Great Advertisement for Scouting. . .NOT

[moosetracker]

Don't know if anyone has stated it was a victory..

 

I see 2 viewpoints :

 

The first ready to condemn, and filling in the blanks with supposition..

 

The other giving benefit of the doubt, because there is not enough facts, and accepting the fact that there are times you don't continue to wander.. No one knows if they reached that point or not, but sometimes that is a good decision to make..

 

Equalling surprising is the number of people on the forum ready to condemn and make snide remarks against a fellow scout on very little evidence.. Friendly and Courteous... NOT...

 

Basically a #1 reason why National should NOT figure out detail info on these incidents and make them public.. For people who will ignore anything positive in the report and only rip it to shreads to find things that were done wrong so that you can jeer and heckle and strut around with superior attitudes of how much better they are then all that..

[Beavah]

For people who will ignore anything positive in the report and only rip it to shreads to find things that were done wrong so that you can jeer and heckle and strut around with superior attitudes of how much better they are then all that..

 

Yah, hmmm....

 

I'm da last one to not afford fellow volunteers the benefit of the doubt, eh? But there are times...

 

The whole point of accident and incident reporting, though, is so that we can "rip it to shreds to find things that were done wrong". The "true act of God" accidents there's nothing to learn from, eh? It's da ones where people screwed up that have lessons to teach us. Better to learn from the mistakes of others than to make every mistake ourselves. But to learn from such things requires a certain sort of brutal honesty, because most accidents and incidents really do have a strong "boneheaded move" component, and lots more have a "failed judgment" component.

 

So far, I think all of the criticism has been pretty fair. Missing a trail turn? No big deal, that happens to everyone. Lettin' da group get split up? Bad form, some procedural failures, but it does happen sometimes. Being ill-equipped for a November hike in New England? That's pretty boneheaded. Not being able to navigate? That's a big issue. Not knowin' what to do when lost or out on your own? An even bigger issue.

 

Remember, if a heat-seeking equipped helicopter weren't available or weren't able to fly because of the conditions, this group would have been out overnight without being found... perhaps have been out for days without being found. Ill-equipped and apparently unable to even build a fire, that could have had a very bad outcome.

 

Recognizing that isn't jeering and heckling, it's analyzing and judging. That's how we learn.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[moosetracker]

Re-read JoeBob's last post, I see nothing but jeering and heckling.. Basement has made a few snide remarks also, as have a few others.

 

I would bet most incidents will have a boneheaded move or two, or maybe someone being over cautious, or not cautious enough.. Which only retrospect will say if they made the right decision or not.. But, you can't only learn from what was done wrong, but what was done right. So picking apart a briefing should not be all about what was done wrong..

 

And equally wrong is making personal comments about the people the incident happen to in a derogatory manner..

[desertrat77]

Beavah, your post is sublime, well said.

 

Moosetracker, for anyone who is experienced in the outdoors, and been thru a few scrapes themselves, there is plenty of evidence in the article for analysis.

 

The only positive aspect of the story is that the guys are alive today, thankfully, and collectively we can learn from their experience.

 

Sweeping things under the rug to prevent embarrassment doesn't help anyone. The story and discussion here may prevent some bad hikes elsewhere. It's worth it to rehash. In the military we call it a hotwash...leave your ego and rank at the door, and take the feedback, good and bad.

 

Have we been tough on the guys? Yes. I admit I have. Truth is, hikes like this bring discredit on all scouts, Tenderfoot or Eagle, former or current. Members of a community are toughest on their comrades. It's called mutual accountability. Keeps us all on our toes.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

[JoeBob]

"JoeBob's last post, I see nothing but jeering and heckling"

 

Makes me glad I didn't post what I REALLY thought!

 

JoeBob

[Eagle92]

Moose,

 

If you read one of the spin offs, the WHAT DO YOU BRING thread, you would know that I had a very capable friend screw up: He didn't tell anyone where he was going or when to expect him back. He just went on a day hike in the national forest he was working at that summer. He somehow ended up with a broken leg on a ledge and was out there for a week. Read that thread for the info.

 

 

Anyway yes he endured some good-natured ribbing from his friends, yes he realized how boneheaded not telling folks about his trip was. And yes we all evaluated exactly what he did and didn't do. Pretty much the no telling folks was the mistake.

[JoeBob]

Let's assume the worst. One of the boys dies from exposure.

Does the parent's lawsuit for wrongful death have merit?

 

The public perception of an Eagle Scout is that he is a master of important Scout skills. Since that is no longer true, is it not the responsibility of Irving to re-educate the public as to the new definition of what an Eagle is?

 

"An Eagle Scout read a compass and map, once. And he navigated out of the parking lot, too. We have the paperwork here, so you cannot hold us responsible for your son's death."

 

I fear we will eventually be sued out of existence.

[Eagle92]

Joebob,

 

Several problems IMHO with advancement today.

 

1)FCFY. There is such a strong emphasis on getting FC within a year that getting the rank become the end-all, be-all. Scouts and leader forget what has been written in previous editions of teh BSHB, and for leaders, in the ACPP and current C2A, which have used such words as "master the skills" and "the badge represents what the scout is able to do, not what he has done." or words to that effect. Hence we get the entire "One and Done" debate.

 

2)Time requirements for T-2-1 removal. I think that national's removal of time requirements, in an effort to get more people to FC in a year, hurts because it again focuses on rank advancement and not having a scout truly learn and be proficient in the skills (GTA describes learnign as being able to do and being abel to teach the skills).

 

I reveiwed some of my old BSHBs. In the 1960s, the time requirements between T and 2 were a month, and between 2 and 1 was two months, so it was possible, stess possible, to be FC in 3 months. I do not know about 1972 ed of the BSHB, but in the 9th edition, if you hit all the BORs exactly on time, to go from Scout to First Class took a minimum of 6 months. But you had 2 months between Scout and Tenderfoot to master the skill awards needed for the rank. You had the 2 months between Tenderfoor and Second Class to master the skill awards needed for that rank. And you had the 2 months to not only master the skill awards needed for that rank, but also get First Aid MB, which required you to teach the First Aid Skill Award. The time requirements emphasized learning by giving you time to grow.

 

3) Focus on Leadership. Yes Scouts should be leaders. But the leadership skills and abilities can be taught and learned via the patrol method. IMHO too much leadership and not enough outdoor skills.

 

4) Program. I was amazed, belay that, SHOCKED to find out that for the J2E program a troop needs to only do summer camp and 4 campouts a year. As BP has stated, "OUTING is three-fourths of ScOUTING" (would the editors of the current BSHB do the math and correct their incorrect quotation), and "Scouting IS outing." best way to keep scouts involved, even if they do not seek Eagle, is to have an active program that challenges them.

[RememberSchiff]

"I fear we will eventually be sued out of existence."

 

If our incompetence (real and perceived) does not drop membership sufficiently to cause our demise first.

 

My $0.02(This message has been edited by RememberSchiff)

[JoeBob]

Schiff: I can see the Catch 22.

 

1- Lower standards so that everyone can be an Eagle with a teenie bit of work, in order to attract more members. (Low Standards & High Numbers)

- or -

2- Keep the highest standard high for a competent outdoor program that is not super attractive to the Nintendo generation. (High Standards & Low Numbers)

 

Either way, National is going to spriral into the ground.

So, do we want to go out as 'Cheesy Boy Scouts'; or fade away as a demanding program for extrordinarily motivated youth?

 

If LOCAL Scouting can keep our program quality up, we can survive just fine with smaller numbers. Having to overcome a national bad reputation in the future (after too many 'once and done' scouts make headlines by getting in too deep) will make local scouting harder.

 

(Did I just argue that I want National to go ahead and fail as quickly as possible so as to not damage the publicly perceived integrity of BSA?)

 

I can hear it now: "Boy Scouts really really need all the gay men that they can get. We're not afraid to ask for directions!"

 

 

[Basementdweller]

moose.....gotta say I am pretty tired of the Scouter attitude of non confrontation. Avoid confrontation and complete honesty at all cost.

 

 

An Adult Eagle scout with two scouts that are probably at least star, got lost on an established trail system with a map and compass in their possession. Not only they got lost, but required a helicopter to rescue them....

 

 

HOW DOES IT GET MORE PATHETIC THAN THAT??????

 

 

Rapidly loosing patience with the stupid crap.

 

Call it like it is and stop making excuses for the clown, it is embarrassing

(This message has been edited by Basementdweller)

[packsaddle]

I guess I'll try to provide a voice of 'moderation' if there is such a thing. The leader who was responsible for this incident probably wasn't thinking about the broader impact to BSA or, for that matter, about the criticism he might get as a result. But I suspect he has a different view by now, especially if he reads forums like these. However, and after all, we can all take solace in the fact that everyone is still alive to fuss about it.

 

On the other hand, for those of us who react strongly to stories like this, we must remember that regardless of what we think, we're going to have little or no impact on that leader or, for that matter, on nearly everyone else outside our local communities. Therefore, to me, after we get over all the tsk, tsking, the best response is to make sure that WE don't find ourselves in a similar predicament some time in the future and make sure the boys in our units really ARE prepared for incidents like this. Who knows, it might start a trend or something.

[Kudu]

As soon as they realized they were lost, they should have sat down on a log and played "The Game of Life" until the Wood Badge caterers arrived.

 

IOLS trainings, and there was a segment of almost 2 hours on map/compass and orienteering including a short orienteering course.

 

Wow, almost two hours.

 

The whole point of ItOLS is that you can "sign off" 90% of Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class skills in a single weekend. Most "First Year" summer camp programs are based on the same number of hours to First Class (five morning sessions, and Swimming Merit Badge in the afternoon). In fact some summer camps now just lump the two courses together: Cub Scout crossovers sitting side-by-side with indoor moms and dads.

 

Traditional Wood Badge was designed to train indoor volunteers to think like outdoorsmen. All day Tuesday was devoted to map & compass lecture and demonstrations, with an additional five (5) related projects to be carried out individually in the participants' spare time. See Traditional Wood Badge Notebook:

 

http://inquiry.net/traditional/wood_badge/index.htm

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Heh, heh! Very droll, Kudu!

 

 

I think IOLS is useful for it's intended purpose --- as an INTRODUCTION.

 

In addition, it introduces even experienced outdoor people to the BSA methods of doing certain things. For example, I was introduced to the "contact" method of splitting wood with an axe at IOLS training. I'd read about it before and sneered at it as "the way lawyers chop wood." (which I thought was pretty droll).

 

But actually, it works pretty well if you do it properly, and I think it's a good deal safer than free swinging axe swinging, especially for people new to the skill, such as boys.

 

And it demonstrates how to use the "station" type training method to teach patrols or groups of people, which is good.

 

People new to a skill at least get an introduction to it, which hopefully they will improve on during other outdoor adventures.

 

So I think IOLS does very well for it's intended purpose.

[TAHAWK]

In a wilderness survival situation, even one caused by being lost, there is simply no way to eliminate the need for judgment with sets of "rules." Situation alter cases.

 

As a SAR volunteer years ago, we certainly did not want to chase lost people. But a situation may call for self-rescue (Survival situation on first day of 10-day trek. No one to "miss" you for 10-11 days.)

 

BSA used to discuss self-rescue from being lost or "going for help. (How many stayed with an injured person and how many went for help? Finding your way back to where you were not lost. Wilderness navigation.)

 

Self-rescue is not discussed in the Handbook, Fieldbook, or Wilderness Survival MB pamphlet, except to the extent that signaling is discussed and there are few words on topic in discussing the "T" in "STOP." Indeed, while the WSMB pamphlet says to bring a map and compass, it thereafter totally ignores the topic of navigation with or without a map and compass.

 

So I think it is fair to say that BSA no longer teaches much about self-rescue in favor of the one-size-fits-all "stay put" ("[W]ait as calmly as you can for help to arrive.") - good advice unless it is not.

 

Beav. ++