Understanding of Spirit of Scouting. - The Example Adults set.

[Kudu]

Bob White writes

 

I think Eamonn's original post was dead on.

 

You like Eamonn's posts because he repeats your misquotations without checking the original sources.

 

Scouts learn by doing.

 

Kudu

[Eamonn]

Kudu,

If I did misread or misunderstand what you posted, please accept my apology.

If we take out anything that you or anyone else might see to have any connection to leaping over open fires, which I think is my only reference to what you didn't say.

Will you agree with what I posted on Sunday, 9/11/2005: 10:36:44 AM?

Eamonn.

[Eamonn]

All activity afloat must be supervised by a mature and conscientious adult age 21 or older who understands and knowingly accepts responsibility for the well-being and safety of the children in his or her care, who is experienced and qualified in the particular watercraft skills and equipment involved in the activity, and who is committed to compliance with the nine points of BSA Safety Afloat. One such supervisor is required for each 10 people, with a minimum of two adults for any one group. At least one supervisor must be age 21 or older, and the remaining supervisors must be age 18 or older. All supervisors must complete BSA Safety Afloat and Safe Swim Defense training and rescue training for the type of watercraft to be used in the activity, and at least one must be trained in CPR. It is strongly recommended that all units have at least one adult or older youth member currently trained as a BSA Lifeguard to assist in the planning and conducting of all activity afloat.

For Cub Scouts: The ratio of adult supervisors to participants is one to five.

FROM THE G2SS.

I think this answers the question about if the event should go ahead or not.

Eamonn.(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[Prairie_Scouter]

It seems to me that not every outing our Scouts go on has to be a Scout learning experience. Every once in awhile, I think it's just fine to have an outing just for the fun of it. We recently took out Scouts to see a stock car race. Part of it, to be sure, was to witness the event and the teamwork involved; I personally find watching the pit crews to be as least as interesting as the race itself. But, mostly it was just a lot of FUN. I don't see anything wrong with that as a part of a Scout's experience.

[anarchist]

HI folks,

 

First, this thread started in another thread with a request for Ideas for energizing a high adventure program for "older" scouts (here it was actually "middle aged scouts"...13-14 yrs old).

 

some of the posts that brought the blood to a boil were:

 

"Canoeing on moving water without prior training or planning is one of our Troop's most popular events,"

 

and

 

"Seriously, an outfitter canoe trip is better than postponing a canoe trip until an inexperienced PLC somehow figures out how to plan one."

 

We were not talking about the whole troop or young scouts; neither were we saying if it can't be done "in house" don't do it...

 

What posters on the "G2SS or training-planning side" were saying is that for a high adventure program, training and planning is a must! It is part of the H.A. program.

 

Of course you can use, and should use outfitters for many activities...even high adventure gigs...but you should not "do" a H.A. activity without training these boys both in skills and planning...

 

High Adventure trip example: (from one sited)

 

White water rafting class IV, V, VI rapids...Outfitter is almost a requirement!

 

planning activities: (by the scouts)

 

Choosing a river and outfitter; Reading the literature; Checking references (yes, it should be done); Getting prices/ quotes/ contracts, Reservations,(made with adults assistance); determining and arranging transport needs, food, finances, equiptment (even if its just a first aid kit toted along), permission slips, tour permit, parent contact tree and scheduling appropriate skills training "classes" for the activity are just some of the things scouts should work on in Planning any High adventure trip (or do the adults just do it all?)

 

Skills (again using the above example in which an outfitters services are being used)

 

general water safety, SAFTY AFLOAT, buddie system,

 

first aid- (water appropriate emphasis) dislocated joints, drowning, hypothermia, broken bones, sunburn etc.

 

water rescues, knots, use of 'pully' type systems, fire building etc.

 

The point being, we were/are trying to help One Hour see that High Adventure Programs by nature require that that boys who are "ready" for H.A. treks are ready to learn to work, train, and Plan...not be spoon fed. We can not and do not expect scouts or scouters to be able to have the skills and equipment to handle all activities...but training (for life) is a major part of what we do...

 

Or,if it is "difficult for the boys to learn" or do...we should just hire someone to 'run it' for them?

 

or... do you think we should just be running glorified play-dates for our children ...but thats grist for another forum topic, I guess.

 

 

[Kudu]

Eamonn writes:

 

If I did misread or misunderstand what you posted, please accept my apology.

 

Apology accepted. Likewise, I apologize for the fact that my style of putting things in perspective is so easily misunderstood.

 

Another Forum Member inspires hysteria by quoting only parts of sentences out of context. This is reminiscent of political religious fundamentalists who believe that the answers to every issue can be expressed in absolute terms: there is only one right way of doing anything, and everything else is morally wrong. The problem is that such people tend to misrepresent their perceived adversaries so as to make their own moralist position appear indisputable. Given the similarity between Bob White's "Your unit is a death trap waiting to spring" rant, and your post below, these techniques can be very effective indeed.

 

This is contrary to the Spirit of Scouting in which Anarchist and I can debate the relative importance of teaching experienced Scouts how to plan, over teaching inexperienced Scouts by taking them on a trip planned by professional instructors. The best answer for any given Troop depends on many different variables. These discussions are helpful to readers who may recognize similarities to their own situation and find one approach more practical for them that the other.

 

Moralist rants are indeed fun for those of us who see a connection between the BSA's politics and the changes they have made to Baden-Powell Scouting and William Hillcourt Scouting. But "larger issues" discussions muddy up practical "what to do next Wednesday" threads and belong in the Issues & Politics forums.

 

If we take out anything that you or anyone else might see to have any connection to leaping over open fires, which I think is my only reference to what you didn't say. Will you agree with what I posted on Sunday, 9/11/2005: 10:36:44 AM?

 

Obviously not. Which of the following moral condemnations is based on anything that anyone actually wrote?

 

I do feel very strongly that if you refuse to play this game by the rules you are playing the wrong game and you need to go elsewhere and find a game that you can play.

 

Adults who place the youth we serve in harms way are guilty of gross negligence.

 

I just do not understand how an adult leader can claim to have Scout spirit when they are blatantly and brazenly not keeping the Scout Oath and Law.

 

When we say that not following the rules is OK. Or when we show a total disregard for what is laid down in BSA literature.

 

Maybe the BSA does lack some checks and measures that would help ensure that people who are not playing this game by the rules are not allowed to continue with setting the bad example that they set.

 

My great fear is that nothing will be done to get these people out of our organization before a youth member is harmed.

 

My great hope is that they will see that this really isn't the organization for them and they will leave.