Another lost camp

[skeptic]

Sadly, though the handwriting was already on the wall, I announce the loss of another almost one hundred year old Summer Camp.  Camp Three Falls is gone from the barely surviving Ventura County Council.  We will not belabor the myriad reasons why, or how it could have been avoided.  Most of them have been noted on here over the past few years, even before the lawsuit and bankruptcy.  It is just sad that somehow, in my view, National has not taken a strong stance in preserving camps in councils, as they have for decades been the backbone of the programs.  Most councils struggle regularly and have fewer connections, but National might have considered, and actually still could consider, finding a working partnership with outdoor groups, sporting good stores that encourage camping and outdoor activities, including climbing, and maybe form an alliance that would help local councils save camps, even if they are not only for scout use.  I keep picturing something along the line of a consortium of say, for example, REI, Dicks, and Bass stepping in to refurbish existing camps and open them to the local scouts, but also to others, especially climbing groups that might use climbing walls, and shooting clubs that might update ranges for all shooting sports.  Join with the Y to update water sports, and update boating on lakes in the camps or nearby, again making them available to selected groups such as other youth organizations and churches.  Work with colleges and universities to develop on site study options for outdoor sciences, shared with the Scouts for traditional and occasional short term merit badge options.  Where the Forest Service and similar government natural resource caretakers find it feasible, perhaps build training sights for park restoration an fire fighting, again allowing youth and leaders to learn more about these things.  But that is something that people with real connections would need to work on.  And few councils on their own have those resources.  The grant just received by national for youth program development proves that there is an interest. 

Meanwhile, we have officially lost our camp; though rumor says the new owner will work to make it available to us and to save its history.  We will see how that shakes out.  It could be on the level just noted, or it could be empty promises.  

[mrjohns2]

6 hours ago, skeptic said:

National has not taken a strong stance in preserving camps in councils,

Out of all of the changes, I am pretty sure National doesn't care much about the loss of camps. They would rather there be 1/2 the camps. Then those camps could be filled closer to capacity and have funds to at least staff and do routine maintenance.

[skeptic]

You may be right, but that goes against a major part of the program.  That upkeep and so on could be maintained with some arrangement like I noted, and the properties would get far more use as well.  But as I have said a lot lately, I am just a peon whose opinions hold little or no sway.  Let us be real; most of the camp issues are simply due to poor planning and kicking things down the road.  Cooperative use of properties is a win, win concept, or so it seems to me.  

 

[Jameson76]

14 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Out of all of the changes, I am pretty sure National doesn't care much about the loss of camps. 

I would posit that National would rather we have no camps and would be happy if Scouts do not go outside at all.  That is where bad things may happen.  My view is that National and the Councils want to focus on the Cubs that are easier to manage and have parents there to oversee.  This whole Troops out and about without generating revenue to National and Councils is not the desired process

Scouts is about raising money.  Youth out doing things is secondary.  Legacy things such as camps are not needed in the new world order.

[HashTagScouts]

16 hours ago, skeptic said:

You may be right, but that goes against a major part of the program.  That upkeep and so on could be maintained with some arrangement like I noted, and the properties would get far more use as well.  But as I have said a lot lately, I am just a peon whose opinions hold little or no sway.  Let us be real; most of the camp issues are simply due to poor planning and kicking things down the road.  Cooperative use of properties is a win, win concept, or so it seems to me.  

 

Can't speak to all parts of the US, but there have been several examples of Councils in New England trying different things. Narragansett Council effectively transferred ownership of their properties to an "outside" group- Rhode Island Boy Scouts, which in turn leases the properties back to the Council. That also allows RIBS to explore opportunities that can use properties for non-Scouting programs. One example they do at one property:  Camp Norse Co-Op

Spirit of Adventure Council, Daniel Webster Council and Narragansett Council are partnered to run weekend "Base Camp" half-day and full-day programs at various properties, which are open for sign-up to both Scouts and non-Scouts. Knowing several folks who have worked these weekends, their feedback is attendance could be higher if it were allowed to have one adult bringing their child and say 2-3 of their friends, but to ensure they are compliant for youth protection each youth has to be accompanied individually by an adult. 

 

[BetterWithCheddar]

On 12/19/2024 at 12:12 PM, Jameson76 said:

I would posit that National would rather we have no camps and would be happy if Scouts do not go outside at all. 

I detect a bit of satire here, but also some truth.

In my region, it's cold and dark for much of the school year. The Pack calendar ramps up in the Fall, we get outside for maybe 2 glorious Saturdays, then we settle into our routine of meeting 2x per month in the school cafeteria. Even though our council camp is equipped with a few nice, winterized cabins, few parents want to accept the liability of organizing a weekend outing. 

My son's Wolf Den tripled in size this year due to an influx of "indoor kids." These 2nd graders have tried team sports, realized they were already behind their peers, and opted for a more inclusive activity. They have a limited desire to go outside, but their parents said they can't be on the iPad all the time, so here they are. Most of these kids and their families are kind and decent. I'm glad Scouting exists to keep them active, but it's an odd dynamic.

I think the shift to more indoor programming is at least partially guided by member preferences,