Boy Scouts, Nature, and the American Way
From an article in SFGate:
The last large stand of woods in a Seattle suburb. A scenic canyon just outside of Los Angeles. Rangelands deep in the heart of Texas…. All are set to be felled, filled and bulldozed so that stately homes, a reservoir and perhaps even a hydroelectric plant may one day rise in their place.
Aside from their now unspoiled, ecologically sensitive settings, the lands share a common bond: The Boy Scouts of America sold them for development.
Sigh…
2 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Archives
- March 2015 (1)
- April 2012 (1)
- January 2011 (1)
- September 2010 (2)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (6)
- May 2010 (11)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (1)
- February 2010 (1)
- January 2010 (5)
-
Categories
- Abstract
- Black and White
- Castle Rock
- Commentary
- Death Valley
- Desert
- Environment
- Equipment
- Events
- Gear Reviews
- Green World
- History
- Mission Peak
- Mono Lake
- Mount Shasta Area
- News
- Ocean
- Owens Valley
- Pacific Northwest
- People
- Photography
- Places
- Point Lobos
- Quicksilver
- Quicksilver Historical
- Quotable
- Random
- San Francisco Bay Area
- Santa Teresa
- Sierra Nevada
- Site News
- Technique
- Trails
- Trips
- Uncategorized
- White Mountains
- Wildlife
- Yosemite
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
As a former scout and sometime camp employee, I guess it’s up to me to offer a defense of the BSA. In short: we hate selling camps as much as anybody. “My” camp is over 60 years old. If it were sold, we would lose 3 generations of history with it. It’s nearly happened more than once.
The problem is, BSA membership has been dropping for decades. Fewer scouts mean fewer camps. Most camps nowadays run half empty all summer. Unfortunately, most councils are structured such that their camps are cash flow positive, in order to support other, money-losing activities. Should a camp stop making money, or start losing money, it gets the axe pretty quick.
Frankly, the BSA is not a conservation organization. Sure, they try to instill a conservationist ethic in their members, but they aren’t the Nature Conservancy. Selling a camp means more money for other programs, subsidized activity and membership fees for scouts from underprivileged families, and fewer kids pestering you to buy popcorn. Ideally, every former camp property would be preserved, but that has to be weighed against the prospect of taking a financial loss. It sucks, but what else can be done?
While the Scouts are not “the Nature Conservancy,” one presumes that part of their goal is to instill understanding and enjoyment of the natural world and outdoor experiences – not to mention the “conservationist ethic” than you mention.
Perhaps a loss of focus is part of what has led to the decline of scouting. It the highest goal is “positive cash flow” to the organization from the camps, then one wonders what drives scouting.
In order to act in a way consistent with its goal of promoting a “conservationist ethic,” the Scouts might consider the effects on those who share that ethic when determining what to do with these properties. You mention the Nature Conservancy, a group that works to acquire rights to and protect properties that might otherwise go to developers. One wonders whether the Scouts have tried working with that very group to find mutually beneficial ways to handle the transfer of these properties.