TWO MORE CAMPS BITE THE DUST
Posted 17 March 2015 - 10:49 AM
Posted 06 April 2015 - 09:10 AM
I'm interested in how the rally last week went. Any indications from the board one way or the other? Thanks for your workin this area,
Posted 03 May 2015 - 04:25 PM
Cedarlands sounds like what a Scout camp should be. I wonder what the alternative for this Council could be?
Posted 13 May 2015 - 09:03 PM
That one in New York sounds nice. You know, if I had $4.5M laying around. But then there's this part:
"The easement was also enacted to limit future development opportunities to the base camp area and to allow for limited public recreational access to portions of the property. Contact Fountains for more information."
Now I have no idea what that property is really "worth" - but having that kind of easement on it? Pfffttttt. There goes the opportunity to build your dream house on the land you just paid $4.5M for. And, hey, who are those guys down there in my lake? Oh, right, right, there's a public access easement. Pffffftttt again.
Posted 19 July 2015 - 09:56 AM
Half the troops are already camping at out of council camps, there is a large number of camps in the general area, and there is at least $1 million in maintenance required at these two non-council owned properties in order to just maintain accreditation. As sad as it is to lose camps - I can sympathize with the Council on making these decisions. If these properties were owned by the Council, that would be a whole different kettle of hawks. Yes, it will be sad to see them go, but changing demographics is hard to fight against.
The 1 million dollars in deferred maintenance is for all four camps. LeFeber requires the least maintenance of all four. Visit our Link at www.BPNorthwoods.org
Edited by Jaron Tauschmann, 19 July 2015 - 10:11 AM.
Posted 20 July 2015 - 06:00 AM
Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:46 AM
I find the Save ___ Camp an interesting goal. Why? Let's look why the camp(s) are closing in the first place. Most, because of lack of participation. Troops are not going to the camp. Lefeber was probably open 8-10 weeks in the past. It was reduced to 4 weeks. What was the number of paid campers? I suspect 4 weeks was probably overkill and the camp could have functioned for 3 weeks. Lyle is another camp that was open for 8-10 weeks but was reduced to 2 weeks. Again it is attendance.
Ask the Troops why they are going out of council. Dining Hall seems to be a recurring theme. Not every Troop goes OOC because of the Dining Hall. Now ask why you left in the first place. Most answers come down to "we had a bad experience with the Staff or _____."
So if neither camp has a Dining Hall, how do you plan on bringing those Troops back?
If the reason the Troop left was bad experience, how do you reassure them it won't happen again?
Unfortunately these are the reasons Troops go OOC.
If you want to have a nice comparison on the Wisconsin camps look at this Market Analysis study that was done in 2013.
22 camps are listed for comparison. If the camps are getting graded C, D, or F, is there a wonder attendance is down. Rustic camps have a place, but some parents are afraid to undo the apron strings and let little Johnny get dirty for a week. For those of us who have survived rustic summer camps we can only tell stories about our adventures and hope parents will let their boys experience it.
Yes it is sad that camps are closing but look at the big picture.
Edited by John-in-KC, 25 August 2015 - 02:32 PM.
Blank quote section removed.
Posted 21 August 2015 - 07:03 PM
Having read this "Market study" in depth a few months ago, I think it is germane to point out that out of 22 camps rated, the HIGHEST grade for any camp was a B-. When the summariews are read, more time is spent on giving a dissertation on what type of fish are in the camp lake or river than what programs and facilities are offered.
Why let the helicopter parents of a wussy generation ruin it for those who enjoy a week in the rustic woods, cooking your own food, sleeping under the stars.
Posted 21 August 2015 - 07:42 PM
Posted 23 August 2015 - 06:36 PM
Posted 29 August 2015 - 05:56 AM
On the Bayport Facebook page, there is discussion about the council (CVC) going through financial difficulties due to the expense of the camp.
I read recently that Bayport Scout Reservation is in danger of being closed.
My understanding was that they sold Camp Chickohomony (in Williamsburg-high real estate value) and took the profits to purchase and develop Bayport.
Losing Bayport would be quite a loss.
Posted 01 September 2015 - 03:13 AM
We have a plan in place to improve attendance, and to increase camp profits, this is just a start to improving the facilities.
Posted 31 August 2016 - 03:18 PM
I wonder if camp closures have anything to do with the value of the property?
Is there a urban encroachment?
Is it in a popular vacation area?
If any of those 2 are yes then I think many times scout leaders see dollar signs dangled in front of them. I know they did this with girl scouts because they had several camps close, partly because real estate developers wanted the land. Also didnt they have a camp on a popular east coast island that was closed? There is a spot a few miles away that I know used to be a Nazarene Youth camp and another that was by Campfire.
Really "camps" in general are getting mighty rare. So many church and other youth camps have closed and for the same reasons. Urban encroachment and/or being in a popular tourist spot.
To get around this camps have to be made more profitable. Market the facilities and programs to outside groups. Their is a facility called Windermere Baptist conference center which does this.
Posted 01 September 2016 - 09:04 AM
Our Council recently sold two camps. One was used for our Webelos resident camp, the other was used mainly for unit and district events. The justification was needing more money to improve the camps they aren't selling. I'm not sure either of these properties was particularly valuable. One I believe was split between the neighbors on either side. The other I heard was sold to a group of hunters. I suspect that one reason that camp was picked was because it's lake is spring fed, and with the water table in that part of our state dropping, so have the water levels in the lakes. If something isn't done to stop it, soon the camp could find itself without a usable lake. If I were going to pick one property to sell, that would be the one.
To replace the Webelos resident camp, they are carving out an undeveloped portion of one of our Boy Scout camps. They are building a new dining hall and campsites. The dining hall was originally not going to have a kitchen, but then they thought about being able to rent the property to outside groups for events, and with a kitchen they can pull in more money renting out the dining hall out of season. It's this type of thing that I think our camps should do more of.
Yours in Scouting,
Cub Scout Roundtable Commissioner 2015-Present
Lion Guide 2016-Present
Father of a Boy Scout 2016-Present
Posted 01 September 2016 - 10:12 AM
It can be a combination of factors. I know the council I grew up in sold the original camp because of urban encroachment and the camp was too small because property owners who use to let the Scouts tramp about sold the property and the new owners said no more. What I fin ironic is that the camp was created in the 1920s, and the closest town started expanding after the 1950s. The new neighbors began complaining about the noise, traffic, etc of having a camp as their next door neighbor. Thankfully the council purchased property that was 3+ times the size of the original camp.
But I admit, I'm concerned, especially about the local camp in my district. The property around the camp is being sold off. In the past 10 years, 3 MacMansions have arisen, and a popular hiking trail that we had access to was closed off by the new property owners. And not everyone has heard that yet as it is that recent! My understanding is that a trust owns the property, so it cannot be sold. But one SE so neglected the camp, that the only reason it was able to survive was because of individual units and OA chapters investing in it and doing repairs and maintenance. Over a 10 year period, the OA chapter alone spent $10-$12,000 alone on supplies to maintain the camp. And that doesn't include all the man-hours involved, or what local units did. Under the new NCAP program, I don't know what will happen.
"Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!" William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt
Posted 07 September 2016 - 03:59 PM
Is it really the end of the world to not have your own camp? I mean what really is the purpose to have a separate facility to go back to year after year? I guess the obvious is so they can earn merit badges but those can be earned at any time or place. Our scouts earn 3-5 every summer which is about the same amount they earn in a weekend event. Yes it is nice to have a facility already set up for say rifle range or waterfront so Scouts can work on those merit badges but they can do those at other facilities like the one I mentioned above. Is it a kind of ego thing to have "OUR" camp?
Looking at the discussions on this site some have said their troops dont even always go back to scout camp every year and instead, use that time for a week long trip.
To be honest I wish our tropp didnt go back to the same camp year after year because it would free up the scouts to plan more. Heck they could go to a different scout camp every year.
Posted 12 September 2016 - 07:44 AM
The demand for up-to-date everything including BSA Spa and Resort facilities have priced many out of the market. It's a lot easier and cheaper to run a commissary than a mess hall, permanent shelters vs. rain flies, tents with floors, flush toilets, running water at each site, WIFI, and the list goes on......
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users