no more patrol overnighters?

[SeattlePioneer]

Unfortunately, it just might be true that Scouting could be succesfully sued by authorizing patrol camping without adults to supervise.

 

Even if parents approve that too, if someone gets severely injured or killed, you know the family is going to be looking for someone to pay. Money.

 

An award might be discounted because the parent approved that, but if the parent is held 50% responsible on a $10 million judgment that's still a lot of money.

 

I'm no Xpert on such things, but around here we are getting a lot of $5-15 million settlements being paid by government to adult cyclists injured when they ride down the street, hit a rough patch and get severely injured.

 

I'm thinking of a troop outing where a patrol was camped about 100 feet from the adults. I happened to notice a flare of fire from liquid propane leaking from a not properly connected twenty pound fuel tank.

 

It might have taken me 30 seconds to a minute to get over there and shut off the valve on the tank. In that time, none of the Scouts had figured out what to do. They WERE being smart enough to stay away and not mess with it, which was a satisfactory response in my opinion.

 

But suppose a Scout had messed with it and been badly burned by liquid propane and no adult had been along? How would that go over with a jury?

 

In this case, I think Scouting within 100 feet was a reasonable idea!

[shortridge]

So what happens at age 21 that bestows magical leadership abilities and outdoor skills that Scouts didn't have at age 17 and younger adults don't have at ages 18, 29 or 20?

 

I don't think I got any magic memo from on high when I turned that age.

 

It would be one thing if Irving said that only adults with a certain level of training could lead overnight treks. But to say that an experienced 17-year-old Patrol Leader, trained and approved for an independent outing by his Scoutmaster and the parents in the patrol, lacks some skill or ability or judgment that a 21-year-old Scouter has automatically ... well, that's just stupid.

[Eagle92]

Short,

 

I agree with ya. I just lost my 13yo, excuse me he just turned 14, Den chief to the Webelos Den because he has the outdoor KSAs that is needed that the new WDL doesn't have. The Webelos now have an experienced outdoorsman as a leader in that den chief.

 

But unfortunately society doesn't expect teenagers to be able to do anything for themselves these days. I KNOW that a jury of folks who have no understanding of scouting would not believe some of the things that scouts are not only are capable of doing, but have done. I know that because I still have coworkers and managers at work surprised at some of the things I've learned and have done in scouting under the age of 18. What's kinda scary is that one of the coworkers should know better as she was an Explorer adviser back in the day!

 

(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[BadenP]

SP

Using your logic then every questionable or potentially harmful activity would then have to be banned, such as starting a campfire, using a knife or ax, sleeping in the open air outdoors, canoeing, camping, cooking, pioneering, compass and GPS, hiking, any of the high adventure camps, etc, etc. What would be left is a organization with no real substance, purpose, or direction, and what ever was left sure couldn't be called the Boy Scouts of America any longer. Let's all get behind the CSE's master plan for a completely new organization with the new motto "VIVA Soccer".

[Kahuna]

"Using your logic then every questionable or potentially harmful activity would then have to be banned"

 

Just wait. Only a matter of time.

[moosetracker]

Well if we ban it all, Soccer will need to go to. After all you can get a skinned knee, or two people can bump into each other.. No "VIVA Soccer" just "VIVA sit in chair" (you can get carple tunnel playing video games too)..

 

Personnally I don't see it as quite the end of Scouting ("yet").. I still have some hope, we will survive.

[Eamonn]

Given the choice between a Lad who has really earned First Class Scout and a parent who has never camped?

I wonder who I'd place my trust in?

 

I've lost count of the number of times that I've posted:

Train Them, Trust Them, Let Them Lead.

It now seems clear that we just don't trust them, we are afraid that they aren't trained and all this leadership stuff that we spend so much time on is just window dressing.

I know and am aware that for a lot of Troops this isn't going to have any impact on what so ever.

But as a volunteer this is a smack in the chops.

I feel that I'm being told that I'm not able or capable of training, teaching the Scouts.

Sure I've had Patrols who have gone away to camp and things are not done as they might have been done if I'd been around. -Even at 101 yards away.

Yes we have had to deal with Patrol Boxes that needed attention when they got home,sure bars of soap have returned home still in the wrapper and some meals were not cooked or made easier.

But none of this takes away from the feeling a Patrol has of being able to say "Hey we did it! We made it happen".

None of this takes away from the feeling a Patrol Leader has of knowing that he has been trusted and really given a real opportunity to show his worth and lead.

 

I wonder where this came from?

No one asked me or anyone I know.

Was anyone asked?

Ea.

 

[qwazse]

E.A. - This is something that nobody finds embarrassing, thus there is no article in Scouting Mag explaining the importance of the change.

 

Everyone else - Let's make it clear that not every patrol qualifies to do an over-nighter on their own. In fact none in my troop ever has. (More because they were over-busy rather than unprepared.) But, this is what we hold up to the boys as a goal. It's how a patrol leader knows for sure "I have arrived."

 

So if my boys pull a stunt like demanding to go off into the woods on their own for the night, I'll review their plan and tell them that they are uninsured (because, really, that's the first thing on their minds) but given that they had a solid plan, I'd tell them and their parents that I'd definitely not stay home and sulk that night. Nudge nudge wink wink.

 

Why? Because if an 18 year old can go off to fight for our country. Our country needs 18 year olds who can pull their team together.

 

WAKWIB - A patrol of 8 girls hiking 10 miles by themselves to a state park and spending the night with no adult supervision? It happens, just not in BSA or GSA. And, frankly, I would feel more comfortable with my daughter in that situation than on a shopping tour with a couple of adults in The Big Apple.

Or a mixed gender patrol of 14 year olds doing the same? Well it's no secret that Venturing requires "adult association" because of the fear of fornication, and that's why I'm not afraid to work the program. But are our kids any more at risk than dropping them off at the mall?

Anyway, "coedification" is no excuse. If troops were co-ed, stipulating that patrols be unisex if they intend to overnight would undermine the patrol method less than requiring adults to be present.

[gcnphkr]

This really messed with my class on implementing the Patrol Method at University of Scouting on Saturday. Instead of being able to lead with "How many of your patrols go camping on their own without adults?", I had to go with "How many of your patrols go hiking on their own without adults?".

 

Even that created looks of shock. "You mean a short 1 or 2 miles don't you?"

[NJCubScouter]

It will be interesting to see how (and if) National publicizes this change to unit Scouters. Just sticking it in in the latest edition of G2SS is a good way to guarantee that the vast majority of unit Scouters do not find out about it -- or find out many months or years later. Most unit leaders do not read this forum (or any other Scouting forum) and most do not seek out every new edition of every national publication. Even in the new G2SS, there is nothing calling attention to the fact that there has been a change. So how do they expect people to know about it?

[OldGreyEagle]

Just a thought, lets say you are set up for a regular Troop Camp out, the Adults are in the center of the "Spokes" and radiating out 300 feet are the Eager Beavers to the North, the Cobras to the South, the Flaming Arrows to the East and the Buffalo's to the West.

 

Is 300 feet close enough to qualify as "...Appropriate adult leadership must be present for all overnight Scouting activities;"

 

Is 300 yards? Half Mile?

 

How close meets the "Appropriate adult leadership", dependent on patrol experience I am sure, I hope

 

PS What if you have the adults camp in the middle, with the patrols in a line, the ends patrols are 600 feet from the adults, is that ok?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[RememberSchiff]

Feedback time. Print it out. Circle and write REJECTED over it. Mail it back to National.

 

My $0.02

[Horizon]

Rats. Not that my Troop has done Patrol overnights yet, this is more of a lost opportunity for my Troop.

 

I was already planning on making one month this summer to be "Patrol Camping" weekend, and NOT have a Troop campout, but rather have Patrols choose a location and go camping instead. It was my plan to introduce this concept to everyone and train them how to handle it on their own.

 

Back to the drawing board.

[Basementdweller]

So what,

 

The SM and assistant camp on the other side of the campground and hang out around the camp fire, go fishing or what ever they like.

 

 

 

And honestly, I do not know a single troop that does Patrol camping. Not a single one in our entire district. So it is just over blown.....

[Engineer61]

So there is a change here to the CO's!

 

There is a big difference from the CO "approving" the adult leaders and ensuring that there is sufficient adult leadership on outings.

 

This means that BSA is intending to shift liability to the CO's.

 

When will the CO's be informed of their increased liability?

 

=====

 

Does the BSA indemnify the Committee Chair when they sign the Tour Plan's?(This message has been edited by Engineer61)