Summer Camp at Summit Review

[yknot]

19 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Thanks for raising the health issue.  While I did not make the review COVID-centric, perhaps I could have mentioned that all scouts and adults in our unit we’re tested within a week of departing and Temperature-monitored daily from that point and throughout the week.  Masks and gloves were worn and social distancing was followed.  We are fortunate that two parent-physicians were able to accompany us as well.  The Summit medical and program staff was effectively instant on compliance.  We acted on medical advice, plain and direct.  The circumstance was far safer than the circumstances these scouts are going back home to.

There's no doubt that Summit attempted to do the best it could and in fact, based on reports so far, exceeds what local school districts have been able to accomplish. However, that still doesn't address whether it should have been done at all. From my view of scout law, it has been a foolhardy risk. The ecumenical churches I am involved with are not meeting in person because it is counter to their imperative to do no harm. Could we be meeting? Yes. Is it likely we would be safe? Yes. Should we do it? We all decided no. 

[yknot]

19 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

My note simply observes that if and when a council camp closes, the Summit summer camp will be available and offers a good program.  I don’t think closing camps is the way to go unless local folks can’t sustain them.  I agree local is best, and we will go to our council camp next year if they operate.  I wish your council the best over the next few years as the financial stresses impact everyone in the BSA.

In other posts you have pointedly suggested that councils should close under performing local camps and funnel scouts to Summit. 

My Council will be fine, thank you. It is thankfully fairly well run despite the usual National on down nonsense, and the camps are well supported although of course always in need of something. What I'm worried about, however, are kids outside my regions. 

 

[yknot]

19 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

These are reasonable issues and thoughts.  The Summit summer camp cost was $380 per person.  We rented vans and drove 5.5 hours to get there, which is 1.5 hours farther than our council camp (which we passed on the way).  Our council camp price is $375.  So, it was a very similar price.  Yes, we do receive assistance for several of our scouts.  Our “monied interests” are the members of our modest CO church, who graciously held a coffee fundraiser to help send our Scouts and the parish itself gave us some additional help.  Another parish gave us $1,500.  We used it to greatly subsidize participation of those who needed it.  The Summit summer camp turned out to be a very good summer camp with some enjoyable bells and whistles.  Most of these scouts will never visit the Summit in its role as a jamboree site.  But, there is no reason why they should not experience these facilities when not being used for a jamboree.  Summer camp there turned out not to be exotic, expensive or Disney-like at all.  Just a fine time for our scouts to earn their merit badges and Learn the lessons of Scouting.

No one is debating the potential interest of Summit as a scout destination. The problem is accessibility. As you stated, it worked out for your unit. Mine would also probably have no problem finding the funds if they wanted to attend. The issue is when units do not have the level of support your unit or mine enjoys. Or when units run by working parent volunteers can't consider a camp more than a hour away so that they can trade days off and still get back home to get to work. I believe likely that describes a big part of the country, especially during and, hopefully, post Covid.

[skeptic]

This has been an interesting read.  I continue to be flummoxed by some of the truly negative comments, especially in light of the detailed positive report.  Cost, other than the transportation if you are not near, is within the same range as our more local camps, and less than some.  I would dearly love to be able to take our unit there, based on the report given, but for us, in California, it is prohibitive from the travel standpoint.  

I do wonder if the format I perceive in the report is what they are moving towards in the changes at Philmont.  Their descriptions last summer of the direction they hope to move at Philmont would seem to encompass offering some of the best parts to a broader range of participants, and include some additional options going forward if the idiot lawyers can be pushed from the larger picture.  

I could easily see, based on what I have read about the WV site, that serious remote and wilderness experiences are or will be options too, just as the traditional Philmont programs continue.

 

 

 

[Cburkhardt]

3 hours ago, 69RoadRunner said:

Lack of shade and the extreme distance between activities were the others.  They very much want to go back next year.

I agree with your thoughts about shade.  The Summit is terrain that alternates I between dense forest and open fields.  The sun starts to become intense around 10:30 after the final fog patches are burned-off.  The direct sun continues until around 5, when the west-side mountains begin to cast shadows.  The temperature drops about ten degrees around 6, and again a significant amount between 10:30 and 11.  There is heavy dew every night as the clouds descend around Midnight.

Adults used to smaller camps are surprised by the distance between facilities -- but the Scouts (even the new ones) don't raise it.  

One note about the walking is that there are gravel roads everywhere.  You are best advised to bring steel-shank boots to avoid wearing-out your feet. 

[Cburkhardt]

56 minutes ago, skeptic said:

This has been an interesting read.  I continue to be flummoxed by some of the truly negative comments, especially in light of the detailed positive report.  Cost, other than the transportation if you are not near, is within the same range as our more local camps, and less than some.  I would dearly love to be able to take our unit there, based on the report given, but for us, in California, it is prohibitive from the travel standpoint.

 

 

 

Thanks for this observation.  The negativity might reasonably flow a bit from the changes experienced and challenges faced by Scouting these past few years.  I spent several months late last year and early this year managing a series of extensive postings about these changes and the bankruptcy, so I don't shirk from these discussions.  If folks want to discuss the wisdom of the 100 council camps, Sea Base, Summit and Northern Boundary that operated during COVID this year, great.  If they want to debate the amount a Scout should pay for camp, wonderful.  If people want to advocate that the BSA lose high adventure base property as a matter of "justice", that is fair game as well.  However, the culture of this site is to debate those items in the policy and politics section and not on a posting about the quality of a summer camp program.

About that distance and costs from California. Scouts from the east, southeast and Midwest  raised funds to travel to Philmont and the wonderful national parks of your fine state for decades.  Because of the very interesting infrastructure and staff quality at the Summit, you now have an incentive to consider a trip east to the Summit and combine it with visits to nearby areas.  Your Scouts can do most everything they would do at a jamboree except attend the huge arena shows.  The difference?  They pay an economical $380 for a great week instead of the much larger Jamboree fees.  I say "economical" because I am informed that the fees to use zip lines and the other unusual facilities at private facilities is quite high.  At Summit the Scouts get a great summer camp program and all of the "extra fun stuff".  This is a beautiful facility and the Scouts love going here.

[Cburkhardt]

 

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I do wonder if the format I perceive in the report is what they are moving towards in the changes at Philmont.  Their descriptions last summer of the direction they hope to move at Philmont would seem to encompass offering some of the best parts to a broader range of participants...

 

 

 

Great question.  Here is the answer.  Over the coming years small facilities will be added to the bases to allow family members to come and experience the sites in a family-appropriate way.  This can take place at the time a unit visits or entirely unconnected with a unit visit.  A program track for youngsters will be offered.  They have been doing this for a long time at Philmont and at the iconic Owasippe Scout Reservation, the pristine 5,000-acre preserve for Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana (the Pathway to Adventure Council).  Owasippe has operated its family camp for 55 years and has 40 housekeeping cabins, facilities and program staff unique to the family camp.  Generation of Chicagoans have enjoyed that facility and very modest cost.  Philmont has operated its family program for a long time (I'm not a Philmont expert and don't know when it started).  This capability, built into a limited number of places, will provide a wonderful opportunity for all Scouting families before, during and after their children are active in Scouting.

[Cburkhardt]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I could easily see, based on what I have read about the WV site, that serious remote and wilderness experiences are or will be options too, just as the traditional Philmont programs continue.

 

 

 

Again, a great observation.  The New River Gorge National River property is directly adjacent to the Summit, and we have unlimited access to it.  It effectively expands the 14,000-acre Summit into an additional 70,000 pristine acres.  The Park Service loves us and the OA has really helped develop that trail system in the park.   Another factor that is going to make that happen is the staff culture that has rapidly built-up at the Summit.  It is not a duplicate of the Philmont Rangers -- but is a distinctly different and cohesive group of people that will be able to pull off the kind of experience and project the kind of mystique that we have in Cimarron.

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, Cburkhardt said:

 

Great question.  Here is the answer.  Over the coming years small facilities will be added to the bases to allow family members to come and experience the sites in a family-appropriate way.  This can take place at the time a unit visits or entirely unconnected with a unit visit.  A program track for youngsters will be offered.  They have been doing this for a long time at Philmont and at the iconic Owasippe Scout Reservation, the pristine 5,000-acre preserve for Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana (the Pathway to Adventure Council).  Owasippe has operated its family camp for 55 years and has 40 housekeeping cabins, facilities and program staff unique to the family camp.  Generation of Chicagoans have enjoyed that facility and very modest cost.  Philmont has operated its family program for a long time (I'm not a Philmont expert and don't know when it started).  This capability, built into a limited number of places, will provide a wonderful opportunity for all Scouting families before, during and after their children are active in Scouting.

I have taken 6 courses at PTC over the years, going back to 1977, and I saw almost nothing but positive family experiences going on.  What they told us last summer when I was there again for the History program was that they were developing a program along the lines of the family options for PTC, but that would be done outside a family member in a training seminar.  I got the impression it also would be eventually open to non scouting individuals.  

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, Cburkhardt said:

The negativity might reasonably flow a bit from the changes experienced and challenges faced by Scouting these past few years. 

My comments about showers and water come from the stupidity of the decision. When this was first noted PRIOR TO CONSTUCTION (emphasis) people commented that there were ecologically friendly ways to get be hot water. From painting water tanks green to absorb sunlight and heat up water, to solar heaters, to some others I can't remember. Instead of using these methods during the building process,they now have to pay more to fix the issues.

[Cburkhardt]

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

 I got the impression it also would be eventually open to non scouting individuals.  

Our national bases and the best of our larger council camps can be opened to non-scouting users during the off-seasons under proper tax circumstances.  The cash flows can subsidize Scouts attending summer camp and maintain and boost endowments.  The costs of operating and maintaining camps has skyrocketed during recent decades.  We need the cash flow to preserve these places for future youth.

[Cburkhardt]

12 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 Instead of using these methods during the building process,they now have to pay more to fix the issues.

I agree entirely.  Fortunately, it appears the "fix" is relatively easy.  In the adult shower house I used, they essentially used the space of one of the seven shower stalls to install a hot water heater.  They did not really have to alter the physical construction.  I probably should have mentioned that these shower houses/toilets are indestructible because of the bears.  Thick, well-poured concrete walls combine with heavy industrial lighting, fixtures and roofs.  Shelves are made of 1/4" thick angle irons bolted to the wall.  Wooden uprights are 10 x 10 hardwood that attach to steel fasteners that are bolted to the concrete floor.  The bottom 10 inches and upper two feet are open-air, so there is no dank smell.  A rampaging bear can't really do anything other than throw around the plastic garbage can.  Our Scouts actually thought the structures were "cool"  Go figure.

[Eagle94-A1]

20 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

The costs of operating and maintaining camps has skyrocketed during recent decades.  We need the cash flow to preserve these places for future youth.

Could some of the skyrocketing costs be due to NCAP standards trying to make every camp identical and "branded?" We have a camp that needs a bathhouse. Under local codes, no problem to build, got the volunteer manpower to do it, and can get the donations to build it. Told we could not build it because it did not meet NCAP standards. Building a bathhouse to those standards up the cost 4x.

We had shelters destroyed in a hurricane. We wanted to build ones that match the 70+ year old ones still in use.  Those meet local codes. We cannot build them because they do not meet NCAP standards. The NCAP ones are significantly larger, and designed for summer camps

[Cburkhardt]

8 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Could some of the skyrocketing costs be due to NCAP standards trying to make every camp identical and "branded?" 

Undoubtedly NCAP standards increase construction costs.  I don't know too much about the program, but I presume the standards are meant to require longer-term capital improvements that will need less repair, be safer and last longer.  What I was thinking of are operating costs like salaries, benefits, environmental requirements, maintenance and insurance  The increase in all of this is almost freakish.

[Eagle94-A1]

1 minute ago, Cburkhardt said:

Undoubtedly NCAP standards increase construction costs.  I don't know too much about the program, but I presume the standards are meant to require longer-term capital improvements that will need less repair, be safer and last longer. 

An aspect of NCAP is "branding," National wants all camps to have identical structures. Buildings are predesigned in that  there are a limited number of designs you can choose some. So a camp in Maine will look identical to a camp in Louisiana, even if the two camps have different environments and different structure styles would work better  in that camp's particular environment. And if a national design will not work at a camp due to local regulations, too bad, it won't be built.