TAHAWK

Baden-Powell, I mostly agree with everything you posted; however it is not a justifiable critique of post-1970 Scouting that we see here. It is a charge that Scouting in the U.S. never got it right on the most fundamental concepts of Scouting - the outdoor program, the Patrol method, advancement, adult association, "Scout Spirit" -- the entire purpose of the movement. And that attack is mostly made on the basis of citations of supposed authority. You do not want questioning of the citations of supposed authority? It is only the other-ethnic javelin team that always elects to "receive." So leave that all aside. Do we decry and denounce -- or do we do our best to make it better? I know where I come out on that. Our Advanced Outdoor Leader Skills course will be held October 7th. It is open to all adults and to all Scout and Venturing leaders and will go well beyond IOLS. I hope other volunteers in other parts of Scouting will consider restoring advanced outdoors skills training as a step to creating the conditions for a stronger outdoor program By the way, the Elks, Masons, VFW, American Legion, and American Bowling Congress all report drastic loss of membership since 1970. There are bigger things afoot in the world than even the Scouting that I love, and we can't blame them all on a misreading of what "traditional Scouting" happens to be -- or not be.

Eagledad, our QM has the keys to the shed in which the propane and liquid fuel is stored - sort of his Key Of Office (as the QM patch once showed a key and wheel of the trek cart.) (That's about as far as the key supply goes in our setup.) Interesting to see how different troops handle the position.

"I am confused. What is the QM feeling left out about? The QM is a member of a patrol and particiaptes like any other troop member. Periodically he inventories the gear and requests a work day through the PLC for help in repair or organizing the gear/shed. He is the pivotal point at the beginning and ending of every campout. He is included in more activities than any other scout with the exception of the PL and SPL. " "The QM"? It is not necessarily so. No BSA policy requires it, or prohibits it. Our SM is firmly of the opinion that the QM is a warrant officer appointed by the SPL and is not a patrol member. That is how he reads the Table of Organization. Some of us have suggested that the troop QM might be the senior of the patrol QM's (as the "senior" Patrol Leader was once simply that - the senior among the PL's). That would work out about as you have described, and the troop QM would miss out on less The SM's model comes from the way it was done in the troop in which he was a Scout - a common phenomenon often illustrated here.

Not concerned with legalisms as much as quality of experience and problem of feeling isolated.

We have a Scout "in charge." Quality of performance has varied from great to abysmal. Same SA has been the QM adviser for years. A big problem has been that our QM rooms have been out of sight and sound from the rest of the Troop. The QM can easily feel left out. We include him as a non-voting member of the PLC as he has information to give and get. I was thinking we needed a contest where each patrol had to have certain "stuff" to play. The patrol QMs, warned in advance of the general concept, would need to be familiar with where everything is situated because they don't know exactly what will be needed. How to have the QM lead Scouts instead of pots and pans? The patrol QM's have "dotted line" responsibility to the Troop QM, but that's not much people-leading. It was easier when I was a QM in a huge troop because I had four assistants - virtually the "QM Patrol."

Tell us more about the "Equipment and Supply puzzle...." I'm puzzled. ^___^

Oh! Great site !!!!

Rick, I posted (among many other things): "If you have a version of Scouting for Boys written by Baden Powell, as opposed to the fantasy "World Brotherhood Edition" written by Hillcourt, in which there is a material difference, please let us know. You replied: "There, that kind of attitude is precisely why there are no "Scout Spirit" requirements, Scoutmaster Conferences, or Boards of Review in Baden-Powell's Scouting. Advancement in his program is based on the mastery of hands-on physical skills, not forced "values-based" word game contests with adults." Rick, I know you are clearly displeased with those words, but I have no idea why. What sort of "attitude" is reflected in my statement that you quote? I suppose it could be that I called it a "fantasy version" of SFB. I did so because it is so different in so many ways from BP's work that is seems silly to use the same title. I am sure you could list dozens of differences. Otherwise, I made a request. If BP, in fact, abandoned "or otherwise disgraces himself" as a basis for being thrown out of Scouting, I sincerely would like to know where and when that happened. As to the substantive aspects of your statement, we have already established that BP emphatically had value-based requirements to even be a Scout, enforced by "officers" - adults, and values-based standards for passing Proficiency Badges, applied by "officers." Sure, no "Boards of Review," unlike traditional American Scouting. As for "hands-on physical skills," some BP-era Proficiency Badges did require such skills. Others, as a simple matter of fact, did not and, instead, required demonstration of specified knowledge, such as Citizen, Clerk, Interpreter, and Starman.

If all the other Scouts are in official uniform, how DOES the white turkey feel in the barnyard of all brown turkeys? Might not be real cool for the kid. Our troop has a very active "uniform exchange" that just happens to buy new uniforms as needed.

You asserted that BP provided strictly objective standards for advancing. My point was that BP provided, at the onset, for subjective, values-based standards for Proficiency Badges (best effort) and subjective, values-based standards for even BEING a scout. How those values-based, subjective standards were administered is a different issue. But as it happens, the "Scout Law" section of Scouting for Boys says nothing about advanced warning. It does not say, for example, "and is warned that he may lose his "life" if he fails to obey." "If a scout were to break his honor by telling a lie, or by not carrying out an order exactly, when trusted on his honor to do so, he would cease to be a scout, and must hand over his scout badge, and never be allowed to war it again - he loses his life." SFB at p. 49 If you have a version of Scouting for Boys written by Baden Powell, as opposed to the fantasy "World Brotherhood Edition" written by Hillcourt, in which there is a material difference, please let us know. (Not surprisingly, when Seton wrote the first BSA handbook, he included the language: "breaks his word of honor of otherwise disgraces himself.") Nor does the Scout Law section of Scouting for Boys say that only a Court of Honor enforces BP's subjective, values-based standard. Compare: "A scout's badge repesents and is called his "life. . . . He will be called upon at some time or the other to risk his life, that is to perform some difficult task. , and if he fails it he loses his life - that is his badge. Is such case a Court of Honor may allow him to remain in the patrol, but he cannot have his badge back again, unless he performs some especially good work. Scouting For Boys at p. 38. TO "f a scout officer [that is, a Scoutmaster] says to a scout. "I trust you on your honor to do this," the scout is bound to carry out the order to the very best of his ability, and to let nothing interfere with his doing so. If a scout were to break his honor by telling a lie, or by not carrying out an order exactly, when trusted on his honor to do so, he would cease to be a scout, and must hand over his scout badge, and never be allowed to war it again - he loses his life." SFB at p. 49 In any event, the "Scout Spirit" requirement to live the Oath and Law is OUR statement of BP's standard and has been thus from the first set of rank requirements. That is, it is traditional. When I pointed out that BP himself urged subjective standards for Proficiency badges, you replied: "Proficiency Badges were not awarded by Scoutmasters, so they did not have any leverage there." and "Several times? As far as I know, Baden-Powell wrote that only once, in his autobiography (Lessons from the Varsity of Life,) late in life, in 1933 when he was 76 years old. In the next sentence he writes "This gives direct encouragement to the dull or backward boy..." That sentiment does not appear five years later in his last "Rules on how to play the game of Scouting for Boys except for a few specific exceptions designed for the "dull or backward boy." As you had cited Proficiency badges, I felt BP's comments were on point. Not sure about the meaning of your second comment. Is it that BP had "lost it" at age 76 but "found it" six years later? Shall we try BP's comments on the new "Efficiency Badges" in April, 1910: "These badges are merely intended as an encouragement to a boy to take up a hobby or occupation and to make some sort of progress in it; . . . they are not intended to signify that he is a mater in the craft which he is tested in. Therefore, the examiners should not aim at too high a standard, especially in the first badge. . . . [O]ur object is to get all boys interested. . . . The Scoutmaster who uses discretion in putting his boys at an easy fence or two to begin with will find them jumping with confidence and keenness. . . . At the same time we do not recommend the other extreme, . . . of almost giving the badges away. . . ." The Scouter, April, 1910. "Our standard for Badge earning is not the attainment of a certain level of quality of knowledge or skill, but the AMOUNT OF EFFORT THE BOY HAS PUT INTO ACQUIRE SUCH KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL. BP, Aids to Scoutmastership, 1920 [Caps as in original]. The specific admonition by BP that effort was the standard appeared also in Scouting in November, 1921. "Our standard for badge earning -- as I have frequently said-- is not the attainment of a certain level of quality of work (as in school), but the AMOUNT OF EFFORT EXERCISED BY THE CANDIDIATE" [Caps as in original]. So BP thought he said it several times -- "repeatedly." And he thought that was the case before "Lessons from the Varsity of Life" Just facts.

There are hundreds of great pioneering projects, often limited only by how much rope you have available. A satisfactory trebuchet (often, incorrectly, "catapult" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapult ]) can be lashed together with fairly light spars, using a bucket of rocks (or Scouts pulling on a rope) at the short end for energy. We had one throwing water balloons almost 150 feet into a swimming pool full of other Scouts. When doing our own summer camp in a camp with a stream dividing the ground, a bridge was often selected as a worthwhile project. We have done swings, and carrousels. If you can get a copy of John Thurman's books on pioneering (I have "Pioneering Principles," "Progressive Pioneering," and "Fun With Ropes and Spars."), they have a wealth of ideas (even given his occasional strange idea about lashing for a tripod, shared from time-to-time by B.S.A.). They show up on eBay and Amazon. They are in the public domain and can be copied. I look for abandoned farmland that is for sale for years. Saplings tend to spring up and can make wonderful pioneering material. Around here, they are mostly maple and ash. They will be plowed under if the property sells. I have not been denied permission yet.

STEP 2 "Kudu": Clearly Baden-Powell based what we call "advancement" solely on the mastery of objective Scoutcraft and Public Service skills. That means no "values" tests: No Boards of Review, No Scoutmaster Conferences, No wildcard Scout Spirit requirements. First, BP expressly provided in Scouting for Boys that a Scout who did not follow Scouting's values -- who "breaks his word of honor, or otherwise disgraces himself" -- should be removed from Scouting. That would be the enforcement of values. One cannot "advance" if one has been expelled. Conformity to values was a given. As to value-based tests for advancement, that too is traditional. BP said several times that it was effort, not actual proficiency, that should determine if a "proficiency badge" was awarded by a Scoutmaster: "Moreover, there is only one standard by which a boy is judged as qualified for a badge, and that is the amount of effort he puts into his work." That is a value-centered standard, not an "objective" one.

"There is no method for first aid, no simple pithy little acronym yeh can tell people that will allow them to be successful treating any group of patients that come along." "PPPPP" ? ^___^

Rick, you say "Baden-Powell's 100 yard guideline is really the Troop Method: Just a simulation of the Patrol System within the safety of an adult-supervised Troop Campout." So even BP got "traditional Scouting" wrong? I recall that BP started out wanting Patrol Leaders appointed by the Scoutmaster. Even Homer nods. 0____0 As for Scouting for Boys, patrols, and 300 feet: "It is not intended that boy scouts should necessarily form a new corps separate from all others, but the boys who belong to any existing organization, such as schools, football clubs, Bots' or Church Lads' Brigades . . . can also take up scouting in addition. . . . But where there are any boys who do not belong to any kind of organization -- and there is a very large number of such boys about the United Kingdom -- they can form themselves into Patrols and become Boy Scouts." For this purpose officers are necessary." [scouting for Boys at p. 35.] "CAMPFIRE YARN. - No. 12. [No. 9 is solely about nature.] Some people talk of 'roughing it' in camp. Those people are generally 'tenderfoots' . . . .[scouting for Boys at p. 154.] . . . CAMP ORDERS . . . Such orders might point out that each patrol will camp separately from the others, and there will be a comparison between respective cleanliness and good order of the tents and surrounding ground." [scouting for Boys at p. 163] Respectfully, is it not the separateness that is more important than the actual distance?

I do not take it that "Explain" precludes any method that transmits the information one hopes will be learned. I do not understand "Demonstrate" to always be separate from, or distinct from, "Explain." As with FSNP, things are not that simple. Scouting in more recent years has reverted to its habit from the earliest days to oversimplify. ("All groups go through these stages.") I recall that leadership training on teaching included in the last seven decades the notion that application should follow instruction and that the goal was some level of proficiency. Years ago, there was some mention of explaining why the information or skill to be taught was important to learn (often, the motivation was to beat the other patrols in competition). Too bad there is insufficient time in IOLS to both teach Scoutcraft AND how to teach Scoutcraft. Rick, you said: "As if it is humanly possible for anyone other than a Patrol Leader to teach Scoutcraft in any context other than a Patrol Hike." First, I agree totally that it is best to allow Patrols to act independently. In no other way can the group come together to its greatest potential. However, even in as narrow a context as Scouting, it is clearly humanly possible for Scoutcraft to be learned other than from a Patrol Leader and other than on an (adult-free) Patrol hike. Persons other than Patrol Leaders teach. Things are learned other than on hikes (or campouts). My Grandfather deliberately taught me how to sharpen a knife. I taught my first Patrol Leader at a Patrol meeting. I don't know how many I have taught since. Adults write books that teach the boys who read them. You have doubtless taught Scoutcraft to boys at (gasp!) indoor meetings, as BP specifically contemplated in his writings. Even your prescription of "300 feet," allows for months of training of the Patrol Leaders in Scoutcraft and leadership skills (Bill's books are full of leadership skills, such as setting the example and planning.) Is "300" feet not a fighting slogan rather than an actual plan, just as EDGE is shorthand for something that simply must be more complex to work? Otherwise, Bill wasted a lot of paper, as did BP. Generally, I find BSA's prescriptions less offensive than it's ever-lengthening list of proscriptions. And Rick, I am not sure if you regard the military as an "adventure" program," but they are quite satisfied that leadership training produces greater success than simply putting a squad or section off on their own and hoping that "nature takes its course." Of course, they have downsides in mind that are much worse than burnt eggs. Check out the beret: (This message has been edited by TAHAWK)(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

Would one of you who has knowledge of the BSA rule regulating Patrol Emblems by size and numbers of colors please give me a citation to the rule? I have to do a session on "Uniforming" at a training course. It does not seem to be in the current Insiognia Guide page on "Patrol Emblems" (p. 19). A search of "patrol emblems" using the pathetic "search" feature at Scouts.org produced many hits about religious emblems, but nothing about patrol emblems. I found regulations covering "designs incorporating Boy Scouts of America trademark words, phrases, symbols or mottoes." But I have not seen a Patrol Emblem with "Boy Scouts of America trademark words, phrases, symbols or mottoes."(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

Never encountered, "We'll tell you what you need to know" from paid staff. I did have them complain that I was not keeping them informed of what my district was doing. Things were going extremely well then. Didn't really need paid staff to do jobs volunteers were supposed to do -- and were doing. I have encountered, on occasion, the attitude that volunteers are unreliable children, but I always suspected this came from training (James West legacy) and could be eliminated in due time. Also, those paid staff tended not to be around long. (Not in every case. Have a real jerk in middle mgt. now.)

Agree 100% except about the "secret" part. Some take public pleasure in reducing freedom.

Last K-Mart "Grease Pot" I looked at was stainless steel. SS does not distribute heat as well as aluminum and is heavier, like for like.. YMWNV.

If a fileting knife is "large," and the exception in the G2SS knife policy implies that it is, "large" relates solely to blade length, which is not completely rational. Moreover, fileting knives are notably neither "awkward" nor hard to carry. Since its inception, Boy Scouting has relied heavily on an outdoor program to achieve its objectives. This program meets more of the purposes of Scouting than any other single feature. Knives are a primary outdoor tool, and we believe we have a duty to instill in our members, youth and adult, the knowledge of how to use, handle, and store legally owned knives with the highest concern for safety and responsibility. However, knives that have been optimized as weapons, such as double-edged knives, Bowie knives, switchblades, and tantos, have no place in Scouting and are prohibited. Further, except for cleaning fish or cooking, relatively heavy knives and knives with blades in excess of four inches in length should be avoided as they are awkward to use and carry and are unnecessary for most camp chores. Units and local Councils may enact rules to effectuate the last two sentences of this policy but may not ban all sheath knives or all fixed-blade knives.

Beav, yes, after 42 years I know who MBC's are, and their range of competency and eccentricities. I suppose some of us are "silly," at least on occasion. In fact, I hope so. I was focused on candidates in my area who face drastically different requirements. As usual you make a good point. This is a national program. So the requirement should add "in your area." And it should not read, as USSSP and one poster here has suggested, "Show that you know first aid for and how to prevent injuries or illnesses from hypothermia, heat reactions, frostbite, dehydration, blisters, insect stings, tick bites, and snakebites." But how to have that happen?

No regulation of the B.S.A. requires wearing the Uniform for any occasion whatsoever. The instructions for Eagle Boards of Review specifically state that wearing the Uniform is not a requirement for being reviewed for the rank of Eagle Scout. "Scout Spirit" does not include wearing the Uniform. It consists solely of following the Oath and Law, Motto and Slogan in your daily life. BSHB at p. 30 (and in many previous BSHB's) Speaking of the Scout Law: If the Troop has a tradition of Scouts appearing for Boards of Review in complete uniform, would it be courteous to do so? "A Scout is obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. . . . If he thinks those rules and laws are unfair, he seeks to have them changed in an orderly way." Nothing in the Law about being servile, but what is the most effective way to get change? If you were wrong about something, how would you prefer to be approached about changing your behavior? Telling people they are wrong, especially in front of others, usually makes them defensive, so change is harder to get. Also, you want one-on-one if possible - privacy - to start out trying to convince the person you think will be most open to change. All change starts somewhere. It can begin with, "Mr. X, I want to talk to you about something that is very important to me. Do you have time?" Someday, you will presumably have a job. If you work for a boss, "right" 99% of the time is what you boss requires of you. That will seem probably offensive to you now and less so years from now. Eagle 92: "While I am not as knowledgeable as KUDU is on the early history of the BSA,. . ." Not to worry. Kudu is often. . . emmmm . . . creative about history. Kudu: "Those people intend to do you harm, and the "Scout Spirit" wild card is designed to do that." "Those people intend to do you harm, and the "Scout Spirit" wild card is designed to do that." "Those people intend to do you harm, and the "Scout Spirit" wild card is designed to do that." Rick, I guess it's hopeless. You have posted that you expect to see BSA Scouting replaced with something else, but I never thought I'd see you post such a negative, hurtful thing in response to a question from what we have to assume is a Scout. The Committee persons were out to harm the Scout? People can be wrong, and I think they were wrong, and not intend to be wrong. But you like to play the Evil Beast Card, Rick. Perhaps you do this over and over out of the best of motives, to be sure. But it's still hate, and hate is destructive to all within range, including you. "Ya, kid, they're evil beasts and out to hurt you." Geez! As a matter of cold, hard fact, subjective, values-based testing for advancement was part of BP's Scouting and part of Scouting here as early as 1911. BP wrote several times that it was effort, not actual proficiency, that should determine if a "proficiency badge" was awarded by a Scoutmaster (Yes, Scoutmasters awarded the badges.). "Moreover, there is only one standard by which a boy is judged as qualified for a badge, and that is the amount of effort he puts into his work." That, Rick, is a subjective, value-centered standard, not an "objective" one -- rewarding the virtue of trying hard. BP provided in Scouting For Boys for the expulsion at any time of a Scout who "breaks his word of honor, or otherwise disgraces himself." That would be the enforcement of values. Very little advancement once you have been expelled. In the United States, the very first set of requirements for First Class, then the highest rank, included: "11. Furnish satisfactory evidence that he has put into practice in his daily life the principles of the scout oath and law." Handbook for Boys, 1911 at p. 18. That would be -- in 1911 -- the "wildcard Scout Spirit requirement" that you say is not "traditional." As for adults doing the reviewing, that too has been part of Scouting from the start. "To become a second-class scout, a tenderfoot must pass to the satisfaction of the recognized local scout authorities, the following tests:...." Handbook for Boys, 1911, at p. 17. I have access to newspaper clippings describing examination of Cleveland District Council Scouts by the District Commissioner in 1912 for Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class. Famously, the first Eagle Scout was reviewed by James E. West, Earnest Thompson Seton, Daniel Carter Beard , and Wilbert E. Longfellow of the U.S. Volunteer Life Saving Corps. Some Board! Indeed, in the early days and until the 1950's, all merit badge candidates faced the daunting task of examination by the local council or, later, district Court of Honor - a group of adults instead of the single adult we use today. Handbook for Boys, 1911 at p. 23. Council or district-level reviews for rank advancement went on until just before I became a Scout in 1954. I heard horror stories from older Scouts about entering a room to find seven strange old guys sitting behind a table. ("Come to attention! Recite the Oath, Law, Slogan, and Motto in that order!" "You hear a drowning boy call for help. What do you do and in what order?") That we now use adults from the Troop Committee merely reflects the fact that the adult review now, and for some decades, does not include a retesting of Scoutcraft but is supposed to focus on the general progress of the boy in Scouting, the quality of his experience, and the health of the Troop. The Scoutmaster, an adult, has already certified that the Scout has passed the Scoutcraft and all other requirements and is ready to be reviewed. The experiment with Scouts sitting on Boards of Review was ended, we were told at the time, due to the Scouts on Boards not following the rules - primarily by retesting the candidates - and not really understanding some of the requirements for the ranks. I witnessed some exceedingly tough examples of those problems in my troop and other troops. My preferred solution was for rigorous training of the Scout leaders. We video-taped boards and reviewed them with the Scout leaders in our district as part of JLOW. I think the Scout leaders sitting as Boards were functioning well in our Troop when the plug was pulled. Adults or Scouts, paid or volunteer, sometimes we get it wrong. Which would make us human -- or Evil Beasts, trying to do harm, depending on your point-of-view.

The MB pamphlet discusses the examples listed in the requirement, although it's treatment of Anaphylactic Shock is pretty poor as it is treatment most appropriate for a non-wilderness setting. The pamphlet also discusses sunburn, cuts, and abrasions. It omits ankle sprains and the "runs," both common wilderness problems. The pamphlet's substantive material on first aid and illnesses does not trump the requirement, but requirement is unclear and the substantive material goes beyond the examples in the requirement. (Much of the substantive material on other subjects is inaccurate, so other BSA and non-BSA sources are typically used.) The SM doesn't bother or worry me. The ambiguity of the requirement certainly does. Every Scout that earns a MB, special needs Scouts aside, is supposed to meet the same requirements. This requirement invites counselors to invent greater or lesser hurdles for the candidate to overcome.

You seem to have grasped the issue. I think it is an issue, especially for National Counsel, when we have requirements for Merit Badges that are so ambiguous that different candidates face materially different requirements for the same badge depending on whether their counselor reads the requirement or not. Further, I think it is an issue for National Counsel when their list of examples omits most of the most common injuries or illnesses encountered in the "backcountry." The medicos at Philmont told me sunburn, blisters, sprained ankles, and "the runs" were the most common problems they encountered. Yet, only blisters are listed in the examples for Wilderness Survival Requirement 1. Because I can get no help on this from National Council, I was hoping someone here could help. Long ago, that was called, "using your resources,"

As many know, several "outdoor" Merit Badges have a similar requirement: "Show that you know first aid for and how to prevent injuries or illnesses that could occur in the backcountry, INCLUDING hypothermia, heat reactions, frostbite, dehydration, blisters, insect stings, tick bites, and snakebites." [emphasis added]** A Scoutmaster asked how I could require a Wilderness Survival MB candidate to show knowledge of how to treat burns (including sunburn), splinters, sprained ankle, and cuts -- all very common outdoor activity injuries. After reviewing the USSSP sites, and talking to other counselors, I discover that many are de facto amending the requirement to read: "Show that you know first aid for and how to prevent injuries or illnesses from hypothermia, heat reactions, frostbite, dehydration, blisters, insect stings, tick bites, and snakebites." I asked my local council, and they had nothing to contribute beyond suggesting that I write to National Council. I wrote to National Council asking for clarification and received no response. (A Scout is . . .Courteous) Comments? Suggestions? Any way in the world to get National Counsel to communicate with their field forces? ** One wonders at the variations in the examples given for each MB. CAMPING: "including hypothermia, frostbite, heat reactions, dehydration, altitude sickness, insect stings, tick bites, snakebite, blisters, and hyperventilation." BACKPACKING: "including hypothermia, heat reactions, frostbite, dehydration, insect stings, tick bites, snakebite, and blisters. [Apparently, one does not backpack at altitude.] CANOEING: "including hypothermia, heat reactions, dehydration, insect stings, tick bites, and blisters" CYCLING: "including hypothermia, heat reactions, frostbite, dehydration, insect stings, tick bites, snakebites, blisters, and hyperventilation. [Abrasions? I guess we never go down.] EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS: takes the logical step of requiring the First Aid MB FISHING: "including cuts, scratches, puncture wounds, insect bites, hypothermia, dehydration, heat exhaustion, heatstroke, and sunburn." GEOCACHING: "including cuts, scrapes, snakebite, insect stings, tick bites, exposure to poisonous plants, heat and cold reactions (sunburn, heatstroke, heat exhaustion, hypothermia), and dehydration." HIKING: "including hypothermia, heatstroke, heat exhaustion, frostbite, dehydration, sunburn, sprained ankle, insect stings, tick bites, snakebite, blisters, hyperventilation, and altitude sickness." [so we do contemplate hiking at altitude.] HORSEMANSHIP: none [We do NOT fall off or get whipped by branches. Murphy has been banned.] ORIENTEEERING: "including cuts, scratches, blisters, snakebite, insect stings, tick bites, heat and cold reactions (sunburn, heatstroke, heat exhaustion, hypothermia), and dehydration. Explain to your counselor why you should be able to identify poisonous plants and poisonous animals that are found in your area." PIONEERING: "including minor cuts and abrasions, bruises, rope burns, blisters, splinters, sprains, heat and cold reactions, dehydration, and insect bites or stings." [No major cuts, please.] ROWING: "including cold and heat reactions, dehydration, contusions, lacerations, and blisters." [We do NOT sunburn while rowing.] SMALL BOAT SAILING: "including hypothermia, dehydration, heat reactions, motion sickness, cuts, scratches, abrasions, contusions, puncture wounds, and blisters." [No sunburn. Cloudy days only.] SNOW SPORTS: "including hypothermia, frostbite, shock, dehydration, sunburn, fractures, bruises, sprains, and strains" SPORTS: "including sprains, strains, contusions, abrasions, fractures, blisters, muscle cramps, dehydration, heat and cold reaction, injured teeth, nausea, and suspected injuries to the head, neck, and back" [Never break bones.] SWIMMING: "including hypothermia, dehydration, sunburn, heat exhaustion, heatstroke, muscle cramps, hyperventilation, spinal injury, stings and bites, and cuts and scrapes." WATER SPORTS: "including hypothermia, heat exhaustion, heatstroke, dehydration, sunburn, minor cuts and blisters" WHITEWATER: "including hypothermia, heat reactions, dehydration, insect stings, blisters, bruises, cuts, and shoulder dislocation."