Open Discussion - Program
Share Scouting Topics here.
Subforums
-
- 723
- posts
-
- 2764
- posts
9074 topics in this forum
-
- 9 replies
- 733 views
-
- 22 replies
- 4228 views
-
- 26 replies
- 2224 views
-
- 12 replies
- 1006 views
-
- 68 replies
- 5328 views
-
- 195 replies
- 12350 views
-
- 10 replies
- 191 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1118 views
-
- 3 replies
- 312 views
-
- 7 replies
- 591 views
-
- 7 replies
- 371 views
-
- 64 replies
- 3476 views
-
- 26 replies
- 1563 views
-
- 18 replies
- 714 views
-
- 6 replies
- 372 views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
Membership in Marc's council has continued to fall, as it doubled its territory. The outdoor program has been deemphasized. Megatreds. This loss of camping "customers" reduces the need for camp property. Plus, more campsites have been created at the largest site, Beaumont Scout Reservation. Marc is good at recalling one's name. He said he favored less training for volunteer adults as the solution to badly-run training, but left the same regime in charge of training. Districts were eliminated. Fund-raising has fallen significantly our the recent years, except as to the capital fund, which hit new highs before the professional in charge of capital fund-raising was laid-off. Capital funds do not meet payroll. -
By Eagle94-A1 · Posted
Not necessarily. In at least 1 instance, I know a council, or more specifically a SE and DFS, that attempted restrict access to a council camp, and with lower attendance at the camp, reduced funding to the camp. The camp was essentially maintained by 2 OA chapters and troops in 2 districts. Rumor had it that the SE and DFS were trying to get the trust to give outright ownership to the council. Thankfully the camp is still in a trust. Later, a different SE not only removed some of the restrictions at the camp, but also invested in maintenance and repairs. That camp usually has more attendance than the other council camps, including the primary one used for summer camp. -
It's my understanding that LEC contacted our metroparks and they did not have the funds either. I could not find the email or facebook post where I read this but am confident in what I read. Scouts aren't using the camps. I don't see how giving the camp away helps the council or the scouts. If attendance at the camp was active, the camp would have been profitable. It also doesn't make much business sense to me to have two council camps requiring resources that are within fifteen minutes of each other. -
Totally agreed. Also, anyone who is an advocate for the out of doors needs to pay attention to what is and may well be happening in the months and years ahead. BSA and scouts are not the only ones looking to unload properties or cut budgets. Universities, private institutions, churches, and county and state park systems are all potentially facing financial issues. The first thing on the block is generally valuable property currently used for environmental or other outdoors related access purposes as well as the budgets that allow them to remain accessible. We are going to be in a real fight in the next couple of years to retain access to outdoor spaces for many of our youth. Let's be careful with how we manage these precious scout properties. Even if no longer sustainable by us, we can at least attempt to try and put them in better hands. -
By Sentinel947 · Posted
When my council absorbed a nearby struggling council in the 90's, the struggling council's camp was considered redundant, and had not been hosting summer camps for a few years anyways. It was decided to give/sell it to the local metropark system under the agreement that they would waive the usage fee for Scout groups. Today it is a beautiful and oft used public park. My favorite parts to visit is the old camp outdoor chapel which is still standing, as well as the transplanted Oak Tree from Gilwell Park.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)
There are no registered users currently online