Hmmm...anti-kudos.

[SMT224]

I can remember going hiking and backpacking with my buddies when I was in high school without any real plan. We'd just head out and go where we felt like it. We see a mountain that we hadn't climbed, and we do it. We'd get on top and maybe see a lake off in the distance and go there. We stay for a while if we could catch fish, if not, we'd go somewhere else. We explored, and it was really fun. We'd finally head home when we ran out of food.

 

The idea of such an outing today is outrageous! We file a hike plan and follow it. We let someone know where we are going and when we expect to get there. We do not spontaneously head off just because a mountain or lake or canyon looks cool. We stay on the trail. We do not explore. The very idea!

 

Just maybe, E61, they were intending to stay on the lake perimeter, but then they saw an island off in the distance, and maybe someone said, "hey, let's go check it out!" And maybe the waves were fun to plow through, and maybe the capsizing was really cool! But maybe not. Maybe kids these days are just too well trained to even think of such a thing.

[gcnphkr]

Considering that it was a wonderful day on Saturday, sunny with the high above 75, I would be surpised if the scout didn't decide to go for a dip to cool off. I certainly would have been willing to give it a go based on how warm it was where we were.

[qwazse]

Our past two trips no scouts capsized. Wished I could've said the same for adults.

 

The second guessing is endless. The best you could do is listen to the SM and understand his "risk equation" as much as it can be understood.

 

Sometimes hugging a shoreline has disadvantages, such as submerged logs and rocks that will quickly throw a boat bobbing in high waves.

 

Sometimes guys make bonehead moves. That's why preparedness on other levels (clothes and a drybag) makes a difference.

[Engineer61]

Yep, I'd pull him if it were up to me...as I already said, I just get to pay for it ...

 

For the other AZ poster, Roosevelt, high 50 ... water temp 40.

 

Whatever a "drybag" is, they didn't have them. Nor wetsuits. They had to paddle back wet.

[Eagle92]

A drybag is a bag designed to keep item in it dry. You can buy them, or use the "el cheapo mucho approach" of a garbage bag, twisted shut and goosenecked. Trust me works just as well as a dry bag.

 

Back when I did my 50 miler with my Sea Scout ship, I told folks to always waterproof their gear when going on water, and told them this method. When it came time to unload the boats, the guys were told to be pack mules. Since everyone was instructed to waterproof their gear, those of us on that duty just started putting packs on or carrying gear, some of which was in the water, thinking everythign was protected.

 

WWWWEEEEEELLLLL some folks didn't pay heed of our advice, complained that their gear got wet, and said we wouldn't get our gear wet. Shoulda saw the look on their faces when we put on our packs in the water and started out to shore. Packs got wet, but nylon dries real fast. Clothes and other gear were perfectly dry in their garbage bags.

 

 

What really concerns me is this comment:

I just get to pay for it ...

 

Why is the scout not earning his keep? Why is the scout not earning an allowance, doing unit fundraisers, etc to pay his own way?

 

[Nike]

Eng, how much do past legal fights have to do with your reticence? And would you feel the same if the organization wasn't Scouts but school, sports league, or church sponsored?

 

(This message has been edited by Nike)

[Engineer61]

Eng, how much do past legal fights have to do with your reticence? And would you feel the same if the organization wasn't Scouts but school, sports league, or church sponsored?

 

First, I think you meant resistance not reticence (modesty)...I had to look up that one...lol.

 

I'm certain that my personal situation skews my tolerance level. Legal battles are quite expensive. Perhaps the SM's should consider that, given the number of divorce parents involved these days. It is not uncommon for divorced parents to not agree on extracurricular activities, so issues and events in extracurricular can easily be used against a parent.

 

"Johnny broke his leg when he jumped into the lake on the Scouting campout that *you* signed him up for."

 

And yes, I take exception when any organization that I or my kids are involved in does not follow the rules and plans they themselves set down. I've fought some of those wars with school's already.

[gcnphkr]

So, you wouldn't have had an issue if they hadn't said they would stay on the perimeter?

[Platypus96]

If my troop tried planning a canoining trip where we just stayed on the edge of a lake, I wouldn't go. Thats something I did with my dad when I was a cub scout. Scouting is about fun and adventure. If it was exceadingly dangerous, the leaders wouldn't have allowed it. That kind of situation is why capsizing and recovering a canoe is part of the canoeing merit badge. Getting wet isn't going to traumatize your son.

[shortridge]

Perhaps the SM's should consider that, given the number of divorce parents involved these days. It is not uncommon for divorced parents to not agree on extracurricular activities, so issues and events in extracurricular can easily be used against a parent.

 

"Johnny broke his leg when he jumped into the lake on the Scouting campout that *you* signed him up for."

 

Speaking as a divorced parent, that's a load of hogwash. Unless there's negligence or abuse or something truly serious, the fact that a kid had an accident and injured himself on a Scout campout is not going to be held against a parent by any reasonable court. Yeah, the other parent can blame you all he/she wants. But it's not going to go anywhere. Reel in the paranoia a little bit.

 

As I said on another thread - bad stuff can happen in Scouts, at school, in youth groups, in sports.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[Lisabob]

Eng, I (think that I) understand your concerns. On the other hand, I also (think that I) would find it difficult to be a leader in a unit where you were raising these concerns. Your concerns really have little to do with scouting, and more to do with your particular blended family situation. Apparently you have had, and your wife currently has, very tumultuous relations with your exes. Unfortunate though that is, it isn't a scouting problem; it is a family problem. Your (step)son's scout leaders can't, and shouldn't honestly be expected to, deal with it. They should be expected to deal with providing a safe, quality, program for your boy. My comments will focus on the scouting program, as a result.

 

From the posts you have made over the last year or so, I am not sure whether that is happening or not. It could be that the troop is great, leaders are on top of things, and you just are uncomfortable with the whole idea of youth leadership & learning through experience which are at the core of boy scouting. Or, it could be that the troop leaders are inconsistent in their judgment and not to be trusted. You seem to believe the latter. Without being there, none of us can truly know if that is the case or not.

 

The fact that they deviated from the shoreline doesn't worry me a lot, unless there's something that all local folks know about the middle of the lake that we on this board don't know (lake monsters?). Without actually being there on the day of the event, it is very difficult to know what conditions prompted this decision, and it may have been just fine.

 

From your post, the problem appears to be that the boys got wet and that the water was cold. Certainly, concerns about hypothermia should be taken seriously, but how do you know they were not? From what you describe, the boys were fine.

 

Suppose that your boy had not been "made to" pack a change of dry clothes by "mom." What do you think would have happened then?

 

Do you think he would have spent the whole weekend shivering away in sodden clothing? Is that what you are worried about?

 

Are you worried that your boy didn't have the common sense to pack a change of clothes without somebody forcing him to do so? (He's what, 12 or 13? Goodness knows, common sense seems to desert a lot of boys at that age.)

 

Or are you worried that you don't have any control over the situation? You thought you had set limits ("stick to the shoreline") but the fluid dynamics of an event that you weren't at resulted in changes to what you thought were the limits, and you didn't know until afterwards?

 

What's the real problem here?

 

 

[Engineer61]

"Speaking as a divorced parent, that's a load of hogwash"

 

Congratulations, you do not have my Ex. However, I personally have been pulled in to Court for just this kind of nonsense.

 

 

"So, you wouldn't have had an issue if they hadn't said they would stay on the perimeter?"

 

No, he would not have gone, that was my wife's position as well. We understand our son's limitations when it come to swimming. PFD's are not a guarantee.

 

 

"Do you think he would have spent the whole weekend shivering away in sodden clothing? Is that what you are worried about? "

 

No, I was worried that he might drown.

[Eagle92]

Eng,

 

Sounds like you have my brother's ex. Long story short, he's been in and out of court several times on all kinds of garbage. Good news is that the judges have said it's all been garbage, and one even lowered the child support payments. Bad news is that lawyers are expensive, and he is still digging himself out of the hole. So I sympathize with you on that aspect. Wish ya the best on that.

 

 

In reference to your son's swimming ability, a few questions.

 

1) Did he pass the swimmer's test prior to canoeing? If no then

 

1b) Was he in a canoe with a certified lifeguard?

 

If the answer is yes to either of those, then he is OK to go canoeing. If no, then THAT is a problem b/c it violated Safety Afloat.

 

In reference to drowning, PFDs do save lives. Most are Type II or III, and Type IIs can turn some an unconscious folks upright. But with buddy boats in the area, another part of SA, there should be no problems if someone did get knocked unconscious in a Type III as some one is nearby to make a rescue.

[Twocubdad]

Your relationship with you ex is not my business, but you're all over the place here.

 

A few months ago in a thread which devolved into a similar conversation (I wish I could find it, I have no idea of the original topic) I specifically asked you that if you feel the way you do about Scouting why don't you pull you son out? Your response was that if were up to you, you would, but your ex insists he stay in Scouts.

 

So which is it? If you want him out, how can your ex blame you if she wants him in?

 

Maybe the woman is just insane or has a particularly vicious lawyer, or maybe you have a really bad one, but if you want the boy out of Scouts, but your ex wants him in, how can she blame you if he's hurt on a Scout activity?

 

File a document putting your wife and the court on notice that you're son's participation in Scouting is recklessly endangering him and you want him out. If he stays in, it's on her. That won't allay your fear of an accident, but at least you wouldn't have to worry about your ex coming after you over it.

[Oak Tree]

Eagle92, that section of the G2SS has been revamped. It now says For activity afloat, those not classified as a swimmer are limited to multiperson craft during outings or float trips on calm water with little likelihood of capsizing or falling overboard. They may operate a fixed-seat rowboat or pedal boat accompanied by a buddy who is a swimmer. They may ride in a canoe or other paddle craft with an adult swimmer skilled in that craft as a buddy. They may ride as part of a group on a motorboat or sailboat operated by a skilled adult. [emphasis added]