Americans with Disabilities Act -- does it apply to High Adventure?

[EagleInKY]

Many Bob? On my three treks, I've never heard of anyone held back, or that it was common in any way. The only thing close to that was a leader who became ill that was taken back to base camp for a few days, only to rejoin us on the trail. I've heard that occasionally a health issue is discovered, but it's very rare.

[Eamonn]

Sometime the hardest thing that we as adult leaders have to say to a youth is "No".

Mike I think that you really do have the best interests of all the boys at heart. Including this little Lad.

While it might be wrong of me, I feel that taking other peoples sons and daughters away from their home and into the great outdoors is one heck of a responsibility. If there was a youth that had any sort of a problem that I thought that I was unable to handle I would have no option but to use the No word.

It seems as if the stuff from Philmont is backing you up and I feel sure if you looked through the Guide To Safe Scouting there is more stuff that would back you up.

Explaining this the youth and his parents is not going to be an easy task and I can only wish you the best. I hope that they all will see that no matter what you have the health and welfare of their son as well as all the other Scouts at heart.

Eamonn

[OldGreyEagle]

I have been following this thread but haven't commented until now because I wasn't sure how I felt or what all the factors are and what Philmont itself has in the way of this issue.

 

To be sure I understand, I want to restate the facts as they have been explained to be sure I understand.

 

You (Mike F) are planning a Trek to Philmont and you have a Troop member who in your words

 

"He has multiple diagnosed psychiatric disorders that severely affect his ability to relate to others - especially authority figures. I pray daily for some breakthrough that will give him some more effective coping skills"

 

and has struggled on training events yet the parents insist he be included?

 

So, the boy has physical and mental issues that concern you. The mental issues have been diagnosed by medical specialists in the appropriate fields I take it (which could be dangerous I know) and you have personally witnessed his physical shortcommings.

 

I can identify with the parents wanting their boy included, but do they know his attendance is not desired because of concern for his and others safety and not because he is "diagnosed"? (I didnt know how else to put it) I think unless you or some other adult member is a trained psychiatric/counselor to force the group to take him is a pretty "cheeky" move.

 

Its fun to speak in ignorance ( as you can tell I have a lot of fun) but would Philmont allow the father or some other guardian along on the trek to watch over only that boy and be responsible for him? I have no idea if thats possible, but if the family wants the scout to go, they already know he is not "like the other boys" and may have to pay someone to shepherd the boy.

 

It would be a great uplifitng event if this trek to Philmont is the great brealthrough you are looking for in terms of coping skills, something that would be of value for his lifetime. On the other hand, if his presence makes the whole trip a living nightmare, well thats another matter. I pray for the former, but the latter may also occur and having the "shepherd" would be the insurance. At least that way if the boy has to come home early, the shepherd leaves not one of the other adults.

 

Or I could be all wet, which is fine as I need a bath...

 

PS Added thought, If the scout has as many issues as has been stated, he must be in special educational classes. Has anyone talked to his teachers to get their opinion of such an experience or if they would feel comfortable with this scout on such a trip? Mom and Dad might take to listening to people who teach their son daily as opposed to the adults who are just "scouts" (as wrong as that might be I must add)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Mike F]

OGE - you have it right. Parents initially assumed we were discriminating because of the diagnosis. It's our job to determine if his capabilities (and ours) is up to the challenge. Scout does attend a special private school. It's a good idea to have the parents discuss it with the school, but I have to be sure they share the Philmont Risk Assessment so that's factored in. Thanks!

[Mike F]

Eamonn - thanks - we're doing our best.

[NJCubScouter]

I have read with some amusement the "sub-thread" here mostly between MikeF and BobWhite over who makes the decision about whether someone participates or not: Philmont or the local trek/unit leader. MikeF has conclusively demonstrated that as long as the person meets the published objective statistical criteria (height weight blood pressure) it is a local decision who participates. Bob can't seem to accept the facts as they really are. I guess it sounds a little too much like "local option" to him.

[Bob White]

EagleKY

Remember that your trek had about 7 to 12 people in it. Your trek week welcomed 200 scouts per-day. Philmont hosted nearly 20,000 scouts each year. Yes, several times each year youth and adult members show up expecting to hike but get stopped for their own safety as well as for the safety of those who would have to go and rescue them. So it its quite feasible the small group you hiked with even in three treks, you might never have see this happen. Next visit, ask a medical staffer how often each it happens.

 

NJ

My concern was and is that A) the scout be allowed every opportunity to experience Philmont without endangering himself or others, and B) that Mike not have to put himself or the unit in the middle of what could be a poisonous disagreement that could fracture the stability of the troop, or spoil scouting for its members.

 

If you feel that your personal attacks and criticisms of me personally benefits Mike's situation or enhances scouting for the boys, fine. If not, and you do this just for sport, that is very sad, and belittles you far more than it does me.

[Mike F]

I appreciate the input from everyone - even BW when he disagrees with me, because he makes me clarify my thinking and this ultimately helps me a lot.

 

I have an answer on people being turned away from Philmont - it averages about 10 per summer with 8 of those being adults. Excess weight and high blood pressure are almost always the cause.

 

There's no excuse for weight - the standards are very clearly established and publicized. Blood pressure does tend to increase at higher elevations. (And from traveling for a few days with van full of excited scouts...)

 

As I've noted before per my discussions in the past week with Philmont senior staff, they do not prevent individuals with psychological or emotional problems from participating because they don't have enough information to make that decision, so it's up to the trek leaders.

 

They also don't prevent individuals who are not in good physical condition from participating (as long as weight and bp are OK), but recommend trek leaders give this some serious consideration, too. In fact, the Director of Program related a personal story of how he allowed a scout in poor physical condition on his trek 20 years ago and regretted it very much. Scout was subject to the wrath of the crew as he constantly held them back and finally wasn't able to complete the trek - incurring additional cost for his parents to fly him home early. He specifically warned me about misplaced compassion - you're not doing the scout a favor if he really can't handle it.

[pdunbar]

Mike F

 

Once took a special needs scout to top of our tallest mountain. It took over 16 hours to do what we normally would have done in 12. It also took quite a bit of planning and more than the usual number of adults. At no time were we in any real danger. Just can't allow it if possible.

 

Unfortunalely, in your case, a trek is not one day. I know that you have concern for all the boys going on this trek. How has the scout performed on other outings? Philmont is high adventure, and as much as I hate to leave no scout behind, I would be tempted to leave our special needs child behind. My 2 sons would not have allowed me to do that and I am very proud of them for being who they have become, true Eagles. Many of the scouts in our troop would have defended the scout's right to go, and would be willing to adjust the trip accordingly. They really like the scout in our troop, because despite his limitations, he is a team player. If that wasn't the case, I think they would have chosen to leave him behind if it was possible.

 

Basically, if the scout is physically able to attend, I would try to bring him. If out of control, his father would have to come. Maybe a compromise could be reached, such as half a trek.

 

 

[Mike F]

pd,

 

"Team player" is not a phrase anyone could use to describe our scout in question because his problems appear to significantly impair his ability to interact with others - both scouts and especially leaders.

 

Philmont also doesn't do "half treks" and it's a major disruption to pull someone off the trail once they get started. First, you have to get approval from Philmont, then the scout has to get to a location that has road access for pickup, finally, an adult advisor has to accompany the scout to Base Camp and await transportation home.

 

Bringing dad along as an advisor is one of the options in our hip pocket, but he's not currently on our "go" list and has significant fitness issues himself.

 

I applaud you and your guys for making it possible for getting your special needs scout to the top of that mountain. You're right - there's a difference in coping for a day (even a long one) and coping for 10 days on the trail. In some cases, I know it can be done. From Philmont staff, I've learned they have had a blind scout and a 1-legged scout successfully complete treks in recent years. But this doesn't mean every person with any possible special needs with just any crew can be successful. There are plenty of horror stories about attempts that went wrong.

 

Moving slowly at Philmont also has some downsides that might be different from a one-day trip. The crews that move slow on the trail get to camp late and will miss some of the program activities that are scheduled for early afternoon when most crews get in to camp. The literature also warns about hypothermia - it's common to get wet in almost-daily afternoon showers and you have to keep moving to keep body temperature up. When the majority of the crew is waiting for one slow member to catch up, they get cold and it can get dangerous. Then there's also the risk of being caught at high elevation when thunderstorms roll through and you're more exposed to lightning. On a 1-day trip, the slow-moving ones always have the option of turning back when they need to. That's not an option on a multi-day trek.

 

I will have to respectfully disagree about taking him if he's physically able. Physical ability is only half the battle. Unfortunately, the rest is harder to assess...

 

-mike

[pdunbar]

Mikr F

 

My youngest went to Philmont and had an awesome time. One of the scouts only lasted 1 day and went home. She didn't get along with her fellow scouts. I guess you have no choice. I hope you have a wonderful trip!!

[Mike F]

pd,

Glad to hear your youngest enjoyed the trip - it was one of the highlights of my youth, no doubt.

Can you tell me (us) more about the one who only lasted a day due to conflicts in the crew? Was this person a part of the group before going? Did you see any signs of discord that threatened to erupt under stress on the trail? Were you able to counsel this camper (and maybe parents) ahead of time? Where there some things you thought of later that you wished you had tried to prevent this from happening?

I don't mean to nitpick, but we can learn a lot from studying failures and it sounds like this camper's experience was a failure.

 

I'm just trying to learn as much as I can. Thanks!

-mike

[Mike F]

Update

 

After much effort, our scout with disabilities was able to complete his Philmont trek. He and his crew of fellow 14-yr olds completed itinerary #5. We were able to get his Doctor Dad father on the crew to assist him.

 

How did it go?

It was a struggle for all involved. After working out for a couple more months, the physical limitations were reduced, and he was physically able to pretty much keep up with the others. On the downside, he had some outrageous (and profane) outbursts and several of the members of this younger crew were right at the edge of their capability, so there wasn't a lot of extra energy to help him cope. And there were plenty of other 14-yr old issues going on in the crew that caused a lot of distress. Crew advisors aged visibly while on the trail. (Just half kidding...)

 

I summary, I wish we would have been able to convince his parents to let him wait another couple of years, but the grin on his face when I ask him what it was like to watch the sunrise from the top of the Tooth of Time makes me glad we made it happen now in case he never gets another chance. (But we're all glad it's over.)

 

IWGBTP!

 

-mike(This message has been edited by Mike F)

[boleta]

My son was awarded Eagle last summer at the age of 14 1/2. He went to a high adventure summer camp with his troop. The minimum age was 13. Our troop has a similar boy to the one described in this thread who is constantly challenging authority and has a poor relationship with the other Scouts. My son's summer camp experience was ruined by this boy. The COPE experience was not good when one member of the team refused to try and was a constant negative force. That was the story all week long. My son subsequently decreased his Boy Scout activity and went to Venturing.

 

I am glad your challenged Scout had a great time. Kids like him probably need the Scouting program more than kids like my son. Your crew probably learned a lot about how to deal with challenged youth. I hope he didn't ruin the trek for the others. It's kinda sad when you come back from Philmont and say "but we're all glad it's over."

 

I congratulate you and your crew for accepting this tremendous challenge.(This message has been edited by boleta)

[Fuzzy Bear]

I work everyday with youth that have various abilities (i.e., disabilities). I understand what boleta is saying about his son having part of his time in camp ruined by a person with a disability. I read the entries in this column and the struggle that confronted MikeF's Scout.

 

My own assessment of MikeF's Scout prior to the final decision was for the Dad to be in attendance if the Scout was to go. I would have pointed out the safety factor involved in taking a Scout up on a mountain ledge and him not follow instructions. The Dad would need to be in attendance to help with giving directions. Safety is always the first consideration when attempting to follow the ADA in any situation.

 

Boleta's son might have had his time ruined by a Scout that was intent on not following directions and the leader might not have had safety as the first consideration but rather participation. There is a balance that is not well defined but adults are expected to be able to know their own abilities, the abilities of the Scout and the danger of the situation. This is not an easy task but is a task of importance.

 

MikeF's Scout has had many days ruined in his own life by people that do not understand him and that are afraid of him. Some find it easier to shun, discriminate and push such an individual away without any consideration at all. Philmont might be the one highlight for this young man in his entire life.

 

Boleta's son may find it easier to experience high adventure where there is little interference from such an individual. His tolerance for diversity may be limited and it might be the best alternative for him. Hopefully, his son is healthy and will find many opportunities in his lifetime for good and happy experiences.

 

Inclusion is a relatively new concept and one that takes problem solving to new heights. Safety is important and participation is important but the Leader and other Scouts need to know that if that individual is included and does make it through the event that they may be instrumental in providing part of the only happiness that person may experience for their lifetime.

It is that important and the task completion is worth its weight in gold.

 

I state this without reservation.

 

FB