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)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.