Opposition to the Quivira Council $120 Program Fee

[vol_scouter]

5 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I have a strategy/philosophy question.

Why do various subunits of BSA own so much property in the first place? (That needs maintenance and general expenditures.) Why don't we just use public lands, tents, and our own two legs (and maybe a paddle)?

Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior under Bill Clinton, tried to ban Scouts from all national parks and other lands.  So an administration who does like the BSA could potentially block access to national lands.  Clearly there would likely be lawsuits but the damage could be significant.  
 

Most national parks limit group size that would currently disallow troops and packs from camping together.

We should keep as much property as possible to provide flexibility for future generations.  Be Prepared.

[yknot]

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior under Bill Clinton, tried to ban Scouts from all national parks and other lands.  So an administration who does like the BSA could potentially block access to national lands.  Clearly there would likely be lawsuits but the damage could be significant.  
 

Most national parks limit group size that would currently disallow troops and packs from camping together.

We should keep as much property as possible to provide flexibility for future generations.  Be Prepared.

There is no way scouting can hang on to all the property it currently has. If part of its mission is to be a steward of the outdoors and get the nation's kids out in it,  then councils should have some form of long term management and succession planning for their properties. That would entail identifying future public or private partners for the land that would guarantee continued scouting access in exchange for reduced land costs or other concessions if/when they have to sell it. Instead, far too many councils have either been shortsighted and ill prepared for this stewardship role or they have regarded donated land resources as piggy banks to be raided when council salaries or operations are squeezed. There have been a few bright spots over the past few years where councils have partnered with land trusts or public agencies or even private developers to ensure some or all of the land remains mostly undeveloped and accessible to youth. I hope there will be more cases like this because the loss of these properties forever is sad. The reality though is that many of these properties are currently mismanaged, underutilized, and inefficiently operated. That is one area where the national organization could actually help by providing legal and land use expertise, turn key programming,  marketing support, and central purchasing and contracting, among other things, that might keep more of them viable and under direct scouting control.  

[DuctTape]

At one time the scout camp lands were just that, land. Scouts would go and camp in the woods and paddle the lakes just like if they were on national or state forest lands. There was little to no infrastructure to maintain. With the creation of dining halls, trading posts, cabins, etc... the cost for maintainance skyrocketed.

Ironically to help pay for these costs, many councils sold public easements to states so that during non-camp times the general public could use the lands for hunting, fishing and camping outside the "main camp", ie the woods and forests. So the general public now uses the unimproved forests for the same experiences the scouts used to use them for generations ago  to help pay for the scouts to have more indoor facilities. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

59 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

At one time the scout camp lands were just that, land. Scouts would go and camp in the woods and paddle the lakes just like if they were on national or state forest lands. There was little to no infrastructure to maintain. With the creation of dining halls, trading posts, cabins, etc... the cost for maintainance skyrocketed.

Ironically to help pay for these costs, many councils sold public easements to states so that during non-camp times the general public could use the lands for hunting, fishing and camping outside the "main camp", ie the woods and forests. So the general public now uses the unimproved forests for the same experiences the scouts used to use them for generations ago  to help pay for the scouts to have more indoor facilities. 

But, we have to create the country club!

[vol_scouter]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

There is no way scouting can hang on to all the property it currently has. If part of its mission is to be a steward of the outdoors and get the nation's kids out in it,  then councils should have some form of long term management and succession planning for their properties. That would entail identifying future public or private partners for the land that would guarantee continued scouting access in exchange for reduced land costs or other concessions if/when they have to sell it. Instead, far too many councils have either been shortsighted and ill prepared for this stewardship role or they have regarded donated land resources as piggy banks to be raided when council salaries or operations are squeezed. There have been a few bright spots over the past few years where councils have partnered with land trusts or public agencies or even private developers to ensure some or all of the land remains mostly undeveloped and accessible to youth. I hope there will be more cases like this because the loss of these properties forever is sad. The reality though is that many of these properties are currently mismanaged, underutilized, and inefficiently operated. That is one area where the national organization could actually help by providing legal and land use expertise, turn key programming,  marketing support, and central purchasing and contracting, among other things, that might keep more of them viable and under direct scouting control.  

Clearly, local councils cannot keep all of their property because they are paying into the trust.  However, they should hang onto all of the land that they can.  Giving it to any public entity could result in a loss of access no matter the contractual agreements.  We are seeing land and buildings given to public entities where names and uses are changed because people today are offended.   Scouting could be forced out of public spaces.  Not saying that I will occur or that it is likely but that it is possible and therefore a risk. 

[Eagle94-A1]

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

  Giving it to any public entity could result in a loss of access no matter the contractual agreements.  We are seeing land and buildings given to public entities where names and uses are changed because people today are offended.   Scouting could be forced out of public spaces.  Not saying that I will occur or that it is likely but that it is possible and therefore a risk. 

Seeing it done now. Camp got sold, but in the agreement Scouts can use it 5 times a year for the next 3 years. HOWEVER since the new owners are not maintaining the property, Scouters would have 1 Saturday prior to an event to come in and get everything ready. The last time an event was held there with no ranger onsite, it took volunteers about 2 months going into and out of the camp at our own times to get it ready to meet NCAP standards. One event was already cancelled this year, and the fall events may be cancelled if the conditions are stil in place.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

23 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior under Bill Clinton, tried to ban Scouts from all national parks and other lands.

Do you have some more information about this? I tried googling, but didn't get any hits talking both about Babbitt and BSA.

[vol_scouter]

8 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Do you have some more information about this? I tried googling, but didn't get any hits talking both about Babbitt and BSA.

Sorry but I just have my memories of Babbitt saying that Boy Scouts were no longer welcome in the national parks (over hey issues as I recall).  My memory is that he said it causing quite a bit of negative attention so that an actual policy was never put into action or was very short lived.  My quick search was overwhelmed by Babbitt biographical articles and articles about the BSA and gay issues.  Wish that I had a reference.  It was in the 1990’s.  
 

The real point is that a powerful politician who dislikes Scouting could potentially prevent Scout units from using public lands.  Whether it would withstand court challenges is a different issue. 
 

Folks in the national office can attest to threats from the left and right including death threats.  So this comment is a general comment.  Babbitt is the only person that I know tried to keep Scouts off of a subset of federal lands.  
 

in my opinion, councils should own and maintain as much property as is financially reasonable. 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

17 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The real point is that a powerful politician who dislikes Scouting could potentially prevent Scout units from using public lands.  Whether it would withstand court challenges is a different issue.

I don't know, I think it sounds like the same issue. Politicians say all kinds of things, especially once. I don't think it can be done, and if there has never been a real attempt then I don't see the need to actively plan to mitigate this scenario given the potential downsides.

And if Babbitt said this in context of BSA discriminating, in violation of WOSM membership policy, then that's hardly some random unfounded anti-BSA idea. In addition, in that case, the problem is gone. Even less reason to start a property management arm.

[vol_scouter]

8 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I don't know, I think it sounds like the same issue. Politicians say all kinds of things, especially once. I don't think it can be done, and if there has never been a real attempt then I don't see the need to actively plan to mitigate this scenario given the potential downsides.

And if Babbitt said this in context of BSA discriminating, in violation of WOSM membership policy, then that's hardly some random unfounded anti-BSA idea. In addition, in that case, the problem is gone. Even less reason to start a property management arm.

The attempt was quite real.  My son was in Boy Scouts at the time. I was an ASM and member of the Executive Board.  Our council had regular (every other year) events to work maintain trails and pickup litter in a local national park. The council had provided a few thousand man hours of service and it was most appreciated.  After Babbitt’s statements, we were abruptly told that we were no longer welcome and have not been allowed to do service projects since.
 

A politician, especially a presidential policy, could keep Scouts off federal lands overnight and could last for some time or be permanent (as our council has been for service projects).  Our motto of Be Prepared should encourage a policy to keep land.  The risks are real.  

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

The attempt was quite real.  My son was in Boy Scouts at the time. I was an ASM and member of the Executive Board.  Our council had regular (every other year) events to work maintain trails and pickup litter in a local national park. The council had provided a few thousand man hours of service and it was most appreciated.  After Babbitt’s statements, we were abruptly told that we were no longer welcome and have not been allowed to do service projects since.

That's quite unfortunate. I take it you've asked after the discrimination against the LGBTQIA community was dropped and they still said no? Did they give a reason? This seems to be missing the natural synergy between scouting and wild natural lands but from the other direction.

However, as eyebrow-raising as that is, not being allowed to do service projects isn't being banned from public lands. That's the part I really don't think can be done either with respect to public opinion nor law. How can you ban part of the public from public lands because of their membership in an organization? Especially when it's an official scouting organization? I think that is crazy to even try.

However, I can't help but feel that if BSA really did get cold-shouldered on public lands, even if not proper banned, it is up to the BSA to win back public trust. The scouting movement has so much goodwill and has had it for a long time. An individual NSO getting a bad rep with the public in a democratic country with a free press is almost certainly its own doing. The preparation for this is to go back to basics of living our stated values in the scout law universally, not just in certain cases, and showing immediate action against and transparently around any sexual abuse that occurs in BSA. Winning back trust takes time - assuming you actually have changed in the first place.

TBH it's not clear to me how deep the proclaimed changes go even though I'm active in the organization. When some LGBTQIA friends asked if I would recommend BSA, I didn't dare say a blanket yes. All I dared say was that we have been warmly welcomed. But I'm straight. I don't know if it would have been the same if I wasn't. I want to believe so, but I can't know so.

Edited May 13, 2023 by AwakeEnergyScouter
Added a bit

[swilliams]

On 5/8/2023 at 4:59 PM, fred8033 said:

Saw this in our council too.  Every non-profit is fundraising so much and scouting is not the darling child anymore.  Maybe 20 years from now, scouting will find it's roots and do better again.  Until then, council fees are in vogue.

IMHO, the real issue is the market does not support big council staffs anymore.  Like camera film development and fax machine sales, the market has shifted.  Time for the councils to re-think their business models.  National too.  The real question is does the individual scout get value from the $75 national and $100+ council fees which their own units are staffed by volunteers and the camp fees are separate.  

For example, maybe scouting could partner with other organizations on the annual background checks, incident reporting and youth protection.  I've had multiple years where I had three or four or five background checks run.  I always think about the wasted cost.  

I'm sure there are many, many ways to restructure the administration.

That last part would probably be a rather large savings, as so many organizations require background checks now.  For myself, I've been background checked three times in the past two years - USATF, as a substitute teacher, and for a real estate license.

[1980Scouter]

There should be a nationwide background check standard that would apply to all youth organizations.  One check could cover all youth organizations.  

 

All youth organizations are looking for the same thing, to weed out poor candidates that may harm children. 

[InquisitiveScouter]

8 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

There should be a nationwide background check standard that would apply to all youth organizations.  One check could cover all youth organizations.  

 

All youth organizations are looking for the same thing, to weed out poor candidates that may harm children. 

Agreed, but not all state police or state child welfare records are shared in national databases.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/xreporting.pdf

Edited May 29, 2023 by InquisitiveScouter

[5thGenTexan]

Circle 10 has 4 camps.

One most local to me is on Corps of Engineers land.  I assume its some sort of lease till the world ends.

One is a camp I went to in the 80s as Camp Cherokee.  It now holds the name of the benefactor.  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Rees-Jones_(businessman)

One is a camp right in the middle of Dallas.  It just turned 100 years old.  Now surrounded by major freeways and not easy to get to, for us anyway.

One is....     

 

Camp Constantin is the flagship campground for Circle Ten. Located on 385 acres (1.6 km²) on the shores of Possum Kingdom Lake near Graford, Texas and containing 15 campsites, Constantin acts as both a regular camp open to Boy Scouts from all areas and as Circle 10's largest and longest-running summer camp hosting roughly 2,800 Scouts during the 5 weeks it is open during the summer. Constantin was acquired by the Boy Scouts in 1946 when Eugene Constantin donated it, after the death of his son in World War II, to the group that he decided best served the needs, morals, and values of young men. The camp recently celebrated its 60th birthday and regularly plays host to International Scouts, most notably Scouting Ireland.^[4]

 

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_Ten_Council#:~:text=Camp Constantin,-Camp Constantin&text=Constantin was acquired by the,and values of young men.}