Predicting Nationwide Shutdown Continues to Sept.

[cgail]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

 

Moreover, after this year, who wouldn't rather send their kid to a camp with no more than a couple hundred kids in attendance per week?

Yep, and if parents have to drive an hour plus, then there is no Cub Day camp, and even Troop camping will suffer.

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by cgail

[Eagle94-A1]

18 minutes ago, cgail said:

Yep, and if parents have to drive an hour plus, then there is no Cub Day camp, and even Troop camping will suffer.

 

Troop camping may not suffer. Troops, unlike CS packs, are not limited to approve campgrounds. If a troop wants to camp somewhere without showers, it is allowed. Troop wants to camp at a national forest, they can do it.

 

[yknot]

16 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Troop camping may not suffer. Troops, unlike CS packs, are not limited to approve campgrounds. If a troop wants to camp somewhere without showers, it is allowed. Troop wants to camp at a national forest, they can do it.

 

Our cubs have camped for years at state, county, town parks and even privately held properties that offer camping access. 

Personally, I feel that a significant loss of locally available council camps would be a death blow to scouts. It would then only serve the wealthy or the lucky. 

Relying on non Council owned camp options going forward will be risky, especially since park services constantly have their funding cut. I can't imagine what is going to happen to park facilities over the next few years as we recover from this.  There is no point in keeping council offices and administrative tasks going if there are no camps. 

 

[walk in the woods]

9 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

We don’t want 20 different sets of Eagle requirements, for instance.  

This begs the question by assuming there's a need for a national standard.  The US and EU are roughly the same physical size, similar populations sizes, similar economic sizes.  Do UK scouts coordinate their advancement program or their supply chain with German Scouts?  Why does scouting in Alabama have to be the same as scouting in NYC or DC?  If we're worried about consistency, have a Congress of US Scouting organizations once a year to recommend resolutions for the individual scouting organization to consider.  End national, spin off the HA bases as independent businesses, give the super councils a 3 year charter for a geographic area and then let them compete for units.  The BSA is a monopoly and demonstrates all the ills of being a monopoly.  The solution is competition.

[Mrjeff]

The councils should take care of council busuness including what is done with their camps and property.  There are already numerous variations in Eagle Scout requirements depending on the needs of the individual, that's a fact, wether believed or not.  Anybody above the local council seem to be more interested in their positions and have forgotten about the kids and what they want to do. We gont need regional committees to tell Scout Leaders how to be Scout Leaders, and we dont need national enforcement people telling Scout Leaders that they need to comply with what the national committee said.  That's how things worked and the whole thing has crashed down around the members.  It's real simple, when an organization that had a certain  system and completly disregarded their own system, the organization failed.

[DuctTape]

much has been discussed about council camps and their associated cost. IMO the biggest driver of these (continuing) costs has been the decades long increase in costly infrastructure to the properties. From construction of mess halls with commercial grade kitchens to pavillions and everything in between. Many of these construction projects were funded by donations but those donations were not enough to cover the legacy cost of the infrastructure. It is these legacy costs which are the drivers for budget shortfalls at the camps. If the BSA survives with the summit intact, we will see this same issue on a national scale which will make the original cost overrun of the summit look like peanuts. 

So then what is the solution? Well many (most?) troops camp a lot at various properties with much less infrastructure. National forests and other publuc lan  likely are the bulk. They have little infrastructure to maintain. In fact my troop most often camps on public land where the only infrastructure is a parking lot. This is not a new concept. Most council properties began this way as wild forests where scouts could hike and camp. It was over time that council began to make camp indoors within the forest. 

[Eagle94-A1]

My thoughts.

 

1)

12 hours ago, yknot said:

Our cubs have camped for years at state, county, town parks and even privately held properties that offer camping access. 

Officially, Cubs are suppose to go to council approved camps that meet certain criteria. Some councils have specifically stated only council owned camps are allowed. This essentially forces packs to use council owned facilities. The you have the opposite extreme, my council. Because of the "Cubs don't need to camp" attitude of many older, long time volunteers, there is NO approved Cub Scout camp ground list. Further the specialized training needed to run district and council level Cub Scout camping events has not been offered in a number of years, yet these activities continue. The closest item to an "approved" campground list that packs use is the Where to Go Camping guide the OA puts out.

When my council eventually merges into the other 4 councils (see my other posts on that matter) many will see how truely screwed up we were on a lot of things.

2.

1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

much has been discussed about council camps and their associated cost. IMO the biggest driver of these (continuing) costs has been the decades long increase in costly infrastructure to the properties. From construction of mess halls with commercial grade kitchens to pavillions and everything in between. Many of these construction projects were funded by donations but those donations were not enough to cover the legacy cost of the infrastructure.

And you know who mandated all of the infrastructure? When NCAP first came out, I was a CSDC program director. A lot of the stuff in it a CSDC didn't need to worry about to have an effective program. But we were told we needed to have it anyway as it was the new rules.

And part of NCAP is infrastructure. We use a relatively primitive camp. Most of the structures were built by individual troops and the OA over the  years. Many of the structures do not meet NCAP standards because they are not the official, predesigned, one-size-fits-all structures national wants everyone to use. Unless we can build to NCAP standards, we are not allowed to rebuild destroyed structures So now we have an entire empty campsite. with nothing there but cement pads where the Adirondack shelters were. And because the original shelters sis not have the mandated square footage, they cannot be rebuilt.

[yknot]

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Officially, Cubs are suppose to go to council approved camps that meet certain criteria. Some councils have specifically stated only council owned camps are allowed. This essentially forces packs to use council owned facilities. 

Technically, I guess we can say we are utilizing council approved camps because they are aware of what units are doing, don't take issue with it, and provide COIs for many of the facilities. I am talking about Pack overnighters though, not summer day camp. That we generally do at council run camps 

I would not like being in your council. My sympathies. 

 

[Mrjeff]

These are the same issues that I've mentioned.  What busniss is it of the BSA weather our camp has a commercial kitchen and one flush crapper for every how many campers?  If it meets the needs of our local units they should keep their hands out of it and there is no need for a national committee to make up useless rules.  These are the same people who try and tell units that they can only camp in certain places.  I dont think that those individuals are any smarter, better educated, or more concerned about where the kids can camp then the unit leaders and parents of those kids. 

[Cburkhardt]

Qwazse:  Interested in your views about how to pay for the ongoing camp operations in the post virus/post bankruptcy environment.  I suppose a format could be to sell or gift the camps to local NFPs (perhaps formed by Scouters) or governmental units with some kind of covenant on the land to assure Scouting access. The difference between where I think the BSA may go and the GSUSA is that GSUSA seems to be intentionally walking away from camp ownership and operation.  The BSA does not have resources to maintain the infrastructure it gained during our strongest financial period ind is very reluctantly trying to figure out a way to have some of these properties survive.  I also agree the comments that the infrastructure on the properties is going to have to be simple and low-cost.  

[Cburkhardt]

15 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

This begs the question by assuming there's a need for a national standard.  The US and EU are roughly the same physical size, similar populations sizes, similar economic sizes.  Do UK scouts coordinate their advancement program or their supply chain with German Scouts?  Why does scouting in Alabama have to be the same as scouting in NYC or DC?  If we're worried about consistency, have a Congress of US Scouting organizations once a year to recommend resolutions for the individual scouting organization to consider.  End national, spin off the HA bases as independent businesses, give the super councils a 3 year charter for a geographic area and then let them compete for units.  The BSA is a monopoly and demonstrates all the ills of being a monopoly.  The solution is competition.

WIW:  I think a substantive dissolving of organizational bonds if probably not the way to go, because there is some value in limited national standards, such as what an Eagle Scout is.  However, I think your observations contain hints of what is to come.  The future councils, whatever they are, will have the upper hand and will probably dominate the scene as a kind of confederation.  The head of a small national service organization is not going to have the influence or leverage of the CSEs of the past.  The big council leadership will agree what is needed and the national entity will service that decision.   

[DuctTape]

2 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Qwazse:  Interested in your views about how to pay for the ongoing camp operations in the post virus/post bankruptcy environment.  I suppose a format could be to sell or gift the camps to local NFPs (perhaps formed by Scouters) or governmental units with some kind of covenant on the land to assure Scouting access. The difference between where I think the BSA may go and the GSUSA is that GSUSA seems to be intentionally walking away from camp ownership and operation.  The BSA does not have resources to maintain the infrastructure it gained during our strongest financial period ind is very reluctantly trying to figure out a way to have some of these properties survive.  I also agree the comments that the infrastructure on the properties is going to have to be simple and low-cost.  

Many many years ago our council (pre-merger) had donated/sold? Some local property to the county parks under the condition that they allow youth camping in perpetuity. This covenant still exists and many youth orgs (primarily scouts) use the property for camping. I  remember using it as a scout. The only  infrastructure were dirt roads and trails. Main areas had outhouses, which  have been replaced by port-a-johns.

[Mrjeff]

OK, one more time, the BSA does NOT own the individual councils.  Each council has their own executive board which includes a finance chairman and a properties chairman.   The BSA is not responsible for the infrastructure of the locally owned council camps.  That is the responsibility of the local council executive boards.  Not "National" , not the regions or the areas, and certenly not neighboring councils.  Selling, closing, transferring, or other uses is the responsibility of the local executive board. What happens as a result of court orders concerning the bankruptcy remains to be seen, but otherwise the local executive boards make these decisions.

[MattR]

If we could use hunting style tents with heaters in them during the winter and had some way to poop in the woods without having to dig cat holes, especially when the ground is frozen, then we would not need any council camps and would have a much stronger program. While we do have campouts in below zero weather in normal tents, it gets old after four months in a row.

I can see how to solve the pooping problem. Getting a warm shelter is impossible with the tent restrictions.

Edited April 12, 2020 by MattR
clarity

[Mrjeff]

By camp operations I guess you're talking about long term camping.  A long term camp must pay for itself.  If the camping program can't pay for itself then long term camping is not an option.  That does make it a little harder for unit leaders to get their kids to summer camp but it really isn't hard to find someplace to go.  That doesn't mean that every camp that doesnt host a summer camp should be sold or given away.  As long as a particular property is not losing money, leave it alone and have it available for council and unit events.  The money comes from FOS, local patrons and donors,  and camp usage fees.  Again, this all comes under the purview of the local council executive board.