Though Shalt Nots...

[Mr. Boyce]

. . . don't forget TML... too many lawyers.

[Kudu]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

How many times do we tell the parents, don't worry, nobody will get hurt. What do the youth think about that. Maybe the response should be, don't worry, we have two Paramedics along on the trip so when people get hurt they will survive

 

That sentence goes directly into my index of "The Great Quotes of Scouting"!

 

 

 

[Oak Tree]

I agree that we are a Bureaucratically Supervised Assocation.

 

I've had leaders call the G2SS the "Guide to No Fun".

 

We can offer all kinds of activities, but I think the prohibition on so many activities leads people to think of Scouts as being for basic activities only. If we want to keep the kids' interest as they grow older, it would be nice to be able to offer some of those prohibited activities, and saying "you can do it as a non-Scout group" doesn't really help with the image.

 

The funny thing is, there are other activities that are undoubtedly more dangerous than the ones they have listed, but that can be really hard to figure out how to describe. Zip lines don't appear in the G2SS, yet surely there are unsafe (and safe) things that you could do with that. Walking along the edge of a cliff can be dangerous, and there's a general warning in the G2SS but no policy on prohibiting it beyond some certain danger point. Constructing giant catapults can be dangerous, too.

 

With all of these activities, there is a safe way to do them, and there is a point at which it becomes unsafe. I think that the danger with allowing such activities is that it's been demonstrated that not all Scout leaders will always use their best judgment in deciding how to proceed in these situations. I'm sure that there are some leaders out there somewhere who would take the fact that some activity is permitted to men that they should just go for it. Someone who doesn't understand the dangers associated with jet-skis or ATVs could easily set up a dangerous troop activity.

 

But rather than reacting by just banning such activities, couldn't the BSA set some reasonable direction in place on these things? Such things could be permitted under the supervision of a {commercially licensed operator, trained and knowledgeable Scout leader, certified individual, other}.

 

I think the ban results from the combination of 1. bone-headed Scout leaders, 2. risk-averse financial and legal people, and 3. negative-publicity-aware brand management people.

 

But surely we could find a middle ground here somewhere.

[dkurtenbach]

Shortridge asked: "Other than the helmet issue (previously mentioned), what are these out-of-synch rules?"

 

Things like age limits for shooting (I understand NRA doesn't have them), BSA Lifeguard (rather than simply accepting Red Cross Lifeguard/Waterfront Lifeguard), and Safe Swim Defense rules still being applicable (with certain exceptions) at licensed public swimming pools.

 

[JMHawkins]

How many times do we tell the parents, don't worry, nobody will get hurt.

 

A Venture Crew leader at a training session last year said he promises parents "I won't let your son starve to death. I won't let him freeze to death. He probably won't break his leg..."

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

We as leaders need to look at what we do and why we have the "rules" we come up with

 

OK, so the Troop I serve goes white water rafting from time to time. At some point in the distant pass, some one decided that you had to pass the first class swim test to go White Water Rafting which at face value sounds reasonable and perhaps back then it made sense. I don't know if we changed outfitters, but now when we go on a "White Water" trip, we are just as likely to have 7-8 year olds along with families filling out the trip.

 

We make sure the 17 year olds cam swim but the outfitter says everyone put on a PFD and lets get in the water. Do we look stupid or what?