Pathway to Adventure Council Camp Plan

[walk in the woods]

Not unexpected but for your reading pleasure.

 

http://pathwaytoadventure.org/media/upload/camping%20recommendations/PTACCampResolution.pdf

[T2Eagle]

It always stinks to see camps close.

 

Does anyone from that area know if there's any reason to think these camps were financially viable, contrary to the recommendations listed?

[CalicoPenn]

Camp Mach-Kin-O-Siew is in Langlade County, Wisconsin - about 7 to 10 hours from the Council, depending on where you're driving from.  It is not convenient for weekend camping and only has enough units using it as a summer camp to open 14 days (2 weeks) per year.  The staff from Shin-Go-Beek closes Shin-Go-Beek at the end of July and comes here to staff the camp.  From a business point of view (I know, I know - the BSA is not a business - get over it) - it's just not worth it to open and close a camp for two weeks and to maintain it at national and state standards for summer camps (think the National camp inspections are brutal?  They're pikers compared to the state and local health and safety departments).

 

Camp Shin-Go-Beek is a nice little camp that had a robust 8 week program back in 1977 when I was staffing at nearby Napowan.  Like Mach-Kin-O-Siew, it too is down to a 2 week Boy Scout summer camp period.  For the past few years it's been home to Cub Scout resident camp in late June but that's only 4 resident camp sessions at the end of June, another 2 weeks.  From a business perspective, again it's hard to justify maintaining an operating a Scout camp for 4 weeks, 2 of which are regular Boy Scout camp weeks.  There is also an issue with their lakes - South Twin has dried up and North Twin is losing water depth.

 

By the way, I mentioned the staff closes Shin-Go-Beek to open Mach-Kin-O-Siew - so it's understood what that means, the last week at Shin-Go-Beek is the middle of July (around the 15th) - the first week at Mach is at the beginnng of August (about August 1).  It takes a week to close Shin and another week to open Mach - 2 more weeks where staff is being paid not to interact with Scouts. 

 

The surprise to me was Camp Lakota.  That's a short term camp in Woodstock, Illinois that was also reconfigured to host Cub Scout resident camp for the Northwest Suburban Council.  It's only about 2 and a half hours from the farthest part of the new Council and that's just because of traffic.  It had been a pretty popular place for district camporees and for units looking to camp out on weekends until they reconfigured the camp for resident camp and added a swimming pool - some units decided that was too much like a Jellystone Park campground.  I think it's interesting that they aren't committing themselves to closing it until after the 2017 resident camp year and suspect that they are either hedging against the possibility that the attempt to configure  a part Owassippe as a Cub Scout resident camp isn't going to be as successful as they hope or believe that the potential for new development out in Woodstock will be stronger in 2018 than it is right now.

 

But I think there is an even bigger picture that is being missed - this is a new council made up of four councils - and thay are closing 3 camps completely effective essentially immediately with another one in 2017 says something about the numbers - Scouting is whithering away in Chicago and it's suburbs - and this isn't something new - it's been slowly dying for a long time now.

[walk in the woods]

Lakota surprised me as well.  I've only been their once but thought it was a nice piece of property.  A little swampy on the one end but nice none-the less.  And much closer than Adventure Camp.  I was really surprised about the desire to take operational control and/or ownership of Adventure Camp in Rochelle.  

 

@@T2Eagle, there was a study done on WI camps (http://www.scouting.org/home/outdoorprogram/properties/region%20and%20area%20maps/wisconsin.aspx).  I don't recall any financials in there though.  I'd have to look again.

[Krampus]

This is a Chicago area council? Wow, are they losing membership/money that much?

[walk in the woods]

This is a Chicago area council? Wow, are they losing membership/money that much?

Until recently Pathways to Adventure was  four Chicago area councils (Chicago Area, Des Plains Valley, Calumet and Northwest Suburban).

[Krampus]

Until recently Pathways to Adventure was  four Chicago area councils (Chicago Area, Des Plains Valley, Calumet and Northwest Suburban).

 

And that big an area has problems with money? Any reason why they are losing so much they need to close down and sell these camps?

[CalicoPenn]

Lakota surprised me as well.  I've only been their once but thought it was a nice piece of property.  A little swampy on the one end but nice none-the less. 

 

The swamp is the best part of Lakota - I spent many a weeked there hiking into and through that wetland.  My Troop put together an orienteering course at least once a year at Lakota and one of the points was always the abandoned and rusting away old truck in the marsh.  Not so bad to look for in September, a real challenge in May (which was buggier and wetter).

[CalicoPenn]

And that big an area has problems with money? Any reason why they are losing so much they need to close down and sell these camps?

 

We all suspect that Northeast Illinois Council made the decision not to join the merger because they have some of the wealthiest suburbs in Chicagoland in their council, full of CEOs and other corporate executives and didn't want to upset their own gravy train.  The old Northwest Suburban Council did ok for itself funding wise as well.  Chicago Council has been struggling for years, and a good part of the reason was the corporations in downtown Chicago that was their natural base also had corporate mission statements that would preclude them from being big donors to the BSA as long as the BSA is perceived as a discriminatory organization.  When the Chicago Public Schools closed their doors to sponsorship of BSA units (and if I'm remembering correctly, Chicago was one of the first large city school districts to do so), that was a major blow.  While the Council had some units in minority areas of the city, there weren't many, and many in the large black and hispanic community saw the Council as a "North Side" thing (for those unfamiliar with Chicago, that's code for "White and With Money").

 

Not much more than 7 years ago or so, Chicago Council was preparing to sell Owassippe (the camp they're now going to try to use part of for Cub Scout Resident Camp) because of the expense versus use dynamic, as well as declining revenues.  Look far enough back in the archives and you'll see lots of discussion about that.  It's also probably one of the few times that a Council and the BSA didn't get it's way, partly because the local folks in Michigan were strongly opposed to any re-zoning of the land (which ultimately failed and helped doom the potential sale), partly because of a very vocal group of local Scouters who wouldn't let go and challenged the Board and National, and partly because the Illinois Attorney General reminded National's attorneys, who were threatening to shut the Council down, that under Illinois Law, that would mean that all property and funds would become property of the State of Illinois, to be held in trust - including Owassippe and their headquarters in Chicago.

 

They've stated that they won't be starting any investigations into selling any of the properties until next year.  I don't see the properties in Wisconsin bringing in a lot of money - Lakota is probably worth more than both of those properties combined, just because of where it sits.  I'm not sure, though, that the real issue is money - I think it's about bodies.  There just isn't the numbers of Scouts in the area that there used to be.

[walk in the woods]

I can't really speak to the money aspect.  I heard the same thing about NEIC regarding secure funding being in place.  I'm in a neighboring council and our numbers are reported to be down, at least that's what I hear.  Did some quick searches:

 

PTAC: 26,706 scouts, 9000 volunteers (http://www.pathwaytoadventure.org/about/)

NEIC: 10,000 youth, 3500 volunteers (http://www.neic.org/files/d/usr/3/BSA_NEIC_Recruiting_Plan_2014%20course.pdf)

TFC: 13,987 youth and 5,821 adult (http://www.threefirescouncil.org/index.php/about-tfc)

Rainbow: 4125 youth (annual report at https://www.rainbowcouncil.org/forms/category/3-executive-board.html)

 

This covers the entire Chicago metro with the exception of McHenry county which is in Blackhawk Council.  Blackhawk claims 18,000 youth (http://www.blackhawkscouting.org/Council) but they cover all the rest of Northern Illinois and a bit of SW Wisconsin.  When I look at the study I linked earlier it does seem like there are a lot of camps in fairly close proximity to each other in WI.  Maybe thinning the heard isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Edited October 7, 2015 by walk in the woods

[LongTimeGone]

Although far removed from the Northeast IIllinois Council, I still know a number of people who are quite well plugged in there. Yes it is a council that serves some of the wealthiest communities in the Chicago area, but the money they raise doesn't come easy. They have been trying for years to raise a capital campaign with limited success. From what I have heard was that the NEIC while party to the merger talks, simply did not see any benefit in joining up with the other councils. Three Fires Council ( western suburbs) also said no thanks. NEIC might have joined had there been guarantees that their camp, Ma-ka-ja-wan would not be closed and sold. This was a non-starter with CAC, who realized this would doom Owasippe. Despite strong and growing attendance ( of the 1000 or so campers that will no longer attentd LeFeber, Lyle, Mach-kin-o-siew and Shin-go-beek, MKJW is expecting 4-500) and very strong financials, MKJW has had a target on its back for years. The 2 reasons for this are there are no deed restrictions or covenants to preclude a sale, and there would be no opposition from the town or county to the property being developed, many of whom would love the hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes that would come their way. If you dig deep into the supporting docs of the "Wisconsin Project". You will find all f the camps CFET reports. It's obvious that the team evaluating MKJW had an agenda. How else do you explain the fact that in computing the final score, staff quarters ( which were marked down for such things as "inappropriate posters " )accounted for 25% of the total score while a 70 acre, clear, deep lake with no public access accounted for 1%.. Had the staff quarters been rated an F and weighted as they were at the other camps, MKJW would have ranked far ahead of all of the other camps.

[meyerc13]

Interesting.  My Council, Bay-Lakes, has been trying to sell Camp Twin Lakes for about a year now.  That shares a lake with Shin-Go-Beek.  It seems like there is a nice opportunity there for someone who has the money to pick up both properties... I know our Council has told us volunteers that they want to sell it to another Council.  When other Councils are selling properties on the same lake, I wonder how many Councils would be interested in buying property... I'm guessing not many.  I'd hate to see two Scout Camps sold to developers... you just can't get that much land if you need it later for Scouting... once it is divided up it will be gone forever.

 

It's times like this I wish I was wealthy... I'd buy both camps and keep them open for youth groups and Scouting.  I'm afraid that whoever buys it might not be so altruistic.