Too many Council Camps?

[SeattlePioneer]

Are there too many council camps?

 

 

Should more councils close their camps and encourage Scouts to attend camps for neighboring councils? Perhaps councils could pay neighboring councils a subsidy to take boys from their council.

 

Mighn't this allow camps to be used more intensively, reducing costs per person or allowing a better program?

 

How about renting non council owned facilities and setting running a Scout Camp in some state or provately owned camp or park?

 

Anyone see this kind of thing being done?

[ScoutNut]

Most councils that are well run keep an eye on camp property expenses as part of their annual budget, and are always reevaluating their usage, and needs vs their available funds.

 

For instance - My council, and our neighboring council, both wanted to upgrade their Cub Camping facilities, however neither council could afford to do it. So we pooled our resources, and entered into a joint property ownership. Together, the two councils are building a brand new,snazzy, Cub World.

 

Many councils that I know of have at least 2 camps. One for Cub Scout, and multi-purpose camping, and one for Boy Scout and older camping.

 

If a council has more than two camps, often if they get in a financial corner, the extra camps are the first thing to be disposed of.

 

Since council camps (at least all that I know of) are open to any member of the BSA, not just those registered in their council, I can not see any reason at all why a council would even consider paying other councils to take their Scouts at the other council's camps.

 

 

[acco40]

Our council consists of two councils that were merged about three years ago. So we have four council camps right now. They all have their uses so if fiscal problems are not a concern, why close any?

[Eamonn]

The land that our Council Camp is on is in a State Park.

I'm not sure what the details of the lease are.

Every ten years or so we have to renew the lease.

Which of course means that we run the risk of it not being renewed.

Over the past 60 years or so the Council has invested a lot of money and a heck of a lot of man hours into the facility.

Some improvements are very noticeable while others go un-noticed but cost a small fortune.

We seen all the fuss that Cradle of Liberty has had when things changed in Philly.

 

Here is SW PA we have a lot of small Councils.

Many of them are having a hard time keeping their head above water.Membership is down, in some places way down. Finding money is hard and becoming harder.

Some Councils have summer camps that are open for only four weeks and have volunteers doing much of the work.

Closing or not re-opening camps will, sad to say be something that happen in the not so far distant future.

If it wasn't for out of Council Troops camping at our camp we would need to cut back on the number of weeks that camp is open. It used to be ten weeks! Already it's down to six.

This makes attracting older college age staff members who need money for next year hard as there just isn't enough time at work to save the needed cash.

I can never see a day when one Council would be willing to pay another Council a subsidy. In fact I think the exact opposite would be the case.

Anyway it wouldn't be allowed as Councils are not supposed to use Council monies to donate to other charities.

Ea.

[Scoutfish]

"Should more councils close their camps and encourage Scouts to attend camps for neighboring councils? "

 

Bad idea for two reasons:

1) THis may entail a very long drive that parents and/or scouts may not feel is worth the camp experience. ( my drive is 2 hours for our council camp)

2) The council will lose control over any and all PD

 

 

"Perhaps councils could pay neighboring councils a subsidy to take boys from their council.

 

Nah, council will lose money...and they do make money even if the do not spend any of it or put it back into the camp., You can bet the SE and a few others get their money wether anybody or anything else does or not.

 

 

"Mighn't this allow camps to be used more intensively, reducing costs per person or allowing a better program?"

 

Yeah, but depends on what you mean by intenmse? CRamming twice as many boys into the 2 or 3 weeks of camp, while stil relying on the same amount of staff available or the same amount of volunteers?

 

Or maybe haolding twice as many camp sessions with the same amount of staff and the same amount of volunteers. - - remember some of these people will be driving twice as far from outside the council that the camp is in.

 

Costs? They will probably go up as the camp may have to upgrade a bunch of facilities to accomidate higher amount of traffic and endure more use.

 

In theory, supplies and meals should be able to be bought at a higher bulk discount, but you will also see more wear and tear of facilities and equipment, maint and such.

 

Now, I know I don't know what you council's schedule is like, but my council prtetty much has the calendar full from April to August, and all the rest of the months are pretty busy with maybe the xception of Feb which only sees the OA fellowship weekends.

 

The rest of the year, there are always things going on. Now add anoter council to that and the camp will just about be a 7/24/356 camp.

 

In theory , that too should be good, but then you are talking about hiring a full time staff all year long...which means you are also talking about things like benefits, retirement, competative wages to kep the staff on board, insurance, etc....

 

Now, since most cub scout camps rely on volunteers, the costs would be way lower, but you have no garantee that you will have enough staff any any given event. You would be holding your fiungers crossed alot.

[packsaddle]

If the camps were forced to compete in the marketplace, we would have exactly the number of camps we need or want. They don't. So we're left with dissatisfaction, complaints, and whining about quality.

Are there too many camps? Probably are.

[shortridge]

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.

[Basementdweller]

I believe the conversation is getting confused. I believe we are discussing two separate issues.

 

The first is council owned camping property. I do not believe there could be to many of these.

 

The second is resident and day camps held over the summer. There are too many of these and quality is questionable at most.

[shortridge]

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?

[Scoutfish]

I think the two are directly related.

 

If you only had one camp to serve ...say...4 councils, you would have to have more scheduled resident camps and more scheduled day camps to accomidate the number of scouts from each council who will be attending the one camp. Not every scout from every council will be able to attend the one session a camp has. You's have something like 10,000 scouts at a resident camp or day camp.

 

 

Now, I like the idea of each council having more than one camp, but then you have a whole different problem: Cost

 

For a camp to be sustainable by only hosting a smaller group of campers and less often, it means it has to charge more $$ to cover costs or maint and upkeepo and taxes, etc...

 

Like building an entire hotel for just one room to rent. The cost of that room has to cover the cost of the whole facility, plus staff, electric, etc...

 

The only way a council could afford to reasonably run more than one or two camps is to offer an outstanding program. Which I am sure happens alot, but that's when that outstanding program draws the attention of the scouts from other councils who decide to go to camp outstanding instead of camp so so.

 

Then camp soso starts running in the ground due to lack of money and lack of participation. Soon, campsoso closes down, camp outstanding starts getting crowded and scouts start going to camp overthere instead.

[Scoutfish]

My council has two camps in one..or two seperate camps that abutt each other - take your pick.

Camp Bowesr Boy Scout Camp and Camp McNeill Cub Scout World. Youi go in the main entrace and the road forks. Left goes to McNeill, Right goes to Bowers.

 

Two seperate camps within one property.

The benefit is one ranger covers both and during resident camps, the Webelos scouts hike over to Bowers to participate in meals and activities. Makes them feel "bigger" like Boy SCouts and keeps McNeill from overcrowding .

 

 

WEbelos even have seperate colors ceremonies morning and afternoon.

[Basementdweller]

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.

 

The council may pay property tax on the properties....But 100% of material and maintenance is donated by scout volunteers.

 

Boy scout or Venture camping only

 

We have multiple day camps and resident camps utilizing the main council camps all summer long. Some of these have as few as 30 scouts.

 

We leave our council for summer camp, cost and poor program is the reason.

 

I don't like taking a large camp or reservation and chopping it up into smaller camps. My youth council did that closed and sold two camps, took the larges then divided it into three smaller camp with the names of the closed and sold camps, three dining halls, three climbing walls, three pools. STUPID

 

 

(This message has been edited by Basementdweller)

[desertrat77]

Depends on where you live.....

 

Where I'm now, there are about a dozen camps close by. Other places, very few and they are long drives for most of the troops.

 

[SSScout]

If your Council is blessed with campS rather than camp, utilize them. Make them useful to the Scout, with training programs, camporees, CSDCs, high adventure programs, camp cooking schools.

Make them useful to the greater community. Coordinate Outdoor Education programs with the local school systems. Give Orienteering competitions. Astronomy camps in the darkness of the woods and fields. Let Sierra Club use it. Church groups. Aviation R/C club uses a local camp.

What is used is appreciated, and not neglected.

The Council of my youth had four camps, perhaps 200 to 300 acres each, each about two hours max drive from a quarter of the Council. They were sold in favor of buying a 4,000 acre property, about a 4 hour drive from the furthest reaches of the Council. This property is divided into at least four camps, each with a different camp philosophy: dining hall, Patrol cooking, Webelos camp, high adventure base. It has been used for a mega camporee at Jamboree time.

Then, luck shone on the Council, and a real estate developer worked a deal such that wetlands were rebuilt, a 450 acre property was saved from urban developement and the Council gained a closer in camp ground. It is touted as a conference center, training ground, CSDC, resident Cub camp, close in camp ground for Packs and Troops, National Camp School, and all kindsa stuff. Local school districts use it for Outdoor Ed and the kids get a taste of Scout camp.

Beware the SE that wants to improve the bottom line by liquidating properties. See previous thread, "Goodbye Owasippee".

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=87008

 

The idea that the "Market Place" will eliminate under utilized camps might be true, but once gone, you cannot duplicate them.

[acco40]

If the camps were forced to compete in the marketplace, we would have exactly the number of camps we need or want.

 

Pack - I'm interested to know why you feel they do not compete in the marketplace. Don't troops have the opportunity to vote with their feet/pocketbook? Same, to a lesser extent with Cub Scouts.