camp usage

[Tron]

20 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I guess folks at national don't realize that some places have school until mid-June.

This is a very valid point; however, the counter to this point is that the weeks blocked by the school year need to somehow get made up through other weeks of usage sometime else in the calendar year. 

The point I think national is trying to make is that all service industry companies (hotels, travel, camping, etc ... ) have a minimum usage/occupancy to just break even and our camps don't even try to meet that level. 

15 hours ago, jcousino said:

This is shown by a decrease in FOS gifts. 

The larger the geographic area of councils, the better the staff to scout ratio in a council, the less dependent a council is on FOS. My opinion continues to shift towards FOS being an addiction that is killing councils. If councils had roughly 10 paid staff and somewhere near 10,000 scouts there is almost no need for FOS; however, when a council is 2,000 or 3,000 scouts and the paid staff is 10+ the professionals that should support the program spend all of their time hustling for money instead of doing their real jobs. We need to condense down to roughly 100 councils if we are going to be able to re-align the professional staff to program. 

13 hours ago, skeptic said:

And there lies the rub.  Staffing cannot meet the needs of most youth that work for college money or other things.  Years ago, the low wages were okay, as the cost of living was far less, and there were more attendees due to fewer other summer opportunities for youth.  Before youth sports and traveling teams, and media that encouraged things few would have thought of fifty years ago, the camp staff experience was still rewarding.  Few youth had cars, so that expense was not an issue, and simply the slower pace of life took pressure much of the time.off '

 

This is solved by having fewer camps. The smallest camp in my area can handle around 200 to 250 guests per resident camp week. The largest can handle around 500 to 600 guests per resident camp week. If scouting ran those larger camps at 100% capacity they could afford to pay the staff well enough to draw in more, and higher quality camp staff. National also needs to find more recognition for those camp staff; some sort of knot progression to show off years/seasons of service, codify some rules to fast track OA membership, brotherhood and vigil. Fun fact, pay and recognition work. 

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, Tron said:

This is a very valid point; however, the counter to this point is that the weeks blocked by the school year need to somehow get made up through other weeks of usage sometime else in the calendar year. 

The point I think national is trying to make is that all service industry companies (hotels, travel, camping, etc ... ) have a minimum usage/occupancy to just break even and our camps don't even try to meet that level. 

The larger the geographic area of councils, the better the staff to scout ratio in a council, the less dependent a council is on FOS. My opinion continues to shift towards FOS being an addiction that is killing councils. If councils had roughly 10 paid staff and somewhere near 10,000 scouts there is almost no need for FOS; however, when a council is 2,000 or 3,000 scouts and the paid staff is 10+ the professionals that should support the program spend all of their time hustling for money instead of doing their real jobs. We need to condense down to roughly 100 councils if we are going to be able to re-align the professional staff to program. 

This is solved by having fewer camps. The smallest camp in my area can handle around 200 to 250 guests per resident camp week. The largest can handle around 500 to 600 guests per resident camp week. If scouting ran those larger camps at 100% capacity they could afford to pay the staff well enough to draw in more, and higher quality camp staff. National also needs to find more recognition for those camp staff; some sort of knot progression to show off years/seasons of service, codify some rules to fast track OA membership, brotherhood and vigil. Fun fact, pay and recognition work. 

They also need to stop making excuses about local council independence.  It a small portion of the monies donated on a national level were properly shared with those smaller camps, and perhaps National found a few donors from their own list to step in, some might be salvedged.  IF Camping is to be a mainsay of the program, the camps need to survive locally.  Few local groups can travel to the Big and solvent ones.  

More importantly, from my view, is the disconnect with our environmental and "teaching" face.  Every camp should be an example of how best to protect the enironment, and should find ways to showcase the best options.  Today, with huge progress in clean options, all of them should be using those options wheneve possible.  Not only a teaching element, but also a cost reduction.  Solar and wind are likely possible most places, and often also water power.  The camp cuts expenses and the Scouts learn the future.  Another barely touched option is partnerships with serious sporting and outdoor companies.  Using climbing walls in conjunction with local clubs; offering the camp space for corporate events; embracing the Mike Rowe concept of skilled learning.  A bit of the right connections might find large cooking schools for example that might find summer programs a great option for teaching and the camp could again save money and likely often eat better.  So much of this is difficult for councils to move into, but with a properly developed National program, with the smaller camps open to it as well, would bring huge forward movement, and maybe even overcome the negative press  with the right promos and examples.  Just an old guy with odd ideas that get written off.  

[DuctTape]

Many of the camps could be closed and the land still used for camping without all the infrastructure. Use for patrol based primitive camping dispersed on the entire property.  Cost to council would be significantly less. Cost to patrols to reserve a site could be minimal.

[jcousino]

On 7/10/2026 at 12:48 PM, Tron said:

This is a very valid point; however, the counter to this point is that the weeks blocked by the school year need to somehow get made up through other weeks of usage sometime else in the calendar year. 

The point I think national is trying to make is that all service industry companies (hotels, travel, camping, etc ... ) have a minimum usage/occupancy to just break even and our camps don't even try to meet that level. 

The larger the geographic area of councils, the better the staff to scout ratio in a council, the less dependent a council is on FOS. My opinion continues to shift towards FOS being an addiction that is killing councils. If councils had roughly 10 paid staff and somewhere near 10,000 scouts there is almost no need for FOS; however, when a council is 2,000 or 3,000 scouts and the paid staff is 10+ the professionals that should support the program spend all of their time hustling for money instead of doing their real jobs. We need to condense down to roughly 100 councils if we are going to be able to re-align the professional staff to program. 

This is solved by having fewer camps. The smallest camp in my area can handle around 200 to 250 guests per resident camp week. The largest can handle around 500 to 600 guests per resident camp week. If scouting ran those larger camps at 100% capacity they could afford to pay the staff well enough to draw in more, and higher quality camp staff. National also needs to find more recognition for those camp staff; some sort of knot progression to show off years/seasons of service, codify some rules to fast track OA membership, brotherhood and vigil. Fun fact, pay and recognition work. 

1 to 1000 ratio sound way to fat. 1 to 1500 to 2000 sounds better. Having to depend on FOS scouting funds just to cover operational expenses.  FOS should be for big ticket items replacing aging buildings, bigger program items. Any smaller ratios, they are just fundraising their own salary 

[Eagle94-A1]

On 7/10/2026 at 12:48 PM, Tron said:

The larger the geographic area of councils, the better the staff to scout ratio in a council, the less dependent a council is on FOS. My opinion continues to shift towards FOS being an addiction that is killing councils. If councils had roughly 10 paid staff and somewhere near 10,000 scouts there is almost no need for FOS; however, when a council is 2,000 or 3,000 scouts and the paid staff is 10+ the professionals that should support the program spend all of their time hustling for money instead of doing their real jobs. We need to condense down to roughly 100 councils if we are going to be able to re-align the professional staff to program. 

 

Not necessarily. I have lived in small, mostly urban councils, large mostly rural councils, and everything in between. The urban councils were MUCH better off,  despite being smaller. The extremely large rural one is doing extremely poorly. 

I think it is a combination of things that make successful council. First and foremost is customer service. Pros gotta be seen at things, outside of FOS, and actually listen to volunteers and act upon suggestions. Even if only a temporary solution to a problem is made, that shows concern. One of the best SEs I ever met, when confronted with a problem, made a note of it, said it cannot be solved properly this year, but could this temporary measure  work until we could fix the problem permanently. Another SE made lots of camp improvements. He listened to the SMs at the camp, as well as the SPLs of the camp. Improvements have been made. He had signs made stating XYZ project funded by 20XX FOS dollars or Popcorn money. He showed where the money is going. That council has a lot going for it.

 

 

[Eagle94-A1]

On 7/10/2026 at 3:31 PM, DuctTape said:

Many of the camps could be closed and the land still used for camping without all the infrastructure. Use for patrol based primitive camping dispersed on the entire property.  Cost to council would be significantly less. Cost to patrols to reserve a site could be minimal.

UNDERSTATEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!   (Yelling in agreement)

The local council camp ceased summer camp operations in the 1960s. Up until the time it was sold, it was used for events and Scout camping. It had minimal facilities, and a caretaker. While the caretaker did maintenance,  a lot of it, as well as camp improvements, were made by volunteers over the years. I still remember when a hurricane hit the camp, and a call for volunteers was made to get the camp ready for 2 events within a month, otherwise they would be cancelled. Over 300 people showed up to work on the camp. So much was done, that the caretaker started giving us stuff to do on his longterm wish list. We had professionals in their fields ( plumbers, electricians, lineman, etc) fixing and improving the camp in 1 day.

And that camp, despite not being a resident camp, was profitable. Almost every weekend, troops were using it. Another council used it to host events, because it was closer for Cub families to go to than their own camp. That camp subsidized the summer camp.

[Tron]

19 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

UNDERSTATEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!   (Yelling in agreement)

The local council camp ceased summer camp operations in the 1960s. Up until the time it was sold, it was used for events and Scout camping. It had minimal facilities, and a caretaker. While the caretaker did maintenance,  a lot of it, as well as camp improvements, were made by volunteers over the years. I still remember when a hurricane hit the camp, and a call for volunteers was made to get the camp ready for 2 events within a month, otherwise they would be cancelled. Over 300 people showed up to work on the camp. So much was done, that the caretaker started giving us stuff to do on his longterm wish list. We had professionals in their fields ( plumbers, electricians, lineman, etc) fixing and improving the camp in 1 day.

And that camp, despite not being a resident camp, was profitable. Almost every weekend, troops were using it. Another council used it to host events, because it was closer for Cub families to go to than their own camp. That camp subsidized the summer camp.

This would never happen in my council; it would shift the power balance away from a small group of power mongers. 

EG: A few years ago we had a windstorm come through and knock down hundreds of trees at camp. The camping director of the council was complaining to me about the cost to get 1 campsite backup and running. Me, having experience and professional certification in logging operations offered to come and clean up all of the windfall for free and told the camping director to just pick a weekend for me to roll in and do it at no charge. I got ghosted. 

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, Tron said:

This would never happen in my council; it would shift the power balance away from a small group of power mongers. 

EG: A few years ago we had a windstorm come through and knock down hundreds of trees at camp. The camping director of the council was complaining to me about the cost to get 1 campsite backup and running. Me, having experience and professional certification in logging operations offered to come and clean up all of the windfall for free and told the camping director to just pick a weekend for me to roll in and do it at no charge. I got ghosted. 

And that is how camps die; ego or ignornance or the combo.  Historical records locally show that the success with camps was always volunteer based, and when the volunteers were ignored or told too hard the camp lost critical capabilities that once were "just fixed" by those that knew how, and gave of their time and personal sources.  Scouting is supposed to be nonprofit.  IF profit is a factor, rather than utility of a basic source with voluteers, you likely will lose the facility or the people.

 

[Eagle94-A1]

2 hours ago, Tron said:

The camping director of the council was complaining to me about the cost to get 1 campsite backup and running. Me, having experience and professional certification in logging operations offered to come and clean up all of the windfall for free and told the camping director to just pick a weekend for me to roll in and do it at no charge. I got ghosted. 

We had something similar almost happen. There was an electric line issue at the camp during an event. One of the Scouters was an electric lineman, and came straight from work to the event, so he had everything needed to fix the problem. He fixed the issue, but a member of the council camping committee was there, had a conniption fit over having someone not approved doing the work. Funny thing was, he worked for the power company that the camp used, and worked there previously when a hurricane hit a few years earlier. 

[Tron]

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

We had something similar almost happen. There was an electric line issue at the camp during an event. One of the Scouters was an electric lineman, and came straight from work to the event, so he had everything needed to fix the problem. He fixed the issue, but a member of the council camping committee was there, had a conniption fit over having someone not approved doing the work. Funny thing was, he worked for the power company that the camp used, and worked there previously when a hurricane hit a few years earlier. 

The illustrious council camping committee, ever faithful to have more concern over control and power than getting the scouts camping. If Scouting America had an annual or bi-annual camping nights sleeping in a tent or bare ground rule every member of the district and council camping committees in my council would get the boot. A buddy of mine heard the council camping chair say (in seriousness) that he hates camping. 

[Eagle94-A1]

3 hours ago, Tron said:

A buddy of mine heard the council camping chair say (in seriousness) that he hates camping. 

I heard one say, "Cubs don't need to camp." This was at a program conference. Thankfully no one else heard him.