How much detail do you publish to Parents about Outings?

[Gunny2862]

Okay this isn't my Troop we are talking about. I heard an interesting one recently about a Troop that went on a scheduled planned Outing, then upon return the concept of what was done had greatly expanded and the level of significant risk was intentionally raised without the parents being able to decide if their Scout should participate. Apparently the Leaders knew they were going to raise this risk level in advance and didn't communicate it to the parents, or the Scouts.

 

I'm not going to go into specifics, but hypothetically (and not a hidden depiction of the actual activity, it was a different activity), If you told the parents you were going to go Bouldering (no ropes, crash pads, nothing above head height) and instead went on a full fledged climbing/rappelling experience and just to push to a truer picture included a free climbing clinic without the benefit of a certified climbing instructor what kind of reaction would that get from your Scouts Parents when the boys returned with photos of this greatly expanded trip? The analogy is pretty representative of the original situation.

[qwazse]

I'm actually more concerned about bouldering, because my experience (as a young adult, not with scouts) was that it was very easy to boulder along gearless until your feet were dangling above a 30 ft. chasm. On most hikes we take our boys around here, the distinction between bouldering and free climbing is a foot/arm hold to the right or left.

 

IMHO climbing harnessed, helmeted, and belayed is much safer than boldering padded. But, I have no stats to back it up.

 

But, yes, failure to communicate the extent of an activity is a disservice to the parents. If you are in a position to help this SM, it would be a good idea to let him know that a breakdown in communication occurred. That will give him/her a chance to apologize and try to do better in the future.

[perdidochas]

From the little I know, I agree with quazse--bouldering is probably more dangerous than full out climbing/rapelling (although I agree that free climbing if you mean climbing without ropes is much more dangerous). What also bothers me is that it sounds like there weren't any certified climbing instructors. As a member of troop leadership, I would be angry about the situation as gunny described it. Parents deserve to know the specifics and potential hazards.

[Gunny2862]

qwazse, I share your concern about "creep" in the bouldering window "OOPs, I'm how high?!", but that's not the issue here.

 

As to speaking to the "offending" SM (a matter of opinion, I personally would have considered it a breach of trust if it had been my child and I weren't on the outing), I picked up a new Scout due to transfer and the SE has already bent his ear on the subject (the latter should be a clue about the degree of the difference in what was communicated and what occurred).

 

[Twocubdad]

As long as everyone returned safe, sound and happy, I doubt we would hear anything.

 

But if something goes wrong, at minimum I can't help but think intentionally deceiving parents about risk would look good to a jury and, depending on local statutes, may open you up to stuff like punitive damages.

 

Actual, licensed lawyers may have different thoughts.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

It's really hard to comment about hypotheticals when they're quite that vague, eh?

 

Generally speakin', most parents don't have da background to assess risk all that well. I agree with others that boulderin' can be a bit more risky than roped free* climbing or rappelling. So I wouldn't be particularly upset with a scouter who on a boulderin' or via ferrata type experience found there was also an opportunity for some regular climbing/rappelling to do that. It's a bit like participatin' in COPE low or high elements. You're doin' a climbin' activity.

 

Now, I think it's a bit different if yeh truly switch activities in a way that genuinely ups da risk. So if yeh said they were goin' biking and they went whitewater kayaking instead, there's a bit of an issue. At least, if you're in a state that actually allows waivers for assumption of risk, that would invalidate the waiver. Practically speakin', though, assumption of risk by a minor or their parents is a tricky argument anyways.

 

Still, I could see a high adventure trip where da mountain biking got rained out one day and da crew decided to pay a bit extra to go whitewater rafting that day. I'm not sure I'd be upset with that.

 

So it all depends a bit, I guess.

 

Beavah

 

* "free climbing" means climbing without aid, but WITH a rope for belay/safety. In other words yeh climb on the rock with your own skills, without usin' a rope or ladder to help yeh climb. "Free soloing" or just "soloing" means climbing without roped belay (in other words, vertical bouldering ).

 

[Gunny2862]

For clarity and as guide to the discussion so we don't get dragged off into the nuances of this activity, although this is only for the example given and again wasn't the activity involved:

Bouldering, when referenced by me: No aids except maybe chalk for grip, No safety equipment except the brain and a Crash Pad and perhaps a helmet and a spotter (primary responsibility to guide the falling climber onto the crash pad if he's going off for any reason). No heights of any climbers feet should ever extend higher than the height of the climber or at the maximum of the spotter.

 

Climbing/Rappelling: traditional Rope supported(safety) activities in Scouting, Requires the use of a Trained, certified person, in Scouting. The distinction in climbing circles vs. Scouting circles it that almost everything we see in climbing is free climbing, rope aided climbing is generally more technical climbing than Scouting wants us to do.

 

Free Soloing: Unrestricted height, unroped climbing that isn't supported by Scouting in any way as far as I am aware - it MIGHT be allowed in Venturing but I highly doubt it.

 

Would like to focus not so much on the activity and the technical distinctions since this is just for example, but rather on the misrepresentation of the activity.

(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Under the edits my original message should no reference free climbing but Free Soloing and free doesn't refer to no cost.

(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

[CalicoPenn]

The degree of my reaction would depend on a number of factors:

 

First, was the leader withholding so it would be a surprise to the Scouts - it would still be poor judgment but the thinking might be understandable.

 

Second, is there a pattern of infromation being withheld from parents - that's an instant red flag to me.

 

Third, would I have sent my son on the trip if I knew what the real activity was.

 

Fourth, how badly was my trust in the leaders damaged.

 

That said, in this hypothetical, my son would no longer be part of that Troop, and not necessarily because of the change in plans but because there was no certified climbing instructor. No matter that the event took place without a hitch, you'd never convince me that the boys safety was the number one priority when leaving out the one person whose number one job was to ensure the boys safety in climbing.

[Beavah]

Yah, Gunny2862, that still doesn't help us understand what da actual issues are at all, eh?

 

So I'll respond to vague with vague.

 

I think generally if a parent is upset/surprised, then da troop's communication failed in some way. Sometimes communication fails because of da listener as well as the speaker, but the burden is more on da troop to communicate well than the parent to listen well.

 

I don't generally have a problem with the youth or adult leaders makin' changes to an itinerary based on availability / conditions / weather / etc. In fact, I think bein' flexible and able to adjust plans is a good thing that shows judgment and helps keep things safer. Sometimes yeh adjust down, based on da weather, how well the kids are doin', etc. Sometimes the weather is great, the lads are doin' better than expected, and yeh can adjust up.

 

I reckon we all have a problem if da change is deliberately tryin' to pull da wool over people's eyes, like yeh tell the parents you're goin' backpackin' and the plan all along was to spend the weekend on ATVs with paintball markers.

 

It's also worth mentioning that there really isn't such a thing as a "certified" climbing instructor in da real world. The BSA in some areas offers somethin' that IMHO is pretty weak, but it's not available in a lot of councils. AMGA now offers somethin' a bit lower end then their top-notch mountain guide certification, but it hasn't caught on in da industry yet. Most of da climbing instructors at gyms and outfitters have been trained in-house. Da BSA recognizes those, as well as folks trained in college/university programs and others, eh? But they're not "certifications."

 

Da climbing community by and large still values competence over credentialing.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[eisely]

As Beavah pointed out there will be situations where a legitimate change in plans might not only be desirable but necessary. For example, changing a route half way through on a backpacking expedition because the planned route is not available for some reason, would be perfectly acceptable.

 

However, throwing in an additional higher risk activity without notice to parents and scouts is a poor call, even if everybody had a great time and no one got hurt. I too would not want my son going on an outing with an adult leader with a history of those kinds of changes to a plan for an outing.

[Gunny2862]

eisley,

Ding ding ding.

This is nearing the crux of the discussion I wanted. "What kind of reaction would that get from your Scouts Parents when the boys returned with photos of this greatly expanded trip?"

 

It's not about the activity other than perhaps a bait and switch of relatively benign to high risk, i.e "Oh we're going canoeing at the lake" unsaid, on a class IV stream full of rocks, without a guide.

"We're having a Range weekend." unsaid, with fully automatic machine guns, without Certified Range personnel.

"We are going Bouldering" unsaid, and then we're going to do some Free Soloing up some exposed routes without Council recognized climbing experts.

 

The question is not about prudent itinerary changes in response to conditions or closed out venues, none of the above scenarios I provided leave that as an option.

[Twocubdad]

I'm keying in on the part of the OP which says the leaders intentionally withheld information from the parents. Correct me if I'm wrong, Beav, but that sounds like malice aforethought, to borrow a phrase from the area of law I have studied. Seems like it would get you in a heap more trouble.

 

Yeah, stuff happens. Plans change. I think reasonableness is the key. Climbing is climbing. In the construction industry the joke is you'd rather fall 60 feet than 6. From 60 feet it's over quick. From 6 feet you have someone else feeding you and wiping your butt the rest of your life.

 

We don't do separate permission slips. Our opinion, backed up by real legal advice, is the risk is in participating in "Scouting." There are all sorts of risky things we do as Scouts, the worst being driving to a campout. We tell parents it is there responsibility to understand the program and the risks associated with it. We're not in any better position to assess those risks they they are -- and I can make a strong point that because the parent knows their son's abilities better that we do, the parent is in a better position. The program is wide open to parent observation for a reason. So if we say we're going "climbing" we expect the parent to educate themselves as to what BSA climbing entails, including going on the trip if they feel it necessary.

 

 

On the other hand, I don't think if you go from a day hike to climbing or shooting sports,

[Basementdweller]

Ya know what......I really hate hypothetical posts......If your gonna post man up and state the facts.......

 

 

The big thing I see is the adult leadership broke the trust of the parents....

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I think there's also a measure of whether this was a major change of activity or a sidelight activity that got tacked on.

 

If lads are on a 12-day Philmont Trek, and da parents think it's backpackin', they're goin' to hit Miner's Park and go climbing or Whitman Vega and go Mountain Bikin'. Side activities, even "riskier" ones, don't strike me as bein' as big an issue as if a troop changed the overall direction of the major portion of the trip.

 

Readin' between the lines, I expect that what perhaps happened was an addition of some shootin' sports activities without a range or a BSA/NRA qualified instructor. As a side activity that came up as a matter of convenience, I reckon that merits an informal rap on the knuckles (an informal conversation about "hey, we need to pay more attention to this, and would yeh like us perhaps to help pay for yeh to get certified?"). As a major activity where things were a bit more premeditated, I think it's a bigger deal of the "this was just poor and unprofessional and yeh must never do it again" variety.

 

Beavah

 

[WasE61]

Being the non-Scout, I can respond as a parent.

 

There are several rules that I have with my kids....

 

1) Call if there is a problem. Car dies, get sick, etc.

 

2) Call if you have something you cannot handle. (Friend stoned, etc.)

 

3) Call if your plans change. (I was going to A, but we decided B.)

 

Violation of any of these three gets some serious talk time from ole Dad...at best.

 

I did already have talk about a canoe trip that was supposed to be a near-shore event that ended up traversing a 2-3 mile lake several times, in winter. The SM understood that he and the CO would be talking to CPS and my attorney if they ever pulled a stunt like that again.

 

I think that an SM purposefully deceiving parents by holding up plan "A" when they know they the are not going to do it shows complete irresponsibility as a leader and disrespect to the parents (and children).

 

Worse yet would be if the adults and the kids were both in on the deception. In this case the adults would be coercing the kids to lie to their parents. I would be done with such a troop in an instant ... and be barking at the CO and District ...

 

Parents, not the adult leaders, are ultimately responsible for the safety and health of their children. Adult leaders that subvert that for thrill seeking have no business being around my or any other kid.