shortridge

There's been a lot of negative energy aimed in the direction of summer camps in some recent threads, so I thought I'd dispel some of the bad auras by opening up a non-threatening location for people to post their affirming stories from this season of summer camp. Touching, humorous, oddball, educational - whatever stories you've got, spin 'em here. Peace out, yo.

This may be going way off topic (sorry), but I'm left wondering what the difference is between a "paper" unit and a "real" unit. (A) We've heard on here horror stories of troops that go camping maybe three or four times a year. Are they "real" troops? (B) Then there's a camp staff Venturing crew that spends time together six days a week, eight to 10 weeks at a stretch, every year, plus a weekend or two in the off-season. Its members do at least three times as much Scouting together as does the Boy Scout troop in item A. Is that not a "real" crew? Believe me, I understand the concerns about pros cheating, numbers being jacked up and paperwork being fudged. But I think it's insulting and a disservice to accuse every camp staff crew of being party to paper fraud.

I'd not be comfortable with this, either. Sounds strange, for all the reasons others have outlined. On the issue of camp staff Venturing crews -- my old camp did this with an Explorer Post, and does it now with a Venturing Crew. Since BSA membership is a requirement of employment, it's primarily a way to register staffers who aren't already Scouts or Scouters - such as the teacher who's working as shooting sports director, or the med student who's a first-aider. My camp crew/post was indeed active primarily during the summer, but it also held events throughout the year - we did service projects at the spring staff interview weekend, and had occasional get-togethers at other times. Now, the crew is serving as a pool for drawing campmasters from. As for those who say well, it's not a real crew, I'd like to introduce you sometime to a friend of mine who got really involved in Scouts only after being hired on as an aquatics staff member. He joined the post, energized it, became its president and earned Eagle. After college, he became the camp director and is now a council field director. Did he not have a real Scouting experience because his post was a camp staff post?

5years, Not sure where that 70 percent LDS figure comes from. My back-of-the-envelope math shows that LDS Scouts make up just under 15 percent of the total traditional Scouting youth membership, from Tigers to Venturing. They make up about 32 percent of the total COs. It does work up to an average LDS unit size of about 10 youth.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

"Cream of the crop" camp staff members? Sorry, but unless they create full-time, year-round positions, or quintuple their salaries, most BSA summer camps are not going to get the types of people you are demanding. There's not exactly a pool of professional wilderness guides or climbing instructors eager to take a temporary job with no benefits at a Scout camp. I'd estimate the average tenure of a BSA camp staffer is about 2-4 years. They start in high school and continue serving into college. But as soon as they realize they can make more money or become better poised for their careers in other jobs ("I'm an archery instructor, but I want to be a chemist. How does that help me?"), they're gone. Teachers, who have summers off, can swing it for a while - until they start a family and can't justify the time away from home. Few other people, except retirees, can afford to get paid $200 a week to work 12-to-14-hour days and live in a tiny cabin or tent in the middle of the woods. I'd suggest that your point of view is slightly skewed by your perspective. You don't have any real information on whether GS consolidation has led to a cream-of-the-crop camp staff there, because you don't attend along with your daughter. Yet you get to see all the warts at the Boy Scout camp because you are there in person. I'd wager that the GS camp can look fairly sketchy up close, too.

trainerlady, I'm sorry your council lied to you, but that's not a Boy Scouts of America problem - that's a Council X problem. You kept bringing up GS vs BSA camps, so I did a local comparison. My GS council's camp offers a six-day program for high schoolers for between $330 and $360, comparable to the Boy Scout program fee for resident camp, at $370 per Scout. But there are some significant differences. >> At Girl Scouts, there is no pick-from-a-menu program. You attend one of several "theme" program weeks (sailing, horseback riding, cooking, etc.); you don't just get to show up and choose whatever you want to do, like you can at Boy Scout camp. That allows the GS camp to customize its staffing levels early on. >> Girl Scout day camps are run simultaneously alongside the resident camps. That allows the council to bolster its attendance and double the use of its paid staff. In Cub Scouts, day camps in my council are held off-site (at state parks and private campgrounds) and run mostly by volunteers. >> GS camps are open to any girl who registers for camp, and girls don't have to attend with their troops. Boy Scout camps are open only to Scouts, members who generally attend with their troop. (Provo programs in my experience are usually open only to experienced campers.) I think that's just the basic nature of the program. Boy Scouts emphasizes the patrol and troop; Girl Scouts emphasizes the individual, and there can sometimes be very little unit stability. From my own experience: After attending and working at a Boy Scout camp for many years, I got my first exposure to GS camps last summer at a "Me and My Guy" weekend camp with my daughter. I was shocked at the physical condition of the GS camp midway through the season - dilapidated buildings, uncut grass, pigsty showers and poorly marked trails. There clearly had been very little money put into the camp infrastructure - and the program situation was almost as bad, so I'm not sure where the money we paid was going. If I'd been able to take my daughter to Cub Scout resident camp at my old stomping grounds, we'd have been guaranteed a dining hall only a decade old, showers with privacy curtains, trails with markers and signposts all around and grass cut weekly. We'd have done archery with appropriate equipment, not the oversized recurve bows and broken arrows the GS camp foisted on the kids, and we'd have worn PFDs that were properly inspected and stored, not slung all over porch railings to be worn down by the sun. This is not a slam on Girl Scouts, nor am I suggesting that one bad camp experience makes all GS camps bad. I'm just observing that from my experience, the Boy Scout camp was worth the money.

The BSA makes adults from units attend camp for leaderdship purposes. If a parent is a DL, CM, SM or ASM then we have to go to camp. We took 18 boys to camp, therefore by our camps standards we needed 4 adults in camp at all times. trainerlady Neither of the things you cite are BSA requirements. They may be local rules of your unit or camp, but you cant blame National or the BSA structure. >> Resident camps National Camp Standards (http://bit.ly/oEduaI) require two adults per each eight boys for Cub Scout packs. There is no such required ratio for Boy Scout camping, let alone summer camp. The summer camp leadership requirement is: There must be a minimum of two adult leaders with each unit and/or campsite. In cases where units cannot provide two leaders, the council will coordinate with the unit to arrange to meet the two-deep leadership standard. The unit leader or anyone serving as a unit leader is at least 21 years of age and a registered member of the Boy Scouts of America. The second adult may be a registered Scouter 18 years of age or older, or a parent of a participating youth member. (from the camp standards document linked above) That could mean an over-21 committee member and another parent could take the troop to summer camp - no SM or ASM presence required. Ive known some troops that have parents on a schedule and rotate them in and out, so no one has to take off more than a day or two. Sometimes people who work during the day come and stay overnight, while graveyard shift workers head off to the plant. Its possible to do it without giving up an entire week. They generally do have one person on site the whole week to provide continuity and leadership (usually the SM or a senior ASM), but it's not required. >> Council-organized camping experiences For Cub camping, BSA strongly recommends that parents attend along with their son, because Cubs is a family program. But another parent (who is also a registered member) may take over that duty if the parent can't attend. And DLs/CMs are not required to attend just because they are leaders - although it's a really good idea, since they know the program, the rules and the Cubs the best. Sometimes it's not always possible to synch up schedules, and the pack shouldn't be barred from going to summer camp just because the CM has to work that week. ("In special circumstances, a Cub Scout whose parent or legal guardian is not able to attend an overnight camping trip may participate under the supervision of another registered adult member of the BSA who is a parent of a Cub Scout who is also attending. The unit leader and a parent or legal guardian must agree to the arrangement, and all Youth Protection policies apply. At no time may another adult accept responsibility for more than one additional nonfamily member youth." - G2SS)(This message has been edited by shortridge)

What are his plans post-high school? If they involve sticking around the local area, then Venturing might make the most sense.

After reviewing the numbers collectively crunched in a previous thread (http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=236924), I can't see how it's possible for a camp to make a profit, unless it's a primarily primitive camp and lacks major amenities.

pack, Because raising the prices that much puts Scout camp out of the reach of many, many Scouts. That's why. Camp costs in BSA are HEAVILY subsidized by fundraising and volunteers. To take an average camp out of the council system and set it up to run independently, charging exactly what it costs to run the camp, would lead to closure within a few years.

Our council owns/has access to several small properties that are called camps, they are rented thru the council office. They are generally fairly remote and too small to host any events. No shelters, No water and pit toilets only. OK, gotcha. I've not experienced those types of camps. Our two council camps, and the others that I've visited, are all "Reservations," several hundred acres minimum, with the full range of stuff. No mini-camps, as we have two good state park systems in our council that are used quite frequently for that type of camping. Thanks for the clarification.

I believe Basement may have been referring to the "troop counselor" part. The trend of MBCs saying "I only want to be a counselor for Troop X" has been growing. It allows boys to not have any contact with adults from other parts of the district or council, which I think ultimately hurts their experience. It also allows the troop to completely control the entire advancement process - which I think is the goal for many misguided SMs out there.

Basement, I'm definitely confused by what you just wrote. How can there be too many resident and day camp programs, but not enough camp properties? A camp is not going to pay for itself by just offering year-round weekend camping, without a summer program. Not, that is, unless you (VERY) aggressively pursue corporate retreats and non-Scout campers. And that means you've got to invest heavily into cabins, year-round facilities and technology. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Yeah, that sounds good. Except this theoretical pie-in-the-sky "marketplace" doesn't take into account geography, land prices, historical decisions, fundraising donations or demographic shifts. All of which come into play when we're talking about starting/selling/operating camps.

Calico, I am going to print up your post and frame it. Thanks.

There is. https://store.lnt.org/buy Patch The new Leave No Trace logo in white and green embroidered on a black patch. They measure 3 1/2 inches wide by 2 1/8 inches high. Available in three versions; *Outdoor Ethics:* Recognizes individuals practicing Leave No Trace *Master Educator:* for people who have completed a Masters course *Trainer:* for people who have completed a Trainer course.

I brainstormed a bit this morning after reading Calico's comment, and was struck in particular by his use of non-capitalized words for the merit badges. Shouldn't *that* be what camp is about - not teaching classes in Pioneering and Camping and Cooking, but teaching pioneering, camping and cooking? It's a subtle difference, sure, but got me thinking more about what a camp program would look like without merit badges. Here's what topics or subjects my local camp could offer programs on, drawn from its strengths: NATURE: Plant identification, animal tracking, animal care, forestry, conservation, wetlands OUTDOORS: Basic cooking, advanced cooking, knots & lashings, backwoods engineering, survival, pathfinding, backpacking, first aid FIELD SPORTS: Archery, shotgun, rifle, climbing WATERFRONT: Rowing, canoeing, sailing, motorboating, kayaking POOL: Swimming, lifesaving, Mile Swim HANDICRAFTS: Basketry, leatherwork, woodburning, woodcarving MISCELLANEOUS: Leave No Trace, Search and Rescue basics, Indian lore So instead of going to class from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m., and another from 10:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. ... at 9 a.m., you could go to your choice of rifle, swimming, woodburning, first aid, tracking or advanced cooking. At 10, you could pick from another list. And so on, until you filled up your dance card with fun and interesting topics, whatever struck your fancy.

The rules do indeed say that. There's even a statement from National that explicitly lays out the rules for summer camp counselors: Summer Camp Merit Badge Counselors The same qualifications and rules for apply to counselors for council summer camp merit badge programs. All counselors must be 18 years or older, but qualified camp staff members under age 18 may assist the merit badge counselor with instruction. (These assistants are not qualified to sign off on a Scout's blue card nor may they certify the Scout's completion of a merit badge.) As always, each counselor must maintain the exact standards as outlined in the merit badge requirementsnothing deleted, nothing added. (http://scouting.org/Training/Adult/Supplemental/MeritBadgeCounselorInstructorsGuide.aspx) Camps around the country violate this rule annually. I signed off on my first blue cards at age 13.5, as an unpaid counselor-in-training. Totally against the rules and utterly wrong, but I didn't know any better, and the camp turned a blind eye. And you know what? Not a single one of the Scoutmasters - who presumably are familiar with the qualifications for MB counselors - ever said a word in complaint that a pimply twerp of a kid was signing off on Indian Lore and Basketry for their Scouts. From a practical point of view - I'm a pretty practical person - most of our camps would need to double or triple their salaries and dramatically improve their staff living quarters to attract fully qualified adult counselors. Most people simply can't afford to take that kind of a job. That isn't going to happen at most camps around the country. So until there's a massive influx of cash to your council, expect teenagers to still be teaching these badges. This is not a slam on teenage staffers. I was a pretty darn good Pioneering and Wilderness Survival instructor from age 15 to 18. But far too many of them are being thrown into roles that they're not qualified for and lack the resources and training to properly instruct. It's unfair to both the campers and the staffers. Again, I ask: What can a conscientious CD or PD do? Announce that programs are canceled, or half the class is going to get kicked out, because staffing levels aren't high enough? What kind of backlash do you think he or she would get?

"Of course, there is no practical way to take this up with BSA since they do not share their mailing address, telephone number, or mail address with mere volunteers." TAHAWK, that's just false, and I suspect you know that. National's mailing address is printed on the back of the Boy Scout Handbook, even inside the front cover of the Wilderness Survival MBP you dislike so strongly. You can get the phone number by calling information or doing a simple Google search. I imagine it's not printed on the books to deter parents and Scouts calling with simple questions that should be directed to Scoutmasters or councils. (National isn't an information clearinghouse.) For general reference, it's 1325 West Walnut Hill Lane, Irving, TX 75038, phone 972-580-2000. National can be legitimately criticized on a number of fronts, but not about hiding their address.

TAHAWK wrote: The decision to offer MB's that are not, or cannot be, adequately staffed is a decision - not an act of God. This is like buying food for 20, inviting 100, and saying to those served tiny percentages of the portion -- or none at all, "What do you expect. I can only afford full portions for 20." So, from a practical standpoint, what does a CD or PD do who is confronted with just such a situation? Let's say there are 20 Scouts signed up for a badge that can really only take 10. The council office allowed Scouts to enroll long before the camp director had any idea about the resources and staffing he had available. Do you cut Scouts, making them, their parents and leaders upset? Or do you move staff around, cutting the resources availble in another program area and potentially using an unqualified instructor for the recipient area? Even if limits are set from the get-go, Scouts and Scouters - from my staff experience - almost always try to push the envelope and make "room for one more." There isn't always room.

When it gets that hot, or there's that much exertion, that's exactly how you have to do it. Don't make it an issue of "Everybody who wants a drink, get one." It should be: "Everyone drink. We don't start, or no one moves, until canteens and water bottles are empty." That was my policy teaching programs at summer camp. Everyone drank before we began - no exceptions.

I was a den leader's son, and loved it. I got to see and hear things that no one else did, and as a result had a much deeper understanding of Scouting than most. I imagine I was probably the only Webelos in the district who knew who the DE was, let alone what a DE was. But I also had to help with a lot of stuff. I set up chairs at the pack meetings, tables at the Pinewood Derby, Genius Kit materials at den meetings, obstacle courses in our back yard ... etc. I thought it was fun. Plus I got to become an expert at the most efficient way of carrying and setting up folding metal chairs!

We've hashed out the actual costs of camp in other threads. It's really impossible to look at one program area during one week of camp and say definitively that the council pros are trying to pay for their salaries by scrimping on camp. (Also remember that "salaries and benefits" probably include the salaries, room and board for the camp staff!) Lots of things can happen in a particular week that affect the quality of the program and don't reflect the overall quality of the camp. I've worked on staffs where the nature director quit during staff week and where the shooting sports director was fired midway through the camp session for conduct unbecoming. Perhaps these young Scoutcraft instructors were tapped at the last minute because of a personnel problem. We don't know all the facts. HOWEVER - that said - there is no excuse for a camp to offer sub-par program. If you promise something, you must deliver. If you can't deliver, it's better to fold up the tent and admit defeat than to offer a crappy program. I'm not in favor of a camp trying to be all things to all people. A camp I know has begun offering badges such as Golf, Graphic Arts and Auto Mechanics, which I think is just silly. IMHO, a camp should focus on two or three things that are its natural, standout strengths, and push them as hard as it can. Which would you rather go to, a camp with 50 merit badges taught by a staff spread so thin they can't put the time into the program, or a camp with 25 merit badges with top-notch climbing and shooting sports programs? SMs also need to step up to the plate when they encounter problematic programs, and COMPLAIN. Vigorously. And loudly. In a Scoutlike manner, to be sure, but still raising heck. That very day. If your Scouts are going to a boring class, go right to the PD's office on Monday and express your concerns. Visit the class yourself on Tuesday and see if it's improved. If not, complain again, this time to the camp director. Repeat until problem solved. Your Scouts are consumers, and you're their Ralph Nader (pre-presidential campaign period). Be their voice. Even if you don't learn about it until the last day of camp, it's still your responsibility to make a ruckus. Speaking one-on-one, face-to-face, with the person responsible for that camp is going to get you much better results than writing an email to the council camping chairman a month after the fact.

Thirty Scouts and two instructors? How can that staff even begin to pretend to test each Scout's work in the time given, let alone teach? That's setting the staff up to fail. 250 minutes spread over five days is 50 minutes per day - not even an hour. If each instructor takes 15 Scouts, they can give each one just over three minutes of dedicated, one-on-one attention per day - less than 20 minutes for the whole week. Camps need to put limits on their program sizes, and stick to them. And SMs and parents need to stop complaining that their Scouts didn't get in. There is not always room for one more. ============== On the flip side, let's look at this from the point of view of the Scout's responsibility should be. I agree with you, TAHAWK, that the camp program was seriously screwed up. But I also would argue that the Scouts and their troops bear some responsibility here. They started at a zero knowledge base, had no written information, and were not encouraged to work on the MB other than in the 250 minutes of class and "outpost." Let's dissect that sentence. >> They started at a zero knowledge base ... Why? Did none of the Scouts read the MBP? Read the relevant sections in the Handbook and Fieldbook? Did their SPL or SM encourage them to do so before signing up for the program to make sure they'd enjoy it? This was my biggest pet peeve as a camp instructor. A Scout who doesn't know how to tie a bowline should not be signing up for Pioneering. >> ... had no written information ... Why? Why did none of the Scouts have the MBP? Why did their SPLs and SMs not encourage them to obtain one first? >> ... and were not encouraged to work on the MB other than in the 250 minutes of class and "outpost." Why is it the instructor's job to remind a Scout to work on a MB outside of the program time? The Scout chose to sign up for it, and his SM signed off. That assumes some level of interest in the topic. Why is it not the Scout's responsibility? ============= I have argued in other threads here that Wilderness Survival should have a rank or age requirement placed on it - preferably First Class and up. First-year campers should not be taking that program. Scouts who just learned how to build and light a fire with a match at 9 a.m. cannot truly learn how to light a fire with a bow drill at 1 p.m. Allowing them into such a program is irresponsible on the part of both the camp and the troop leadership.

Another underlying factor not mentioned so far is the mindset that Eagles are inherently superior individuals, a cut above everyone else. It's the whole "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle" idea. It stems in part from the elaborate ceremonies and rituals that adult Eagles have cooked up to make themselves feel more important - balderdash such as the "marked man" phrasing in the "Eagle Charge," which some folks have elevated to the status of scripture. Eagle is an incredibly significant accomplishment, and those who have earned it should be recognized and honored. But is an Eagle Scout really fundamentally different - now and forever - from a Life Scout who did his project and served his troop, but just earned 20 merit badges? Earning Eagle is not the be-all, end-all ultimate goal of the Scouting program. But when people perceive it to be so, they start focusing on it to the exclusion of much else. Also agree on the boring summer camp and pushy parents thoughts.