Boy Scouts Forbid Fat Kids to Attend Jamboree

[OkToBeTakei]

So that is like 95F, right? Come to the south during the summer and experience months of that along with oppressing humidity. :lol: That is why I have to do all my exercising at like 6 in the morning because it is still fucking hot late at night. What is the temperatures like for you normally?

Well 65-70 would be hot for summer here normally :lol: not that, that would be guaranteed. More like rain and an occasional sunny day. This has gone on for nearly 3 weeks. It is fabulous, but we are Brits... So we moan :lol:

[stellaluna]

As an active volunteer with Boy Scouts, despite my many reservations regarding their discriminatory policies regarding religion and sexual orientation, I want to point out that many parents are not knowledgeable enough about the demands of some of these activities to help their son make a good decision. I would be very concerned if my son had any chronic medical issue and wanted to attend jamboree. Scout leaders are not always paying attention and their judgement can be questionable at times. Accidents can and do happen. BMI is not a perfect tool, but they have to use something to set guidelines. Scouting has a strong fitness component, so any scout who is working toward Eagle Scout will be working with an adult merit badge counselor to achieve the physical fitness merit badge. This requires three months of workouts showing improvement in fitness levels. Even the earliest rank of scouting requires a physical fitness element, albeit much less strenuous.

[OkToBeTakei]

Why is it a bad idea for random, volunteer troop leaders to be guiding scouts with very high BMIs in the weight loss process? First of all, if the argument for having the BMI policy in the first place is insurance, it looks a bit ridiculous for a troop leader to then incur the liability that comes with trying to supervise weight loss for a kid with a BMI of 40. If it's so dangerous for that kid to engage in strenuous activity that he can't go to the Jamboree in the first place, he should not be going out at the behest of his troop leader and running laps or something. Troop leaders with kids affected by this policy should (and would, I hope) talk to the kid's parents, first of all, and then advise them to work with the kid's doctor to come up with a weight loss plan if the kid really wants to lose the weight necessary to attend the Jamboree.

I don't know why you would assume that a troop leader in Iowa somewhere who has a kid too fat to go to the Jamboree would be working in consultation with the medical authorities of the Jamboree to customize a diet and weight loss plan for that kid. As Treemom is so fond of pointing out, there are 80,000 kids going to this thing. If even ten percent of them have this issue, that's 8000 kids that some small medical cadre is going to train by proxy, through their troop leaders, for weight loss? Yeah, no. You advise the kid and his parents to talk to his pediatrician about the best and safest way to go about losing weight and, of course, offer the kid your full support and encouragement after any weight loss plan is cleared by his parents and his pediatrician. You know, the doctor who actually knows this kid, knows his medical history and knows the best way to help him lose weight?

There is no way on earth I would consent to my kid losing weight under the supervision of his Boy Scout troop leader, whether that leader is receiving guidance from some Jamboree medical personnel or not. This isn't Biggest Loser, and the kid has a doctor who knows him and knows his medical history. And I never said that the BSA should be shepherding (or, as seems to be the case, shaming) these kids into weight loss.

I object to the BSA saying, "We have to have this policy because these kids couldn't get around well enough at the site," which is what it says on their own website, and in the same breath encouraging kids with disabilities, who would presumably face similar issues of mobility, to come on over to the Jamboree. If they can get the insurance coverage and make the accommodations to allow handicapped kids to attend, I find it really hard to believe that they couldn't find a way to make it work for kids with weight issues who really wanted to go.

I think we maybe misunderstanding each other here. What I meant was not that the scout leaders would lead the help per se but that they had outlined a guideline to aim for. If I read the article correctly it was outlined in 2010. So without labouring the point of individual medicals to determine fitness, it was a general guideline that a BMI over 40 would be considered a health risk. From the article encouragement was offered to those who fell within this range. I did not mean that the BSA would lead this type of help, just that it was already out there, that it may be a problem and they would encourage the need for advice and way to resolve the potential risk.

So yes. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. I really struggle with the idea that in some way a child who is 18 stone and 5ft 4 (my way of equating the health issue) is not in need of help.

Would it be different if say the child was a very poorly controlled diabetic? They attended for the medical in 2010 and were advised to seek help/advice in how this may impact them under a time of duress, physical exertion, dehydration. How the physical demands of camp may be even more difficult to ascertain the impact their diabetes will have. Poorly controlled under normal everyday circumstances would be exacerbated in this environment. Then decided not to take that advice. Failed the medical due to to dangerous hypo/hyper risks.

The issue I probably have and it is not popular is that unhealthy is unhealthy. It may not be politically correct to say that an 18 stone 14 yr old child is unhealthy or morbidly obese. At what point though do you draw a line and face the fact that despite the exceptional examples some have mentioned here to the contrary, that it is an issue and just ignoring it is not helpful to the child? That the jamboree thing is not inclusive I totally get, I feel strongly that maybe with it being such an issue in society it would be an ideal opportunity at that stage of a child's life to offer the maximum incentive, support. It does though sound like they gave a nod to support by at least putting it out there a few years before.

So yeah damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[BlondeAgent007]

OKtoBe, I agree with you on this one completely.

[FiddleDD]

Frankly, all I'm getting out of this is that the Jamboree is a poor idea for anyone. Dangerous hikes away from medical professionals, in dangerously hot weather, a diet of Gatorade, trail mix and beef jerky? Sounds like a recipe for health right there.

Here's the issue I have with the fat kids being labeled unhealthy. I have no idea what my BMI is, but I'm a size 24 and am fairly certain I would call under "morbidly obese". I'm not in great shape, and I totally own up to that. However, I have a friend the same size as I am, who is the strongest person I know. Her stamina is incredible. There isn't much athletically she couldn't do. But people look at us and assume we're both lazy and out of shape. How is that fair?

We are all unique. One thin kid might have no problem on a hike whereas another kid, living off hot pockets and playing video games all day wouldn't make it. The difference is, the thin kid would be asked to get in better shape. The fat kid is asked to change his shape.

Weight does not indicate health. Weight does not indicate stamina. It is how heavy you are. Period.

[FaustianSlip]

Frankly, all I'm getting out of this is that the Jamboree is a poor idea for anyone. Dangerous hikes away from medical professionals, in dangerously hot weather, a diet of Gatorade, trail mix and beef jerky? Sounds like a recipe for health right there.

I'm inclined to agree, particularly given the number of times I've heard about scouts getting struck by lightning at Jamborees and similar events. It seems like that happens once every couple of years (so obviously not solely at Jamborees, since they're every four years, but...). What do they do if some kid trips and falls face-first into a campfire or something if they're so remote and inaccessible that it will take an ambulance or life flight half an hour to get to them and render assistance?

And here's my beef with the BMI thing. Aside from the fact that it's just a poor indicator of overall fitness, the heavy kids are the ones who need to be out there doing this stuff and getting outdoors the most! Even if they can't do every activity, seeing what's available and getting a taste of what's out there as far as physical activities could motivate these kids to lose the weight under their own steam. Instead, they're told that they flat out can't go and humiliated by their troop leaders (because seriously, no matter how nicely or how gently you try to present something like that, it's still humiliating). How many of these kids are going to stick with scouting, I wonder, after an experience like this? I'm genuinely curious to know. The BSA keeps saying, "We have to get kids outside more, we don't want them stuck inside in front of the TV, they have to be more active," but what do they think these boys they're barring from the Jamboree are going to be doing for that ten days? I doubt it'll be hiking or running laps.

My other beef with the BMI thing is that there is no threshold for underweight kids. It says it right on their site- if you're over their (arbitrary) BMI cap, you have to submit doctor's documentation, and even then, they still may bar you from participation. Even with your doctor's okay. Because apparently the BSA know your health situation better than your own doctor does. And, of course, if your BMI is over 40, you're out of luck entirely. Meanwhile, a kid with a super low BMI isn't scrutinized at all, because he sails under their limits, and they're only looking at heavy kids. Some of the language they've used to justify this, BTW, is pretty messed up. In one instance, one of the higher-ups in the national organization said that kids who are too heavy are violating the Boy Scout Oath. Classy! But nope, no fat shaming here!

And, of course, they're still allowing kids with physical disabilities, some of whom, one can reasonably assume, will have trouble getting around this Ranger Induction-esque Jamboree and participating in all of the activities. The entire justification they're giving in their videos and other literature for barring the fat kids is that "you have to walk a lot and be able to do a lot of physical stuff, and if you can't do it, it won't be fun, so we don't want you here" (paraphrasing from the video on their website, but that's what it boiled down to. There's even an FAQ about whether disabled scouts are allowed to attend, no doubt prompted by all of this talk about how the kids are going to be running ultramarathons up and down the hills of West Virginia.

The official Boy Scout literature about the weight guidelines also says that while it's not mandatory that they be met for non-high adventure camps, it's "strongly encouraged," which sounds like they're thinking about barring fat kids from regular Boy Scout camps, as well. Fantastic.

[FaustianSlip]

AT Philmont, he will be hiking 4-8 hours, at high altitude; in 90+ degree heat, with limited water; on narrow, steeply graded paths (which are challenging uphill and downhill, and there is no level path at Philmont); on a diet of mainly Gatorade, trail mix, and beef jerky; with a 50+ pound pack on his back everyday for ten days. If his crew is scheduled for a dry camp, he will also be carrying (in addition to 5L of his personal daily water) his share of the ten gallons or so of water that the crew will need for the next day. If a crewmate twists his or her ankle, he will take turns carrying an additional 50+ pack.

Well, that sounds totally safe. Let me rush right out and sign my kid up for that. Jesus Christ, it's scouting, not the Navy SEALs. I'm all for challenging oneself, physically and otherwise, but frankly, what's described here doesn't sound like "challenging yourself," it sounds patently unsafe and, frankly, poorly supervised. You can be thirteen years old and go to Philmont- sending an eighth grader out into the wilderness alone to survive on Gatorade and beef jerky for ten days strikes me as incredibly irresponsible. But hey, I guess it gives bragging rights about how manly everyone is, so there's that.

[louisa05]

I'd be interested to know how many kids this rule actually directly impacts. I would be surprised if it is more than a handful.

My nephew who had a BMI close to 39 by the fall of his senior year of high school did not get that way because his mother was signing him up for Boy Scout camp and encouraging physical activity. She actually encouraged no activity, literally refusing to provide transportation for him to get involved in any extra school activities or to take him to any other activities (even when someone else paid the costs). What she did do well is purchase video games and gaming systems and make sure that he had his vegetables deep fried and access to enough soda to drink (by his own estimate) 6-8 cans per day.

[FaustianSlip]

The thing is, if the kids are involved with Boy Scouts, then either they or their parents are trying to participate in more physical activity. Barring the kid from participation or excluding him from something as big as the Jamboree, where his entire troop is likely going, isn't productive. It's just going to stigmatize the kid and make him less likely to stay involved, whereas allowing him to come and participate to whatever extent he can is much, much more likely to motivate him to continue being active and maybe try to lose the weight.

And much as everyone likes to mock situations like this, there are metabolic and other disorders that can cause people to either gain a bunch of weight or have trouble losing it. I agree that in most of these cases, the kids' parents probably bear most of the blame for letting things get so far out of hand, but is excluding the boy from participation more or less likely to change those behavior patterns? You can either reach out a hand and build the kid up, even if it means making some alternative arrangements (which are likely being made anyway, to accommodate the scouts with disabilities that are allowed at the Jamboree), maybe keep him in scouting and help him make a change, or you can tell him he's not welcome at the Jamboree and make him feel humiliated and shitty, in which case he probably leaves scouting and is that much less likely to put himself out there for something similar in the future. In that case, you lose any opportunity to help him improve himself.

If the kids are signing up for scouting and want to go to the Jamboree, they're already on the right track. Putting a big roadblock in their way seems like a pretty awful and incredibly counterproductive thing to do.

[louisa05]

As I understand it, you don't sign up for scouting and register for the Jamboree the next week. And kids who are signing up for it are likely highly involved in the physical activities that will be helping them reach a better fitness level in the first place. So, again, I doubt that there are 5000 boys with BMIs over 40 sitting at home feeling left out of the thing.

And I am so confused by the notion that it is not okay to address obesity issues with kids. Seeing a 17 year old kid unable to walk a block and a half to his high school without getting short of breath last fall was not something I enjoyed. Nor did we feel like shrugging our shoulders and saying "yeah, you know, metabolism, don't want to body shame, oh well, hope he doesn't die young" when we found out he had high blood pressure already. I would rather take the risk of upsetting the kid a little bit than end up attending his funeral when he's 35.

[Evilbad]

I don't understand why it's a bad thing to call it like it is; obese kids are unhealthy. Yes, there may be underlying circumstances, but overall, it's not healthy. A BMI of 40 or higher, quick calculation or not, indicates extreme obesity. I'm not sure how it would make those kids feel to go to a jamboree, and watch everybody else do stuff that they just physically couldn't. "Here, you build this model and the rest of the kids will go ahead and do this other really fun activity and they'll come back and talk about all the stuff you couldn't do". I mean, where does that get fun? That's not motivating, that's demoralizing.

And FWIW, my overweight self just completed a tough mudder, so I know very well what people are capable of at any size. But the thing is, I KNOW I'm not healthy at this weight, and I'm actively working to lose it. But I don't think going to a jamboree and seeing all the fun stuff they "Could" do is motivation for a lot of kids. And my BMI is nowhere near 40.

And you know what? Some people thrive on that type of activity. My DS LOVES football conditioning because of the hard, intense physical work. He just loves it. He did scouts for a couple of years but frankly, the local troop is boring and didn't do much. He spent more time sitting around goofing off with the other boys than anything else, total waste of time. The

I don't see anything wrong with the jamboree activities, the kids will come home filthy and tired and FULL of stories that they'll be telling for years. We did a couple of camp outs with DS's troop and they had more fun with those than anything else. If that's what scouts in the states are like, DS might consider doing it again. He totally loves that kind of stuff. Philmont also sounds like something that he'd like. The mental and physical challenges of those types of activities are great, and the outdoor survival training is useful to know. Hell, it sounds like something I'd like as well :lol:

I also don't see anything wrong with the restrictions. I do think they could have been better explained, but this isn't something that just came up.

[FaustianSlip]

I don't believe I've ever said that you can't address obesity with kids. I wouldn't have, anyway, because I don't feel that way at all. I have said that BMI is a terrible indicator of overall health and fitness, that it's ludicrous to me that the BSA is overriding doctor's recommendations in order to apply their own standards, so even if a kid's own pediatrician thinks he's healthy, they'll bar him from participation if they feel like it, and that it gives lie to their claims that their concern is health and safety when severely underweight kids are receiving none of the additional scrutiny that the fat kids are.

I also have yet to hear an explanation of how the BSA is managing to accommodate handicapped scouts at this site that's supposed to be so incredibly difficult to get around, and how they're unable to find a way to work with the overweight kids if they're able to accommodate the ones with disabilities. People keep glossing over that one, and I'd really like an answer. Again, it's completely inconsistent. We're going to bar the fat kids, because they could get heatstroke or have a heart attack (even though anyone can go down with heatstroke, and a lot of the Boy Scout leaders I've seen are hardly svelte and just as likely to drop from some major cardiac event), and it takes more than a half hour for first responders to get to the site, but that kid in a wheelchair is fine to come, as is the kid with the pacemaker or the kid with the cardiac shunt. Again, the issue here is consistency.

In a way, it's almost worse that the kids being barred have likely been in scouts for years already. How would you feel if you had been hanging out with a group, getting ready to do that Tough Mudder, and were then told, "Nope! You can't go with your friends, because you're a lard-ass. Sorry!" And is it really better to set kids up to crash diet so that they can make it to Jamboree? Because that's what's going to happen with a lot of kids- look at the kid who's on a crash diet to try and make weight for Philmont. This is exactly what goes on in the military, BTW, particularly with women, because the military also insists on using BMI to make their determination of health (as opposed to, say, whether people are actually passing their PT tests, which you would think is more relevant). In my ROTC unit alone, I knew of at least five women who would go on ridiculous diets a few weeks prior to weigh-in in order to make sure they made the weight cut-off. None of them were fat, BTW, and all were passing their PT tests. Is that what we want kids to start learning at nine, ten, eleven years old? That if they want to go to Boy Scout camp, well, they'll just need to eat celery and cottage cheese for a month beforehand?

I have no problem with encouraging kids to be healthy and get away from the television, but BMI isn't about health, and using it to determine weight requirements isn't encouraging kids to get away from the TV, it's encouraging them to get on the scale multiple times a day and obsess over their body weight. I know, because that's exactly what happened to me when I needed to make weight for Service Academy selection. Yes, I was going to the gym every day, which was great, but I was also eating next to nothing, weighing myself constantly and convinced that I was hideously fat and probably shouldn't be seen in public, ever. At the time, I weighed, like, 165 pounds and was on both the high school soccer and softball teams.

If they really want to make sure that the kids who are going to these events are physically ready for them, institute a mandatory physical fitness test. Tell leaders to make sure every kid can do X number of push-ups, sit-ups and complete an X-mile march with a backpack weighing Y pounds. That's better for the heavy kids, too, because it gives them concrete physical standards to work towards and train for. Of course, they won't do that, because they'd probably wind up with a bunch of skinny kids who can't make the grade (even though that should be impossible, because they're "healthy").

Again, this is the Boy Scouts. It's not Ranger training, it's not the SEALs. It's supposed to be about giving as many kids as possible the opportunity to participate, not ensuring that every member is a physical fitness powerhouse who can survive in the wild for three weeks with nothing but a Cliff Bar and his own urine. If they want to have these high adventure camps, that's great, but they should be implementing physical fitness requirements that are actually logical, which is not currently the case. That is my objection.

[OkToBeTakei]

Three years to prepare is not exactly crash dieting.

[FiddleDD]

.

If they really want to make sure that the kids who are going to these events are physically ready for them, institute a mandatory physical fitness test. Tell leaders to make sure every kid can do X number of push-ups, sit-ups and complete an X-mile march with a backpack weighing Y pounds. That's better for the heavy kids, too, because it gives them concrete physical standards to work towards and train for. Of course, they won't do that, because they'd probably wind up with a bunch of skinny kids who can't make the grade (even though that should be impossible, because they're "healthy").

THIS x1000. And to the above commenter who mentioned seeing a kid who can barely walk... Absolutely it's okay to worry about their health. That is not what we're talking about. The issue here is whether or not its okay to see an overweight kid and ASSUME he or she can barely walk. Just like we shouldn't see a skinny kid and assume they're in great shape.

I see thin teenagers all the time at the grocery store that have trouble IDENTIFYING the vegetables I'm buying. How is that indicative of healthy eating? Yet, if you stood me next to this girl and asked 1000 people who eats better, 999 would point to that girl based on nothing but outward physical appearance.

[mockingbird]

Just looked at their website so I could get the "full story". I don't like how they have approached obesity. Again, like others, this doesn't mean I don't think that I don't think we shouldn't worry about those kids' health, but I think the Boy Scouts approached this in the wrong way. My problems with the site:

-Their health/fitness standards page details the types of activities and fitness level Scouts will be expected to do, but then it randomly launches into this monologue about how the CDC looooves the BMI and it's such a great indicator of health! But wait, that is just ~one of many~ factors they will use to determine your health-related eligibility to join the Jamboree. But nah, let's just talk about obesity and BMI even more. This is mainly an issue of how the page was written. It places unnecessary attention on one group of potentially unhealthy kids and I think singling this group out like that could be humiliating.

-"Reviewing" the doctors' recommendations is inappropriate. That's why you have the child's doctor evaluate them in the first place. A random committee who has never met the child is not qualified to judge their health status. Doctors are going to be honest; they're not going to say a child could go if they don't think they could manage it, because they don't want to be sued. Most are also not going to hold kids back if they judge them physically able to participate, either, because they want to encourage kids to be physically active and live normal lives as much as they can. I have a friend with a serious chronic disease who, if he were a teen and applying to Jamboree today you read that on his health form, and you'd automatically think he would not qualify. However, he's very healthy and active, and his disease is well-managed. I could definitely see his doctor signing off on a high-adventure trip. I am the same way, I have a long and complicated medical history, and I look really bad on paper. I often get "wow" reactions from new doctors/nurses because it doesn't appear that I should be as healthy/normal as I am. I couldn't do Jamboree, but just for the sake of argument. Throughout school my parents were often recruited as chaperones for class trips and the like because the teachers/nurses were afraid of being responsible for me on their own - even though I was totally cleared and there was little risk of something serious happening to me on the trips. I just looked "scary" on paper. So, anyway. There are things that can make a child look unhealthy on paper (or by looking at them IRL) but unless you have met and examined them as their doctor, you cannot judge their health status just from the form. It would be inappropriate and unfair to disqualify a child whose doctor says they are qualified to participate, due to arbitrary "review" by the BSA committee.

-I don't think arbitrary standards are necessarily bad, like for an extreme example, for the Peace Corps you can't be relying on life-saving treatment from any medications that are not available worldwide, in case you run out/they get stolen/lose them etc. and you are in an area of the world where it would take days to get that medication to you. It makes sense due to the circumstances of the job. But I think better standards for the Jamboree might be the extra ones they list that actually determine health like cardiac testing, lung testing, and the like. As many people have said, obesity doesn't necessarily mean you are healthy or unhealthy, but a poor pulmonary (lung) function test probably means you are.

-This is more to do with the Jamboree in general and a beef I've always had with it (my brother is a boy scout, even though he's healthy my parents have never allowed him to go to Jamboree and it has a bad rep locally). I really think for their big national event, BSA should choose something that is accessible to ALL scouts. A high-adventure trip available to any scouts across the nation is fine as an extra trip or even as one option as part of a national event but I don't think that should be the Official National Activity because I think I think that type of event is kind-of "the campout" that represents all of scouting. If that campout is high-adventure it's sending the message that boys with disabilities and other health concerns aren't welcome at the national level and aren't represented by scouting.

[treemom]

Where does one put 80k people that is accessible to everyone?

I am pretty much done with this because people here "we have drs in our troop" and ignore the part about medical officers in the council and the medical advisory committee. We agree or we don't. But the difference is those of us with personal experience in this have expressed similar views (although not identical) so I feel pretty good with my interpretation of it.

Plus I honestly think people (for valid reasons) don't like the BsA and this means everything they do is going to be wrong.

[mockingbird]

FWIW since doctors can't legally diagnose or treat someone they haven't seen as a patient, it doesn't matter to me if they're on the committee. It's still overstepping boundaries and potentially including or excluding certain scouts arbitrarily.

I'm not sure you could find somewhere universally accessible (especially if it's going to be a campout) or maybe you'd have to limit the size, but I'm also sure there are places and campgrounds in the US, even ways to plan the Jamboree at the existing location (like including the buses they used to have, including multiple activities that are less physical, etc.) to include MORE people. I just think restricting it to high-adventure excludes a huge group of scouts, not only many scouts with disabilities, but those who aren't into high-adventure stuff to begin with and maybe like "normal" campouts better.

I was a GS and actually have gotten a better impression of BSA, at least locally, from my brother's involvement. And I also agree there needs to be health standards/clearance for physically strenuous activities. (Even if like you said there are doctors going with them, I agree with that. That doesn't guarantee safety or adequate emergency care.) But I think the health standards for and accessibility of the Jamboree was handled poorly this year based on the website. I do admit I am biased because like I said it has a bad reputation local to my brother, but I don't think it has to be that way.

Haha and totally random, but I want to know what "3D Archery" is from their website. Isn't archery already in 3D? lol

[dcmhejbl62]

I've read the whole thread and I guess I'll be the bad guy and say I'm glad BSA is paying attention and issuing restrictions, even if they inadvertantly keep a kid out. I'd rather a kid stay home disappointed than die from heatstroke and over-exertion, and that's exactly what they are trying to prevent here.

Boy Scouts isn't kids meeting weekly doing crafts and attending a churchy camp during the summer; this stuff is a lifestyle (the word "cult" comes to mind, lol) and unless you've been steeped in it from childhood, it can be hard as a parent -- or outside medical professional -- to learn it all.

Unless I had a note saying my kid's doctor completed Philmont and suffered no memory loss from heat-related illness, I would not trust him or her to know if my kid could handle high adventure camps. This isn't church camp or football camp or even those weird Teen Adventure rehab wilderness programs. I cannot count the number of times I've heard adults recalling their high adventure days by trying to one-up each other on how many people got sick, seriously injured, or died during or shortly before/after their time there!

By the time a kid is in Boy Scouts there are seemingly ENDLESS opportunities to camp and travel and do just about anything a kid is interested in, so kids with high BMIs or disabilities or a side addiction to video games won't miss out on the scouting experience just because they can't attend Jamboree or Philmont or the one in the Florida Keys where they have no contact with society for a week... (???)

And honestly, I can't imagine a kid in poor health or out of shape would WANT to do high adventure; my kids came back pretty miserable from some regular but strenuous trips, and were diligent about checking the fun quotient of future ones. My guess is the organization needed an out for the pushy Scout dads (omg, a whole other topic) who insist Junior can huff and puff to the top of the summit and will shop doctors until they find one who will sign off on it.

[Evilbad]

Well I was military for 11 years and so I know all about pt tests. I dont think its really a valid comparison, as its adults and the standards are clear from the start. You know if you aren't going to make the cut and you work harder, end of story.

Look, it is what it is. Obese children are not cut out for high adventure camps and can go, but likely will not be able to do much beyond participate in sedentary activities with the other kids who have disabilities. We all know a kid with a bmi of 40, medical issue or not, will not do any of the activities that are strenuous. These camps are a big deal and fun for a lot of kids, but you would take that away because you don't agree with hard physical exercise? My kid would be pretty damn bored with life if you took away all the stuff that doesn't seem safe or fun to you. Snowboarding, football, he's running a kids triathlon next month, heck he even does my insanity work outs.

And if you want to keep trotting out the medical board reviews, well, the military does those too, if you're making that comparison. Anytime a soldier could potentially be deemed unfit for service, there is a board that reviews his or her documentation and makes a decision. Usually that board does not see the patient, just reviews the record and makes recommendations. This is the same. There are a lot of organizations that have the same concept at work.

I guess I don't get the vehemence over this whole thing. As tree mom said, where are you going to send 80,000 kids, if not these areas that are designed both to hold them and to provide activities for them? A regular campsite is kind of boring for a lot of kids, big whoop we are camping AGAIN. The more extreme places are not exactly sending tons of young obese boys out, anyways. I'm not sure how that came into the conversation.

But it's clear that a lot of this is more the general dislike directed towards the Boy Scouts, a lot like the duggars. "Oh look they went shopping!" With a ten page thread about how shitty they are at shopping.

[OkToBeTakei]

Where does one put 80k people that is accessible to everyone?

I am pretty much done with this because people here "we have drs in our troop" and ignore the part about medical officers in the council and the medical advisory committee. We agree or we don't. But the difference is those of us with personal experience in this have expressed similar views (although not identical) so I feel pretty good with my interpretation of it.

Plus I honestly think people (for valid reasons) don't like the BsA and this means everything they do is going to be wrong.

Yeah I was beginning to think this and not being from the US didn't really get the slant on the BsA. I just figured some posters were posting their own personal ire at the obesity issue.

Extreme sports are not really my thing but I know plenty who do love many pursuits that I do not like or am not physically fit enough to take part in. Fair play to them. There are many things in life people face they cannot do, are not clever enough for (some university entrance for example.) It's life and hiding the reality of limitations does nothing to help anybody really. Crying 'excluded' at every turn just dilutes real discrimination.

dcmhejbl62 wrote

My guess is the organization needed an out for the pushy Scout dads (omg, a whole other topic) who insist Junior can huff and puff to the top of the summit and will shop doctors until they find one who will sign off on it.

Is this like 'nutty parent' syndrome? A parent at my child's school asked a few years ago that sports day races were less competitive and more lighthearted as in a 'dress up obstacle' course and 'sack' race type of thing. Her reasoning was that her child was not good at sports pursuits and became very upset when she did not win. When I heard about it my reaction was 'Oh for fuck sake, what a fanny.' Which is probably why it is a good thing I never volunteer for PTA :lol:

[cindyluvs24]

I don't think this is a case of BSA saying "We hate fatties." Scouts with poor physical skills are not uniformly excluded from all scouting activities. They are able to camp with their troop, and attend scout camp. These places can and do make accomodation for different challenges that scouts may have. The difference with Jamboree and the High Adventure Bases (Philmont, Sea Base, Boundary Waters) is that they are specifically designed to provide a much more intense and challenging experience. Our troop tried to put a group together for the Florida Sea Base. (Philmont was out of the question, its just too intense.) BSA was very clear about the requirements. These are not meant to exclude but are directly related to safety. We had a great kid who couldn't go because his swimming skills were not adequate. Yes, I'm sure they could have just said, OK, you can wear swimmies as you swim from the boat to the island, but that's putting an extra level of risk on that child. Should they have watered-down (no pun) the activities so that he could have participated? Well, what's the point of having a high adventure experience? The kid did go to summer scout camp with the troop and improve his swimming, eventually earned his swimming merit badge. He is now qualified to go. Incidentally, my son has Asperger's. It was decided that, despite the fact that he's a great kid, this particular high adventure trip was not for him at that time. I could have protested that he has an organic condition that he can't help, etc. but you know? But not everything is open to everyone. Its a hard reality. OT: my son has gotten a special needs extension from BSA for his Eagle project. They also allow scouts who are physically incapable of earning certain Eagle-required merit badges (swimming, hiking, cycling) to do alternative requirements. They are not completely horrible. Just my $.02

[Jinger Jar]

From [link=http://www.scout.org/en/node_64/node_199/reaching_out/disabilities]BSA's Scouting for People with Disabilities[/link] website:

"Whether it is regular Scouting activities or a large Scout event, like a Jamboree, people with disabilities can be easily included, with some targeted modifications and adaptations to the programme."

One difference between overweight (yes, even the "OMG! deathfat!!1!!") Scouts and Scouts who, for example, use mobility devices is that the later Scouts are in a protected class according to the American with Disabilities Act. Overweight Scouts aren't. And until they are, there's every possibility they will continue to be excluded from events and activities their legally disabled Scouting brothers are easily included in, like the Jamboree.

[Peas n carrots]

From [link=http://www.scout.org/en/node_64/node_199/reaching_out/disabilities]BSA's Scouting for People with Disabilities[/link] website:

"Whether it is regular Scouting activities or a large Scout event, like a Jamboree, people with disabilities can be easily included, with some targeted modifications and adaptations to the programme."

One difference between overweight (yes, even the "OMG! deathfat!!1!!") Scouts and Scouts who, for example, use mobility devices is that the later Scouts are in a protected class according to the American with Disabilities Act. Overweight Scouts aren't. And until they are, there's every possibility they will continue to be excluded from events and activities their legally disabled Scouting brothers are easily included in, like the Jamboree.

But as mentioned, doesn't this beg the question: does it really make the overweight scouts feel any better about themselves to be limited to participating in activities only for them or with disabled scouts? TBH, if I were still a kid and overweight I don't think it would make me feel any better than being excluded.

I'm just curious, are you saying weight should be a protected class?

[OkToBeTakei]

But as mentioned, doesn't this beg the question: does it really make the overweight scouts feel any better about themselves to be limited to participating in activities only for them or with disabled scouts? TBH, if I were still a kid and overweight I don't think it would make me feel any better than being excluded.

I'm just curious, are you saying weight should be a protected class?

Or that they should be registered as legally disabled?

[Jinger Jar]

But as mentioned, doesn't this beg the question: does it really make the overweight scouts feel any better about themselves to be limited to participating in activities only for them or with disabled scouts? TBH, if I were still a kid and overweight I don't think it would make me feel any better than being excluded.

I'm just curious, are you saying weight should be a protected class?

According to [link=http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2010/08/court-allows-hooters-weight-bias-lawsuit.html]the courts[/link], there may be some merit to including weight as a protected class, at least when it comes to certain types of employment.

I think we need to respect the intrinsic dignity of the individual. To argue that a person should be outright barred from something because of how we think they're going to feel or what we think they're capable or incapable of is contrary to that dignity.

I think that if [link=http://www.scout.org/en/node_64/node_199/reaching_out/disabilities]the BSA includes Scouts with disabilities to the Jamboree and can design and modify activities for them[/link], they should be willing to do the same for all Scouts, even the overweight ones, even the deathfat fatty ones. I think it's up to the individual Scout and his parents to decide if he wants to participate in modified/alternative Jamboree activities or if he would prefer not to attend Jamboree at all. If by chance a Scout wants to engage in a Jamboree activity he's unsuited for, for any reason, it's up to the responsible adult leaders in his life to make reasonably sure he doesn't put himself or anyone else at risk.

In the end I have a tough time believing that if the BSA welcomes Scouts who have limited use of their arms and legs and ears and eyes to the Jamboree and can design and modify activities so they can participate, that they can't to the same for Scouts who have a lot of body fat. :shrug: