CalicoPenn

Where does it end? It ends where you say it ends. The arrows, the books, the plaques - all of it is optional. Just because something optional might be traditional in your unit, doesn't mean you have to keep up with the tradition. If Packs want to give out arrows to the lads, that is their choice. If they decide they can't do it anymore, that is their choice. Spending 4 hours per arrow or 5 minutes per arrow - that is their choice. Making the arrows by hand or buying them premade in bulk, that is their choice. Just because some packs do it, doesn't mean other packs have to do it too. Heck, when it comes right down to it, even the Pinewood Derby is optional. The only awards I would consider to be "required" are the actual awards that are listed in the various handbooks which are being earned by the Cub Scouts. Giving the lad their Wolf badge and certificate, or an arrow point, or their Arrow of Light badge should not be an option. If you don't want to spend 4 hours on an arrow - if you don't want to spend your entire New Year's Day carving out weight pockets on 70 pinewood derby cars, then don't do it. Find someone else to do it, or just end the tradition. Sometimes the most moribund units are the ones that are so tradition bound that they could never fathom that there might be a better, or at least different, way of doing things. And it's not just Boy Scout Troops that go to the same summer camp in the same campsite on the same week year after year after year. Watch a traditionalist fall apart when a Pack that is used to using a 2 track pinewood derby track borrows a 5 track pinewood derby track.

Let us know how things go at Klondike.

Theblanc: And what "demographic" is that? I saw nothing in Moosetracker's post suggesting that this lad was in any particular demographic than "fellow human".

Without an autopsy, any cause of death is purely speculative. Yeah, it could have been heat stroke. Yeah, it could have been hyponatremia (though a colleague in my office - an MD who volunteers at the Chicago Marathon - suggests that it's unlikely unless the lad already had a sodium deficiency - Vol is probably better versed on it than any of us). It could have been caused by water intoxication (maybe 1 1/2 gallons of water was too much - or he drank most of it in one sitting). It could have been caused by a bee sting he didn't feel causing an allergic reaction that in turn caused a respiratory failure. It could have been an undiagnosed heart condition (it's not unusual after reading reports about high school athletes collapsing during practice or a game to learn later that there was an undiagnosed heart valve problem). It could have been anything. We're just not going to know.

ScoutNut - 1972 is far enough away so that the first Cubs that earned the Arrow of Light are, or are going to turn, 50 this this year. Are you suggesting someone can't be a successful businessperson if they are 50 or younger?

I crossed over in 1972 as well, the month I turned 11, having earned the AOL a couple of months before (yep - wore it on my Cub Scout uniform) - this was back when Cubs did things by age, not grade level. Crossover ceremonies occurred as needed, not all at one time. Here's the thing, we did have a bridge - and it was being used when I was a Wolf Cub so it was around for at least 3 years. It looked older than that. I wouldn't consider 1972 recent. However, we never got arrows. On the Cub side of the bridge, our WDL removed our Webelos neckerchief and our Cubmaster handed us a Boy Scout Handbook. On the Scout side of the bridge, whoever was representing the Troop put our new Boy Scout neckerchief on us and shook our hands with the Scout Handshake. Still, no arrows. Other Packs had other traditions. Some, like Clems, apparently never used a bridge or did much in the way of crossover hoopla. And you know what? That is just fine. Some Packs will give arrows only to lads that earned the AOL. Others will give arrows to every Webelos II. And still others won't give arrows away at all. It's just a tradition of the Pack - and isn't dictated to the Packs as something that must be done, or done in any certain way, by the BSA.

Nope, I'm not going to us Tom's pen on Bill - not unless Tom has a spare or two - I'm going to treat Bill to the best of my abilities operating as if I don't have access to an epi-pen. It is not my decision to make to use Tom's property for someone else, and I will not put Tom into the position of having to make the decision either. Even if Tom volunteers his pen without asking, I can not in good conscience use it knowing that Tom is not, or may not be able to, make an informed choice on how such a decision might affect him. That's what makes this question such a good study in ethical decision making. The choice between actuality and potentiality. If I don't use Tom's pen, there is a good chance Bill might not make it. If I use Tom's pen, there is a good chance that Bill will make it. Seems like a pretty easy choice to make. Except... If I use Tom's pen on Bill, I may be saving Bill's life, but I'm putting Tom's life in that much more jeopardy. Tom is carrying an epi-pen knowing he could go into anaphylactic shock if stung. It is more likely that Bill going in anaphylactic shock is unexpected. What happens if Tom gets stung after having his pen used to save Bill's life - a pen brought along with the express purpose of helping Tom should he get stung? Is the probability of such a scenario taking place low? Yeah - probably even ridiculously low - but then so is the probability of Tom ever needing to use the epi-pen in the first place. Let's make it even more interesting - you're the lead on this trip and if you're seriously ill or injured it will put every one on the trip at risk and the epi-pen is yours. Do you use it on someone else and risk needing it yourself?

I didn't know that Risk Management Chair was a Commissioner Service position. If it isn't, I wasn't aware that the District Commissioner could "fire" someone from the District Committee. Granted, the outcome is probably acceptable, but I'd be keeping an eye on a District Commissioner or District Executive that thought they could fire one of my committee people if I were District Chair.

Why? Because: "One hundred years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, how big my house was, or what kind of car I drove. But the world may be a little better, because I was important in the life of a child." - Forest E. Witcraft. Thanks for the opportunity to be reminded of this Basementdweller.

Why wouldn't a military base in your community be considered part of the community? Particularly a miltary base on foreign soil where there is a chance you're living on the military base with your family? Why would we treat a military facility any differently from a National Park, National Forest or National Wildlife Refuge? If you live near Horicon National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin, wouldn't that be part of your community and shouldn't you be allowed by the BSA to do a project there? I think these sound like great projects, and thank you for sharing them with us.

I'm not asking.

I've not done a Wilderness First Aid course since I added the W designation to my EMT certification back in the 1985 (a certification that has since lapsed). At the time, the WFR certifications were just being developed. However, I'm frankly a little wary of the Red Cross WFA programs - and not because I have anything against the Red Cross but because it just doesn't seem to be part of it's core mission. It seems to me that to be able to effectively teach WFA, you have to have a lot of familiarity with the outdoors to begin with. I wonder what kind of experience in the outdoors the Red Cross is requiring of people they're certifying as WFA instructors. I know my first question to a Red Cross WFA instructor is liable to be how often to you backpack, camp and hike?

Thanks, Vol - I wasn't looking for compliments, and frankly, it was pure luck as I had just gone through some CE training not 2 months before concentrating on Diabetes so it was fresh in mind. Rockford, you're right - it is probably overkill and unneccessary that there be an EMT on every trip, and yes, it is first aid - but in a sense, what we're talking about shows what could be a weakness in first aid training. My tale was to illustrate the same concept that Vol had mentioned in response to a question by Twocub on how that training has helped, and that answer was to be more open to possibilities beyond the obvious. I see as a weaknesses of "First Aid" training that we don't spend as much time on potential medical issues as we do on treatment for trauma. No, a first aid course shouldn't need to spend a whole lot of time talking about all the possible symptoms of medical issues that people might come across, but in a nation where diabetes is rapidly becoming (sad to say) a norm, shouldn't we spend a little time on it? In first aid training, when we see bleeding, we see a concrete problem that we can handle, and most of the time, don't really need to know how it happened. Somehow, we need to get better at getting folks who take first aid classes to understand that vomiting can be pointing to a whole range of possibilities - and though we may not be able to tell what is causing it, we can remember not to make a snap judgement that can rule other things out.

Ummmm, I realize that when one is charged with a DUI, it is predominantly for drinking. But not once did ApacheBob say that the lad was drinking. Now the probability is pretty high that the DUI is for drinking, but it occurs to me that everyone is assuming that the DUI was for drinking without thinking of any other possibilities. DUI is Driving Under the Influence. In most States, that covers a much broader spectrum than drinking. You can get a DUI for use of illicit drugs. You can get a DUI for use of prescription drugs. All those warnings that say don't drive or use heavy machinery while on certain prescription medicines? They aren't there because someone needed to fill space. If you're taking a prescription pain medicine, or cough medicine, that impairs your driving ability, then you can be busted for DUI. In many states, you can get a DUI without driving at all. You just have to be in a "position of control". In Illinois, that means you can be charged with DUI if you are parked and sleeping it off in the back seat with your car keys in your pocket. You are technically in a position of control because although you aren't in front of the wheel, you still have your keys, and can easily crawl up to the front seat of the car, start the engine, and cause the car to move. I learned this just this past November when I served on a jury when "position of control" was the key to the defense. We're so quick to demand more facts from posters in other threads, but no one, not one person, asked what this lad was under the influence of. As I said, it's probable that the offense was for drinking - but would people's answers have been different if ApacheBob came in later and said the lad was driving home from a dentist appointment and was impaired by a pain medicine? Would the answers have been tempered if we learned that the lad got the DUI because he attended a party, had a couple of brews, and decided to nap in his back seat before driving home? And yes, I realize that drinking at 16 is still illegal, and stupid, and not "Scoutlike", but reasonable people would tend to say that as bad as that may be, it's not as bad as actually driving drunk. Its seems an awful lot of us forget a pretty important part of the Scout Law. It states, On My Honor, I will DO MY BEST. It does not read, On My Honor, I will Be Perfect. No matter how hard we try to do our best, there will be times when we slip. "Our Best" is a moving target - and always has been. Things you do today, will affect what you can do tomorrow. 20 years ago, doing my best, I could climb Katahdin in 45 minutes. Today, doing my best, I doubt I could get 1/4 of the way up before my lungs will feel like they're about to explode. Moods affect our feelings all the time - if I'm in a bad mood today, then "my best" probably won't meet the same standards that "my best" is when I'm in a great mood. I'll try to do my best to be patient but alas, there will be times I'll slip and not be as patient as I strive to be because of my mood. Yes, this is disappointing - but what's more important are the lessons learned. I don't see this as any kind of automatic disqualification for Eagle Scout. Working with the Scout in the ways that have been suggested is certainly appropriate - but slamming the door? I would hope not.

Just wait until someone brings up Babylon 5

Bklyn, I never said James T. Kirk was better than Jean-Luc Picard (or for that matter Kathryn Janeway, Hikaru Sulu, or Christopher Pike, though he is clearly better than Captain Styles and Captain Jellico), only that he's better than Han Solo. Eagle92, Obviously Star Trek is not the greatest SciFi franchise in history - it's clearly #2, right behind Dr. Who.

Very fair question, Twocub. If it's not being used, is EMT training helpful? I would say yes, if only in the sense that the training opens the mind to think beyond the obvious. I was serving emergency services at a camporee when we got a report of a 16 year old vomiting, stumbling, slurring his speech and acting confused. When we got to the campsite, the adults were sure that he was drunk and asked us to take him to our campsite to watch over him while they packed his gear and called his parents to come pick him up. From all the physical evidence, it didn't appear to be a medical emergency. The risk of heat emergencys was pretty non-existent (temps in the 60's). The ASM found an empty Crown Royal bag in the Scout's gear. It certainly was a reasonable assumption to believe the Scout had gotten hammered. As I was talking to the lad, (while trying to ignore the camp ranger who came roaring up to the campsite on his ATV demanding that the lad be taken off the property) I detected the faint odor of fruit on the lad's mostly vomit-scented breath. Because of my EMT training, the gears in my head started to move and click in to place. I asked the Scoutmaster if the lad was diabetic by any chance and was told yes. The next words out of my mouth, to the ranger, was something to the affect of "Call 911 - get an ambulance out here - NOW". If I never went through the training, I never would have connected a fruity smell, vomiting, and confusion with a medical condition, ketoacidosis, related to diabetes. Oh - and I had never personally witnessed it before - it was just something I remembered from training, not from the field. The empty Crown Royal bag? The Scout used it to carry his equipment and medicines needed to keep his diabetes under control. He had crawled into his tent not feeling 100% and realized he had forgotten to give himself his insulin shot that morning - he was going to do so, and was getting ready to prepare his shot when he fell asleep. Either while sleeping, or, upon waking, he managed to kick his insulin gear under his tentmates sleeping bag - and in his confusion and vomiting, couldn't find it. Why a Crown Royal bag? Because it's readily identifiable - and if he needed someone to fetch it, it would be easy for someone to get in an emergency - a trick he learned from a former Scoutmaster. Does that mean I suggest every Scouter get EMT training? No - but it does make me think that there should be some kind of additional training available that goes beyond First Aid to help Scouters identify (not necessarily treat) potential medical emergencies.

According to the complaint, the Scouts used a trail through Big Cypress called "The Florida Trail". The Florida Trail is a 1,500 mile trail across Florida, a state version of the Appalachian Trail. The Scouts were hiking a portion of the trail that runs through Big Cypress, which is marked. The Scouts may, or may not, have checked in with the Rangers. But the trailhead would likely have had a map of the trail, and there is generally lists of rules and warnings at the trailheads in National Parks.

If you think Han Solo is a better ship's captain the James T. Kirk, then not only are you a Star Wars geek, you're a delusional Star Wars geek.

Whatever your first aid training is isn't enough. I'm not trying to be facetious. Rather, I'm suggesting that no matter how much first aid training you've got, it's important to keep getting more training - even if the training is a review of what you've already learned. EMT's, Nurses, Doctors - all have to go through continuing education to maintain their certification. The continuing education doesn't always present something new - often it's a review of things you already learned. If you were certified in CPR back in the 80's and diligently got recertified every 2 years, there were no groundbreaking changes to procedures until fairly recently. But what does that really mean within the confines of the BSA? Let's face it, the BSA doesn't do a very good job of training adults in First Aid anyway. There may be something in IOLS, and now they're mandating that someone be certified in WFA, but for the most part, they seem content with the hope that people will do it on their own. The worst part is the BSA has a ready-made basic first aid training course, complete with book, that pretty much every Boy Scout goes through (if they remain in the program long enough). It's called the First Aid Merit Badge. As part of adult training, it seems it would be a simple procedure to add a requirement that in the first year, all new leaders will earn the First Aid "Merit Badge" using the existing materials. Heck, the BSA could even create a unique patch similar to the actual merit badge that could be worn in a permanent position on the Adult leader's shirt. Earned it as a Scout? You have to earn it again as an Adult (continuing education). To make things more interesting, create the badges in a way that recognize further training. Go through a CPR/AED course? Get a rocker (if a round badge) or a strip (if a square badge) to add to it. WFA? Get the strip too. ARC First Aid? EMT? Another strip. At a minimum, all your adults will be trained in basic first aid, units can have their own instructors (just like merit badge counselors) or share instructors - and scheduling can be done at the convenience of units/instructors at any time of the year. If the requirements change dramatically? Change the color of the basic patch - and encourage people to update.

"Furthermore: 1) Jr. Assistant Scoutmaster is appointed by the Scoutmaster. 2) Den Chief is appointed by the Scoutmaster (in concert with Cubmaster & Den Leader). 3) Instructor is appointed by the Scoutmaster. 4) Troop Guide is appointed by the Scoutmaster." Umm, not to split hairs but that's not what I've understood from the BSA literature. Of the youth leadership positions, only the Troop Guide is appointed by the Scoutmaster. The rest are appointed by the SPL - some with the advise/consent of the Scoutmaster. 1) Jr. Assistant Scoutmaster - appointed by SPL with the advice and consent of the Scoutmaster. (reality - most of the time, a Scoutmaster will "appoint" a JASM on their own or a Troop has a tradition that all 17 year old Eagles are appointed as JASM's. It's probably pretty rare for an SPL to suggest to a SM that such-and-such be appointed to JASM). 2) Den Chief - appointed by the SPL with the advice/consent of the Scoutmaster and acceptance of the Cubmaster and Den Leader. 3) Instructor - appointed by the SPL - no advice or consent needed (though the reality is most SPL's check in with the SM on their appointments first anyway). 4) Troop Guide - appointed by the Scoutmaster.

The BSA doesn't use professionals to train volunteers. It uses experienced volunteers to train volunteers. You hope that the guy you have teaching first aid in IOLS is an EMT or Paramedic or emergency room Doctor/Nurse (please note the qualifier). She/He will still be volunteering but still be a professional. But there is still a good chance the person will just be an experienced volunteer. Want someone other than an experienced volunteer to train folks in outdoor skills? You can hope to get someone like me on your course who has volunteered (I have a degree in Environmental Education with an emphasis on Outdoor Recreation - most would consider that a professional designation). Or you can pay me or one of my colleagues, who will be glad to accept money to help pay off the $60K it took to earn the degree. But what it comes down to, with this particular lawsuit, is whether you'll still be able to pay $15 a year and get experienced volunteers training new volunteers, which has served the BSA quite well for 100 year now, or whether the BSA will now have to hire professional trainers with very particular skills (not just someone with a degree in organizational development but someone who specializes in the outdoors AND has the organizational development degree)to not just organize training, but to do the actual training and make it a very intensive course that is mandated for any adult who joins a trip just to cover for potential liability in the future. Forget the "Three G's". Consider that possibility as the death knell for the BSA. As for this particular, and admittedly tragic, case? I see nothing in the complaint that points to negligence. What I see is alleged negligence. It has to be proven first. There are going to be hurdles that both sides will have to jump. The first that jumps to mind is determining whether it was prudent to even do the hike in this kind of weather. To someone in the South, it might not automatically be assumed that hiking in 92 degree weather on flat land with nearly a gallon of water in the Big Cypress Reserve, on a trail that, regardless of the image the Everglades invokes, is mostly a Bald Cypress woodland if I recall correctly, is probably not safe as someone in the North (say, Minnesota) might think. Opinions will vary, but you have to convince a jury - and this will be a jury of Floridians. I'm struck by the same thing Beavah was. The publicity factor. I tend to believe that when a plaintiff's attorney is making publicity hay out of lawsuits such as these, it's because they are hoping that public sympathy will generate a desire on the defendents to put themselves past the issue by settling fairly quickly and that the defendent won't let it be taken to court where sympathy and the law are not friends and where the defense has the opportunity to out doubt in the jurors minds (ie: Mr. X - did you raise any objections or concerns with Defendant about the temperature before the hike began? No?? Why not? Mrs. X - have there ever been any indications that Defendant wasn't prepared on past outings? Did you ever voice any concerns that Defendant wasn't competant to lead your son on a hike? Mr. Ranger - what does the Big Cypress Preserve suggest is the recommended amount of water a person should take on a day hike? Your answer is about a gallon, is that correct?).

Ah, the joys of senior youth leadership. Keep in mind the knife-blade your balancing on here. As easy as it would be for the youth to decide that something has suddenly come up and they can't make the adult planned program, it's just as easy for the adults to decide that something has suddenly come up and they can't make the youth planned program. In both cases, it leads to no programming taking place at all. Scouts certainly do vote with their feet - but the volunteer parents can vote with their feet too. Before you insist too heavily that the ship must follow the youth planned program (and don't get me wrong, ideally it should), make sure that you have enough adults ready to step up and do the supervision required if the two parents the Skipper is relying on heavily decide to vote with their feet. Otherwise, any victory you have will be pyrrhic. As others have suggested, the obvious first step is to make sure you have the buy-in of the Skipper. It's the Skipper who will help make sure that there are enough adults going along in case his right arms have found something else to do that weekend. Based on what you wrote, most Skippers I know would be doing backflips after learning their youth leadership decided, without any prodding, that a priority is to do maintenance on the boat before going off on a cruise, which I think speaks pretty well about your plan. But if the Skipper is unable to find any other adults willing to step in, then what? One option is to just go ahead with the plans the adults came up with - but that might be a bitter pill to swallow and it can set a bad precedent or it could lead to the youth deciding to abandon ship (sorry, couldn't pass up the pun). A better option would be to sit down with the adults plan and see if there are ways to work them together into a plan both can be happy with. Do you need to spend all day on maintenance? Can some be deferred until next month so you can get some practice regatta in (that's assuming you haven't decided not to do Regatta this year and just haven't told the adults yet). Can you look at the cruise plan together and see if there is something you missed that has concerned the adults who may be having a first reaction that it's all bad? Your first ally must be the Skipper - talk to him as a group of youth leaders and make sure you're all on the same page sharing the same vision. If they are radically different (and it's not just because he's really busy), then it's time to think of Plan B. By the way, I love the fact that you used Skype and Google to get together as a team and make your plans.

Reggie Bush returned his Heisman Trophy before the trustees voted to strip him of the award because of improprieties in accepting certain assistance that in turn made him ineligible, under NCAA rules, to compete the year he won the trophy. If you're ineligible to compete in the first place, you can't win the Heisman Trophy. In context of this discussion, the loss of the Heisman Trophy is only germaine to the revocation of the Eagle Scout badge if the person was ineligible to receive the badge (didn't have all of the required merit badges, didn't meet time-in on POR) or if the Eagle Scout had done something illegal to earn the badge (note the distinction - I'm not saying doing something illegal in itself is enough - I'm saying doing something illegal to help him earn the badge (like having a keg party to raise funds) would be comparative to the Heisman being taken away.

Ok - first a correction - meant 2008 not 2009. Second - that really wasn't my point about Ms. Palin. My point was that she bit the rather large hand that feeds us - and while she may believe that if she's heavily covered on just one network that should do it - if the rest of the media decide they're hacked off enough to marginalize her, she will be marginalized.