Camp and property sales

[Bob White]

A consensus of whom?

 

You want the BSA to finance a failing camp not because it is a financially responsible thing to do but because it's an old camp?

 

Do you see the problem with that kind of action?

[OldGreyEagle]

From the other thread on Camp Kilworth, the Pacific Harbor Council has the following camps:

 

Camp Hahobas - 600 acres: Boy Scout camp

Camp Thunderbird - 200 acres: Boy Scout camp

Camp Delezenne - 80 acres: day camp, weekend

Camp Kilworth - 25 acres: day camp, weekend

 

I will take this to be true.

 

So, for 2.8 million dollars the Council loses 2.8% of its camp acreage. While I dont like to see any Boy Scout property sold/lost, its not like the land is being given away. Now, I would be interested in seeing where that money goes.

[Prairie_Scouter]

nld,

CAC says that Owasippe is the "oldest continuously operating camp". I guess that the "continuously" is important in the distinction.

 

I don't think that the National office would put any of it's resources behind it, either, but I was just thinking that in the sense that Scouting in the U.S. has a lot of history behind it, some of these kinds of sites might bear some support. So, no, I don't expect BSA to support a camp just because it's "old". There are plenty of things in the U.S. that are "old" that are given support because of their historical significance to some groups. Owasippe is something like 5,000 acres (it used to be about 10K, but part was sold off some time ago); that's large enough to not only support summer camp, but other larger activities as well that BSA could designate should they choose to support it. So, it not only has historical significance, but it is a very usable space as well.

 

In the big picture, yes, the worth of a camp property has to be kept in perspective relative to its potential. But, the logic that's being used now, ie, camping usage is dropping off, so we're going to sell it and use the money someplace else, permanently removes that land as a camp site for Scouts. So, if 20 years from now, camping picks up again, there won't be any place to go. New land will have to be acquired that will no doubt be further away, which means less people will be willing to go.

 

Environmentalists fight to save places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from development not only for today, but for generations to come. We might not see the benefit of these Scout lands today, but I think, as much as we can, we should protect them for future generations of Scouts. It's not easy to work out the financials, but it seems worth the effort. Maybe that means the National Office has to step in in some of these situations. Maybe, along with the 3 National High Adventure camps, they could create a series of "regional camps", or something like that.