Larry Armstrong's weight will exclude him from "high adventure" scouting trips with his sons when the Boy Scouts of America imposes new height/weight requirements next year. (Courtesy Larry Armstrong)
Posted on 05/06/2009 1:59:51 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Larry Armstrong has been volunteering with his local Boy Scout branch for years, chaperoning trips, serving on the council committee, even becoming certified in archery instruction for a day camp. But Armstrong, at 6-foot, 2-inches tall and about 370 pounds, may no longer qualify for some scout outings because he's overweight, part of a new push by the national organization to ensure the scouts and their volunteers are healthy. A new mandatory weight requirement by the national Boy Scouts of America that will take effect next January has some longtime volunteers concerned they will be left out of trips they've enjoyed with their sons for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Larry Armstrong's weight will exclude him from "high adventure" scouting trips with his sons when the Boy Scouts of America imposes new height/weight requirements next year. (Courtesy Larry Armstrong)
not sure about this one. i’ll reserve judgment until i see some posts.
You can openly discriminate against the obese.
New Zealand won’t even let the obese immigrate.
Maybe he should lose some weight?
Just another way for the libs and nanny state to close down a great organization.
They and the lawyers first went after cigarettes, then they went after food as bad for your health.
It sounds like something designed to minimize litigation. Or perhaps it's just PC>
Put your right hand on the edge of the table.... Good
Now put your left hand up there... Good
Now Push Larry!
Push HARD!!!!
Great, you moved your chair back.
Now stand up and walk away. And don’t come back to the table or fridge or anyhting food related until tommorrow.
We are all pulling for you!
Somebody count all the scouts.
Looks like ol’ Larry ate one.
I was 15 lbs below the limit.
Lose some weight, dude.
Regardless of the politics, he does need to lose some weight.
That’s just not healthy. Even at 100# less he would be pretty chubby.
High adventure is tough! These are deep wilderness hikes and canoe trips with packed geer and camping for usually about 7 nights.
I wouldn’t want this guy along huffing and puffing. Who’s gonna deal with his carcass if he keels over in the outback?
like the old saying: become the man you want your son to be.
not sure larry wants his son to look like that in 30 years.
He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.
That will cause some parents to take their kids out of scouting and/or not allow them to go on the specific trips or activities the parents aren’t allowed to attend.
Any adult who eagerly wishes to participate in that stuff is a wierdo.
OH COME ON NOW, they are just going to re-create him in their own image before they let him learn honesty, responsibility and develop desirable character traits. /sarcasm
Having been a BSA leader when my 2 sons were younger (both in their 20’s now), I somewhat agree with this suggestion. There are some activities that would be difficult and possibly impossible for somebody of that size to perform safely. I would only agree on the basis that this is for the large father’s own protection.
If something were to happen to him in the wilderness or while camping and he required a stretcher to get him out, he could not be moved unless there was a really large stretcher and some older stronger Scouts and even so, it would be a challenge.
I'd like to know how, exactly, a private organization proposes to prohibit a grown man from going to publicly accessible locations, particularly when his minor son is at those locations.
The insurance industry speaks....
1. No pancakes
2. No barbecue
3. No weenies grilled over the fire
Tofu rocks!
Yes, of course.
There’s no way this guy should be out on Adventure hikes.
But, start with cases like this, and gradually ramp us to more draconian restrictions, then fatties are gonna feel the full brunt of Rampant Nannyism everywhere.
Just look at how smokers got demonized and ostracised.
you either do not have kids or you do not like spending time with them.
i do not have kids yet. but if they wanted to do this stuff and it gave them useable knowledge, i'd do it too. i guess i am a weirdo.
I don't know if that's really necessary, but I'd hate to see twenty lilliputian Boy Scouts have to drag his mammoth carcass back to civilization when his ticker bangs up against the last Big Mac too many.
Instead of bitching about it, he might want to set a more positive example for the boys.
Definitely, if he suffers an accident or something no one will be able to haul him out.
Let him go on a fishing trip where no hiking is involved, but I sure wouldn’t want him to do something that would put him and the rest of the kids at risk.
He needs to lose weight and get in shape if he wants to do that stuff.
As usual with such topics, it turns into sick junior high jokes. He seems to have much more leadership abilities than many who have posted.
If it were my son, I probably wouldn’t let him go on overnights then, with a bunch of adults I might not know too well along. How do you stop an adult from going with his kid to a National Park??? If something happens, well geez, they rescue people from Mt Everest and other remotet areas, places that are far more isolated than anyplace scouts are likely to go. You can have everyone along perfectly healthy and then have the dining hall collapse on the kids like it did last year. If he wants the risk, it’s on him.
O.K., folks; I’m a District Commissioner, I don’t meet these weight limits, and I’ve been looking into this. Here’s the deal:
For many years the BSA has had a requirement to fill out and maintain medical forms that have a medical history, evidence of a recent medical exam and a waiver so that someone on the trip can take you to a hospital and give permission for you to be treated if necessary. For Scouts and Scouters under 40 that form has had two parts - the waiver and the history was to be updated every year, and the exam every 3 years. For Scouters over 40, you had to have the exam every year as well.
For Summer camp, etc., that was pretty much it. For Philmont and other high-adventure bases you had to fill a special form, and you had to meet certain height/weight requirements because you’d be out in the back country where it would take quite some time to get to you. The idea was a) to reduce the risk to you of having a problem in the first place and b) to reduce the risk to the people who’d have to move you if you did have a problem.
The BSA has essentially made two changes. One is that now everyone has to have an annual exam. The other is that now ANY back country trip falls under the height/weight constraints, not just the ones operated by the BSA’s National Council. However, your weekend trip to the State Park or your week trip to your local Council’s summer camp are unaffected by the new limits.
Take a look at that picture. Say this guy decides to go on the backpacking trip with your kid’s Scout Troop. On day #2, 10 miles in with no road, he goes down. Forget a heart attack. Maybe just a strained knee. He can’t move, it’s 95 degrees out and you’re 8 miles from the next spot to get some water. Now what? You can’t move him. He can’t move. It’s a good 5 hours or more to go get him some water, and that’s if you’re humping. Someone’s going to get hurt. Probably him, possibly you or whoever is having to go and get him some water. Or whoever is foolishly trying to move him.
I remember when I took Lifesaving Merit Badge. We were told that the first obligation in a lifesaving situation was to save yourself. If you couldn’t help the person, don’t kill yourself trying. Again, noting that I currently do not meet the weight requirements and I’ve been on back country outings, I have to say that I don’t see that National is wrong on this.
“for some scout outings”
This policy is only applied to certain strenuous physical activities where adults want to lead boys- wilderness camping, hiking, etc
Weight is just one of the health items that is monitored
It is for the protection of the kids and the adults to ensure they meet fitness standards to engage in some activities
Can you see this guy leading a troop down the Grand Canyon? Out in the wilderness for a 3 day or week long trek?
Dont tell me about the 370 pound guys that can do it. Most can’t or shouldn’t. Believe me most policies like this come about because of someone’s BAD experience.
Pop should drop 150 pounds and apply again.
It's important to note that he already didn't qualify for some Scout outings because he's overweight. Philmont, the 3 Northern Tier bases, Seabase, National Jamboree and others would already have excluded him. What this does is to expand that exclusion to similar outings that are run by local Councils as opposed to National Council.
“...before he'll be allowed on certain ‘high adventure’ trips that take him more than 30 minutes away from emergency care by ground transportation.”
It seems to be about the remoteness of able medical care.
He can still do the activities listed that he’s been doing.
Sorry for the multiple posts. But another inaccuracy; at 6’ 2”, his limit is 252 pounds, not 239. Not that it’ll make much different for him in particular, I’d guess.
Well it sounds to me like they are just worried about a possible medical emergency and how they would get someone that big to safety. I can understand. I mean I have been on some pretty long hikes with the scouts when I was kid. I don't know how you would get someone to safety who weighed nearly 400 pounds if he became incapacitated.
Raucous round of applause for using common sense instead of high emotion! Women who are eight months pregnant can’t go on some Scouting activities, either: who’da thunkit?
This reminds me, I need to find out if either of my sons needs a new health exam this month.
“How do you stop an adult from going with his kid to a National Park”
You don’t
But you don’t charter a medically-defined obese man (or woman) under the umbrella of your organization and its liability and reputation to take a bunch of other people’s kids camping and hiking in a National Park
True. However, there’s a pretty good (although I agree not perfect) correlation between the strenuousness of a typical Scout outing and it’s remoteness. The medical forms already have a section on them that bascially ask “Doctor, are there things this person should not be doing?” and gives examples of the kinds of things Scouts do.
As an old scout, I have to agree with Viking2002. If it’s a weekend, drive-in campout, no problem. If you’re going to hike Philmont for 10 days, better bring an oxygen bottle and nitroglycerin or lose weight and get in shape. Anybody can keel over anywhere, anytime; but most of us know our limitations - if we don’t we will get to know them - and if every scout used common sense, guys in this condition would refrain from this sort of activity until they were physically ready for it. OOpps - forgot - that would be common sense, and common sense has been outlawed. Sorry.
___________________________________________________________
Part B is required with parts A and C for any event that exceeds 72 consecutive hours, a resident camp setting, or when the nature of the activity is strenuous and demanding, such as service projects, work weekends, or high-adventure treks. It is to be completed and signed by a certified and licensed health-care provider—physician (MD, DO), nurse practitioner, or physician’s assistant as appropriate for your state. The level of activity ranges from what is normally expended at home or at school to strenuous activity such as hiking and backpacking. Other examples include tour camping, jamborees, and Wood Badge training courses. It is important to note that the height/weight chart must be strictly adhered to if the event will take the unit beyond a radius wherein emergency evacuation is more than 30 minutes by ground transportation, such as backpacking trips, high-adventure activities, and conservation projects in remote areas.
Risk Factors
Based on the vast experience of the medical community, the BSA has identified that the following risk factors may define your participation in various outdoor adventures.
• Excessive body weight
• Heart disease
• Hypertension (high blood pressure)
• Diabetes
• Seizures
• Lack of appropriate immunizations
• Asthma
• Sleep disorders
• Allergies/anaphylaxis
• Muscular/skeletal injuries
• Psychiatric/psychological and emotional difficulties
For more information on medical risk factors, visit Scouting Safely on www.scouting.org.
“Women who are eight months pregnant can’t go on some Scouting activities, either”
well,that depends
I’ve known some women so-called GS leaders get highly emotional and indignant about the “rights” of 8 months pregnant Mommies to go along on troop camping trips
not with my troop, sorry
You're dating yourself. But funny!
You don’t know anything about what you’re attempting to talk about.
SZ
Oh, I’ll bet they do. People insist on their “right” to do all sorts of insane things, and expect someone else to deal with the predictable consequences.
My pioneer ancestors went on high-adventure-trek camping trips and had babies, but as my mother (from the “just off the boat” side of the family) says, “If it were up to me, we’d all still live in New Jersey.”
Actually, a private organization can prohibit a grown person from participating in any activity they run. Said grown person has every right to say "Then my kid's not going either," of course.
My experience with the kind of trips that they're talking about (and I've done a half-dozen of them with the Scouts) is that a man of his size wouldn't be ABLE to accompany his 14 year old kid on them. He just wouldn't be able to keep up. If the location is publicly accessible by car then these weight limits don't apply. If they're only accessible by a more than 30 minute hike from the nearest road, he might be able to make that first 30 minutes but he's fall behind soon thereafter.
If he wanted to go on a canoe trip into Canada in Ontario's Quetico Provincial Park with me, for example, there's be no way he'd fit into the canoe. If he tried he'd probably swamp it, if not immediately at the first bit of wind and chop. Further, at 370 pounds his weight plus that of the other person in the canoe would leave insufficient cargo allowance.
How much liability does the BSA assume for chaperones/leaders? Are they covered under an insurance policy? Would the organization cover medical, time lost from work, that sort of thing, if and when someone is injured on a trip or something? Say for instance, a leader breaks his leg while hiking. Do they take any responsibility or is there an understood ‘you’re liable for any injuries’?
I’m not asking to be smart, I don’t know. Only one of my sons was interested in scouting and he quickly lost interest as it seemed to be more about paperwork than the outdoor/active stuff he always wants to do. I do remember being in Girl Scouts, our leader was a *huge* lady, never had kids of her own but led the local GS troop for years and years. And she went with us on everything we did.
Ha Ha. When I was in high school, we played against a player that was 6'3" and 345 lbs. (as a sophomore!!!). He only came in for goal line defense and the offensive lineman next to me screamed "he's eating me" when the giant kid grabbed him.
Unfortunately, the following year the young man got up to 415 lbs. and was not allowed to play football by the team doctor and his own doctor. I heard he lost alot of weight. I hope he continued to do so and is still alive and healthy today.
I’m right on the edge for my height, a little over the top but working on it.
There has been some question as to whether this would apply to summer camp (note the 72 hours number, but summer camp itself isn’t strenuous).
I’m just using it as another of many good reasons to get in shape and lose some weight. Although my kid isn’t anywhere near meeting the limits either, unfortunately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.