Thinking beyond the box and NOT fearing legal issues?

[skeptic]

Aaron on Scouting continues to share great items on his FB page, things most might be able to try if they were not paranoid about the legal vultures. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2024/07/12/celebrating-100-years-of-camp-gorton-plus-other-positive-news-this-week-in-scouting/

 

And it is not just Scouting, it is many other once community focussed groups and clubs that did things because it needed to be done, and they were not afraid o be sued if something went awry.  Technically the non profits and good samaritans are shielded, but the twisting of intent and meaning has made many not want to try, as the cost of defending is just too high, even if they might win at the end.  And we all know that there have been some really ignorant judicial judgments, and suits that most osther countries would toss at the start.  

It is not helped by well meaning local rules, also based on shallow thinking because something unusual happened and somebody was harmed.  It was not like to be an issue again if review with clear thinking, but again, our system makes it too difficult and expensive.  We are on the edge of losing our only viable camp due to deferred repairs, mostly brought on by too many regulations that simply should not apply, nor keep other repairs from happening.  Permits for one thing should not logically impact permits for a totally different thng; yet they seem to often do.  Many activities carry a small possibility of injury, no matter what you do.  If someone trips on a tent stake, is that really negligence, or just a sleepy or careless person?  If a mountain biker falls is that reason to simply ban the program?  It appears that is the case in some places.  And this applies to say the Elks, Lions too.  The threat of legal attachments on these beneficial groups by the greedy chasers has made many afraid to support not just Scouting America, but many other things in communities.  These groups were, and still could be, major factors in better communities and society.  

From my perspective of 8 plus decades, it seems clear that we need not only a serious rework of our legal system, but maybe a magic wand to put bring back "common sense".  Just my couple of dollars, once two cents, worth.

[mrjohns2]

8 minutes ago, skeptic said:

From my perspective of 8 plus decades, it seems clear that we need not only a serious rework of our legal system, but maybe a magic wand to put bring back "common sense".  Just my couple of dollars, once two cents, worth.

I’m not following your point. In your council activities are not done due to fear of legal repercussions?
 

Probably the biggest legal hardship for our camps is the requirement of a sprinkler system for buildings housing more than 4 unrelated people (or something like that). Due to that new cabins will be tough in the future. 

[skeptic]

"I’m not following your point. In your council activities are not done due to fear of legal repercussions?"

No, our council has mothballed our main camp and the other is on the sales block, so we have no local camp anymore.  Their reasoning was arrived at by a small group of people, most of whom had not real contact with the program or camp directly.  While most unit reviews of the camp were always very positive, there were some that focused on things NOT there, such as a lake, and also on our annual dining hall struggles that were affected in part by some odd legal things about not fixing just some things; it was all or nothing apparently with the local code people.  I do not know for sure, but I was told they even made notes of any serial numbers on older equipment, and said it they were replaced, then all the other stuff had to be done as well.  Drought also has affected, but mostly the seriously skewed report based on poor info and using a National sheet for camp expectations.  Much of the stuff on those "expectations is "pie in the sky" and smaller camps are un likely to be able to do them.  Yet, we have unique facilities too, such as a quarter scale authentic frontier fort which has been made into a campfire amphitheatre, and very good access to mountain bike trails and higher trek locations in the area.  You can hike to the top of a 2000 foot plus mountain and camp on its back ridge, for example.  And that has been a part of programming along with the many mountain bike trails.  The final straw seems to be the lawsuit, in my view.  But, it was also related to a very poor council communication and poor planning, and perhaps some other issues.  When the uprising happened they got rid of the SE, but they have not reached out to the actual users of the site which, still could be open to basic camping and special events without having summer camp.  Limbo time, and still a less than, in many local Scouters' view, good focus on the program and youth.  They simply seem, to me, to not care to reach outside the box.  The camp, and its predecessor were both made possible by the local community involvement, and I do not see any real effort to appeal to that, though it seems, to me, to be there still.  

Finding cooperative partners to use the site, while not making summer camp viable with our small size, would still be possible with a bit of imagination and so on.

As far as other organizations, the lawsuit and its predator lawyers has put fear into many on the legal front.  The threat of CO's being dragged in on flimsy data killed many units and has badly wounded others.  Even though the issues are not now, or ever were, just Scouting problems.  They just did something no body else did; keep records to try to stop negative things, corrup;ted of course to the Perversion Files by the lawyers.  Yes, poor decisions were made in some cases, and even one is not forgivable, but it was not the pattern of the BSA, but an intrusion of the large societal issues.  JMO of course, and I recognize a few will find it deplorable.  Complete rehabilitation is not likely really possible.  But surely it is clear progress has occurred and IF we follow ALL the guidelines, most likely issues will be diminished.  But Scouting America cannot ever solve the larger societal issues, only do their best to defend themselves and their youth.  

[mrjohns2]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Finding cooperative partners to use the site, while not making summer camp viable with our small size, would still be possible with a bit of imagination and so on.

This seems like an untapped idea. We can all think of orgs who could share camps: Y, school outdoor ed, Campfire, churches, even the Girl Scouts. It is crazy that all of these orgs struggle to have, maintain, and use their camps. If we shared it could just work. I don’t know. 

[BetterWithCheddar]

We need to re-think the current council camp model and that process should extend beyond "well, we really need to sell this camp so we can put in new flush toilets and a welcome center at our other camp."

Since my son joined Cubs a few years ago, I've started to favor the idea of smaller camps that are close to each council's population center(s). They wouldn't require major facilities - just a single multi-purpose office / health lodge / storm shelter. Kids' don't need a lot to be happy. Get them outside and let their imaginations take over. It will be much easier to recruit volunteers to staff weekend programs when they don't have to drive 2 hours to get to camp. Youth participation would likely increase if a mother could drop off her child at Scouts on her way to Target.

[BetterWithCheddar]

Speaking of legal issues, this story popped up in multiple news feeds this past week.

The boy was on a jet ski and was struck by another jet ski owned by the local scout council and operated by a camp staffer. Very sad.

Tennessee parents sue Boy Scouts after death of 10-year-old son (usatoday.com)

[InquisitiveScouter]

3 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Speaking of legal issues, this story popped up in multiple news feeds this past week.

The boy was on a jet ski and was struck by another jet ski owned by the local scout council and operated by a camp staffer. Very sad.

Tennessee parents sue Boy Scouts after death of 10-year-old son (usatoday.com)

Wondering if they were wearing helmets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMp317MawbE

Cannot believe BSA G2SS does not require helmets on PWCs.  But, some literature does mention it...

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Handbook-of-Personal-Watercraft-Basics_HB.pdf

or water skiing, for that matter.

Once, as a Scout (back in the 20th century, lol) I was water skiing.  Another Scout was driving the boat, with an experienced adult on board.  They were probably going about 20-25 miles per hours, as I was pretty light, and a novice.  The Scout went into a small-radius turn.  I tried to stay on the skis while making the turn with the boat (and I was on a long rope), not really knowing my own limits and lack of skill...

While whipping around the outside of the turn, I dug a tip into the water and went face first (with eyes open) ... at about 35 miles per hour by my estimation (and the math works..)

Force of the water blinded me for a bit, gave me a bloody nose, and ripped my suit down to my ankles.  Thank God for life jackets!

Can you imagine traveling on a personal watercraft at even higher speeds, and taking a spill??

Edited September 7 by InquisitiveScouter

[BetterWithCheddar]

Growing up, there was always a canoe, kayak, and pedal boat at my parents' cabin. Kids were allowed to use them as they pleased. There were no concerns about buddies or life jackets (you had to be a good swimmer, but we used an honor system). When I attended my first Boy Scout summer camp, I was perturbed by the amount of restrictions placed on rowboat and canoes usage. Today, it still seems like a little much (but from a liability standpoint, I get it).

That said, I'm shocked the BSA allows motorized watercrafts on property today. The "bronze gods" on the waterfront staff will scream at kids for not kneeling in canoes and yet those same staffers are allowed to pilot torpedoes.