interest, then consider this: in da White Mountains and the Presidential Range, there ain't a whole lot by way of manufacturing. Da high meal and gas taxes, and the property tax revenues, and da other wealth that supports the local economy largely comes from out of state tourists like this boy and others. The only reason folks can afford to live in da Presidential Range is because outsiders of all sorts come to hike there - and bring their wallets with them. To then gripe and moan when they occasionally get caught by weather (when you have a house nearby but they don't) doesn't make a lot of sense. Let me also offer my unvarnished opinion that Mr. Acerno has no idea da meaning of the word "negligence" in a legal context. The state backed out of the complaint because they would have (or at least should have) lost. From all I can read, all he's doin' is Monday-morning quarterbacking. I and others could do the same thing to F&G's SAR response, eh? Resource delays, improperly laid search patterns that required personnel to cross hazardous terrain, lack of inter-agency coordination. A negligence charge against F&G would be easier to sustain. Do unto others, eh? But I have a question for yeh. There were dozens of other hikers and such out at the same time on similar itineraries according to the reports. In fact, there are a range of backcountry touring folks who do routes longer than this lad considered in the deep winter. Is NH F&G goin' to "man up" and start turning away all of those hunters who go solo for a stretch off-trail to their favorite spots - all of da Mt. Washington skiers and climbers and snowshoers? After all, if that's truly "negligent" yeh shouldn't allow any of it. Give refunds on their tags. Send 'em to Vermont and Maine and the Adirondacks. I expect instead you'll take their hotel fees and permit fees and meals and other tourist dollars and not say a word. Then like every modern patriot wrap yourself in self-righteous indignation when they ask for your help. If da state is havin' financial difficulties, man up yourselves and vote in a tax to pay for the services you want or need. Or step up and volunteer. Don't complain about 17-year-olds who make free-will donations of their life's savings, eh? Just makes yeh look like da backside of a black-and-white-spotted resident of a neighboring state. One thing's for sure, Scoutin' is sure needed in New Hampshire. The next generation needs to learn about the duties and responsibilities of citizenship that da current generation isn't demonstrating. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Rather than criminal probation, I'm thinking more in terms of academic probation. Yah, I think that's a better way of thinkin'. Probation to my mind is somethin' that comes after suspension. You've done somethin' serious which might merit getting kicked out, but there were some mitigating circumstances or genuine, deep contrition that call for a less severe response. So you're suspended for a period of time, and then when yeh come back the expectation is that if any similar or related serious behavior issue happens there won't be any question, second chance or forgiveness, you'll just be asked to leave. For example, let's take da miscreants from last month's thread about tryin' to get the first year lad to drink urine. To my mind, the older scout instigators should perhaps have just been removed, eh? But the younger lad who was the pressured go-between who made a poor choice but then recanted and came clean might merit a suspension for a bit, with an apology to everyone and some service time to come back. And then probation for a while of the sort "any other mean act toward younger scouts and you'll be shown the door at once." Or, if yeh decided the older fellows really deserved a reprieve, same deal. Yeh can only make such a decision for your own unit, eh? Even an expulsion doesn't remove the lad's BSA registration. But I reckon it's only fair to fellow adult leaders that yeh let the contingent leaders / crew leaders / lodge know what happened so that they can make their own call on the issue. Beavah

Yah, it's just awful to live in a free society, eh? I think if yeh want to sell your patches, that's your right. By and large, when a "dealer" gets a batch of these things, it's from a scouter who has passed on to his reward. Da family is selling his stuff. Maybe they need money, maybe they just hope that fellow scouters will appreciate it and eBay and Craigslist are da ways you make it available. Nuthin' at all dishonorable in that, eh? Beavah

Yah, RememberSchiff, those were da two AMC lists I referred to. What exactly do yeh think the lad was missing from them (besides sunscreen )? Close as I can tell, he had everything recommended for a day hike and then some. And it's true that chilblains do look like frostbite, eh? But both look nuthin' like that. If yeh haven't seen such stuff "live", yeh should be able to find photos online. In actual fact, the lad when he got home sent the $1000 along with his family immediately as a thank-you. It was da total of his personal savings, according to reports. It was only after the state tried to charge him $25K after that that he "lawyered up". To my mind, that shows da character of an Eagle Scout. He was under no obligation to send da rescue agency a donation like that. For the state to then bill him afterward shows all the care and judgment of a bunch of bureaucratic twads. And "lawyering up" is exactly what he and his family needed to do. In a free country, it is the laws and the lawyers who protect citizens from the arbitrary and capricious acts of the state. Those involved at F&G and the AG's office should be fired, IMNSHO. Professionals should be held accountable for poor judgment, far more than kids. Their efforts to collect cost da state and the agency at least 5 figures in time and legal services. And cost da state ten times that in reputation. Beavah

I think one of da challenges for us old fellows with a lot of years in Scoutin' is to not let our egos get the best of us, eh? We have to let the young folks do their thing and make mistakes, just the way we did. Being an old fellow in Scouting is a lot like being a grandpa. We contribute in a special way. But if we spend our time tellin' our kids what they're doing wrong while parenting, then we're just being an arse, eh? They'd be right to shut us out. Proper role for an old fellow in scoutin' is be around to soften rough edges here and there, and protect da young folks from bureaucratic foolishness because we're better at dealin' with that stuff. And just contribute stories and fun and ethic, eh? With da time you have in, you need to be the scoutin' grandpa for the units yeh work with. You'll do nuthin' but harm if yeh start thinkin' of yourself as the old know-it-all whose job is to tell the SM everything he's doin' wrong. Just from one old critter to another, eh? Beavah

Yah, way too much adult angst and history there. Yeh have to give up the he-said, she-said stuff. As a Cubmaster, poor parent behavior is just a part of life. Yeh have to let it roll of your back like water off a duck. I'm with the others, eh? If it's causin' yeh this much grief, you're not goin' to be a good cubmaster. Time to hand over your patch and write the letter. If yeh *really* think embezzlement or misuse of funds is goin' on (including funds donated for the cub pack that are bein' used for the troop contrary to the intent of the donors), you notify the IH and yeh let him know that if he doesn't address it you'll notify the IRS and the county prosecutor to do an investigation. Troop and pack should each have a treasurer not related to the SM or CC who has primary care of the books. Beavah

Yah, T2Eagle, we cross-posted. I think yeh have to go read the accounts with a careful eye. The lad had a plan to do the 17-miler; he also had all kinds of options to stop short which he discussed with locals. The 17 miles he talked of doing was actually clear at the time, not snow-covered as you suggest; da snow was only down in the valley on his attempted route out, which he took only after the ankle injury (based on information from da AMC caretaker that it was also clear). As for da rest, I'm just goin' to have to disagree with yeh. If you want to do a day hike like that during a weather window of the sort he had, you don't take a bunch of heavy gear. Yeh go light, which allows you to move faster, doesn't bog yeh down in softer snow, makes crossings easier and reduces your chance of fatigue-related injury and bein' caught out. What you're tryin' to call "negligent" would be considered "best practices" by a lot of more modern adventure hikers. Yah, yah, I admit I'm an old dog. But every now and then some of our young whippersnappers manages to teach me a new trick. I'm not a complete convert to da lightweight thing, but I honestly don't think "negligent" is at all accurate. I think that a successful 3-night bivy and self-rescue despite an ankle injury demonstrates that. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yes, you can get frostbite if the air temp is above 32F which seems contradictory. Yah, sorry mate, that's not da way things work. Best to take a good wilderness first aid course or pick up a standard reference like Medicine for Mountaineering, eh? Frostbite requires the dehydration of cells and freezin' of the water between them. That requires absolute temperatures below freezing, period. Wind chill matters not a puff. Even if you were naked as the day you were born, yeh couldn't get frostbite if it were 33 degrees and blowin' a gale. In fact, if you're wearin' a hard shell outer layer as the lad was, wind chill is mostly a crock. And that wasn't windburn on his face, mate. It was sunburn. Pretty obvious, but also reported in the contemporaneous news - "Scott was hungry, a little sunburned and was obviously limping, but he was alive after three nights in the wilderness." The lad should learn to bring a touch of sunscreen early in the season. But forgettin' sunscreen I don't reckon rises to the level of negligence, let alone recklessness. Nor does successfully managing a 3-night unintended bivy demonstrate a lack of preparedness for campin' overnight. Me, I think it's just fine to criticize a state government. Even a patriotic duty . In this case, though, it's particularly well deserved. If yeh really believe in "safety first", then as DeanRx points out, yeh should be strongly opposed to the state's policy. For my part, I'd sentence the officials to 2000 hours of community service workin' with real hikers and youth. And until they change their tune, I'd recommend outdoor recreationists and scout units stay away from the state. There are 49 others and a bunch of Canadian provinces that treat rescues as a civic responsibility we have to each other. Might as well take vacation where folks are friendlier, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

because of this incident (and another, thanks to the unit not reading the G2SS), it's now mandatory in our council. Yah, thanks for da clarification, jhankins. That's what I suspected. The unit did not have accident insurance in place. If yeh don't pay for insurance, yeh don't have insurance. Has nothing to do with G2SS or tour permits. Personally, I'm one of da fellows that sorta disagrees with making the HSR accident coverage mandatory. At some point, I reckon people should make their own choices with respect to insurance, eh? If folks have decided to have higher deductibles for health coverage in general, why should they expect that their deductible will be paid for an accident while they're camping when it wouldn't be paid for an accident while they were playin' in the yard? Da CO was nice and charity-minded to do it in this case, but they were under no obligation. Of course, from an overall perspective, it's cheap coverage (in more ways than one). It gets our uninsured lads through a simple ER visit, and it avoids a lot of ill will and angst from some parents who don't get that whole personal responsibility thing. If that's worth it to da units in your council, that's great. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, RememberSchiff, I think yeh need to review da signs and symptoms of frostbite, eh? There was no frostbite mentioned in any of da reports, and none evident in the photos. Yeh can't get frostbite when the temperature is above freezing (which was what caused the run-off which blocked his route). In fact, da weather at the time was called "unusually warm and mild." Lad was treated and released for an ankle injury. The lad had food for multiple days and was hikin' with an ice axe, crampons, and snow shoes. He did have a bivy sack. That's not unprepared for a day hike, eh? The point is to be light and fast, because yeh risk more if you're packed heavy and traveling slow. In fact, as close as I can tell, he had all da gear AMC recommends for a 4-season day hike in da Presidential range, even for extreme conditions. And yah, walking out to meet your rescuers at a known base location like da Mt. Washington observation station is what we call "self rescue". As to "consensus at Fish and Game", it sure seems like in the early reports they were praising the lad. "He did everything right" I believe was the quote. Guess da consensus changes when you're looking to raise $$. And I reckon da "Reckless Hiker Law" is a bit of a misnomer since they changed it to apply to ordinary negligence rather than recklessness when da state treasury needed help. I think all da rest of the states should start chargin' for rescues... but only for tourists from New Hampshire. For all da rest, I guess our former scouts and scoutmasters will just keep on rememberin' our duty "to help other people at all times." Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Source, I hear yeh that yeh don't like some of da decisions of the current Scoutmaster in your unit. That happens. Generally speakin', though, the fellow who's doin' the work gets to make the judgment call. That's the way of things in a volunteer organization, and it's always been the way of things in the BSA. I think when you're in such a position yeh really have two choices. Support the Scoutmaster, even though he's not perfect, even though he might be wrong, even though you'd make a different decision. Support him because it's the right thing to do, to support a fellow who is putting in that much time, and might know the lads the best. Support him because it's the right thing to do, to teach boys not to argue balls and strikes with the umpire. Support him because maybe, just maybe, you might not be perfect either. Or go start another troop where you can be Scoutmaster. Then you can make the judgment call, and someone else will post complaints here about you! Da BSA offers program materials and guidance, but the local organizations and volunteers run the program. It's their call, because they're the ones who are responsible, eh? Beavah

Once out of pocket expenses were submitted to the insurance company, it was brought to the District committee's attention that oops -- the unit's insurance was null because the boy in the accident was the boy left off the permit. Yah, you've been da victim of a rumor, jhankins. First off, you're talkin' about accident insurance not liability insurance, eh? Accident insurance is an optional purchase by the unit in some councils; in other councils it's provided by the council or required at recharter. I suspect that the story originates from a unit that had not purchased the optional coverage. A district committee has nothing to do with determining insurance coverage. That stuff is handled by da professional staff in your council office. Beavah