Money = Priority at Camp

[jmwalston]

"Only if you take their money. It's easy to say, "We own this camp and we give priority use to our members. If we have available space and time, we will allow other groups to use it."

 

I agree with you 100% on this. And apparently, this was the case here. I understand the gripe, but generally Webelos Resident Camp is not as large in attendance as during the Boy Scout season. I presume that Pack is referring to Daniel Boone Camp in Daniel Boone Council. If correct, it is a large camp and I can imagine the Field Director thanking his lucky stars to bring in money to defray the cost.

[evmori]

I would bet the reason the ROTC was given the priority was $$$$$$$. We all know $$$$$$$ talks! Sad but true!

[PACK15NISSAN]

I think (despite the swallowing my pride) I will take the advice of the group and calm down before I act. I do apologize for going on such a rant about things. The real point is the boys had fun and want to go back.

 

I will contact council and talk to them about my concerns and try to find out why ROTC got priority and not mention "not returning" to the camp.

 

Yes, Camp Daniel Booone is a large camp and I am sure it takes a lot of money for upkeep and for activities and food. However, I honestly feel that you can't do your own people wrong by bringing in a higher paying (if that is truly the reason) group over another. As far as grounds for discrimination, BSA is a private group there is no such thing as discrimination, they own the camp and can allow or deny who ever they wish, when ever they want.

 

Thanks to good advice, I will handle the situation differently as I head forward. However, my opinion that BSA should come first at a BSA camp will always stand.

[jmwalston]

It is discrimination if one pays for a service and then is denied it. Or it may be more a case of fraud.

[anarchist]

pack15nissan,

 

sorry but I disagree with the thought that you should be worried of the council camps reaction to your statement to look elsewhere if they could not meet your needs!

 

Let council know of your units displeasure...respectfully in a business like manner (of course) and if you do not get a good response, by all means look for a better camp...and if you find it...then GO!

 

Assuming that units and the boys they serve are the "customers" or clients of council camps, then these folks have a vested interest in doing the right thing...and if they do not or can not satisfy the customer, they can conintue to hope for the extra money from other sources (in your case from ROTC) and perhaps see a decline in unit participation.

 

And if the camp and council are petty enough to "punish" you for expressing unhappiness at what you percieved as an unfair treatment ...that in itself should be a good enough answer to look elsewhere.

 

The members of our troop have not been to our council's camp in five or six years now...(poor service and poor attitudes from the staff- mostly). Interestingly enough, The PLC and SPL decided earlier this year they might like to give 'em a chance next year. But by the time we headed off to camp this summer we had still not heard back from our council camp if the weeks we were interested in were available...and while at camp two phone calls to our council camp went un-returned... so the boys made the executive decision to sign up for next year at the non council camp we were attending...the troop was having yet another grand time at summer camp.

 

There is absolutely no reason to keep showering troop money on council camps that do not treat you well, offer a top-notch program and good scouting experiences... Most boys get to go to camp four or five years ( for various different reasons)and quite a few boys may only get a chance once or twice...It is very important that we help give them the best opportunity to succeed and have a grand time! After all -life is too short to fly with the turkeys when eagles can soar!

 

capitalism at its finest!

anarchist

[eolesen]

I think we're getting a little too caught up in the "members first" rah-rah...

 

1) What were the needs of the guys for ROTC? Is it possible that what they needed for the execution of their program was better done in the central portion of the camp?

 

2) From a YPT standpoint, is it better to keep non-Scouts in one area of the camp, or do you want them to be crossing campsites used by Scouts?

 

3) By having packs spread out a little more, did they perhaps learn a little more about hiking to/from and did they get a more realistic camping experience without being right on top of the dining hall or other packs/units who were also in camp?

(This message has been edited by eolesen)

[PACK15NISSAN]

anarchist:

 

I respect your point, but these are not boy scouts, they are cub scouts. Webelos between about 9 and 11, the whole weekend (thursday evening through Sunday afternoon) was geared specifically toward them. That is why they truthfully will get our return business. If it where a troop, you are correct, I would not be back at least for a couple of years.

 

eolesen:

 

Too caught up with members first? It is a BSA camp offering a cub event, ROTC should not have been there, we did not just choose to take our boys there, the council set it all up, of course BSA should be first.

 

Yes, the ROTC needed the main camp area, but so did we. We should have alter activities and have to tell the boys not to have patrol yells while passing by, it was called Webelos Resident Camp, not Webelos/ROTC Resident camp. As for crossing campsites, there is a dirt road down the middle of the campsite portion of the camp, with sites on both sides, they wouldn't have been crossing campsites anyway. To tell 9 and 10 year old boys, hey isn't hiking fun, aren't you learning a lot while we trek as fast as possible back and forth, that just won't fly. We lost all of our patrol time because it was spent hiking. No campsites are right on top of the dining hall, the closest one is about 1/4 mile, ours was 3/4 a mile.

 

We had to hurry boys along so we wouldn't be late, hurry up and choose a patrol name and yell, because we had no real time.

 

 

[local1400]

I don't think I would enjoy a camp where everyone is stacked up like Manhattan skyscrapers. And yes, money pays the bills. If you had to foot the bill entirely for a week at camp, you probably wouldn't go. My first week of camp in 1982 cost me $45.00 for the week, a tidy sum back then. For that, I ate 17 meals, was served by over 40 paid staff members, enjoyed the use of all the camp facilities at no additional charge, and had a great time!

[anarchist]

Pack15NISSAN,

 

pack...troop shouldn't make a difference. Most scout camps have WEBELOS programs or even separate camps just for WEBELOS. And the result should be the same...if the camp can not treat you fairly others can be found...just don't be bulldozed by the "in council" propaganda.

so good luck...

anarchist

 

[Basementdweller]

Keeping the money flowing into the camp is what is important. If they did receive a bunch of money for the ROTC good management.

 

Far as being further to the dining hall and such. Most boys and adults could use the additional exercise.

 

I attended a cub camp this summer were a church group rented a portion of the camp. My only objection was the ATV's they brought with them and the messes they left behind. But if it helps keep the camp open then I am all for it.

 

 

We are well beyond the selfish needs and wants of scouting, I also believe we are way beyond the point of benevolent endowments to cover the costs of these camps, Lets face it scouting isn't cool in the eyes of the public anymore.

 

 

[Gold Winger]

" Lets face it scouting isn't cool in the eyes of the public anymore."

 

I don't know about that. Scouting still seems to be pretty cool with our corporate donors. Scouting still seems to be pretty cool with most of the middle class people that I know outside of Scouting.

[skeptic]

From what I see and hear, Scouting is still respected and cool with a large majority; but they are those proverbial "silent" ones. We are not cool with the loud, out-spoken, often obnoxious PC people who, unfortunately includes much of the media.

 

I think, at least from first impressions, our new Executive has recognized a lot of this and is attempting to focus the public more on all the positive elements and not over-react to the negative press attacks, while building on the solid parts of the foundation.

 

We will see.

[John-in-KC]

While the disaster in Iowa saddened all of us who are Scouters and may have been Scouts, I think it was a really huge plus for Scouting after all was done.

 

Here were some great young men, hit and some taken by disaster, who boxed away themselves for a while and gave of themselves to be sure no one else left us.

 

Much of the coverage I've seen the rest of this summer has highlighted the postive aspects of our programs.. this even included NPR!