Cub Scout Overnight Camp Disappearing

I answer this only in my capacity as a father, not any of the other hats I wear...

I have attended Adventureland with my oldest son each summer since he joined Cub Scouts in the 2nd grade.  Each year was very enjoyable for both of us.  It saddens me to know that I will not be able to take my younger boys to "cub scout camp" because of the changes that are coming.  When I read the "Cub Scout Outdoor Program Guidelines 2007-2008", it clearly describes Cub Scout and Webelos Scout Resident camp as being part of the outdoor program.  National apparently believes that resident camp should be not only for Webelos Scouts but also for Cub Scouts and I whole-heartedly agree.

That being said, I totally understand that the decision to go forward with Adventureland being for Webelos only was a necessary one.  There are only so many days available for Adventureland and it can only accomodate a certain number of campers.  In recent years there have been more and more Webelos Scouts attending.  If Webelos Scouts have to be turned away because of the large numbers that have been attending Adventureland then we are doing them a great disservice.  Given the choice of sending Wolf & Bear Cub Scouts to camp or sending Webelos, I believe it is more important that Webelos go.

It is my hope that in coming years Council will recognize that resident camp is an important part of the Cub Scout outdoor program and will do something to address that but not at the expense of allowing Webelos Scouts to have the experience.  Unfortunately, Council does not have unlimited funding or manpower to be able to do this right now.  Wouldn't it be great if donors would pull together and make funds available to build and staff another camp just for Cub Scouts?  Then we could have quality camps for Cubs, Webelos, Boy Scouts, and Venturing. 

It should be remembered that 10 years ago, there was no Adventureland. We've come a long way in 10 years.  I look forward to seeing what is accomplished in the next 10 years.

Tim,

I agree with you as a father. 

However, as a Cubmaster right now I'm having trouble with the issue of capacity problems. All I ever heard was that it was meant to be a Webelos camp.  I can't recall ever hearing there were capacity problems in the past. In addition our pack has never been turned away (which makes me wonder).  Plus, it would take a great deal of growth in campers almost double in 4 years.  Are we going to see that kind of growth within our council?  It would be nice, but, I doubt it.  I have a feeling (right or wrong) that this increase will come from out of Council campers, which if true I have a real problem with. 

Guess I'd like Council to give us more information on projected growths, previous growth patterns  especially breaking down in Council campers vs out of Council campers.  Only when I can see that we are not pushing out our in Council Cub Scouts for Out of Council Webelos would I be able to fully support the decision.

All I ever heard was that it was meant to be a Webelos camp.

That is what was said at the camp kickoff meeting. I believe it was also said that the reason the Cubs were ever allowed to attend was because there weren't enough Webelos to be able to pay the bills to run the camp. This is apparently no longer the case.

In addition our pack has never been turned away (which makes me wonder).

I know we have had to settle for our second choice of sessions in the past and have attended sessions that were full so I have no doubt that there are capacity issues (at least for some sessions). I have also attended a session over the 4th of July which was nearly empty. That's how it is - some sessions fill up very quickly, some you can't get people to sign up for.

I have a feeling (right or wrong) that this increase will come from out of Council campers, which if true I have a real problem with.

I agree that I'd hate to see our Cubs pushed out so OC Webelos can attend but we need to be careful not to automatically assume that any OC Webelos attending are only able to be there because Cubs are not allowed any more. We have had OC Cubs/Webelos/Boy Scouts attend our camps in the past. Should they be excluded so we have slots available for GRFC scouts? I don't know. On the one hand, if they are keeping our boys from attending, then I don't like it. On the other hand, all boys are eligible to sign up at the same time. There is no preference given to OC scouts. Signups are done on a first come, first served basis. If the scouts (parents) don't get their applications in right away and instead try to get in at the last minute, then what? Should the OC scout be turned away because a GRFC scout finally got around to turning in the paperwork? I don't like that either.

There is generally a reason that scouts attend camp in another council. Their council's camp schedule not fit with their summer plans, they have already been to their council's camp for 3 years and have the "been there, done that" feeling toward it, their council's camp is really bad, etc. (I have actually seen Gerber recommended to scouts looking for a good camp because they felt their council camp was lacking.)

Guess I'd like Council to give us more information on projected growths, previous growth patterns especially breaking down in Council campers vs out of Council campers.

The July/August 2007 edition of "The Scouter" lists on page19 the packs that had Webelos signed up as of June 22. Of the 9 sessions available, only 4 were not closed at that point. Two of those overlapped the 4th of July holiday which makes them incredibly difficult to fill regardless of age. That left 2 sessions that were not full at that point. Based on the number of packs signed up, I'd have to guess that even though the sessions weren't closed, at least one of them must have been pretty close to being full. Of all the packs signed up for all nine sessions, only 2 packs were Out of Council packs. (I question if 4136 is actually OC - there is a 4136 in Grant which is GRFC). Based on these stats, I don't think OC packs are squeezing our boys out of a camp experience.

It looks to me like many sessions are too full and GRFC is trying to find a way to alleviate that problem and allow more Webelos to have a good Adventureland experience.  I will give them the benefit of the doubt on this decision to limit Adventureland to Webelos.  Only time will tell if they were right about this and I think it will show that they were.

Thanks for looking up the info.

While 4 sessions are still available, council "closes" registration at 100 when the camp will hold around 130 (on the other 5 sessions).  That is around a 23% buffer. While I understand having a buffer I wonder what the real attendance is and if 23% is too much or just about right. I wonder what the total capacity (sessions*130) vs actual attendance is?

As far as OC is concerned, perhaps having a registartion date for IC units and then a date that OC can register.  If there is room OC can use it.  Further, if a IC waits till after the OC date they run the risk of not getting in. 

What about adding more capcity to camp.  Tents and platforms cannot cost all that much.  Spliting meal times could mean not having to add brick and morter to the dining hall, etc.

Guess I'm asking if all options have been investigated or even thought of.  I'm not comfortable in saying they have.  Especially when a statement such as "Camp Gerber was always meant to be a Webelos Camp" comes out.  That doesn't give me much to tell my parents.   Especially ones that currently have Tigers/Wolves this year (who will be able to continue to go) and also has another child starting next year that won't until they are Webelos (one of my leaders falls into this category).

So, forgive me, I must fight on for the youngest or risk losing them before they ever start. 

Well, two weeks ago I e-mailed Aaron Gach (at the suggestion of our DE Ryan).  I got reply's almost immediately.  However, Aaron's response was basically that we trusted council  to build the camp in the first place and he suggested we should continue to trust council to take camp to the next level. 

I reitterated my desire to understand the reasoning behind this decision.  Perhaps by becomming more informed I could support the decision (I still won't like it). Perhaps we could find alternatives as well.  At that point Aaron said he'd get the information to me "as soon as possible".

I sent a follow up to Aaron last week when I hadn't heard anything.  He told me that he had forwarded my request to his director and the he'd been out the previous week.  OK, that's understandable.  I'll wait another week.

Well, that week has now passed and I still haven't heard anything.  Not even an acknowledgement of my request.  I'll continue to press for some reasoning (I sent another follow-up to Aaron).

On another front, I had stated that camp can hold around 130 boys (via council staff) I have since learned that it is more likely 150.  There are 6 color groups each with 5 tents and 5 boys per tent (5*5*6=150).  In addition, the camp handbook states that camp will be closed at 120 boys not the 100 that council staff wants to close it at.  Thats an additional 20 boys per session that is not being filled (plus the buffer of 30 making a total of 50).

I'll write more when I have more.  In the mean time, if your pack is not happy with this change either, please send an e-mail to Aaron Gach.  I've talked to several packs in our district (about 10) and none are happy with it, I'm sure there are others.  While I'll not call you out here, please, please, please sent a  note to Aaron (aagach [at] bsamail [dot] org).  Perhaps with a large group of people voicing their displeasure we can save overnight camp for our youngest members!

When I got home from work last night, I had a letter from Mike Sulgrove.  He spent the better part of three pages laying out the reasonings behind the changes to resident overnight camp.

I'll lay those out here, with my responses once I have had the chance to formulate them.  I feel that I owe it to Council to respond to them first. Please stand by.

Well, earlier this week I had responded to Mike Sulgrove's letter.  My response was rather lenghtly as well.  I just received an e-mail from Mike yesterday saying that I had presented some "thoughtful ideas" and that he wanted to study/think about/and go over them with key camp people.  So, again out of respect for the process, I will wait until this has all unfolded before I post details.

I'm encouraged by the fact I didn't receive a flat out no, but, I know that getting my hopes up may be futile.

You all can help by sending e-mails to Aaron (aagach [at] bsamail [dot] org) and let him know you don't want to see resident camp for Wolve's and Bear's  dissapear.

I decided to follow up with Mr. Sulgrove last week as it has been about a month since our last correspondence.  I simply asked if keeping wolves and bears in residence overnite camp was still under consideration.

I received a "you bet" and that Mr Sulgrove has been talking to his key camp leaders and also to other Councils. 

So, in a nutshell, I'm a little more hopeful.

Can't believe that it has been about 10 weeks since my last post.  I have checked in with Mr. Sulgrove a couple of time over the last few months.  Seems as if things are still in the works.  It also seems as if other ideas are being kicked around too (but still keeping cubs in overnight camp).  I'm becoming more hopeful all the time. 

I know that there have been a number of packs in our district that have voiced their opinions, that has helped!  Keep asking!

Continued support will help remind them that it is an issue that many are interested in seeing resolved.

 Good Luck!

 Matt

FYI...

I attended a meeting of the "Camping and Outdoor Promotions Committee" at GRFC on Thursday and the word about camp is that while making Adventureland only for Webelos is the ultimate goal, they recognize that the numbers do not support that yet.  Therefore, Cub Scout Adventureland will continue as is for now.  Keep in mind though that  the goal is for only Webelos and they will be pushing hard to get Webelos to sign up.  It is entirely possible that if their recruiting drive is successful that we will see fewer sessions available for Adventureland next year.  In the meantime, signup your Wolf Cubs. They will not be turned away for the 2009 camping season.