Beavah

But having him there in full uniform would say plenty. Yah, hmmm.... What exactly do yeh think it would say, exactly? That as Scoutmaster and adult yeh can't handle the situation on your own? That law enforcement officers are intimidating window dressing to be used to scare people? That yeh don't respect the parents enough to have a conversation with them about their kid, but yeh think it's OK to talk it up with your buddies in law enforcement? That they should always keep Mr. Jones at a distance and treat his son differently? We run a youth activity. All the ordinary behaviors of youth we should be able to handle within the context of that youth activity, or we really have no business doin' it. If yeh want to bring in a law enforcement officer in full uniform, do it for Crime Prevention MB and let the boys see how the police work with the community, are service-oriented, are to be admired and perhaps considered as a career rather than feared. Put another way, how would yeh feel if your COR brought in an attorney to your next troop committee meeting, makin' like he had a notice of intent to sue to serve yeh, over some poor judgment call yeh made on the last campout. I bet da look of fear would be priceless on many an adult's face, the way it was on this boy's. But is that really the way to treat people? Is that really how yeh want a (mostly ) honorable profession portrayed to others? Sauce for the goose. Beavah

Rooster7?? Rooster7!! Where have yeh been, mate? And yeh emerge from Gigabytes gone by to comment on a tattoo thread? Good to see yeh. I don't mind folks with ink. Much like a scout uniform, sometimes it makes for an introduction to the person and a conversation starter. Mostly I see the whole thing as just one more version of da constant changes in fashion and practice. Growin' up, tats were young man's military thing. Later a biker thing. Of course over the years I've watched shorts and hem lines go up, shorts and hem lines go down, short hair be the sign of white supremacists, short hair be the sign of businessmen, earings come and go and move to other parts of the body, loud colors be "in", black be "in". I confess I'd rather see young people who are tryin' to define themselves define themselves by what they have done, or by what they are able to do, by what they care about, rather than by their clothing, hair color, ink, or appearance. I think da young who spend lots of time on fashion of any sort are really just questin' and tryin' things out to figure out who they want to be, and da fashion stuff is just a dead end. So I encourage 'em to wait on the ink and the more aggressive piercings and go out and do stuff. For the rest, it's just amusin'. I'm always amazed at how da folks who want to be "individual" are so easily manipulated by group trends. And I'm always interested in how folks choose to portray themselves and what they're tryin' to say through that. No tats on the Beavah, but a Scout Salute to Scoutfish for winning his bout with cancer. I reckon that merits a tattoo or somethin' else memorable. Beavah

Yah, Roadkill, I would have said that yeh were at a size where yeh were really only a one patrol troop (because your patrols would frequently "collapse" into a single patrol for outings, which is where the patrol method is most important). Now that you're gettin' some more kids in, I'd suggest yeh admit the new boys into the two patrols directly and yeh might then be up to a two-patrol troop. No need for an SPL/ASPL or any of that stuff until yeh get up to 3 or 4 patrols. No need for a new scout patrol; that tends also to be for bigger troops. What yeh can do if yeh want a bit of a NSP experience is to have the two Patrol Leaders run a special "orientation campout" once or twice for just the new fellows. I think boys naturally find some affinities for other boys, and yeh sort of go with that in terms of where to place incoming lads. Let new boys state their preferences, let the PLs discuss and make decisions. The boys are pretty good at this stuff so long as yeh give 'em one or two ground rules. In your case probably something like "the patrols need some balance" and "the new boys should be happy and have a friend or someone they like in their patrol". ScruffyJake, I think there are a bunch of different ways that NSPs are handled in big troops like yours, dependin' on the kinds of outings the troop does and what they want in terms of outcomes for the boys. Generally speakin', though, the Troop Guides need to be members and effective Patrol Leaders of the NSPs at the start, and then gradually step back as the new guys find their feet. If yeh search the forums for "New Scout Patrol" you'll find dozens of other threads on the topic if yeh want to go browse. Otherwise, just keep askin' your questions and you'll see all kinds of responses with a great deal of variety that'll help yeh think about how to make this stuff work in your troop. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Glad you're thinkin' about it, fred8033. That's what makes for troops that constantly learn and improve, and what's most fun about sharin' here. Right now we're all tryin' to figure out the best ways of usin' the new advancement/Eagle packet stuff. My explanation is just da best explanation I've been able to come up with so far to help people let go of their need for 20 page reports. I'm not claimin' it's the right way or the only way. I'm lookin' for improvements, too. And yeh make a good point that it won't work on units where the regular norm is that the adults do lots of the stuff in troop operations that we expect boys to do on the project. But Feb can be -20F and I'm sure snow can drift above your head on the trail. Controlling a sled would be really hard. Yah, maybe I'm not understandin' this, because it really confused me. Are yeh saying that on Friday night or Saturday morning when they went to leave it actually was -20F and the snow had drifted above their head on the trail? Then I'd expect the Patrol Leaders to re-evaluate their plan based on the conditions, eh? Just like you'd expect an Eagle Scout to re-evaluate the outdoor work day in the open field if there was a full out thunderstorm in progress. If instead you're sayin' that the committee wouldn't put the event on the calendar because it might be bad weather next February, then I think yeh need to get your committee under control. It's not the boys' job to recruit adult leaders and resources. That's what the committee should really be doin' instead of being busybodies guessin' about what the weather might be down the road. Of course 'round these parts -20F is good campin' weather, and yeh love deeper snow for snow shelters. There's also some great plans for buildin' controllable pulk sleds out there. BSA does document that scouts are to be given latitude to strick (sic) out on their own and take responsibility for their project. Not just for their project, eh? For their patrol and all its activities, for the troop calendar and leadership on outings, and all the rest! That's why we call 'em positions of responsibility, eh? They boys are expected to take responsibility. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, If I call the law, it is for one of two reasons: To stop something, or remove someone for the immdediate safety of others. And again, if yeh aren't able to stop somethin' with children on your own, or removin' a child from a safety situation, then yeh have no business workin' with kids. That's what's expected of you as an adult in a youth program. If yeh need somebody to "talk to" a boy, or give a lad a warning, yeh call their parents, not law enforcement. Doesn't matter a lick who you're friends with, or whether you're in the city or the country. Beavah

Yah, thanks for sharin' the outcome, trainerlady. Your points are good ones to remember, too. The stories boys tell are rarely the whole version; we need to listen with alertness and concern, but also a bit of calm adult perspective, and an ounce of good communication is worth a pound of explainin' later on. Glad the troop leadership responded, and glad they set your mind more at ease. If I were to sit with 'em, though, I reckon I'd be offerin' a few words of advice along the lines of many of my fellow scouters here. B

Sheesh, people. The police and the courts aren't counselors and social workers, much as everyone tries to do their best. They exist to catch and to punish those who have violated society's laws. To administer Justice. Yeh call the law when you have no alternative but to remove the boy from the troop permanently, and yeh feel he is such a risk to society that yeh feel it is necessary to potentially end his schooling, remove him from his family, curtail his future job opportunities and put him behind bars for da protection of others. Otherwise, yeh handle it like a responsible adult who works with youth, eh? Yeh manage your program, involve the parents, and get the lad help instead of gettin' him a record. If yeh really can't handle the sort of stuff that kids do without callin' armed men to back yeh up, then you have no business workin' with youth. Or bein' a parent for that matter. It's not the responsibility of society's justice system to take over as scoutmaster, teacher, or parent when yeh abdicate the role. Trust me, the courts are poor at this stuff. Besides, while that officer is busy dinkin' around with the teenager that you've given up on, quite possibly someone else who really needs rapid response by the police isn't gettin' it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The only schedule plan we ever had an issue with was a February camp out where the plan was to hike "DOWN" a mile long steep uneven rocky path to that would be covered with ice and snow. Oh... and the path has a sharp drop off (when you can see it ... not a sheer cliff, but still a sharp angle). We don't mind winter camp outs. That's fun. We just mind risking our lives. We were willing to schedule it if the scouts could find registered qualified leaders who would go with them. Oh and to get to the hiking trail, you have to drive on an un-marked, un-plowed raw dirt trail for two miles ... if you can find it. Not so cool. Yah, but in the end, what did the boys learn from that? Maybe somethin' about the fickleness or fears of adults, but certainly nuthin' about managing safety, exercising judgment themselves and all the rest. Instead, yeh could have had boys researchin' what gear and experience would be required to negotiate the trail in those conditions, eh? They could have called local hiking clubs or mountaineering groups for information, or at least spoken with the rangers. Maybe some snowshoes with ice crampons. Then they'd look at the rental costs for snowshoes and learn to make a cost/benefit decision. But yeh never know, they also might have found a bored ranger in the wintertime who'd be willin' to come out and guide it just because he/she would love an excuse to get out of the office. Or yeh could have gone out, and had 'em have the experience of how much slower and more challengin' it is to hike in the winter, and of learning how and when to make a "lets not push it any further" decision in the field. Yep, you're there as ultimate back-up, but they're gettin' the lived experience of participatin' in a judgment call. How much does people not being in shape play into it? That's a real incentive for fitness. How much does gear play into it? That's a real incentive for learnin' about and caring for their gear. How much did we overestimate ourselves that we'll have to make sure we don't again? That's a real incentive to pay attention and learn more. As for da unmarked, unplowed dirt trail for two miles, most healthy lads can hike that just fine. Besides, why are the adults doin' the navigation anyways? Navigation is a task for the boys. How else do they learn? It can be a wonderful, safe adventure and learning experience to never even make it back to the trail but just to get lost and camp out along the way. In fact, I bet those boys would remember it longer and learn more than any 10 adult-run "well-organized" campouts. And what do they need to run an Eagle project? The ability to contact others and get information. The ability to consider options and costs and make decisions. The ability to evaluate safety issues and "when to stop". The ability to estimate work and travel times and anticipate difficulties. The ability to lead others in a challengin' task they haven't done before. Sounds familiar, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmmm... Don't make strategic decisions based on tactical problems. For the longer term, yeh want to have a succession strategy for this woman that brings more people into the support roles in the district, and perhaps, if she or others can't work with that, to move her along. That's stuff like recruiting a new camp director for next year, or decidin' yeh might like to have a joint PWD with a nearby district as a way of gently movin' her out next year. The goal is smooth, long term transition, so that yeh find a (more limited) role that she can contribute to, and give others the opportunity to contribute as well. Particularly recruitin' others for some of the more customer-facing roles. Someone should be workin' on that. For the shorter term, yeh just need to put out the fire. You said that she responds OK in the short term to correction, so I'd get someone yeh think she'll listen to to go ahead and do that. Get her to reign in, perhaps send a few apology notes. Then there should be support for the camp program so she can do the organizing she does best and other people can handle the interfacing with customers. Assure folks quietly that there will be "heavy involvement" from some other people that they know and trust in camp this year, so that the experience for the boys will be protected. That'd at least be my rough notion of how to proceed if yeh were the DC. Not knowin' anybody, I could be very far off-base. Oh, yah, and consider "accidentally" burnin' all the PWD tracks in this year's camp bonfire. Beavah

I've mostly been quiet because I'm the old fellah who was quoted. It's nice of fred8033 to respect us old furry critters, but I don't reckon I deserve to be "very well respected." I think dumping it all on inexperienced scouts with no adult guidance is a recipe for sure frustration. I think this is da seminal insight of the thread, eh? Nobody should view "boy led" as "dump it on them." The original thread from this one involved how dumping a whole bunch of additional stuff on Eagle candidates which they had never seen before was a "recipe for sure frustration" (to borrow mn_scout's line). My claim was that if yeh expect Eagle candidates independently to plan projects, budget for projects, run safety for projects, set up dates and reservations for projects, etc. then they better have been doing those same things for outings and other events with some mentoring and guidance while they were First Class, Star, and Life. Either that or yeh have to do too much adult hand-holdin' to get 'em through it. Any way yeh cut it, just dumpin' it on 'em at Eagle isn't really fair. Da Eagle Project process in a troop should be functionally the same as the outing process. As VeniVidi says, though, it all depends on what your Aims for Scouting are, eh? In your program, do yeh really want boys to become self-confident, independent young men who can do these things on their own, or do yeh have other goals in mind? I've heard folks give eloquent voice to da notion that scouting should just be about getting tastes of things, or being "exposed" to things, and perhaps that's what your Chartered Org. is lookin' for in its program. In that case, yeh have to try to provide a lot of active adult support and mentoring so that da Eagle process is also just an "exposure" to planning and leadership, and be careful not to expect more. Youth ability certainly isn't the issue. Boys definitely are capable of doin' all the stuff fred8033 mentions. In fact, Boy Scouts in many troops most certainly do handle budgeting, financing, reservations and all the rest. Boys doin' that stuff is even part of the Journey to Excellence criteria, eh? So we definitely consider it best practice. Da question is usually one of adult ability and willingness to trust youth and build toward that sort of program. It takes an adult mindset which is really focused on kids rather than on program. If yeh focus on program, then of course it's "better" to have the adults manage the calendar and do the reservations and handle the budgeting and all the rest. At least in our own minds that means it's more likely to get done "right". There's less likely to be problems / cancelations / stuff that isn't perfect etc. In other words, we care more about having a wonderful, well-organized outing than about growing wonderful, well-organized kids. Of course if you're focused on kids, yeh have to meet 'em where they're at. Sometimes with very young or "recovering" troops, yeh do need a bit more adult support for a time. Boys don't go from zero to 90 in a second flat any more than my SUV does. While it takes a bit of time and effort to help the lads learn and grow, more often yeh have to proceed slowly for the adults, eh? It takes more time and effort for us to grow. So goin' from adult led to youth led usually requires a full "generation" to move through in the troop. Yeh need to have a longer-term vision of what yeh want for kids to be able to pull it off. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Welcome to the forums. It's nice to "meet" yeh. I'll begin by saying that in Boy Scouting, having parents "sign off" on any of their own boy's advancement is always a bad idea. Only in small troops in da remote tribal villages of da U.S. should it ever be considered. That's not just because the parents will be too easy, eh? Sometimes they're too hard. It's because yeh want boys to have to go prove themselves to their peers and to the community, and no matter how good the parents are when a parent signs off there will always be a perception that it was hinky. The boy will not have proved himself to his peers and the community. So tramthum, I think 95% of da scouters out here will agree that what you describe is not best practice. I think it's just fine if yeh have a sit-down with the CC and the SM and yourself and express your concerns. That sort of thing needs to be voiced, eh? Folks sometimes need the push-back to help 'em suit up for the game and resist the parents who are pushing. All that having been said, once yeh have that private conversation your job is to salute and support the SM. There can be some good reasons for what went on, eh? There are always exceptions to the rule, and this ain't even a "rule". If a lad is within a few requirements of finishing something off before goin' off to a new troop, helping the boy push through is a good thing. It would have been better if they had done the family campout and then come back on Sunday afternoon to demonstrate their skills to someone else, but yeh don't know that they weren't completely above board and kosher about it, and the SM may have given his permission in advance. The reasons in the end don't even matter, eh? Just like a scout sometimes obeys his Patrol Leader just because the fellow is his Patrol Leader and it would hurt the group if he didn't, you as Advancement Chair have to follow the lead of the Scoutmaster because otherwise you will hurt the troop far more than if yeh didn't. It's a judgment call, eh? And the fellow who sits in the judges chair gets to make the call. Not all calls are good calls, nor does everyone agree on which is which. But if yeh agree to serve in a support position, after yeh voice your private concern yeh need to offer your support, or step down. Beavah

Yah, yeh can go boating in any weather or temperature if yeh have the right gear for it. Folks sea kayak around the ice all the time in various places. But the loose rule of thumb goes something like air temperature plus water temperature (in Farenheit) less than 120 degrees poses a real hypothermia risk to adults. At least that's how I remember it. Add a wetsuit or a drysuit or even appropriate clothing and of course things change. Beavah

Yah, evilleramsfan, this sorta thing comes up a lot 'round da forums (and other places). Having a lad with a disability is just an added twist. Inevitably in all youth work, some boys/parents will test the limits of whatever systems are in place. That's boy nature, and human nature. So while in a troop with a positive culture yeh can say that most lads are doin' what they should be, there will always be a few who try to figure out what the lowest limit is. And if enough do that, that becomes the new troop norm and then there'll be some kids and parents who test even lower limits. What happens next is that good scouters are confronted with one of these lower limits cases and go "Hey, wait a minute! That's not what we want Eagle/First Class/etc. to be!" And they quite frequently are right. Da problem is, at the SM Conf/BOR stage for Eagle or other ranks, things are too far along. Yep, that's when the adults are confronted with the outcomes that they didn't want, for sure. But it's not the spot to fix it. Yeh get the outcomes that yeh worked for. If yeh want different outcomes, yeh have to work harder earlier in the process. So a lad who has been signed off and is leaving town gets a bye. Yeh do the conference, have the BOR, give him the rank and wish him well. Then, if yeh didn't like the outcome yeh sit as a group and figure out how you're goin' to do things better for all of the boys, and especially for boys like him in the future. Maybe it's time to eliminate do-nothing positions like Librarian in your troop... or beef them up somehow so they're the equivalent work and responsibility of other positions like Patrol Leader. Maybe it's time to appoint a senior member of the committee as Parent Coach, to have conversations with parents who are pushin' and doin' their kid's work a bit too much. Maybe it's time to take a hard look at who is signing off requirements and when, and whether those sign-offs really represent proficiency in the skills. Maybe it's time to focus less on advancement in your program and more on outdoorsmanship and service and just having fun. Maybe it's time to forbid all of the Merit Badge Mill/Fair events and expect boys to have a real merit badge experience. Whatever it is, if yeh find that yeh don't like an outcome, the usual way to address it is by improving your program along the way, not by trying to block the outcome at the 11th hour. The only time when yeh throw the flag at the SM/BOR level is when a boy has been counseled repeatedly and is deliberately choosing to test the adults in some way. In that case, yeh need to pass the test, and say "no" in a mature and forthright fashion. That doesn't sound like da case here. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, acco40, I was just pickin' one of the more egregious out of recent events, eh? Apple's "patent" on phones with rounded corners and screens with black borders. I do think there are classes of patents that raise more problems than they're worth. Design patents, business method patents, da move toward software patents, etc. I'll leave the biologists on the forum to comment on the merits of plant patents, but on the surface this old furry critter finds that a bit problematic as well. B

Yah, I'll be honest, this kind of silly millenial/militia/periodic revolution nonsense I ordinarily just laugh at. Da problem is the modern internet and certain regional demographics put a bunch of people with these oddball views together, which when yeh combine it with some tough economics and latent racism starts to get a bit on the scary side. That can make for Waco wackos or even federal building bombers. And to answer your implied question, I'd be just fine with puttin' those folks in prison, exiling 'em to some country that really doesn't have freedom, or just shootin' 'em if need be. No, there's no reason to expect that we are headed toward upheaval. Our population isn't young enough for one, and old folks just don't tend to make trouble. Yeh have to look to the middle east for the right demographic. We're the most well-off people on the planet, and while at the moment our political system is in need of some pragmatic reform, we've been in that place before. Yep, income disparity is at pre-depression levels but since we bailed out the bigwigs the last go 'round we'll have to wait for the next crash to fix that problem. All ordinary stuff. Hard times for individuals, but aside from the wackos, the nation tends to pull together in hard times, not pull apart. So take a chill, go grab a beer, and get off the periodic revolution foolishness. If we're goin' to talk BS, lets make it Boy Scouting. Beavah

Beav - You seem to be basing your entire argument that tourniquets do more harm than good. Do you have any evidence to support this belief? KC9DDI, all I was doin' was quotin' the references that you provided! You're arguin' against your own evidence. Nobody is proposing includin' tourniquet use for civilian first aiders. Nobody. Even those advocatin' for reconsideration of the current tourniquet protocols are sayin' that it should be limited to professional responders in tightly monitored circumstances. Again, to quote one of your articles: "The importance of case-by-case evaluation and appropriate feedback can_t be underestimated, because an effective prehospital tourniquet policy can be successful only when there_s continued post-operative communication between the trauma surgeons caring for the patients and the prehospital crews making the initial decisions in the field." That doesn't sound like a recommendation for a civilian first aider protocol to me. B

Yah, hmmm... I think I see da problem. It's right here: First though, I assume when you wrote "yeh run it" you are refering to the scout running it. As we both know the eagle scout candidate runs his own project....It's hugely different because it's not a troop or patrol outing or activity.... Once you make it a troop or patrol outing, it opens a pandora box of other topics. Is the troop treasurer to produce financial statements for the Eagle project? Review and approve budgets? Is the committee to have signup sheets and track attendees? Is the committee to approve work dates and locations? Reserve the sites? Review what's to be done each day? If yeh have a youth-run troop, then an Eagle project is not "hugely different." But in an adult-run troop like is being described here, if yeh want the boy to run the project then yeh have to try to separate it from ordinary troop activities in the way that fred8033 is claiming. The problem, though, is with the adult-run nature of da rest of the program. Why would the troop treasurer produce financial statements for any outing? Didn't the boys budget it and manage the expenses? Why in the world is the committee dealin' with signup sheets or tracking attendees? That's the responsibility of the Patrol Leader. Why in the world would the committee be approvin' the dates and locations selected by the PLC? And good heavens, why are they making reservations and reviewing what should be done each day? If this sort of stuff is how the troop normally operates, then I can see why da unit leaders try to make the Eagle project "independent" just to give the boy some space. Da problem with that, though, is that it's not fair to the boy. You're cuttin' him loose, but yeh haven't given him the training and experience he needs to succeed. What yeh need to do is fix your regular program so that Patrol Leaders and SPL/ASPL really plan and lead outings, the way it's supposed to be. If yeh do that, then when an Eagle candidate comes up with a project he's really just doin' the same thing that he's spent a couple years learning how to do. It's no surprise, it's no big deal, it's not adding a 30 page report or G2SS review or council paperwork. Select goals, choose location, make reservations, get gear, plan budget, fundraise as needed, work with the PLC for feedback/scheduling, work with SM on safety stuff, get approval from committee. The same stuff that happens with every outing. In other words, an Eagle project proceeds just like it's a part of the unit's program. Which it really is and always has been.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Your digression on the differences between civilian and military EMS is not relevant to how we treat immediate life threats, and only serves to confuse people unnecessarily. Life threatening bleeding is life threatening bleeding, it doesn't matter if it was caused by a machine gun or a boat propeller or a beer bottle. Mechanism of injury, MCI triage, and incident rates don't matter, especially at a basic first aid level, where the goal is to teach how to identify and effectively treat imminent life threats, like severe hemorrhage. Yah, I disagree. The differences between civilian first aiders and military EMS may (and probably should) significantly affect policy choices. As a simple example, a military medic is going to be far more likely to be able to distinguish between truly severe bleeding and something less severe, and therefore the risk of overly aggressive action is much less. Military medics are also more likely to perform procedures rapidly and correctly. Let's consider a related example, eh? Military medics perform needle decompressions in cases of pneumothorax in the field, but we don't teach that to civilian first aiders, nor is it even a common civilian professional responder protocol. Even though "life threatening respiratory distress is life threatening respiratory distress," the context matters in terms of decidin' on an appropriate protocol. I also disagree that mechanism of injury, triage, etc. don't matter. After all, we do teach those things as fundamental to assessment and deciding on treatment, even in basic MFR/WFR courses. Your citations seem to disagree as well. For example, your JEMS citation above suggests tourniquet use even by professional responders primarily applies to MCI/triage situations and situations where injury mechanism also compromises other vital areas like airway. Let's take some information from da reference you provided which is advocatin' limited tourniquet use in civilian pre-hospital settings. When yeh read the paper past the abstract, yeh discover a long list of reasons for not using tourniquets: 1) 47% of tourniquet applications were not clinically indicated even in a military setting; 2) ischemic damage in relatively short periods of time (mean=78 mins), 3) reperfusion injury possible after 60 minutes, 4) increased bleeding from incorrectly applied tourniquet, 5) improvised tourniquets perform very poorly compared with commercial devices, 6) properly applied tourniquets require IV opiates for pain management. How many civilian first aiders carry around IV kits with opiates I wonder? Or a commercial tourniquet product? Da recommendations are specific, eh? "The pre-hospital practitioner should be familiar with a particular commercial tourniquet that has been proven in studies to be effective, rather than using an improvised device that has been demonstrated to take more time to apply or may lead to an increased risk of complications." The paper considers only a few cases where tourniquet use may be applicable in civilian practice - stabbings and gunshot wounds, police officers engaged in tactical firefights, terrorist events with blast injuries, industrial accidents involving entrapment and shredding. And rural/wilderness, which is interestin', but not explained. So this may apply to fellows like Eamonn, who works in a high-risk environment for stabbings with professional medical folks to hand, but probably not to most boy scouts or scouters. Yep, we can certainly learn lots of important things from combat injuries, but we have to be mindful of da limits of what we can learn as well. None of your references seems to be suggesting that tourniquet use is appropriate at the First Aid/First Responder level outside of tactical firefights. Or to bring things around to another civilian "feature", in da military yeh don't have to worry about your patient or his parents suing yeh for loss of use of a limb when yeh slap a tourniquet on when it wasn't necessary. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... That journal that yeh reference seems to be a third-tier journal (so far down the journal hierarchy that da nearby top-tier medical school doesn't even subscribe), and da article itself is comin' at it from the perspective of trained military medics and combat-type casualties. The results seem interestin' and informative, sure enough, though that's still pretty weak evidence, and still pretty remote from civilian and wilderness first response, eh? In combat casualties, severe trauma is very likely. That's da sort of thing that weaponry is designed to do. Incident rates are goin' to be much different in the civilian world, and the injury patterns for civilian trauma (automobiles, falls, power tools) are goin' to be very different from the type and pattern of injuries when you're takin' heavy weapons fire. What's appropriate for limbs torn off by explosions might be completely inappropriate for limbs severed by a boat prop or other mechanism where reattachment is still possible. MCI triage is goin' to be much more in play in combat casualties, and training and equipment is goin' to be different. Do yeh have any other references from more respected journals or closer to home? Lots of times people take one study in special circumstances and jump on a bandwagon before enough research and development really has been done to justify a change. In fact, I'll wager that happens at least as often as folks holdin' on to tried and true longer than they should. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proponent of greater scope of civilian first responder training and practice, particularly for those of us who are out in the backcountry. There are indeed a few times when tourniquets or similar techniques are indicated, and always have been at the professional responder level. I'd just be more cautious about this one and let it work its way through broader review and protocol revisions before goin' all-in. A combat medic's lived experience with what constitutes "severe bleeding" is likely to be quite different from a civilian first aider's. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Da parent thread on Scoutcraft books took da usual odd turn in Scouter.Com threads of becomin' a discussion of legal issues. Who would have guessed? Still, I reckon this is an important area where citizens should become better informed, and it also conveniently is one that is interesting to the scouts because it involves stuff in their lives, and can draw 'em in to discussions of citizenship. So I'll seed da conversation with a bit of ol' Beavah perspective, and others can jump in. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.8 [Congress shall have power] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Now call me a strict constitutional constructionist if yeh want (I am in many ways), but I believe that the first clause is an important one, eh? Compared with the other enumerated powers of the legislature in Article I, it is the only one which conditions the power by limiting it to a specific purpose - to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. So to my mind, grants of limited-time monopoly protection to authors or inventors are only constitutionally valid if in fact they promote progress. How is that done? Well, by ensuring enough return that authors continue to write and inventors continue to invent, while also strictly limiting the monopoly so that other people can use and build on the work to further advance progress. Early copyright law in the U.S. extended only 14 years worth of monopoly protection to authors, with a broad understanding of fair use so that others could reference and build on the work. To get a patent was such a big deal that it required a specific act of Congress to decide if your invention was important enough to merit granting you a monopoly so that you would reveal your design. Those both seem about right to me. Long enough that the author is given a fair return so that he/she can keep writing, but short enough and with enough fair use protection that others can build on it to advance science and the useful arts. In fact, I'd go even shorter for some works like software. And patents should be granted only for those inventions which are truly worth the public paying lots of $$ to learn how the invention works. Right now, of course, we are granting patents for phones with rounded corners. Does it truly advance science and the useful arts to give a company a twenty year monopoly on phones with rounded corners? Of course not. But the patent office makes money off of every patent issued, and has had to since Clinton took them off budget back in the 1990s. So because we wouldn't pay the patent office salaries with tax dollars, we're now paying the patent office with our pocketbook, while multiple interlocking patent lawsuits actually hinder the progress of science and the useful arts. Right now, of course, we are granting copyrights to the distribution company that long-dead authors once sold their "limited time" monopoly rights to back when yeh needed to work with a middleman distributor to get your work published. Does it truly advance science and the useful arts to give a monopoly to a middleman distributor who has not created anything, 70 years after the author is deceased? Of course not. In fact, if the present rules were in place back then, the tune of the Star Spangled Banner would not have come off of copyright until 1906, so everyone in the U.S. who ever played, performed, or recorded what became our National Anthem would have owed royalties to a British Gentleman's Club (who could presumably have refused to allow us to perform it at all). Would it really be "stealing" if some fellows coming back from Andy Jackson's taking of Florida are singing the Star Spangled Banner? Or are just listening to it without paying royalties to a foreign gentleman's club? Is that what we really want to teach our kids? Is it really advancing science to have journal publishers lock up scientific research that the public financed so the public has to pay a second time to read the results? Does it really advance the useful arts to have every major technology and communications company suing every other major and minor technology and communication company in multiple jurisdictions over cross-cutting patents on things as silly as rounded corners and black borders? Original authors and inventors should get a just return so as to encourage further work, but no more. After all, their writing and inventing itself drew from and built on the writings and inventions of others. To advance science and the useful arts, information wants to be free. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... So fred8033, now we're goin' to be tellin' the Eagle candidate that he has to go download and read the entire G2SS, tour plan, unit fundraising guidelines, take YPT and other "mandatory" adult training, and familiarize himself with da Chartered Org's additional rules about outings and youth protection? Somehow, I don't think you've lightened the burden on the poor lad. Though I reckon there is somethin' to be said for making an Eagle Scout develop an appreciation for all the bureaucratic hoops the adults have jumped through all these years so as to offer him a scouting program. I really don't think this is that hard. Yeh run it just like yeh run a regular troop or patrol outing. In a regular patrol outing, the PL puts together a plan, gets it scheduled with the PLC, and the Troop Committee approves the calendar/basic proposal. The PL works out gear with the Quartermaster, budget with the scribe/treasurer, plans out the details, communicates with his patrol, and runs the outing. Meanwhile, the adults file tour plans, work out the adult coverage and the G2SS issues. Easy. If you've been leadin' a youth-run troop, by the time a lad comes up for Eagle he should be completely comfortable and familiar with da process that your troop uses. It shouldn't be anything different. If yeh haven't been leading a youth-run troop, well, then, I reckon yeh need to fix that rather than tryin' to put a whole mess of brand new burdens on the lads at Eagle Project time. B

Yah, KC9DDI, do yeh have a few references on that "evidence" that yeh can point us to? I remember the days when we had every Tom, Dick, and Harry civilian responder slapping a tourniquet on their kid for ordinary cuts. Gunny is right, da average inexperienced civilian responder sees what looks like "a lot of blood" and goes immediately for the big dog. There were good reasons for the instructional policy change to strongly discourage their use in civilian responder courses. As others have pointed out, they never "went away" for professional responders or military medics. I reckon there's also a difference between in-town/frontcountry use where transit times are short, and wilderness/backcountry/sidecountry use where transit times are longer and tissue necrosis is a bigger concern. I don't believe the Wilderness Medical Society, for example, has changed their Practice Guidelines. And if yeh do use 'em yeh should be familiar with the protocols for periodically releasing tourniquet pressure. When considering policy changes, yeh have to look at unintended consequences as much or more than your hoped-for intended consequences. So often while tryin' to do something helpful yeh do far more harm. I'd be awfully slow about teaching tourniquet use at any level below MFR/WFR. Beavah

Reading your thoughts Beavah and I conclude you are correct, lets dump the uniform altogether and be done with it Hmmm... I reckon yeh didn't read my thoughts very well, eh? I wasn't suggestin' ditching Uniform Method at all. Just usin' it with more wisdom. But the ODLR legacy? Yah, well, I guess I wouldn't mind if we dumped that. Beavah

What I cannot understand is how there can be any "copyright infringement" of no longer published Boy Scout literature among Boy Scouts/Scouters where no money was involved? LOL. Yah, you and the rest of the reasonable people out there, eh? Except that in the modern world of perpetual copyright, it doesn't necessarily matter if it's no longer published or otherwise an "orphaned" text. And the fact that no money is involved is not sufficient, eh? None of the distributed file-sharing cases being aggressively pursued by rent-seekers like the RIAA involves any money being exchanged between the parties. Good research shortridge. I missed that Pappydaddy wanted to copy the whole Fieldbook. I don't see a fair use problem with a chapter or two or three. Ah, but the rights holder and the courts quite possibly would find a fair use problem with that, eh? And indeed they have on occasion. If yeh look at it, the Executive Branch guidance for instructors is pretty tight, eh? No more than two pages or 10% for some works. And it has to be somethin' yeh select to teach from spontaneously for a short period, not somethin' ye use on an ongoing basis. Most of us believe that patent and copyright law has gotten completely out of control, as paid lobbyists have pushed very hard for legislation to restrict fair use and criminalize the ordinary, common-sense behavior of average citizens. It has certainly been a windfall for attorneys, however. If yeh have the patience for it, read packsaddle's link and get a headache, then write your congressman. Does anyone know of any copyright infringement suit by the BSA against a Scouter where no profit was involved? Patches, t-shirts, no longer published literature? I know they've sent quite a few cease-and-desist letters. Yeh have to remember that there's three very distinct areas of IP law, and none of 'em really amount to "property" so much as temporary grants of government-protected monopoly rights. Copyright involves intangible creative works (literature, music, film, etc.). Patents involve tangible inventions (or at least they used to ). Trademarks involve business identity symbols and slogans. None of 'em have a lick to do with "theft" or "stealing". For the first two, more like civil disobedience, eh? Ignoring or resisting government-sponsored monopolies that inappropriately interfere with the free market. For the last one, more like impersonating someone else. By and large these things are expensive to both pursue and defend, so to my knowledge the BSA has not actually pursued many to the point of filing, and fewer still have opted to mount a defense. That's one of the reasons why the rent-seeking industries have lobbied to make copyright infringement a criminal rather than civil matter, eh? Because then the taxpayer instead of the industry would bear the financial burden for protecting the industry's monopoly. Beavah

The uniform is supposed to be the blank canvas that the scout/scouter fills with his experiences. Is it really? I've been around this movement a long time, and I don't reckon I've heard that one more than a few times. If you were to go out to a camporee and ask scouts of all ages about what the uniform is "supposed to be", how many of 'em do yeh suppose would come up with that answer? Would any? I think we adults keep makin' up these romantic fictions about da uniform to fulfill our own needs or try to justify our own lunacy on da topic, eh? But we never really listen to the boys about what they think the uniform is "supposed to be" or what it actually is in their eyes. If a scout from a small, impoverished Caribbean island nation said that his uniform was not a blank canvas but was instead how he showed he was a scout and proud of his country, should we just ditch it and be done with it? Even though he's proud to wear his scout necker in da national colors? There's nuthin' wrong with uniforming, eh? Kids pick and wear symbols naturally, wear clothes that conform to their group naturally, wear tokens that show their activities naturally. It's only when da adults get too involved in sayin' what that is "supposed" to be or "should" be that we wander away from Scouting and into Sunday School. Beavah