Feds to hold Scouts Accountable

[Pacific Tortuga]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_small.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=br2v03/*http://www.ap.org)
Government: Boy Scouts set Utah wildfire

14,200 acres burned in Utah in 2002 costing than 12 million to control. I'm sure the kids and parents can not pay that check, so will they sue the BSofA ? Looks like they have a good case .......... The Weasel ?

[Jim Adams]

I was in Algonquin Prov. Park this past fall canoeing and the park officials were attempting to contact U.S. officials about a group of scouts on a canoe trip that cut down 2 live birch trees about a foot and a half in diameter to make benches around a fire ring in the parks interior and then they painted the rocks at the ring blue. They also pulled live branches from cedar trees to place under their tents for padding and insulation in the same campsite. There were also multiple trees with hatchet or axe marks on them at the same site. This WAS an incredible campsite and the most beautiful place that I had ever seen as a campsite, having visited the site many times in the past. When I completed my trip and reported the damage to the Ranger, I was then informed that it had happened approximately 2 weeks earlier by a group of U.S. boyscouts.
geek

[Topcat]

I hate stories like that. I have 2 sons in the Scouts and i work with the troop a lot. We spend time on every trip discussing LNT and dont think any kids from my troop would do something like that and know that none of the Dads would dream of allowing it. The problem with groups like the one Jim is describing is the parents. They would be doing it with scouts or not. They should be made to do reclaimation on that site.

[iamscottym]

It don't think it's fair to fault the BSA. I do think it's fair to prosecute the boy scouts though. By entering a park, it's your job to know the applicable rules and regulations. Even in the absence of a fire ban, good judgement should have told the teens (yes, I'm aware teens aren't known for their judgement) not to have a fire. I think community service in the form of trail maintenance would be an apporpriate punishment.

[Jim Adams]

Don't get me wrong, I think scouting is great. Although I never went further than cub scouts ( not a strong troop in my area) I think that it is a great organization to teach young people about the wilderness. I have also had a few bad experiences over the years with "leaders" that don't know s**t.
It is a shame that these few are the ones hurting the reputation and get all of the print!
geek

[RAT]

I have also had a few bad experiences over the years with "leaders" that don't know s**t.

Exactly. I have been to many shelters before and witness much destruction by the kids (both boy scouts and church youth groups) while the leaders do nothing. I remember once with Sam Waddle at Jerry Cabin they were on top of the roof throwing the chimney rocks off into the yard. Makes ya wonder how these "leaders" got to be leaders ?? I think they should all be held accountable.


RAT (was a Webelos scout once ;) )

[skyhiker2]

I'am all for accountablity, but in this case I don't have a clue as to what should happen to them...???

[RAT]

I agree with those that think they should be made rehab all the damage they have caused. Would be fitting punishment, good learning exp. and save alot of money for taxpayers ;)

RAT

[4eyedbuzzard]

Not for nothin' all, but the court hasn't found them [the scouts] responsible yet. The judge did not rule on the government's request for a summary judgment, and the scouts want a full trial. There is that pesky presumption of innocence concept to deal with here.

[white rabbit]

The leaders are responsible, not the BSA and not the boys themselves, but not to the extent of 12 million dollars! Ouch! The best way to deal with it would be to allow the guilty scout troop, and any other troops in that area that are willing, to help clean up the mess; Community Service. Let the government pick up the tab for 12 million. That's just pocket change to them.

[4eyedbuzzard]

The leaders are responsible, not the BSA and not the boys themselves, but not to the extent of 12 million dollars! Ouch! The best way to deal with it would be to allow the guilty scout troop, and any other troops in that area that are willing, to help clean up the mess; Community Service. Let the government pick up the tab for 12 million. That's just pocket change to them.

One, responsibility for the fire hasn't been established yet.
Two, that's MY and every other taxpayer's $12 million in pocket change.

[white rabbit]

One, responsibility for the fire hasn't been established yet.
Two, that's MY and every other taxpayer's $12 million in pocket change.

I was in the scouts for many years and am a Eagle. If my leaders had thought there was ANY possiblity that we had started a fire we would have been involved in cleaning up the mess. If it is proven that the scout troop was at fault, the 12 mil cost of fighting the fire would be a great amount to the BSA, but we have all seen our government wastefully spend far more than that at the drop of a hat.
Just the opinion of a humble hiker.
I'm a taxpayer, too.

[Monkeyboy]

Bad link to the news article.....I'd like to read it.

And was it 12 million for control costs, or was it a loss of 12 million dollars worth of trees.....big difference, if they were counting the cost of lost lumber.

As far as holding the BSA accountable....it wasn't their fault.
As far as holding the boys accountable.....their too young.
As far as holding the leaders accountable....yeah, right, like they have 12 mil just laying around.....if they did, they wouldn't be scout leaders.

Simple question....if it was just Mom and Pop Jones with their ruffian boys out on a family camping trip, would you still want them to pay 12 million for damages? Probably not....the US Gov't has accounts already set up for just such damages. Like Iamscottym said, make them do ALOT of community service.

As far as cutting down trees, limbs, painting rocks, etc.......you'd have hell to pay in our council.....we are BIG on leave no trace.

[The Weasel]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap_small.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=br2v03/*http://www.ap.org)
Government: Boy Scouts set Utah wildfire

14,200 acres burned in Utah in 2002 costing than 12 million to control. I'm sure the kids and parents can not pay that check, so will they sue the BSofA ? Looks like they have a good case .......... The Weasel ?

I've served on risk management committees of local Scout councils (the county/regional body for Scouts, over Troops and Packs), and some troops, all councils, and the National Council have abundant insurance for such things. Leaders sometimes have to use homeowners' insurance, as well.

As for liability, it's very possible under a 'failure to supervise' approach, much like one is responsible for one's own children.

The Weasel

[4eyedbuzzard]

Bad link to the news article.....I'd like to read it.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070112-1301-wildfire-boyscouts.html

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=798281

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4998512

[white rabbit]

Thanks for the link 4eyed. If the claims below are true it changes my perspective of this issue. A quote from it is below,

"The government claims the Great Salt Lake Council was negligent in allowing the Scouts to camp without adult supervision. There were 17 Scouts, ages 12 to 14, being supervised by two 15-year-olds, Overby said."

You have to have competent adult leaders in Scouting for it to work. I would not consider most 15 year olds to be competent leaders.

[rickb]

I can understand a private citizen going after whoever has the deepest pockets (its always about the money, even when it isn't), but to my way of thinking, the government should first go after those who were most directly responsible.

Even if bankrupting hourly workers trying to feed their families isn't as wise a political move as going after a Scout Council. And if it is decided that approach wouldn't be just (my way of thinking barring any special circumstances), best to leave it there.

There have to be many adult individuals who bare a far greater deal of cuplpability than the local Council.

Anyone think the council packed the kids lunches and drove them to the trailhead?

Why not sue society as a whole?

[Jack Tarlin]

Because society as a whole didn't cause the fire.

Individuals did.

The BSA should pay for this, and being heavily insured, they're certainly capable of doing so.

[weary]

....Why not sue society as a whole?
You mean like us taxpayers? We're a pretty good approximation of society. I suspect we don't have to sue, however. Just do nothing and we'll just pay automatically.

[rickb]

Jack is correct: Individuals started the fire.

Given that he understands that, I can't fathom why Jack wants to extend responsibility to the BSA.

Other than they have insurance. Is that a good reason?

What do people think the BSA did, exactly?

At worse, my guess is they had a lax policy with regard to how they managed trip reoprts filed by individual troops.

BFD.

The BSA didn't start this fire.

Some kids did.

[Jack Tarlin]

The kids are presumably minors.

The BSA was responsible for their behavior during the trip. While one could conceivably go after the actual youths responsible for the fire (even if this information were definitley known), the lighting of a fire in the woods, and its subsequent supervision (or more likely NON supervision) was the responsibility of the adult leaders.

These leaders are also theoretically responsible for the the training of these youths BEFORE the trip and their behavior DURING the trip. If bad behavior on the part of the children can be blamed on poor training or supervision by the group's adult leadership, then I think it's perfectly proper for responsibility to fall on the organization that supplied the leaders.

What's more, in this particular case, it looks like these kids were allowed to camp WITHOUT proper or adequate supervision. It seems to me that a good case could be made against the BSA for negligence and recklessness by leaving these kids on their own. A trip that took place under the auspices of the Boy Scout Organization should be properly led and supervised, and if it isn't, I think the organization itself could be held liable.

But I'm not a lawyer. Weasel has already pointed out that in certain circumstances, those who "fail to supervise" can be held liable for damages
caused by their charges. Seems to me that would apply here.

[rickb]

The BSA was responsible for their behavior during the trip.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on that, Jack.

[superfly-SY]

I have had several unfortunate experiences with scouts on the trail. on my 1999 hike scouts left a camp fire unattended and it quickly flamed up into a severe fire that required flame retardant to be dropped numerous times. this was just south of NOS.

In the whites,nh, can't remember exactly where, a hug group (20 or more plus adults) had completely ignored the very clear signs pointing to the group campsite and stored alll their gear in the shelter that was also clearly signed as being for thru-hikers first priority. I politely asked the group leaders if they could take the gear out of the shelter as I and several other hikers were going to be using it for the night. I was met with resistance at first and one guy got beligerant and was visibly intoxicated. I explained how the group sites worked and offered to help them set up their tents and to help move the gear over to the camp site. meanwhile the scouts were literally climbing up on top of the shelter and jumping up and down on the roof. My efforts at diplomacy had about the same effect as The UN's efforts did with Saddaam.
then the "adults" started withthe F.U.'s and go F yourself comments.

Those of you who know me and were there can picture what happened next.
I just told the guys ok if thats how it has to be.

I walked backto the shelter yelled at the little bastards to get off the shelter and started throwing backpacks like an Olympian discus thrower. I was going
for distance adn velocity. the "adults" rapidly approached but backed off at the site of a crazed Leki stick wielding maniac. suffice it to say they abandoned all claim to the shelter and agood night was had by all.

I love scouting!!

[SergeStorms]

The kids who started the fire were scouts. They belong to an organization that claims to be LNT. The BSA should have taught the leaders, who should have taught the kids about fire risk. I work at a museum that has open fires as part of our demonstrations. If a visitor got hurt by my fire, I wouldn't be sued, the museum would be sued. It's the same in this case. These kids belong to the BSA, which makes the organization responsible for what it's members do. The BSA should be held responsible for all damages as a result of what their members did.

[Rain Man]

What do people think the BSA did, exactly?

I think a better question might be, what incentive will they have if they get off "scott free"???

The pressure point, or leverage, is their wallet,-- if their ethics and character and consciences aren't enough.

If they get hit a few times in the wallet, perhaps they'll start acting like they claim to be... about character, honor, and such.

But, choosing between the innocent (me, you, etc) and the guilty (the Scouting organization), I'm in favor of the guilty paying, not the innocent. Being "the Scouts" is irrelevant.

Rain:sunMan

.

[Topcat]

When one of my employees has an accident why am i sued and not them individually. Even though i have done background checks, drug tests, safety meetings, etc. courts will want to find a way to hold my company accountable, if only because my company has the deeper pockets. that is just the way it is. Does anyone know if the scouts in charge were camp counselors and employees of the BSA?

[weary]

When one of my employees has an accident why am i sued and not them individually. Even though i have done background checks, drug tests, safety meetings, etc. courts will want to find a way to hold my company accountable, if only because my company has the deeper pockets. that is just the way it is. Does anyone know if the scouts in charge were camp counselors and employees of the BSA?
Yup. They were two 15-year-olds, not employed by anyone. Just volunteers.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Read the articles in my prior post, there was no adult supervision. Just two 15 year old scouts watching 15 other 12 to 14 year olds. The adult leaders FU big time. I believe the BSA self insures for the first $1M. Their insurance kicks in after that. The questions, if the scouts are found responsible, is if and how far up the BS hierarchy the responsibility goes, the assessed amount of the liability and how the liability is distributed, etc. What irks me even more is that even unsupervised, these kid's behavior is still as unexcusable as the negligence of their leaders.

[rickb]

If the 15 year olds were working out of a Scout camp being run by the Council, I can see how the Council could be held liable.

The more I think about this, something like that must be going on. The alternative is just too crazy to consider-- even in out litigious society.

[Pokey2006]

People make mistakes. Should they have to pay $12 million? No. Should they have to make some sort of reparations? Absolutely. They should have to do some work that will help restore the area. Something that will assist in the recovery, while also teaching them a good, stiff lesson.

The question is, were they solely responsible? Were conditions dry at the time? Was the area ripe for a forest fire, anyway? Forest fires, while a blight on the landscape and the bane of hikers everywhere, are actually natural events which help keep forests healthy in the long run.

The troop leaders, as well as the boys, should have to participate in my proposed community service.

Perhaps the BSA should re-think their requirements for troop leaders. Perhaps it's time to allow in the gay men??? Just a thought....

[Two Speed]

Provided it can be proved that the outing was a BSA sanctioned event and that these scouts were responsible for starting the fire I have absolutely no problem with holding the BSA accountable for the damage caused. Of course all the evidence isn't in yet, and these stories have a way of evolving so this may play out very differently from the way it looks right now.

For instance, just because these kids are scouts doesn't necessarily mean that the trip was organized through the BSA; they could have decided to do this on their own, which would explain the two fifteen year olds being in charge. I'm not real familiar with BSA policy, but I'd be very surprised to find out that the BSA considers a fifteen year old as an acceptable substitute for adult supervision.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there's more to the story than we've seen so far. Usually those who goof up do their best to keep a low profile when things get out of hand.

[NICKTHEGREEK]

I doubt that you could ever make a case stick against the BSA for the actions of a particular troop or even council. The whole inner workings of the organization are set up to insulate the top layer from from responsibility for the actions of the lower layer. The law and what's right is one thing, and then there's political clout and the BSA has tons of that. I can assume that it would be particularly hard in Utah where the ties between BSA and the church are very close. BSA is an integral part of youth training in the Mormon community, and a separate set of rules exist within BSA for them alone.
The quality of each troop varies widely and generally is a function of the dedication of the chartering activity (church groups, lion's club etc) and the adult volunteers. The focus of troops (outdoors/community service/Eagle scout mills)vary widely even within the same community. In this case the youths and adults in this troop should be held fully accountable and while complete restitution can't be obtained, they should suffer the consequences.

[Peaks]

Provided it can be proved that the outing was a BSA sanctioned event and that these scouts were responsible for starting the fire I have absolutely no problem with holding the BSA accountable for the damage caused. Of course all the evidence isn't in yet, and these stories have a way of evolving so this may play out very differently from the way it looks right now.

For instance, just because these kids are scouts doesn't necessarily mean that the trip was organized through the BSA; they could have decided to do this on their own, which would explain the two fifteen year olds being in charge. I'm not real familiar with BSA policy, but I'd be very surprised to find out that the BSA considers a fifteen year old as an acceptable substitute for adult supervision.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there's more to the story than we've seen so far. Usually those who goof up do their best to keep a low profile when things get out of hand.


I think there may be a lot of facts that we don't know about. BSA had a 2 deep adult leadership policy that is drilled into everyone. If it's an approved trip by the local BSA council, then the names of the responsible adult leaders are on the local trip permit. So, assuming that it was an approved trip, where were the adults? And if the group did not have a local trip permit, then was it really a scout outing, or just a bunch of boys getting together?

I think we are all reading things into this accident.

[Topcat]

I am taking this article to the next committee meeting for my troop. I can honestly say that in all my years in scouting (almost 40 including being a scout and being a leader) I have never had a group thta behaived in a way that would offend anyone. That being said, I have been embarrassed by the behaivior of other troops and leaders on outings.


The worst experience i every had, however, was when i was out south of Boiling Springs and a Sierra Club group of adults came in. If you want to talk about drunken, loud behaivior. I was only 18 and not on an official scout trip, although the 5 guys on this trip were all scouts. We ended packing up in the dark, hiking a couple of miles and cowboying it to get away from them. All kinds of people make asses of them selves, not just scouts.

[ed bell]

All kinds of people make asses of them selves, not just scouts.That is unfortunatly 100% true.

[The Weasel]

I can understand a private citizen going after whoever has the deepest pockets (its always about the money, even when it isn't), but to my way of thinking, the government should first go after those who were most directly responsible.

Even if bankrupting hourly workers trying to feed their families isn't as wise a political move as going after a Scout Council. And if it is decided that approach wouldn't be just (my way of thinking barring any special circumstances), best to leave it there.

There have to be many adult individuals who bare a far greater deal of cuplpability than the local Council.

Anyone think the council packed the kids lunches and drove them to the trailhead?

Why not sue society as a whole?


Because society as a whole didn't cause the fire.

Individuals did.

The BSA should pay for this, and being heavily insured, they're certainly capable of doing so.

I certainly can't speak for the BSA, but from having been heavily involved in 'risk management' at the local council level (which is the real 'managerial' level over Troops and Packs), I think I know the pretty honorable position that Scouting has on such things:

Troops/Packs (the age difference is over/under 11) are required to have leaders go through "Leader Fundamentals", which teaches at least the basics of 'being careful' and 'following the rules' in outdoor situations. (Packs/Cubs are supposed to have only limited overnight camping, and only when they are close to 11). But if individuals were solely responsible for what happens, there would be few, if any, leaders, since not everyone has personal insurance for such situations. Being responsible for leadership actions - generally, withing the defenses the law otherwise recognizes - is one way that the national organization (and, under it, local councils) both work hard to prevent such situations (risk prevention) and deal with it after it occurs (risk management). This is why - hopefully, if not always - when you see a group with a Scout uniform on, you're entitled to expect more than if the same group isn't a group of Scouts.

The Weasel

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

A question of those involved in BSA -- why would two 15 yo boys ever be left in charge of seventeen 12 to 14 yo boys? In TN, I could have removed all 19 of these children from their parents' custody -- all 19 for neglect by lack of adequate supervision and two for being placed in charge of younger children for longer than the law allows at their age (a 15 yo is not allowed to supervision younger children overnight). Is this a common practice or even allowed by BSA guidelines?

[ASUGrad]

Bottom line: You have to go for the deep pockets. Otherwise, the lawyers don't get paid as much.

[The Weasel]

A question of those involved in BSA -- why would two 15 yo boys ever be left in charge of seventeen 12 to 14 yo boys? ***. Is this a common practice or even allowed by BSA guidelines?

FD:

I'm guessing here, but it is both common and proper, in BSA, subject to a number of conditions.

Under BSA rules, every event of any kind (including meetings, or even Merit Badge teaching sessions) must have two adults, one of whom must be 21 or more (the other may be 18 or older) present for the event. This obviously includes outdoor events, including camping and backpacking.

The Scout program, however, places a high emphasis on teaching youth - particularly as they enter their mid-teens - on how to be leaders of other youth (and, in many cases, even of adults). This is similar to a military "chain of command," which, to some extent even today (far less than many years ago, but still discernible) means that there are occasions when youth may be 'in charge' of part of an event if the Scoutmaster isn't actually "in sight." This is hard for some adults to accept: The Scoutmaster (not an "assistant" but the actual "SM") is the leader-in-charge, and delegates his authority to actual Assistant Scoutmasters (ones who are registered as such and usually also trained). He can also delegate much supervision to a "Senior Patrol Leader" (a youth, usually 15 to 17) and he, in turn, supervises "Patrol Leaders" (usually 13-16). Much of this is while a Scoutmaster should see everything, in practice, with from 10 to 40 boys present in different kinds of events, it's not possible (or good) to have an adult watching young men every second. Importantly, adults who aren't registered leaders (usually parents) are not part of the leadership structure; if a non-registered adult tells a youth to do something the youth knows is contrary to Scout rules, the youth shouldn't do it, although that's a problem that happens a lot with intrusive parents.

What ends up happening, then, is that what Johnny Scout does (or doesn't) is often a function of the quality of the leadership all the way up. To its credit, Scouting takes an awful lot of effort in constant training, both at the "Scoutmaster Fundamentals" stage (about 60 hours of training) and beyond that on a continuing basis and with advanced training programs. Much of that is on training about how to teach leadership to young men (and for some programs, young women) and how to supervise them effectively.

But, as with any activity (including school), young men will do things they shouldn't, both accidentally and intentionally, often without knowing what the consequences will be. And sometimes, there are adults and adult leaders who do, or permit, stupid things. This doesn't happen at a serious level in Scouting on a frequent basis (in my 30 years of adult leadership, only 3 medical emergencies requiring doctors and no "damage" situations, and I'm about average on that), but yes, it happens.

When it does, "accidents" that could have been avoided are Scouting's responsibility as an organization just as if it was General Motors or NOC.

Hope this helps you understand how the organization works.

[Footslogger]

Not familiar with the facts, not making excuses and I have NO idea how this will play out BUT ...having been actively involved with a scout troop for over 12 years I feel comfortable saying that in all likelihood, of the total number of adults present, very few were actually "trained" scouters with outdoor experience. There are no doubt exceptions, but that was my experience.

We used to have serious trouble getting a decent number of adults to accompany us on backpacking trips with the troop. It generally came down to me, another outdoor oriented adult and then a handful of Dad's who went along "just because their sons were going".

Point being ...there's a pretty decent chance that "qualified supervision" was very limited. That's no excuse for carelessness, but it is an unfortunate fact of life in scouting.

'Slogger

[Monkeyboy]

If there were no adults present, it was either :

a.) Not a BSA function, because all trips by the BSA must have two adult leaders at all times, with a tour permit to allow them to be at said location. So just because they are Scouts does not mean it was a Scout function.

or b.) It was a Scout authorized function, but was negligent on the scout leaders part for not being at their authorized function as stated.

So either it is just a bunch of kids who just happen to be scouts or the negligence of the adult leaders.

If it was the kids.....tough luck on that one trying to hold a minor responsible.

If it was the adults who left them, it is their negligence, not BSA.

Either way, it is not BSA's fault.....

[The Weasel]

Not familiar with the facts, not making excuses and I have NO idea how this will play out BUT ...having been actively involved with a scout troop for over 12 years I feel comfortable saying that in all likelihood, of the total number of adults present, very few were actually "trained" scouters with outdoor experience. There are no doubt exceptions, but that was my experience.

We used to have serious trouble getting a decent number of adults to accompany us on backpacking trips with the troop. It generally came down to me, another outdoor oriented adult and then a handful of Dad's who went along "just because their sons were going".

Point being ...there's a pretty decent chance that "qualified supervision" was very limited. That's no excuse for carelessness, but it is an unfortunate fact of life in scouting.

'Slogger

Slogger --

Yeah, you're right (unfortunately), although the "qualified supervision" part isn't (you know this...I'm saying it for others here not involved in BSA) so much about "outdoor" stuff as about how to supervise youth effectively. Often, it was the "other adults" who encouraged/permitted the off limits stuff, which was one of the reasons for backpacking (higher risk activity) that we usually limited adult participation to 3 out of 10 (max size). That way, at least one leader was trained, and only had to supervise two adults (the kids usually are easier, as you know!).

Every unit is different, of course, and it's hard sometimes. But situations like this are why BSA really works hard to cram supevision skills (as well as outdoor ones) into the adults, so they don't happen (much).
The Weasel

[Pacific Tortuga]

Fault sometimes has nothing to do with who will end up paying :-?

[RadioFreq]

A question of those involved in BSA -- why would two 15 yo boys ever be left in charge of seventeen 12 to 14 yo boys? In TN, I could have removed all 19 of these children from their parents' custody -- all 19 for neglect by lack of adequate supervision and two for being placed in charge of younger children for longer than the law allows at their age (a 15 yo is not allowed to supervision younger children overnight). Is this a common practice or even allowed by BSA guidelines?

The answer is they shouldn't have been. BSA guidelines are quite specific about adult leadership guidelines. At the troop level (it's more strict at the pack level) there MUST be two adults, with one of them at least 21. It sounds like some adult leaders overestimated the maturity of some of the older boys in the troop...not the first time I've heard/seen that happen. Then again I do wish we had the whole story.

[Dances with Mice]

....I'm guessing here, but it is both common and proper, in BSA, subject to a number of conditions.

Under BSA rules, every event of any kind (including meetings, or even Merit Badge teaching sessions) must have two adults, one of whom must be 21 or more (the other may be 18 or older) present for the event. This obviously includes outdoor events, including camping and backpackingKinda sorta. Some patrol activities need not have adult supervision, although overnight campouts must, and two-deep adult leadership is not required for Merit Badge teaching sessions but at least 2 Scouts must be in attendance with an adult MB counselor.

It didn't say in the article if the campout was a single troop or if it was during a summer camp event using teen camp counselors.

If a Jury Trial is given to the Scouts, the prosecutors can hang it up. Case closed. Prosecute Scouts in Utah? Yeah right, might as well just sue the Mormon church too while they're at it.

[The Weasel]

Kinda sorta. Some patrol activities need not have adult supervision, although overnight campouts must, and two-deep adult leadership is not required for Merit Badge teaching sessions but at least 2 Scouts must be in attendance with an adult MB counselor. ***


Dances -

My point (I don't think we really disagree) is that "adult supervision" doesn't mean that an adult is within physical reach every moment. This means a "patrol" (4-8 youth with a youth 'in charge') can take a day hike without an adult physically with them, in some circumstances, as part of a larger event such as a troop campout. (A lot depends on where the hike will be, and the Scoutmaster must check this out carefully, including the experience levels of the youth.)

As for Merit Badges, well, that's a topic of dispute in some places, I know. In light of the risks for youth, my position has always been that there must be two adults physically present at the location of the counseling session, as well as a minimum of two Scouts present in the room at all times. (E.g., my wife would have to be home, or else I would have the session at a public location where another adult was aware I was doing the counseling, such as at a library or a Troop meeting.)


The Weasel

[Moxie00]

I have only one AT thru but more backpacking time than many. I've been backpacking since I was a boy scout in Baxter Park in the late 1940's. In my years I have seen some wonderful, well behaved boy scouts. Unfortunately I have also seen uncontrolled monsters who were in fact boy scouts. Yelling, throwing things, trashing camp sites and staying up all night. I have also seen boy scouts move out of a shelter to make room for others. I have seen them share their food. I have seen them gather firewood for everyone camping around them. Camp and church groups fit the same mold. there are good ones and bad ones. Another group that can muck up a good hike are freshmen orientation groups from colleges that you see in New England in late August and September. A bunch of city kids thrown into the wilderness. With proper leadership all these groups can have a rewarding wilderness experience but too often they are led by puffy pink men in ill fitting shorts that either read a book or watched a video on wilderness camping the night before they started their adventure. They have no control over their charges and ruin it for everyone. I have many memories of wet crying kids, clad in cotton, with their eighteen dollar sleeping bags listening to a soft flabby leader telling them how much fun they are having. This fall when I climbed Katahdin with a boy scout troop caught up with me. They had been in the wilderness for two weeks. They were knowledgable, well behaved and a joy to hike a few miles with. It isn't the boy scouts, I blame the individual group leaders and if the scouts had some standard of who they put in charge these bad situations would never occour.

[The Weasel]

*** Another group that can muck up a good hike are freshmen orientation groups from colleges that you see in New England in late August and September. A bunch of city kids thrown into the wilderness. With proper leadership all these groups can have a rewarding wilderness experience but too often they are led by puffy pink men in ill fitting shorts ***.

Bill Bryson is has ill fitting shorts?

The Weasel

[The Weasel]

*** Another group that can muck up a good hike are freshmen orientation groups from colleges that you see in New England in late August and September. A bunch of city kids thrown into the wilderness. With proper leadership all these groups can have a rewarding wilderness experience but too often they are led by puffy pink men in ill fitting shorts ***.

Bill Bryson is has ill fitting shorts?

The Weasel

[The Weasel]

*** Another group that can muck up a good hike are freshmen orientation groups from colleges that you see in New England in late August and September. A bunch of city kids thrown into the wilderness. With proper leadership all these groups can have a rewarding wilderness experience but too often they are led by puffy pink men in ill fitting shorts ***.

Bill Bryson is has ill fitting shorts?

The Weasel

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

While I can understand the idea of training older boys to lead younger boys, doing this without any adult supervision nearby is downright foolish and dangerous.

[The Weasel]

FD: "Nearby" is a relative term, and you and I don't disagree. Generally, BSA would have 2 adults with or in the immediate vicinity of Scouts pretty much all the time, but not necessarily in eyeball range. The goal is to teach young men how to be self-reliant. So you don't want to hover. It's a difficult balance, and good Scoutmasters - we all try hard to be one (by the way, that includes women, too) - work hard to make sure things are safe and sane, while not "daddying/mommying" Scouts so that they don't learn the real lessons of the outdoors.

By the way, the "training" isn't "to train older boys to lead younger boys." It's to train young men to lead others, including adults. Most Eagle Scouts, as part of their leadership/service project, will be expected to directly lead and supervise adults far older than them.

The Weasel

[Footslogger]

[quote=The Weasel;303613]FD: "Nearby" is a relative term, and you and I don't disagree. Generally, BSA would have 2 adults with or in the immediate vicinity of Scouts pretty much all the time, but not necessarily in eyeball range.
=====================================

True ...we always operated on the "Two Deep Leadership" approach. We also strived for a ratio of 2 adults per 8 scouts as a rule. An 18 year old Eagle could act as the "second leader" but was never put solely in charge of a group of youger scouts.

'Slogger

[jollies]

I will add some of my perspective because I can claim to be an authority on this subject, being a professional Scouter, however, I think it is definitely a good idea not to judge this situation just on what we have been "fed" so far via media reports. Most of what I would say has already been mentioned in this thread:

a.) No activity is a "Scouting" activity without appropriate 2-deep leadership as mentioned previously.
b.) A tour permit must be filed for a non-district or non-council run activity, which is to inform the council of what the unit is doing and also to make sure that appropriate leadership is present. The approval of the tour permit covers the activity with insurance for anything that might happen during the activity. This would cover the liability of an accidental forest fire in this case by the national BSA insurance.
c.) There is never a time that 15-year old youth members are allowed to be in leadership roles and not have adult supervision, even at a Summer Camp activity. Counselors in Training or CIT's can be a minimum of 15. National camp school policy requires that only 18-year old Scouts or older can hold directorship positions, and you must be 16-years of age or older to be an official camp staff member.

It is a good idea to wait for the rest of the facts to come in here, as has been mentioned in many of the other comments. I feel that in our society today (example: The Duke Lacrosse case or Floyd Landis) we jump to quickly to conclusions and condemn others strictly on what we are told at the time and before we can make a well-informed decision. Hope this is helpful to the readers :-)

[moxie]

I was a leader when my two sons were scouts.. A troop leader was chosen by who could get away when the trip was scheduled, usually a minimally qualified parent. Too often I've seen spaghetti armed insurance salesman whos outdoor experience consisted of a walk to the road to get the morning paper end up leading a trip when no one else could do it. If two leaders were required the spaghetti armed insurance salesman would have his pink, puffy car pool buddy come along. These are exceptions but too often they do happen.

[Pacific Tortuga]

[quote=
c.) There is never a time that 15-year old youth members are allowed to be in leadership roles and not have adult supervision, even at a Summer Camp activity.

NOT TRUE, our master went to bars while on outings and left the "most trusted" scout in charge. ca. circa 1969

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I will add some of my perspective because I can claim to be an authority on this subject, being a professional Scouter, however, I think it is definitely a good idea not to judge this situation just on what we have been "fed" so far via media reports. ......It is a good idea to wait for the rest of the facts to come in ....we jump to quickly to conclusions and condemn others strictly on what we are told at the time and before we can make a well-informed decision. Hope this is helpful to the readers :-)Thank you for jumping in. I really found the idea that an organization would leave two 15 yo boys in charge of a large group of younger teens frightening. While I do understand the idea of allowing the older boys to lead and staying out of the way when the tough situations happen and things go wrong (until it gets to the point of being potentially dangerous), to leave 15 yos in charge overnight is just so very over the top.

Two 15 yos should be able to handle a normal night with a group of fairly well-behaved younger kids, but not many 15 yos are going to be able to handle it when the sorts of things I would reasonably expect to happen in large groups of kids occur in the middle of the night with no adult nearby - things like an asthma attack, a cut requiring stitches, a broken bone, bloody nose, projectile vomiting, high fever, kid just plain scared too death and inconsolable.

[The Weasel]

I will add some of my perspective because I can claim to be an authority on this subject, being a professional Scouter, ***

c.) There is never a time that 15-year old youth members are allowed to be in leadership roles and not have adult supervision, even at a Summer Camp activity. ***

Thanks, Jollies...what Council, if I may ask?

I think that some of the confusion is that "adult supervision" does not always mean "an adult 10 feet away," but rather "in a position to minimize the risk to youth as much as possible." But at most summer camps (and many other Scout activities) youth are close, but not necessarily in sight, at every moment. When Johnny Scout walks to a building at Kumbaya Scout Camp, he has 'adult supervision' but he probably isn't leashed to an adult. This is where Johnny sometimes accidentally causes a problem, or, more rarely, does something on purpose. And sometimes he's with his Patrol Leader, who should know to "call for help" immeidately...and be able to know that adult help is able to respond just as fast.

But we're not babysitters. You know that; I just don't want others here to think we are, either.

The Weasel

[The Weasel]

[quote=
c.) There is never a time that 15-year old youth members are allowed to be in leadership roles and not have adult supervision, even at a Summer Camp activity.

NOT TRUE, our master went to bars while on outings and left the "most trusted" scout in charge. ca. circa 1969

There IS never a time when that is allowed. Whatever happened in the 60s - and much did - such a leader would be terminated immediately today.

The Weasel

[The Weasel]

I was a leader when my two sons were scouts.. A troop leader was chosen by who could get away when the trip was scheduled, usually a minimally qualified parent. Too often I've seen spaghetti armed insurance salesman whos outdoor experience consisted of a walk to the road to get the morning paper end up leading a trip when no one else could do it. If two leaders were required the spaghetti armed insurance salesman would have his pink, puffy car pool buddy come along. These are exceptions but too often they do happen.

Moxie:

If that "spaghetti armed insurance salesman" was a Scout Leader at any time since about 1985, and was registered as the Scoutmaster, he probably received real training in what is required for what Scouting calls "Youth Protection," including how to recognize serious situations and call for help. And I've known a lot of men and women who had little knowledge of the outdoors, but a great love for kids and a desire to help them learn what Scouting has to offer - strong character, good citizenship, and leadership of others - and realized that their outdoor skills were weak. But I'd rather know those "puffy" guys who have time for Scouts than all the super outdoorspeople who don't have the time. They helped your sons in ways that others didn't or couldn't, and I'm sure you're actually grateful to them.

The Weasel

[Dances with Mice]

And some Scouters will see a screw-up by a Utah troop and roll their eyes. I've been waiting for someone else to bring it up, but nobody has so I'll open the can of worms...

Scout troops sponsored by LDS churches do not enjoy the best reputations for outdoor skills.

[Skidsteer]

And some Scouters will see a screw-up by a Utah troop and roll their eyes. I've been waiting for someone else to bring it up, but nobody has so I'll open the can of worms...

Scout troops sponsored by LDS churches do not enjoy the best reputations for outdoor skills.

They're Hell on wheels when it comes to bicycles.

Jus' sayin'....

[Monkeyboy]

The whole question about any of this not liability....it is negligence.

For example, when a teacher molests a student, the school is not sued for liability, it is sued for negligence. The teacher is liable, but if the school knew of such activity, didn't properly screen applicants, etc...it is found negligent, not liable.

Now, the kids were either on a scout function or not. If they were not on a scout function, the kids are liable and BSA is not negligent, their parents are.

If they were on a scout function (much like the scoutmaster stated earlier that left to go to a bar), it is the boys who are liable and the scoutmaster who was negligent.....to hold BSA responsible, they would have to prove BSA negligent in the positioning of the scoutmaster.

If the scoutmaster was not previously screened, if they did not follow up with the scoutmaster, etc....then BSA could be held responsible, but good luck trying to prove that...

BSA is one of the most stringent background checkers around now, with all of the sexual harrasment charges going around, and any news of a negligent scoutmaster and he is immediately removed, at least in our council.....so I think it would be very hard to find BSA negligent.

[rickb]

How about if this happened at a Council run camp?

Think about it.

17 Kids and no parents. Where else could that happen except at a 2-week camp? Philmont light, as it were.

Or not.

[Dances with Mice]

They're Hell on wheels when it comes to bicycles.

Jus' sayin'....And if there is a Gawhd then I'm going straight to Hayell for what I did to them two fellahs in white shirts who knocked on my door in college. No doubt about it at all. I stilll feel kinda guilty about all that but our story is probably in some sort of training brochure now.

But that's irrelevant. LDS troops have a reputation for turning out well behaved and polite Eagle Scouts with the outdoor skills of 2nd Class scouts. That reputation may or not be deserved.

Jus' sayin'.

[Monkeyboy]

How about if this happened at a Council run camp?

Think about it.

17 Kids and no parents. Where else could that happen except at a 2-week camp? Philmont light, as it were.

Or not.

Then the article wouldn't be saying things like this -



The government claims the Great Salt Lake Council was negligent in allowing the Scouts to camp without adult supervision. There were 17 Scouts, ages 12 to 14, being supervised by two 15-year-olds, Overby said.



Sorry, but the whole thing just sounds plain fishy.....

What Council allows scouts to go camping without adult supervision.......definately not ours, I can tell you that....

[rickb]

My theory--

It was a council run camp of the mess hall variety.

Older but underage kids ran programs-- with the exception of the waterfront. I am using my imagination here.

One program was an overnight outing a few miles into the backcounty-- away from the tent city and such.

No big deal.

Until the the fires started.

Ooops, they should have hired more 21 year+ olds to work at camp (not an easy thing).

Just my theory.

[weary]

This has nothing whatever to do with scouts. I never got beyond the Tenderfoot (?) stage when my troop disbanded and a nearby church troop announced they were full.

But at the age of 14 or 15 I pedaled my bike with a two-year older brother to Dolly Copp, a National Forest campground near Gorham. It was a 230 mile round trip. An 18-year-old went with us, but he had zero overnight, and/or scout experience and had been told by his doctor that he had a heart condition, and thus was the follower, not the leader.

Anyway, we spent two weeks in the middle of WWII, did the Presidentials, climbed Washington, and had a great time. We built a lot of campfires, but none escaped to burn anything of value.

We repeated the trip two or three times in subsequent years, only driving in model T Fords, which by then had become a hobby. Were we angels? No. Once when a Gorham restaurant asked us to leave to make room for a smoking man and wife, we surreptitiously emptied part of the contents of the ash tray into the pepper shaker, in revenge, or something.

Weary

[ed bell]

Nice exchange of theories here. Someting went wrong enough to get the story to this point. I think the topic has hit the wall of uncertainty. Using a couple of similar news reports has left us with plenty of unknowns. I'm trying not to forget that when I read the responses here. Having said that, starting major forest fires is a SERIOUS crime.

[The Weasel]

The whole question about any of this not liability....it is negligence. ***

If they were on a scout function (much like the scoutmaster stated earlier that left to go to a bar), it is the boys who are liable and the scoutmaster who was negligent.....to hold BSA responsible, they would have to prove BSA negligent in the positioning of the scoutmaster.

MB -

Remember, I'm on the side of the BSA here....

To hold BSA responsible, generally speaking what would need to be shown is (1) that the SM was negligent in his/her supervision of youth; and (2) that she/he was, at the event, acting as a leader in Scouting. While that is a simplification, it's not much of one: Organizations are often held responsible for the acts of their employees and others acting in the course of their duties (including volunteers), under what is known as "respondeat superior," which basically means, "the responsibility of the superior for the acts of the subordinate." When Ford engineers designed a bad gas tank for the Pinto, Ford Motor got hung out to dry; it's a very well known principle.

SMs in situations like that have a duty to act in a reasonable manner - the way a reasonable man or woman in the same situation would act - to prevent harm to other people and to property. If she/he didn't, as a part of Scouting, then they very likely have made their organization responsible, too.

Wish you were right, but I don't think so.

The Weasel

[The Weasel]

And if there is a Gawhd then I'm going straight to Hayell for what I did to them two fellahs in white shirts who knocked on my door in college. No doubt about it at all. I stilll feel kinda guilty about all that but our story is probably in some sort of training brochure now.

But that's irrelevant. LDS troops have a reputation for turning out well behaved and polite Eagle Scouts with the outdoor skills of 2nd Class scouts. That reputation may or not be deserved.

Jus' sayin'.

You may be right. But the only LDS Eagle I know real well right now is Lieutenant in the 3rd Armored Cavalry out of Ft. Collins, and he's on one hellacious big campout right now in Iraq, somewhere not far from Rock. And I knew this kid pretty well, at high adventures as well as the '89 and '93 National Jamborees, and he wasn't exactly mashed potatos when it came to camping.

So knock the Saints all you want, but maybe you're wrong. Seems to me they had a backpacking tradition...it was a long, long walk from Nauvoo.

And after 50 years in Scouting, near enough, this is the first time I ever heard of this "reputation."

The Weasel

[sliderule]

And after 50 years in Scouting, near enough, this is the first time I ever heard of this "reputation."

The Weasel

Same here.

[Skyline]

Jack is correct: Individuals started the fire.

Given that he understands that, I can't fathom why Jack wants to extend responsibility to the BSA.

Other than they have insurance. Is that a good reason?

What do people think the BSA did, exactly?

At worse, my guess is they had a lax policy with regard to how they managed trip reoprts filed by individual troops.

BFD.

The BSA didn't start this fire.

Some kids did.

The kids and/or their leaders may have started the fire. But they were there under the auspices of the Boy Scouts of America. Seems like a shared responsibility to me. And why would BSA and/or its individual troops have so much insurance if they didn't think they might be culpable when something like this happens?

[jollies]

LDS troops have a reputation for turning out well behaved and polite Eagle Scouts with the outdoor skills of 2nd Class scouts. That reputation may or not be deserved.

This is rubbish and obviously a troll response. I hope no one is actually giving this more than a passing thought.

Even though I doubt that I will, if I hear anything further through my inside channels, I'll be sure to pass it along.

[Skyline]

And some Scouters will see a screw-up by a Utah troop and roll their eyes. I've been waiting for someone else to bring it up, but nobody has so I'll open the can of worms...

Scout troops sponsored by LDS churches do not enjoy the best reputations for outdoor skills.

Because the Mormon-backed Scouts have an agenda of religious indoctrination to the exclusion of backcountry skills.

[rickb]

SMs in situations like that have a duty to act in a reasonable manner - the way a reasonable man or woman in the same situation would act - to prevent harm to other people and to property. If she/he didn't, as a part of Scouting, then they very likely have made their organization responsible, too.Understood.

But for the sake of discussion, if the parent organization were shown to have done everything reasonable and appropriate with regard to establishing policies and following them, doing appropriate backgound checks, monitoring and training, etc, etc, would the BSA still be held responsible?

My guess is that those loooking to exact payment from the BSA will be working very hard to show that the BSA dropped the ball on one or more of those points. Because if the didn't, then they would very likely not get paid. (Or get paid just a small amount for what they can scare out of a timid insurance company).

As this thread progresses, I can think of any number of situations where the Council could have dropped the ball-- but even more where it may not have.

Where is www.thesmokinggun.com (http://www.thesmokinggun.com) when you need it? :)

[unl1988]

Sounds like a pretty easy thread to allow folks to air their dirty laundry about the Scouts. Sorry that a few individuals caused such a large destruction, but don't use it as a means to bash the entire Scouting program.

Remember, most folks that appreciate the outdoors got their initial experiences through a Scouting program. The Scouting programs go to great length to teach and enforce a Leave No Trace policy and provide a great vehicle to get kids to do something productive.

So, as your airing your grievances about your poor experience on the trail or your personal complaint about the program, remember, the Scouting programs do a lot of good, but can't watch (and be held responsible) for the actions of the minority.

[Jaybird]

Sue 'em! Sue 'em!

take those stinkin' badges!

[rickb]

Looks like our government once felt it appropriate to sue the Church over this as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/06/26/state-of-utah-sues-mormon_n_3212.html

[Dances with Mice]

Looks like our government once felt it appropriate to sue the Church over this as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/06/26/state-of-utah-sues-mormon_n_3212.html

When the State of Utah sues the Morman Church it's a clear conflict of interest.

Is any Scouter on this thread familiar with the term "Eagle Factories"? If so, would anyone care to define the term as they understand it? If you haven't heard the term feel free to admit that also.

[Skidsteer]

And if there is a Gawhd then I'm going straight to Hayell for what I did to them two fellahs in white shirts who knocked on my door in college. No doubt about it at all. I stilll feel kinda guilty about all that but our story is probably in some sort of training brochure now.

Jus' sayin'.

That's a story I'd like to hear one day.

Don't fret about it too much. I could easily see the Almighty himself killin' the TV and turning the lights off to avoid the hassle.

[Dances with Mice]

That's a story I'd like to hear one day.So whatchya doin' Saint Pattie's Day? I might be hanging out around a trout pond that day. The following, Skid, is not directed at you:

Anybody that wants to discuss the LDS Scouting program with me could start by explaining how many Girl Scout units are sponsored by the LDS and the difference between that number and the number of BSA units sponsored. And the obvious reason why. If you don't know don't guess. Take your time, do your research then get back in touch. This thread will still be here.

That's a great filter that knocks out the "I know a Mormon Scout and he's hot stuff!" and the "I never heard nothin' 'bout no such thang, yew must be a Tee-Roll, boy!" posters.

Me, being a bettin' man and all, thinks this portion of the discussion just died.

[Rain Man]

...When Ford engineers designed a bad gas tank for the Pinto, Ford Motor got hung out to dry; it's a very well known principle....

Huh? In the Pinto fire crash case I'm familiar with, super attorney James Neal got Ford off scott free in Indiana.

And besides, it wasn't the engineers who designed a bad gas tank, it was the penny-pinching managers who decided a $5 part wasn't worth the extra cost to make the tank safer in a crash.

Unless you know something I don't. Or, maybe there were later cases in other jurisdictions?

Rain:sunMan

.

[Skidsteer]

So whatchya doin' Saint Pattie's Day? I might be hanging out around a trout pond that day.

Huh. What a coincidence. See you then(Lord willin' and I don't get run over by a bicycle).

[The Weasel]

This is rubbish and obviously a troll response. I hope no one is actually giving this more than a passing thought.

Even though I doubt that I will, if I hear anything further through my inside channels, I'll be sure to pass it along.

I want to amplify an earlier message I put on the issue of "LDS Troops" and this "reputation" nonsense:

First, there is no such thing as an "LDS Troop" any more than there are "Catholic Troops" or "Jewish Troops" or "Rotary Troops." BSA allows nearly any organization (including businesses, for that matter) that subscribes to the principles of Scouting, to receive a "charter" that allows the formation of a unit (Cub Pack, Scout Troop, Varsity Crew or Explorer Post). BSA further requires that any youth in the particular age group be permitted to join, regardless of religious affiliation (there is a requirement that the youth have a religious belief, although not necessarily a membership). Many churches do so, and the Roman Catholic Church, the LDS Church, and the Methodist Church are the largest sponsors, along with other groups in the thousands. There are LDS members in Troops that meet at Catholic Churches and vice versa, and all other permutations.

Second, I've been member of the BSA since 1954, and an adult member since 1965, and served in every kind of Scout unit there is, from committee member to the principal leader, as well as heavy activity as a member of local Council Executive Boards, District Committees and more. In that entire time I have not heard one reference to any kind of "reputation" that units sponsored by LDS churches have. There have been strong ones, weak ones, some that did a lot of outdoor work, and some that did other things. All met the standards - including for outdoor activities - of Scouting.

I'm an Episcopalian, and I don't agree with many of the tenets of the LDS Church, just as I don't agree with some things of other Christian and non-Christian religious groups. But this is an unsupported and unsupportable slam on a religious group, and one that is unknown to me or any other Scouter I've ever spent much time with.

The Weasel

[The Weasel]

***Is any Scouter on this thread familiar with the term "Eagle Factories"? If so, would anyone care to define the term as they understand it? If you haven't heard the term feel free to admit that also.

This is a term (along with "Eagle Mills") referring to Troops that have a significantly higher-than-average (2% of total members who have ever joined a unit) who become Eagle Scouts. It's usually derisive, and often from Troops that are not successful in having a strong enough program to keep young men interested past about age 14; units that can do that successfully (say, to about 16, sometimes 17) can provide the means for their Scouts to complete the very extensive requirements for Eagle Scout.

Frankly, it's usually used out of jealousy.

The Weasel

[ed bell]

Any Muslim Mosque Boy Scout Chapters?:-? Just wondering, cause LDS is quite a ways away from the Catholic Church.

[The Weasel]

Any Muslim Mosque Boy Scout Chapters?:-? Just wondering, cause LDS is quite a ways away from the Catholic Church.

They're not "chapters", but "units" (Packs, Troops, Crews, Posts) depending on age or program. And there aren't "Muslim Units" any more than there are any other religion. But there ARE mosques and Islamic associations which charter (sponsor) units, and there are a number of Islamic-specific Scouting Awards for Islamic Scouts.

http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-928.html

A Harvard research report I found indicates there are 112 Islamic units. By that, I assume they mean there that many Islamic sponsors; while most Scouts would probably be Islamic, I would be surprised if ALL were in units that were sizeable (20+). Even so, non-Islamic Scouts would be capable of joining such units. .

The Weasel

[mrc237]

What a "HOT" topic! I have one question: When a BSA Troop is camping on BSA property and an individual scout destroys BSA property either by accident or on purpose who is responsible?

[rickb]

I added "camp" to my Google and came up with this:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20040702/ai_n11473613

This looks to be written before our Government decided to sue the Mormon Church.

It does look like the fire took place at a summer camp, with the Council having directly hired those who were charged with supervisory responsibilities at that camp.


The Great Salt Lake Council employed an adult and two juveniles implicated in the fire, which is why the council is the target, but that doesn't mean they are the only ones culpable, Johnson said.This could make all the difference to the reasonableness of the suit, IMO.

[The Weasel]

What a "HOT" topic! I have one question: When a BSA Troop is camping on BSA property and an individual scout destroys BSA property either by accident or on purpose who is responsible?

The Scout (and his parents) would be considered responsible and, in the appropriate case, may be looked to for payment of the loss, and the unit may be looked to, if it has insurance. More commonly, the camp - owned by a council - would have its own insurance and would leave it there, unless it rose to the level of a criminal complaint.

The Weasel

[pitdog]

The BSA is responsiable of showing many many people the right ways to do things in the wilds lets focus on the posititve things that have been done and how many lives have been indirectly or directly saved by there teachings.

[ASUGrad]

Funny. The local LDS troop actually has LDS on their troop flag.

Being involved in Scouting, I am aware that there are too many Scouts that are in Scouts because it "might straighten them out". Too many of them would rather be home playing video games which makes activities very difficult. That's how bad things happen.

We are fortunate because we are located 20 minutes from the AT so we can do a lot more hikes than many troops. We spend a large amount of time on 'Leave No Trace'. Maybe we need to spend more time on "Don't do stupid stuff".

[minnesotasmith]

So whatchya doin' Saint Pattie's Day? I might be hanging out around a trout pond that day. The following, Skid, is not directed at you:

Anybody that wants to discuss the LDS Scouting program with me could start by explaining how many Girl Scout units are sponsored by the LDS and the difference between that number and the number of BSA units sponsored. And the obvious reason why. If you don't know don't guess. Take your time, do your research then get back in touch. This thread will still be here.

That's a great filter that knocks out the "I know a Mormon Scout and he's hot stuff!" and the "I never heard nothin' 'bout no such thang, yew must be a Tee-Roll, boy!" posters.

Me, being a bettin' man and all, thinks this portion of the discussion just died.
=============================================

Whatever else can be said against the various LDS organizations (and there is much), they do teach moral behavior. This includes the Biblically-based position that the only acceptable sex is within marriage between an adult man and an adult woman. They are willing to take flak from the "anything goes" ultraliberals to stay with what they believe is right. They also want their adult leaders put in positions of trust to agree with this position, deeming known practicing homosexuals to be morally unfit to serve as examples to youth. All this is true of the Boy Scouts as well.

It is NOT true of the Girl Scouts, however. I understand that openly active and proselytizing lesbians are not screened for nor removed when identified. I don't think they have much in the way of checking for child molesters in adults wanting to working with children, either, but don't remember too much about this.

There are other traditional values issues with the Girl Scouts as well. For all these reasons, a large number of people with a background in and interest in helping girls personal development in a Scouting environment have founded a successor organization to the Girl Scouts 11 years ago (with troops in 32 states so far) that still holds to the orginial values of Scouting (that the Boy Scouts do, and the Girl Scout national leadership arguably does not). It is called "Heritage Girls". Here is their link:

http://www.ahgonline.org/

Their creed:

As an American Heritage Girl, I promise to be:
Compassionate - Understanding others in fellowship, empathy, kindness, and caring. Respect others' opinions and emotions.
Helpful - Willingly serve others.
Honest - Always tell the truth and keep my promise.
Loyal - True to God, family, friends, community and country.
Persevering - Continuing to strive toward a goal despite obstacles.
Pure - Keep my mind and body pure.
Resourceful - Wisely use my time, materials and talents.
Respectful - Honor my country, be obedient to those in authority and courteous to all.
Responsible - Accountable for my own actions. Reliable in all situations.
Reverent - Faithful and honoring to God. Respectful to the beliefs of others.

AHG's Vision Statement:

American Heritage Girls is the premier scouting organization for young women that provides a program which embraces time honored moral standards while encouraging each member to grow in their faith in God, personal integrity, family values, citizenship and community service


Compare this with the Girl Scouts:

http://www.girlscouts.org/program/

four fundamental goals that encourage girls to:

Develop to their full potential.
Relate to others with increasing understanding, skill, and respect.
Develop a meaningful set of values* to guide their actions and to provide for sound decision-making.
Contribute to the improvement of society. *Can you say "situational ethics"?

then, there is this: http://www.girlscouts.org/program/gs_central/promise_law/

The Girl Scout Promise

On my honor, I will try:
To serve God* and my country,
To help people at all times,
And to live by the Girl Scout Law.

* The word "God" can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one's spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is okay to replace the word "God" with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate.

The "Goddess", Wicca, Pan, Cthulu, Hecate, Gloria Steinem, Kali -- sounds as if any of these would be just peachy in the Girl Scouts.

An example of evidence for the LDS reasonably concluding the Girl Scouts are not a healthy place with leaders living lives they hope their daughters would emulate, given their beliefs:

"Girl Scout leaders writing in the 1997 book "On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect On Their Scouting Experience" reveal that the Girl Scouts are inundated with lesbians; a third of their professional staff is lesbian; and, they have even initiated a lesbian mentoring program"

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF
p. 281 The LDS organizations have done their homework about the Girl Scouts, it looks like. They have definite reasons given their belief system for deeming the GS to not be a wholesome environment to teach girls about the outdoors.


I ran across some other stuff about how the GS are deemed by Mormons an unhealthy organization for entrusting their young daughters, but this post is long enough now and IMO has answered the original question.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Funny. The local LDS troop actually has LDS on their troop flag.

Having lived in Utah at one time this comes as no surprise. That Scout leaders of LDS sponsored troops are appointed by LDS Bishops I did not know. I find this very enlightening, but again, given the Church's influence, again no surprise. Then again, I doubt I would be deemed "worthy" of offering comment - by either the LDS Church or the BSA.


...Maybe we need to spend more time on "Don't do stupid stuff".

Any chance the National Council might heed this advice?:rolleyes:

[4eyedbuzzard]

* The word "God" can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one's spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is okay to replace the word "God" with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate.[/I]

Ya mean like all those Deists back in the late 1700's? Or more like Lincoln a bit later? Please enlighten me as to how the popularity of one religion over another, or none, affects morality, ethics, leadership etc. I'm all ears.

[MOWGLI]

OBEDIENT = implies compliance with the demands or requests of one in authority

That is not something that I have ever taught my daughters. That's a recipe for sexual abuse if I ever saw it.

Be respectful? Yes. Obedient? No.

[saimyoji]

OBEDIENT = implies compliance with the demands or requests of one in authority

That is not something that I have ever taught my daughters. That's a recipe for sexual abuse if I ever saw it.

Be respectful? Yes. Obedient? No.

Well, not just sexual abuse, but abuse of any kind. Steals the soul so to speak. I bet your kids are some terrific people, based on reading your posts. :cool:

[MOWGLI]

Well, not just sexual abuse, but abuse of any kind. Steals the soul so to speak. I bet your kids are some terrific people, based on reading your posts. :cool:

Thanks for the compliment Saimyoji. I'd like to think they are terrific, but what parent wouldn't? They certainly know right from wrong. And they sometimes call me on my "stuff", like my youngest did yesterday when I wasn't allowing someone to merge ahead of me in traffic. :o

[Rain Man]

Whatever else can be said against the various LDS organizations (and there is much), they do teach moral behavior.

Wasn't this exactly the problem with the Pharisees? They were, after all, among the most religious, moral people in the Bible. They could quote the Ten Commandments verbatim, didn't work on the Sabbath, didn't have anything to do with unclean women, wore the right robes, built huge temples, and generally had "moral behavior" down to a firm science. They were so religious and morally superior, they spent a lot of time preaching "moral behavior" to some guy from Galilee, if I'm not mistaken. ~wink~


This includes the Biblically-based position that the only acceptable sex is within marriage between an adult man and an adult woman.

Well, another Bible-based position is polygomy, correct? Heck, another one is owning slaves! The Bible is a wonderful book, but religious people screw it up terribly. LOL


They are willing to take flak from the "anything goes" ultraliberals to stay with what they believe is right.

Since the Pharisees, Levites, Romans, and others had that same attitude with respect to Christ Jesus, I wonder who that holier-than-thou strictness really condemns?


Pure - Keep my mind and body pure.

For those who may not know, this is the reason the priest and the Levite couldn't help the man whom The Good Samaritan helped. They had to keep themselves "pure" in mind and body.

The Bible is full of people who knew and strictly followed the right religious laws, but by their life examples were apparently clueless about the spirit of those same laws. It should be different today. Anyway, that's my opinion. ~wink~

Rain:sunMan

.

[Littlest Hobo]

Whatever else can be said against the various LDS organizations (and there is much), they do teach moral behavior. This includes the Biblically-based position that the only acceptable sex is within marriage between an adult man and an adult woman. They are willing to take flak from the "anything goes" ultraliberals to stay with what they believe is right. They also want their adult leaders put in positions of trust to agree with this position, deeming known practicing homosexuals to be morally unfit to serve as examples to youth.


While the LDS is busy condemning the immorality of sex outside the confines marriage, I thought I would highlight some recently published statistics:

An analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (a survey of 39,837 men and women) conducted in 2006 fond that “75 percent reported having had sex before marriage by age 20, while 93 percent had done so by age 30 and 95 percent had by age 40.”

Looks like immorality is the norm, eh MS?:-?

As far as “known practicing homosexuals to be morally unfit to serve as examples to youth”… Well my sister – a cop in the inner city – would have a few choice words to say about that.

Then again, she was a girl scout when she was young, so I guess that explains it, eh MS?

[bfitz]

An organization is responsible for the actions of it's representatives. Just like a captain of a ship. It may inspire them to improve the training and vetting of troop leaders etc. It's what they are insured against in the first place.

[bfitz]

By age 40?!?! I'd have probably killed myself by then.

[rickb]

OBEDIENT = implies compliance with the demands or requests of one in authority

That is not something that I have ever taught my daughters. That's a recipe for sexual abuse if I ever saw it.

Be respectful? Yes. Obedient? No.

That's a bit of a stretch, I think.

The Boy Scout Handbook defines “obedient” as follows:

“A Scout is OBEDIENT. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.”

[The Weasel]

Having lived in Utah at one time this comes as no surprise. That Scout leaders of LDS sponsored troops are appointed by LDS Bishops I did not know. I find this very enlightening, but again, given the Church's influence, again no surprise. Then again, I doubt I would be deemed "worthy" of offering comment - by either the LDS Church or the BSA.

Buzzard, if a LDS Church sponsors a Scout unit (such as a Cub Pack or Scout Troop), as Sponsor (called "Chartered Institution" in Scouting, since the "charter" is much like a "franchise") is responsible for finding and appointing a qualified adult as Scoutmaster and for approving all other registered leaders and unit committee members. They may do so from their own membership if that is their wish. The same occurs with many other churches, and some other organizations do much the same.


Any chance the National Council might heed this advice?:rolleyes:

I'm not sure what "advice" you're referring to, but local councils are where the important decisions are made (and the rest are routed 'upstairs' to the National Council, and frankly, opinions that don't try to trash Scouting are generally welcome.


Ya mean like all those Deists back in the late 1700's? Or more like Lincoln a bit later? Please enlighten me as to how the popularity of one religion over another, or none, affects morality, ethics, leadership etc. I'm all ears.

While Boy Scouting (unlike Girl Scouting) requires a belief in a Supreme Being, which can be satisfied by membership in a religious group, although Scouting doesn't say which Supreme Being. This is a source of both confusion, serious contention among many of us involved in Scouting (and the outside world, too), and some humor: Thus, a youth who is Buddhist qualifies, although many Buddhists do not have a belief in a supreme being, and a youth who is Unitarian but doesn't believe in God is eligible. But an atheist isn't, unless already a Unitarian. Most of us at the unit level just don't worry about this, but it is a problem some places.


That's a bit of a stretch, I think.

The Boy Scout Handbook defines “obedient” as follows:

“A Scout is OBEDIENT. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.”

Most Boy Scouts are taught that Scouting encourages disagreement with rules and concepts that can be questioned, while recognizing that good citizens don't pick and choose. The "gloss" that Rick quotes clearly permits non-violent civil disobedience, but not blind obedience to authority: The description 0of "Brave" in the Scout Law includes, "A scout is brave. He has the courage to stand up for the right against the coaxings of friends and the jeers or threats of enemies ***." In other words, if one of my Scouts was directed to obey a leader and do something wrong, I would hope he would be brave enough to say, "No, I stand up for what's right." I've seen some do this. I'm very proud of them.

The Weasel

[Outlaw]

A timid insurance company is the epitome of an oxymoron.

[quote=pitdog;304475]The BSA is responsiable of showing many many people the right ways to do things in the wilds lets focus on the posititve things that have been done and how many lives have been indirectly or directly saved by there teachings.

Pitdog, I concur. But like many large social or religious orginization, bad things do occur. If my memory serves me correctly (please correctly me if I'm wrong), didn't a number of boy scouts die needlessly a couple of years back while attending the annual Philmont Jamboree from excessive dehydration? This event, if true, I would assume occurred under the immediate and direct supervision of many, many scout masters.

While backpacking in the Adirondacks two summers ago, we checked into a lean-to (with a privy) and read the journal. The lean-to was vacated the morning we arrived by a group of boy scouts from the Philadelphia area. The journal indicated that no one else had stayed at the lean-to for quite a number of days (it was well off the beaten path and not near any roads). When we scoped out the surrounding area, we found no less than DOZENS of "Charmin flowers" all over the place (some were just a few feet from the lean-to)! We were, to say the least, grossed out by their lack of back woods skills, etiquette and common decency. LNT was never a consideration. We found burned foil and plastic wrappers in the fire pit.

I tried to contact the troop HQ when we got back home, but to no avail. We did leave a lengthy note in the journal forewarning others as to what we found upon our arrival. I should have contacted the rangers, but chose not to make a federal case (actually a state matter) out of this.

BSA has many good qualitites, but it is still made up of humans; some who are knowledgeable and caring, and still others who do not share the same level of dedication.

[gsingjane]

In response to "Minnesotasmith's" post on page 5 of the thread:

One of the ways I try to keep from having to buy too much wrinkle cream and hair dye is by refusing to rise to troll baits, whether on this board or any others. I guess I can't just sit here and listen to such malicious accusations regarding the Girl Scouts, though.

The statements that GS/USA is a stomping ground for "recruiting lesbians" and "does not bother" to check whether adult volunteers have criminal records are silly and utterly false. The implication that GS/USA "doesn't care" whether or not girls are molested while participating in its programs is outrageously false.

Parents can choose to have their children join whatever organizations they like. These can include Scouts, or, for a variety of reasons, parents may choose to have their children join other groups. Parents may wish to have their children socialize and participate in activities only with those of their own race or religion or ethnic background, others may wish to have their children meet and engage with others who are different. In either case, a responsible parent knows who the adults are that are interacting with the child, monitors the group's activities, and makes sure there is open, two-way communication with the leader and the child, such that the child feels free to come to the parent with any concerns or problems.

I sincerely hope that readers of White Blaze will have the good common sense to disregard the outrageous comments made in this thread about Girl Scouts. While we may disagree about politics or environmental or social issues, and there is often fair ground for debate about many of these things; however, calling a national children's group a "recruiting ground for homosexuals" and an enabler of child molestation goes far, far beyond the pale.

Jane in CT

p.s. This is Jane in CT's son-- I am also an avid AT hiker and have section hiked a few states with her and also some in my home state, Connecticut with my BSA troop. First of all, from my personal and current (emphasis on current, my experience isn't crusty in any way) experience, LDS troops are exactly the same as regular troops, in that they like to light stuff on fire, earn merit badges, and go to summer camp. Pretty standard. I think that LDS troops receive exactly the same outdoor training as your average troop does. There was even an LDS troop at Philmont, which I attended last summer. This is probably the most challenging thing that BSA can give you (aside from specific troop backpacks that are crazy long) and I can tell you, ya gotta be pretty well trained to do it. They finished just fine, ahead of some other troops even. The only thing that sets the LDS troops apart from your average BSA troop is that it is a gathering of people who share the same religion. They share the wonderful opportunity to enjoy the splendid outdoors while learning valuable leadership and survival skills. Now on to my rant: I understand that Girl Scouts is a veritable Plagueland of Child Molesters! O.O!!! That is an absolutely outrageous claim against an organization which has upheld the values which our very country was built on. As a 14-year-old, I understand that my world experience might not be as advanced or as bottomless as some people's, but from what I can see, you are founding an atrocious accusation against not only thousands of adults worldwide who give up their time to help girls overcome the obstacles (which are smaller than they were, but still do exist) to live a happy, full life as leaders and businesswomen, or in whatever field they choose, but also against my mother, who is a Girl Scout leader. I have listened to the long hours on the phone, hours of tapping out emails to other leaders and to ever-stubborn moms. Even while I type, the phone rings and it is a Girl Scout leader, calling to talk with my mom about yet another cookie sales issue. A desperate scramble ensues, where she fires off several emails, more phone calls, and writes a document. My mom gives up days of her time traveling to and from camps, going to and from meetings, and picking up and dropping off documents. And most of all, my mom isn't a molester. Kel'thuzad in CT

[Topcat]

Funny how this thread has evolved and, as always, MS comes up with the the lightning rod of comments.

Anyone interested in the origins and growth of the Morman Church should check out Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. It is interesting, informative and entertaining.

As to the original topic of this thread, has anyone verified what actually happened yet and who was supervising the scouts? Most of what i have read is people saying what should or shouldnt have happened (including my own comments, by the way).

[MOWGLI]

That's a bit of a stretch, I think.

The Boy Scout Handbook defines “obedient” as follows:

“A Scout is OBEDIENT. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.”

Since I don't own a Scout Handbook (I left scouting before I graduated from Cub Scouts) I used the Webster's definition. Anyway, I stand by my comments. Many parents do teach blind obedience. This one doesn't.

Reminds me of the Resist Much, Obey Little bumpersticker I had on my car in the 90s. That generated quite a bit of family discussion. Once and old timer was indignant at seeing the sticker in a supermarket parking lot, and he approached my wife and wanted to know what it meant. He said, "all my life, I've been taught to obey." My wife explained it was her husband's (my) sticker, and that as far as she knew, it meant "think for yourself."

She done good.

[mrc237]

Kel'thuzad------nice work!!!!

[chazmo]

originally posted by nickthegreek: The quality of each troop varies widely and generally is a function of the dedication of the chartering activity (church groups, lion's club etc) and the adult volunteers. The focus of troops (outdoors/community service/Eagle scout mills)vary widely even within the same community.

This is very true... As an Eagle Scout and current adult leader, I can vouch that the badly organized/lead troops are highly visible and attract attention. Unfortunately, the majority of observers stereotype that all Boy Scouts act this way.

However, for every troop that attracts attention, there is another that you will not notice because they do practice low impact and you will never know they were there.

[4eyedbuzzard]

gsingjane,

Thank you for your comments, which my wife and I as former GSA leaders wholeheartedly agree with. (Yes, men can be members and/or co-leaders in GSA guys).

Weasel,

At one time I was involved in BSA as a scout, and later as a teenager, often volunteering to help my uncle when he took his troop on backpacking trips(the lack of parental volunteers has probably always been an issue). I think scouting(including BSA) is a wonderful opportunity for kids, and I applaud the often thankless effort put forth by adult leaders and volunteers. And I do realize that at the local level, much of the current political and policy issues simply don't arise or realistically exist.

That said, I have also had some negative experiences that led to my earlier off the cuff comments.

My comment about the LDS Church was based upon my family's personal experience of having our children excluded from many activities, including getting the "cold shoulder" from a Cub Scout den in UT. Other "nevermo" families we knew had similar experiences. In my experience, the LDS are often more than a just a church, they are very much a exclusive culture that remains suspicious and often intolerant of outside influence. I'm not saying ALL are this way, this was just my and others experience. This thread is probably not the best venue to discuss in detail such a subject based on WB policy.

My comments on the BSA National Council reflects my opinion that BSA at that level has become more interested in promoting an anti-gay and anti-atheist/agnostic (NOT necessarily pro-straight, pro-religion) political agenda than in developing leadership, ethics, etc. in young people. I would point most notably to the case of Darrell Lambert http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/31/atheist.scout.ap/index.html
an atheist Eagle Scout who was given a week by the Seattle Council to "profess a belief" or be ousted. The key word here is "profess." To his credit, Lambert displayed a higher degree of integrity than the BSA itself, which asked him to lie for the sake of expediency. By refusing to profess something he truly didn't believe, I find him a far better leadership example and role model for youth than an organization that would encourage their members to lie.

On the issue of gays in scouting, a somewhat different, yet similar situation exists. The de-facto "don't ask, don't tell" policy again reflects the BSA's pre-occupation with its image over anything else. While no one is asked their orientation, if they do profess/admit to being gay, they are ousted. The message: Stay in the closet and you're welcome. Once again, image trumps truth and integrity.

While I might well agree that gay and/or atheist/agnostic ACTIVISM could be reasonable grounds for declining to accept someone as a leader(due to PROMOTING an agenda that is not consonant with scouting principles), the current policies are downright absurd at many times especially regarding the scouts themselves, most notably at Cub Scout age and at the beginning age of regular Boy Scouts. The kids are there to be with friends, to belong to "something bigger", to learn about things that interest them, to go camping, etc. It is rather absurd to think that a child at these ages has formed a definitive or finalized self-image as to his spirtuality or sexuality. That generally comes later, and is part of the development the BSA is supposed to be fostering.

If I didn't care about the BSA I wouldn't honestly take the time to criticize it. I think the BSA has and can continue to be a great organization for youth development. However, the BSA at the national level has become so absorbed with politics and image over their stated mission of youth development that they are actually suggesting that scouts and leaders, at best ignore or obfuscate the truth; and at worst, they outright ask young men to lie. Something stinks around the campfire, and it's the leadership.

[RadioFreq]

If my memory serves me correctly (please correctly me if I'm wrong), didn't a number of boy scouts die needlessly a couple of years back while attending the annual Philmont Jamboree from excessive dehydration? This event, if true, I would assume occurred under the immediate and direct supervision of many, many scout masters.

You are confusing two events from the past Jamoboree. 5 adults (4 Alaskan Scout leaders and a local contractor) were electrocuted when they lost control of the tall center pole for one of those Spider shelters and it tipped into some nearby high power lines. Don't know if it was the contractor's idea or one of the Scout Leader's but they had no business setting that huge thing up that close to those power lines.

The other event was later in the week when many succumbed to the heat while marching to and waiting in the outdoor amphitheater (no shade) while temps were over 100 degrees. No one died and I forget the exact number but a lot of people were hospitalized and the show was cancelled. The blame for that debacle fell clearly on the powers that be at "National" who didn't use any common sense. There's more to this story but I'm not going to go into it now.

[Outlaw]

RadioFreq, thank you for pointing out my misunderstanding of the facts. I googled the event and found, just as you said; 4 dead SM due to electrocution and later that same week numerous (300+) scouts treated and many even hospitalized for dehydration and heat stroke
(no scouts died). Very sad state of affairs from what I read. Certainly not a good way to celebrate a BSA jamboree!

However, these incidents do illuminate just how human error and poor judgment can have devastating effects. Even at a national level event such as this one, we see adult BSA leaders failing to properly safeguard the children they are charged with caring for. It certainly is a blackeye on the face of the BSA and demonstrates that the forest fire first written about above could have occurred even while the scouts were under "proper" adult (over 21) supervision.

[RadioFreq]

It certainly is a blackeye on the face of the BSA and demonstrates that the forest fire first written about above could have occurred even while the scouts were under "proper" adult (over 21) supervision.

True....less likely, but true.

[Chiefstryker]

The other event was later in the week when many succumbed to the heat while marching to and waiting in the outdoor amphitheater (no shade) while temps were over 100 degrees. No one died and I forget the exact number but a lot of people were hospitalized and the show was cancelled. The blame for that debacle fell clearly on the powers that be at "National" who didn't use any common sense. There's more to this story but I'm not going to go into it now.

The fault for that one lays on the Secret Service not "National". That was the day President Bush was supposed to be there and the Secret Service changed the security screening at the last moment to make it more stringent causing a 2-3 hour delay to get in. I don't see how you can make the argument that "National" is responsible for that, when the Secret Service changed the rules at the last minute.

Chiefstryker

[Rain Man]

... I don't see how you can make the argument that "National" is responsible for that, when the Secret Service changed the rules at the last minute.

Then you don't "see" very well.

For "Natonal" to throw up its hands and fall back onto blaming the Secret Service is a lame, lame excuse. "National" should have guidelines for unforeseen circumstances. That's an EASY argument to make, one among several perhaps.

Whatever happened to "always prepared?"

Rain:sunMan

.

[Outlaw]

I concur with Rainman. The SS were responsible solely for the President's safety; they were not charged with the responsibility of maintaining the health and well-being of all the boy scouts at the jamboree.

If I had a child at that jamboree who became ill due to dehydration or heat stroke, you can rest assured that I would hold his scout master fully accountable, as he is the one I would have directly authorized to oversee my child's safety, health and well-being. However, what about the adult leaders in charge of the event? 300 kids go off to the hospital-- that's no small number and in my eyes is evidence of a systemic problem with the BSA administration at that event.

I have nothing against the BSA. I believe they do a lot of good for boys, but they have their share of shortfalls, as does any organization or business. The difference is that children's lives are at stake, not just some corporate profits.

[The Weasel]

Well, you had to be there...or at least know what that means......

The "main events" at the Jamboree are held in a large, natural amphitheater that wil hold about 40,000 or so people, including the roughly 30,000 Scouts and Leaders who attend the Jamboree and 10,000 or more visitors. To get in, Scouts form into ranks at their campsites, some of which are about 2 miles away. (Trust me on this: In 1989, I measured where the troop I lead was placed...we were the furthest of any unit.) They then are led in over roughly an hour and a half in an increasing wave of units. It's not like a concert where people arrive on their own to assigned seats; its a major logistical event. For the "main show" in 1993, it took my unit about 2.5 hours to get in. "The Walk" is fun, but slow: Think Los Angeles freeway rush hour, but with bodies, not cars.

The shows are in the evening, which is cooler, but days in central Virginia are incredibly hot and very humid, and Scouts are issued water to carry and water sources are all over. But to form up and come into the amphitheater during the day is both hot AND thirsty. And there aren't more sources of water in it. That's not a problem.....IF something doesn't slow it all down.

For a President to visit is big stuff: I remember seeing Ike in '60, close up, and will never forget our disappointment in '64 when LBJ didn't come for fear of war protests. So Scouts (and leaders) want to see this. But for the Secret Service to slow things down (however legitimately) WHILE EVERYONE WAS ALREADY IN THE AMPHITHEATER was not something that the National Council could aniticpate.

So yeah. It was just another Bush Administration screw up, and yes, I agree with the National Council.

The Weasel

[Blissful]

So yeah. It was just another Bush Administration screw up, The Weasel


The Weasel, Please, I value your comments on many things but this was uncalled for. Political statements like this belong in the political forum.
I know I'm in the very small minority it seems but I hold nothing but admiration for a president that has served through extraordinary circumstances in our nation's history. Oh yeah, and he's human too.

[Ender]

The Weasel, Please, I value your comments on many things but this was uncalled for. Political statements like this belong in the political forum.
I know I'm in the very small minority it seems but I hold nothing but admiration for a president that has served through extraordinary circumstances in our nation's history. Oh yeah, and he's human too.

Blissful, political statements like this belong in the political forum. This was uncalled for. :p :p :p :p

Just kidding, sort of. You can't ask someone not to say political things and then turn right around and do the very same thing. But I mean this in the most lighthearted manner possible, and mean no disrespect at all.

[Outlaw]

For the "main show" in 1993, it took my unit about 2.5 hours to get in. "The Walk" is fun, but slow: Think Los Angeles freeway rush hour, but with bodies, not cars.

Sorry, Rusty, but this just doesn't sound like much "fun" to me, especially in light of the central Virginia weather you describe below.

days in central Virginia are incredibly hot and very humid, and Scouts are issued water to carry and water sources are all over. But to form up and come into the amphitheater during the day is both hot AND thirsty. And there aren't more sources of water in it. That's not a problem.....IF something doesn't slow it all down.

Something does not jive here. If the scouts are issued water and additional sources of water are all over, then why should the trek into the amphitheater be "...thirsty"? And why, if there are water sources all over, wasn't any located within the amphitheater, vis-a-vis coolers filled with bottles of water, garden hoses or 5 gal. bottled water dispensers?

But for the Secret Service to slow things down (however legitimately) WHILE EVERYONE WAS ALREADY IN THE AMPHITHEATER was not something that the National Council could aniticpate.

I know the Nat'l Council cannot anticipate every contingency, but it seems to me under the extraordinary conditions present (extreme heat, lack of water, the recent deaths of 4 Scout Masters, etc.), that perhaps the Nat'l Council leaders should have cancelled the President's visit, rather then subjecting thousands of scouts and SMs to unbearable heat conditions.

So yeah. It was just another Bush Administration screw up, and yes, I agree with the National Council.

So, not only did the "Bush Administration screw up" in 2005 but also the Johnson Administration in 1964 for all things, the fear of war protests.

Logistics are a difficult matter when dealing with such a huge number of people, but that is no excuse or defense for so many CHILDREN taking ill. I see a lot of culpability on the part of the BSA Nat'l Council leaders.

Perhaps it is time to return to the issue raised in the very first post, which I will reserve comment on until new and more detailed facts are provided.

N.B. My comments are in bold print within the quote and additional comments are included after the quote in regular print.

[The Weasel]

The Weasel, Please, I value your comments on many things but this was uncalled for. Political statements like this belong in the political forum.
I know I'm in the very small minority it seems but I hold nothing but admiration for a president that has served through extraordinary circumstances in our nation's history. Oh yeah, and he's human too.

You're right that I shouldn't have put the last part of it in; it wasn't "uncalled for" since it is a screwup, and I am always a bit irked when Scouting gets a knock that it doesn't deserve (and it deserves some, but not this one), which is probably how you feel about my comment, and you're right. And it wasn't an 'administration' screwup, since the Secret Service is nonpolitical, but it was a screwup.

But you're right, and if anyone wants to edit that part out, I wouldn't mind.

Sorry!

The Weasel

[RadioFreq]

Well since you are now getting into the story let me climb onto my soapbox. First you need a little bit of the back story.

You have to remember that at the previous Jamboree the President was scheduled to helicopter in but had to cancel because the weather was bad. He did not reschedule to appear at the 2nd show. Several months later.......9/11. Fast forward to the last Jamboree. The reasons for the President and his staff to really desire to appear at this one should be obvious. I have no doubt that there was a great deal of pressure by them on National to get this done...as well as a great desire by National to have it happen. And, yes, the Secret Service had put a bunch of procedures and restrictions in place for all who would be in attendance. Those restrictions resulted in logjams at the entrances to the amphitheater and everyone standing around under the blazing sun.

But in the end the responsibility for the safety of all in attendance fell squarely on the shoulders of National. And had they applied the following simple criteria they would have avoided the whole thing: If you were out camping with your troop would you make them take a "forced march" under these weather conditions (i.e. temps over 100, no clouds, high humidity, limited water, etc.)? No adult leader in his right mind would have answered "yes" to that question under those conditions...but National did. The result was hundreds in the hospital and the show was cancelled. Ironically bad weather moved in that evening and the President wouldn't have been able to fly in anyway. He did fly in for the second show later in the Jamboree.

I've been a Scout Leader for over two decades and during that time I had heard some complain that National was out of touch with those of us "in the trenches." I always looked on that as just sour grapes from individuals with a particular axe to grind. My perspective changed a great deal on that oppresive afternoon at the Jamboree.

::::stepping off my soapbox:::::::::

[ed bell]

You're right that I shouldn't have put the last part of it in; it wasn't "uncalled for" since it is a screwup, and I am always a bit irked when Scouting gets a knock that it doesn't deserve (and it deserves some, but not this one), which is probably how you feel about my comment, and you're right. And it wasn't an 'administration' screwup, since the Secret Service is nonpolitical, but it was a screwup.

But you're right, and if anyone wants to edit that part out, I wouldn't mind.

Sorry!

The WeaselActually, this entire thread is located in the wrong forum. The General AT Forum is for topics that do not fit into the other AT catagories. This thread should be located in the General Non-AT Forum. For that reason, I really see no harm in the content to this point.

[The Weasel]

Logistics are a difficult matter when dealing with such a huge number of people, but that is no excuse or defense for so many CHILDREN taking ill. I see a lot of culpability on the part of the BSA Nat'l Council leaders.

Perhaps it is time to return to the issue raised in the very first post, which I will reserve comment on until new and more detailed facts are provided.

Outlaw: The quote program messed up...I'll try to unscramble to respond here:

First, "The Walk" is great fun, and it tells Scouts they are part of a great group...the Scouting Movement. It happens like this (honest!): Every Troop lines up at the large path by their campsite, in what's called a "subcamp". All start to move in 2 or 3 lines. They join another "subcamp" at a smallish road, and the line is 8 or 10 wide, and very long by now, and the other subcamps join from that region. By now there are several thousand Scouts and Leaders; they are laughing, yelling, chanting, singing, whatever. It's this great, large, happy mass of young people, all going in one direction (figuratively, one hopes, as well). The regions - about 6 - enter the amphitheater from different sides and all sit, in pretty orderly lines. Spirits are high; it's one of the things Scouts and Leaders remember for decades. I know others who, like me, recall the 1960 Jamboree and everyone speaks of "The Walk" and the large events. So trust me: It's fun, whether you're a 12 year old or an ol' weasel.

Second, in my 4 Jamborees (2 youth, 2 as leader), when the President (or, in '64, Lady Bird) came, it was set as a relatively short event: The time was fixed, everyone brought their canteens (or, today, water bottles/hydration packs), and expected about a half hour "pep talk" from the President. Leaders make sure Scouts have water - start off with 2 quarts - but there was no way that anyone could anticipate the Secret Service stalling things like they did. And you don't give out water at an event like that with garden hoses. I'm sure that water was shared, but some kids (and some soldiers in Iraq) don't drink enough at a given moment. It happens. That's why there are at least 1 adult for every 9 Scouts at the Jamboree. That's also a better ratio than most school groups have for outside events.

Third, in '64 it wasn't a 'screw up'. There is never a guarantee that a President will appear, or even a Vice President. The word will come down in a morning leader briefing that there MAY be a visit THAT DAY. In '64, the word came down that "Mrs. Johnson will be arriving today." Not a screw up; we were just a little disappointed. Similar thing in '93; we got word that Pres. Clinton MAY be coming on two separate days, and told in midday that it wasn't happening. So there was no sitting in the bowl waiting for something to happen, on either occasion.

Lastly, "cancel the president's visit"? No. Not gonna happen. Better would have been the Secret Service, which knew for almost 3 years most of the details of the Jamboree (because of the fact that Presidents are always invited and often come) should have advised the on-site leadership of what was going to occur so that it could have been dealt with.

You should know that the Jamboree occurs at the same facility every 4 years, and that it's a well-known National Guard post, close to Washington (about 100 miles). Planning begins 3 years before each event, with long-standing coordination with a variety of government (federal and state) agencies, including the Secret Service. This one wasn't BSA's fault; they screw up enough on other things, so they don't need to take the rap here.

The Weasel

[Rain Man]

... Planning begins 3 years before each event, with long-standing coordination with a variety of government (federal and state) agencies, including the Secret Service. This one wasn't BSA's fault; they screw up enough on other things, so they don't need to take the rap here.

Sure it's BSA's fault. Three years to plan and don't provide enough water? Give me a break. Besides which, they didn't cancel when they saw the extreme problem developing?

It seems obvious to me that the BSA didn't have to even do this event, or do it this way. Thus, they were willing to sacrifice, and did sacrifice, the safety of the children in their charge, just to grovel at the feet of a President much to their liking. That's the politics of it. Or, they just lacked the wisdom and strength to turn aside the tide of momentum that overwhelmed their judgment and actions. Same difference to the boys in that heat without water.

Just calling it the way it is.

Rain:sunMan

.