Boy Scouts get blame for Wild Fire

[jaffolder]

Just saw this on Yahoo.

 

Government: Boy Scouts set Utah wildfire

 

The federal government argued that Boy Scouts playing with fire caused a 14,200-acre wildfire and wants a judge to hold them responsible, allowing officials to seek damages.

 

In court documents, the government said it would decide whether to seek damages after a ruling is made. It says the June 2002 wildfire in northeastern Utah cost more than $12 million to control.

 

A Forest Service investigator pinpointed the fire's origin to an area where Scouts had stayed overnight, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Overby said in federal court Thursday.

 

At the time of the blaze, a fire ban was in effect because of dry conditions. In court documents, the Scouts maintain they were not aware of a formal fire ban and thought small pit fires were allowed.

 

In depositions, Scouts testified they were playing with fire, even offering a teenage counselor candy in return for setting one, Overby said.

 

The council's attorney, Robert Wallace, said the Forest Service investigator could be wrong about the cause. He said that the Scouts extinguished their fires and that someone else may have caused the wildfire. He also said Scouts slept at the site and neither felt heat nor smelled smoke.

 

The government claims the Great Salt Lake Council was negligent in allowing the Scouts to camp without adult supervision. There were 17 Scouts, ages 12 to 14, being supervised by two 15-year-olds, Overby said.

 

U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell did not rule Thursday on the government's request for summary judgment. The Scouts are seeking a jury trial.

 

(This message has been edited by jaffolder)(This message has been edited by jaffolder)

[GernBlansten]

This is very bad for scouting.

 

Clearly, the troop, the boys and the CO is on the hook in some way.

A question for the legal beagles....

If the troop got a signed tour permit from council, is council on the hook?

If the troop didn't get a tour permit, could the council even be held liable?

Does the tour permit even matter in a case like this?

 

And lastly, did the council revoke the charter?

 

[scoutldr]

Patrols are allowed to camp without adults. I'll bet that policy changes.

[John-in-KC]

This ties in waaaayyy too well with the thread at Camping and High Adventure entitled "Backpacker Mag biased against BSA?"

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=149199

 

We're supposed to be training these young people to be stewards of the outdoors. 15 year old young people have at least some degree of judgment and maturity. If this was Patrol camping, did the SM have a heart-heart talk with the PL before the youth set out?

 

Further, this happened in Utah. It doesn't take a Vigil Honor Eagle to figure out that during fire season, log wood is dry enough to be tinder. Who trained these young people in fire management and safety? BFO: From the depositions, he/she failed.

 

I hate to say it, but the local Council in Utah and the National Council are probably going to take a hit on this one... and rightly so.

 

Someone needs to hammer Trustworthy and Obedient into this particular Troop, CO, and Council.

 

Oh by the way: 17 Scouts? NWIH that is patrol camping, imo. That's two full patrols at least, and THAT means troop camping, and that means leader involvement.

 

BTW, another BFO: If I were the Council attorneys, I wouldn't want any Scouters on the jury... especially any trained Scouters. It's just hard to see this Council coming out a winner.

 

(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Ms. Eagle 515]

Saw it, cringed, thought back to the backpacker mag. biased forum. Brought it up to a group of leader friends I meet with tonight and they cringed too. Let's hope there is an important part of the story missing, but it really doesn't look good. Was actually wondering if there was anyone from that Council who might be monitoring the discussions who could hopefully fill in some blanks. Sadly, I have seen some poor fire habits first hand at Winter Camps which inspired me to put together a fire safety program as part of my Wood Badge ticket which I have presented at encampments, unit meetings, and roundtables and it's basically all common sense stuff.

[rkfrance]

Our district had Leave No Trace Awareness training Thursday. It was started with a story, can you guess? It was also mentioned that the State of Utah was going to introduce legislation that would prohibit BSA units from ANY activities in state or national parks. The legislation didn't go forward because of a compromise between the State and the BSA. A team of LNT instructors were to go unit to unit across the state and teach LNT.

 

Obviously, that is only step 1. There are still a lot more issues to address, but we're not hearing about it.

[packsaddle]

Agree with John-in-KC,

this was not patrol camping. If some attempt at deception like that is pulled in court it will set a very poor example of honesty. BSA should demand unequivocal evidence, but BSA attorneys should not bend the truth just to avoid responsibility. Time to prepare to pay the damages, I'm afraid.

[GernBlansten]

I can't see how a ban on all BSA activities in Utah parks could be upheld, constitutionally. That would mean punishing those people who follow NLT because of the actions of this one unit. Even though I am a member of BSA, I'm also a citizen who has rights to public land. They cannot infringe on those rights regardless of my associations. Now I could understand and support a ban on these particular scouts from accessing public land.

 

BSA policies were clearly not followed, LNT was ignored. BSA may still be on the hook but I think the CO should shoulder the brunt of this financially. If this disregard for BSA policies is rampant amongst LDS units, then BSA should take a stern look at their partnership with the LDS church. We cannot afford this kind of exposure. Hopefully this kind of event is a wake-up call to them and us.

 

The last thing BSA needs to do is lawyer up and deny responsibility. Take our lumps, make the changes necessary make sure this never happens again. Apologize to the people of Utah.

 

Somehow I feel the tour permit process is going to get very complicated.

[packsaddle]

Again, I agree with Gern regarding the prohibition aspect. Even if that law passed, I don't see how it could be enforced effectively and it probably would be overturned in court. A non-starter, I think. A prohibition of camping in groups larger than some limit might fly, however, as would regulations regarding adult supervision and following safety procedures...oops, my bad, we already have those don't we?

 

But the liability aspect is interesting. Instead of fighting with the government in the legal arena, perhaps BSA should take the stance that since procedures were not followed, the CO has to bear the burden alone. Wow, THAT would send a shudder around the campfires.

It would also be an opportunity for us to see evidence that BSA isn't a puppet of the LDS church. Interesting.

[BadenP]

packsaddle some very good points you bring up, especially that last one. This is going to be a very expensive settlement not only monetarily but for credibility on the part of the BSA. This is a no win situation and it would not surprise me at all if the Utah state government does stop granting permits to BSA units as a reprisal. Whether or not it is enforceable will be yet another long court battle.

 

Like I said in the other thread, until the BSA makes LNT training and all other scoutleader training mandatory they will always be held partially responsible. I don't think even the LDS church can affect the outcome of this case, we will see. Incompetent leaders will bring down the BSA even faster than corrupt professional scouters. It is time for some reform and change to take place at BSA National.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[GernBlansten]

A side effect of the BSA holding the CO financially liable would be all CO's taking a more active role in scouting. My CO for example, probably wouldn't just rubber stamp adult leaders. The COR and IH might actually show up at a committee meeting. Or on the other hand, we might find units get dropped by their COs for fear of liability. Its a bit of a tight rope for BSA isn't it?

[nldscout]

First off, the BSA hasn't beeen found liable. Just one investagator said they were. No admission of liability, no finding of guilt. It may be very hard to find them liable at all and even then, they probably will compromise.

[CalicoPenn]

I've been spending some time searching for additional information, somewhat sparse but out there, on the fire. What I've found, though, fleshes out more of the story, and confirms my belief that the BSA should have settled. I found an article about the fire posted by the Deseret News that gave the name of the fire, and the time frame - the East Fork Fire, June 2002 (most large wildland fires are given operational names, though sometimes the names are duplicated - there are a few "East Fork Fires" out there, but knowing it was in Utah in June 2002 helped alot).

 

From there, I was able to find the California Interagency Incident Management Team 5 site on the fire (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/fire/ciimt5/archives/eastfork/index.htm) that has links to some additional information.

 

According to a news release posted on July 11, 2002 about the investigation into the fire, the fire started within the East Fork of the Bear(River)Boy Scout Reservation, located on Utah State property within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in an undeveloped area of the reservation where a group of Scouts working on the Wilderness Merit Badge (likely meaning the Wilderness Survival Merit Badge, which has been reported in other sources) had camped overnight. The fire started on or around June 28, 2002. The cause of the fire was determined to be human caused, though at the time the exact cause was not yet known.

 

Quite a few comments suggest the Troop or CO should shoulder the responsibility, yet a word in the first article I read caught my attention - Counselor. It was reported that the Scout's bribed their "Counselors" with candy to start a fire. My first thought was Summer Camp. Given the date -June 28 - and the location - Camp Tomahawk (as reported by Deseret News) in the Bear River Boy Scout Reservation, which is a summer camp facility of the Great Salt Lakes Council of the BSA, then the focus should shift back from an individual Troops/CO's to the Council as it's likely that the Scouts on this excursion were from differing Troops.

 

The BSA lawyers are arguing a few things. One is that they weren't aware of a total burn ban. Since the ban was widely reported, and given that the Counselors were bribed with candy to start a fire, it's more than likely that the Counselors were aware of the total burn ban so this argument will probably not get very far in front of a judge or jury. The lawyers might be able to try to spin it that it was a temporary lapse of judgement but there are reports of interviews with the Scouts that they were lighting the spray of aerosol cans to create flamethrowers/torches which doesn't indicate that the Counselors had any judgement at all which could have lapsed temporarily.

 

The lawyers are claiming that the Scouts put the fire out, slept near it, and didn't smell any smoke the next morning - but, the Scout interviews show that they put it out using a cup of water and urinating on the fire. The US prosecutor points out that BSA writings on the subject of putting out fires state that the proper way to put out a fire is by putting water and/or dirt on the fire and stirring it until the fire is cold out. One Scout said they didn't stir the fire because people had urinated in it. Since they didn't follow "proper procedure" they can't make a case that they know the fire was completely out. Anyone with any experience with wood fires knows that if the fire is left to "naturally" burn itself out, there could still be hot spots under the coals with the potential to start a new fire a couple of days later - you can walk through areas of forests that have been burned a week later and still see smoke rising from stumps.

 

Another argument by the BSA lawyers is that the fire could have started in some other manner (the "give us unequivocal evidence" argument). The US Forest Service has determined that the cause of the fire was Human - and they are very good at investigating wildlands fires - they would not have ruled out non-human causes like lighting strikes, etc. without good reason to do so. Though at the time (2002) they didn't have an exact cause (human caused could be campfire, discarded cigarette, backfiring engine, etc.), they're now confident that the exact cause is that campfire. Though I haven't seen it, I'm sure that the forensic investigation is part of the Government's evidence case, and part of those forensics is finding the place where the fire started. They have more than likely identified the specific camping site as the location of the fire (just like fire investigators being able to determine the cause of a house fire as a specific electrical outlet, wildlands fire investigators have a set of tools, skills and experiences they can call upon to know without reasonable doubt where a fire starts). Since natural causes are already ruled out, what's left is trying to determine the human cause. It being in the Boy Scout Reservation, which is not open to the general public, another group of people, or some unknown individual, can be ruled out. Being in an undeveloped part of the camp, mechanical causes can be ruled out. Given that the youth were all between 12 and 15, we can reasonably rule out discarded cigarettes (especially if most of the youth are LDS). The BSA has not provided any kind of expert or otherwise testimony that there was any other cause of the fire, other than saying in essence "maybe it was something else", and without that expert testimony, the argument will not be allowed in front of a jury to give the jury a chance to try to determine on it's own a "phantom cause". Furthermore, there is more than enough precedent in other wildland fire cases (and building fire cases) that will allow this determined cause to hold up in court to a challenge that it is not unequivical enough.

 

The issue before the judge right now is to determine if the government can pursue this action in court. If the BSA doesn't prevail, and I'd say there is a 90% chance they won't, they should immediately begin settlement discussions.

 

CalicoPenn

 

 

[GernBlansten]

Well that certainly makes a huge difference on liability and responsibility.

I was not aware that this was on public land used by a summer camp.

If this is the case...

BSA will lose this case. Council will have to pay, no ifs, ands or buts.

The CO is off the hook as it looks like this activity was sanctioned by the camp counselors. There is no defense of an alternate source to the fire. The scouts admitted to having a campfire during the ban. No other people have access to the area. Its their fault.

BSA will be lucky if the blowback is contained to Utah. This council should lose its access to the land.

 

What's ironic is during the same summer of 2002, I was forced from my home due to the largest fire in Colorado history. Evacuated for 2 weeks. Burned to within 3 miles of my house. That fire was started by a forest ranger. She was dejected from reading a Dear Jane letter from her husband and burned the letter in a firepit during a ban. The letter blew out of the pit and started a 140,000 acre wildfire. She was just released from prison and is currently in the parole system.

 

Those scouts are lucky they only face a fine.

[Beavah]

Yah, a bit of a "lynch da CO" sentiment here. I wonder where everyone gets all the rope all the time.

 

This was a summer camp wilderness survival MB group, with two scout staffers acting as (assistant) MBC's. They were doin' the WS overnight. No CO or unit leader to blame, eh?

 

You might remember this camp as the one that lost a camper in '05 who was found only after a massive search.

 

Even if it was a troop campout, the whole point of insurance is that it covers you when bad things happen. The VFW shouldn't lose their building because their scouts messed up. At least, if you want any VFW posts (or churches, or...) to continue to sponsor scout troops. Not covering a claim, or subrogating against the CO, is a death sentence to the BSA.

 

And, much like the defense in this case, would also be dishonorable and not particularly successful.