Open Discussion - Program
Share Scouting Topics here.
Subforums
-
- 816
- posts
-
- 2.8k
- posts
9758 topics in this forum
-
- 20 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 10 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 15 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 13 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 2 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 23 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 32 replies
- 8.3k views
-
- 23 replies
- 8.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 955 views
-
- 8 replies
- 3.7k views
-
- 7 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 18 replies
- 11.3k views
-
- 21 replies
- 3.7k views
-
- 6 replies
- 1.5k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
The poorly run council camps run for 8 weeks. The well run council camps in my state are optimized -- and monetized -- almost the whole year through. I realize that doesn't work or make sense for every single property out there, but it would for many. -
If your state is like my state the resident camps only run for 8 weeks and are about 3x the capacity of what is needed. If we actually got every scout in the state into resident camp for just 1 week a year we'd still have camps running at less than 50%. There are too many camps. I see your concern and would say that the answer is rewilding the worst camps into adventure bases to get cost to down down while also funneling scouts to fewer resident camps. -
One of my fears is that the only concrete idea Leadership has to 'save' scouting is to sell yet more outdoors based land assets to fund salaries. I would bet it's probably one of the few things on this list that might actually be effected.
-
I met Ricky Mason a couple years ago, he was a keynote speaker at an event; based on that experience I can say he has the right ties to the program to be driven to make it survive, and he has the grasp of knowledge of what is really going on to know what needs to be done. The other thing is we definitely have far too many councils; as we consolidate we won't need as many camps, we're barely using the camps right now. We need to lean on Jim Rogers to optimize the number of camps and campsites. Our membership is low right now, but it's not going to get much bigger. Historically we've been at 2% of American youth in scouting, that puts the real membership metric at only about 1 million youth members. We have to adjust to the fact that Americans are having far fewer children and that the country is growing older. It is a demographic change that is out of our hands. If the younger generations are not confident in their ability to hold down good employment and have a marriage and a home they will have fewer kids. Fewer kids means fewer scouts. Offshoring jobs and letting banks and investment funds squat on empty homes is having a big impact on millenials and gen Z and their decisions to start families.
-
The largest issue that continues is the apparent inability to note that selling camps that leave a council without local options does not make sense. And continuing to treat volunteers as ignorant or lacking in ability is not the way to go. For me, also, not putting the important elements of local historical data and material into local perspective is NOT wise. It is that very history and longevity that is most important to bring the program out of its darkness. I keep coming back to the elderly woman that spoke to me at a local Memorial Day event where my unit was serving. She said she was o glad to see the scouts there; she thought they were gone. That is a very telling comment. I can only hope that somehow we might get the shift in focus to service and positive public images, and away from obvious dollar promotions. Sadly, I fear I may not live to see that again, though I say I will be my family's first centenarian, I am not foolish enough to discount that as a long shot. And I already cannot do things I once did, and I miss meetings due to old man syndromes and night driving concerns. One day at a time, and pass what I can on.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)