Camp Winaukee? Need Surveillance!
 

Following up from a post on a now closed thread--Camp Winaukee is definitely closed. Facebook is very clear on this--June 4 post announcing no camp this Summer, June 29 post lamenting the lack of campers, June 30 post sad that there won't be any Tree of Values winners this Summer, and nothing to indicate anything but a counselor or two watching the fort.

But from the water--Camp Winaukee is definitely open--swim areas set up, including giant inflatables, plenty of people and vehicles moving on shore, I'm pretty sure I just heard their familiar chanting across the bay.

Need thoughts, intel, a reconnaissance mission. Actual information from Winaukee if you're on the forum? Random uninformed speculation from others also welcome

Winaukee
 

Winaukee as Camp Winaukee is indeed closed, but a private religious boys' camp has rented the property — I think just the island. Camps are commonly leased to groups for reunions, corporate retreats, etc., post-season. This year, some camps that are located in states where opening is permitted (e.g., Maine, NH, PA) chose not to risk it but are making their properties available for rent, including to camps whose own states are not allowing sleepaway camps to operate.

So the camp is closed because it is far to dangerous to operate yet it's OK to rent it out to somebody else to operate. Yup makes perfect sense to me.

Oh and as a footnote, to organizations in states where this is not allowed so importing people from areas that have an increased exposure to this. Isn't this just a bit hypocritical?

The issue is two-fold, but neither of what you're complaining about: 1. The cost to provide safety vs. the cost to operate the facility and 2. The likelihood that many families would pull their kids, leaving camps in the lurch.

For example, Scout camps were a go until a survey showed that as many as 50% of the parents might not send their scouts if the "safety mechanisms" were inadequate. The problem at the time, mid-June—only a couple weeks before the start of camp—was that the camps didn't even really know what they'd have to do. It was a mess.

Now that the guidelines are set, camps can rent to groups that can/want to meet those, but it's far too late to create a summer program.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Fairs ran into the same issues (I am a director of a Connecticut fair). Even though the fairs are in August and September, it was coming time to start spending the money that is required to put the fair together. Adding to that was the fact that many volunteers are 60+ there was a very high chance there would not be enough people volunteering to actually run the fairs, and then would we even get enough visitors to break even. With ZERO guidance from state officials we all had to make the call to cancel. We are still renting out the grounds, but to much smaller events.

Not a complaint, just an observation.

To your first point, and not being argumentative, if the camp cannot operate safely or provide adequate safe guards in place in time to open how is it a renter can in their place assuming that they themselves should conduct themselves to the same standards? Consider a renter has to import all those "safety" mechanisms. Never mind pointing out the where did they come from, a place already with a high concentration of virus so this just invites them to spread it? What an outrage (rolling my eyes the sarcasm of my statement)

To your second point that is a reality however interesting that an organization from out of state can pull that feat off and bring in enough kids\adults or whatever to make it viable.

Frankly I don't care - I just find it ironic that those that wag their finger at everyone you must wear a mask you must social distance, you must comply turn a blind eye to allowing a group of individuals from who knows where to operate a camp that would otherwise be closed and possibly not allowed where they come from. It's not just here either, the AMC three mile island facility is supposed to be closed yet they continue to operate and just this morning brought a boat load of people over. Just interesting how it's a matter of do what I say not as I do.

I'm interested about Three Mile. I saw some of the volunteers over at Shep's yesterday and asked them what was going on. I was told that Three Mile is closed to the public, but there are volunteers on the island doing maintenance projects.

It's significantly different taking a group in for one week than running a whole summer. For example, I take my father-daughter group to Cody every year. We have about 30 people and share the camp with an MIT or similar program that has about 50. To do that week, Cody has no more than 5 people on staff because each group does all but cook and do maintenance.

Compare that to a week at Cody during the summer, when there are way more cooks, cleaners, activities staff, waterfront staff, boating staff, welcome/hospitality staff, etc.

I'm sorry if my tone was adversarial—just pointing out that it's not as "bad" as your original post sounded like you were making it out to be.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Not to hijack but if kids camps must remained closed....I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it's perfectly acceptable to fly in a completely full airplane shoulder to shoulder...:confused::confused:

Dan

You make it sound like one central authority is making the decision for all. But that is not the case.

The owners of Winaukee have decided that they do not want to accept responsibility for the health and happiness of a few hundred kids this Summer. That is their right to do so.

The owners of Winaukee have also decided that if someone else wants to accept responsibility for kids this Summer, then they are perfectly free to do that.

So the business owners of Winaukee have made two business decisions that they believe are in their best interest. Separately, a religious group has decided to set up a camp for some kids. Through the magic of the market, both are now better off.

Good freedom loving person that you are, isn't this how you'd like for it to work?

Camps don't have to remain closed. The guidelines just came too late for many to have figured out how to make it work.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

OK....I’ll keep it simple, why is it OK and acceptable to fly in a completely full airplane shoulder to shoulder for well over two months now... 300 people in a tube! I won’t mention anything about camps, restaurants being closed or very limited seating, Movie theaters, churches not open, etc, etc. I just would like an answer about airplanes, nothing else....

Dan

I don't know. This thread is about camps, which I have experience with.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Sorry not trying to hijack...my bad!

Dan

The assumption you've now stated twice that states prohibiting sleepaway camps are states currently experiencing worse covid conditions thann states allowing them is incorrect. For example, New York, which was initially the worst covid state but has made the greatest strides to stem it, has forbidden sleepaway camps, while Texas, in the midst of a surge which is overwhelming hospitals, is nevertheless permitting them to open. In other words, kids from New York going to out of state camps are far less likely to be bringing covid with them than kids from Texas going to either Texas or out of state camps. A result of Texas' policy:

https://www.cbs19.tv/article/news/lo...5-da9ef6de0a9b

Read my post again please - what did I say, "Frankly I don't care" and honestly I don't. I think it's great.

Do find it interesting that you and others who insist we all take this more seriously don't have a problem with this.

Not exactly.

So in your opinion NY has taken the greatest strides to stem the spread of this virus. OK let's take that at face value as being 100% accurate. Part of that has been to prohibit the operation of sleepaway camps right? SO how is it that circumventing this by sending kids out of state is still adhering to great strides being taken to stem the spread? Even if they don't bring it with them (again taking your assertion this would be true) they have supposedly a great chance of exposure going to states where these same practices are not in place, have not been in place and thus increasing their chance of being exposed and bringing it back home. Hence my illustration of hypocrisy.

Far as Texas goes, they have opted to not be a nanny state. They have put guidance (not mandates) out there and allowed people increased freedom to do as they please. Everyone knows what the risk factors are, everyone can put on their big boy pants and make a decision as to what they think it best for themselves, their families and most importantly their businesses. This is the way it should be. I certainly put a lot more confidence in the average joe to make these decisions for themselves than I do to some moron elected official to do it "for us".

Ah yes "volunteers doing maintenance". Did you also happen to notice the volume of alcohol that was going over there?

Just sayin....

Three Mile Island Camp is closed this summer and is not operating. $0 revenue this year. That doesn't mean that there won't be a limited number of people on the island, doing caretaking, security and maintenance tasks while adhering to health and safety protocols.


Sayin' what?

Re: New York and other states now in better covid situations. First, they're not “sending” kids to out of state camps, just not trying to stop them. And they won't be exposed to anyone but each other at camp in NH. Second, while it would be impossible for Winaukee to operate under NH's restrictions because their campers & staff come from all over the US as well as abroad and obviously couldn't get there, a group coming from a single area within driving distance can use private cars and buses. Try reading NH camp restrictions and this will be clearer:

https://www.nheconomy.com/NHEconomy/...ht-camps_1.pdf

Re: Texas — you're not up to date. The Conservative Governor Abbott, who in mid-June rejected a request from mayors of several major Texas cities to allow them to mandate masks, decided in light of the ensuing crisis that average Joes left to their own devices needed some nannying after all.

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/gove...mit-gatherings

July 2:

"Wearing a face covering in public is proven to be one of the most effective ways we have to slow the spread of COVID-19,” said Governor Abbott. “We have the ability to keep businesses open and move our economy forward so that Texans can continue to earn a paycheck, but it requires each of us to do our part to protect one another—and that means wearing a face covering in public spaces. Likewise, large gatherings are a clear contributor to the rise in COVID-19 cases. Restricting the size of groups gatherings will strengthen Texas’ ability to corral this virus and keep Texans safe. We all have a responsibility to slow the spread of COVID-19 and keep our communities safe. If Texans commit to wearing face coverings in public spaces and follow the best health and safety practices, we can both slow the spread of COVID-19 and keep Texas open for business. I urge all Texans to wear a face covering in public, not just for their own health, but for the health of their families, friends, and for all our fellow Texans.”

Also Governor Abbott:
“If I could go back and redo anything, it probably would have been to slow down the opening of bars, now seeing in the aftermath of how quickly the coronavirus spread in the bar setting," he said in an interview with KVIA”

Big Boy Pants
 

Apparently, many average joes have difficulty in making these decisions when a state opens businesses early. Unfortunately, it's not always those going out that pay the cost but the ones they come into contact with afterwards and others that need an ICU bed for more 'normal' things but can't get one.

Florida, an early opener, as of yesterday, reports that 56 ICUs are at capacity with 35 other hospitals with less that 10% availability.

Texas hospitals are seeing an increased number of COVID related admissions and ventilator use. July 1 saw 57 new deaths reported in Texas, bringing the total confirmed death toll to at least 2,481. Nearly 7,000 people with COVID-19 are now hospitalized, meaning that Texas is started July with nearly four times as many patients in hospital beds as on June 1.

It's time to put our Big Boy Pants and realize that the average joe 'doing what they please' and 'what's best for themselves' is not always in the best interest of the community at large.

My bad, I did not believe that a person who did not care would post something. So I thought that you did care. Now that you've posted several more times, I am even more sure that you care.

On whether or not I have a problem with this--I was silent because I figured I'd said enough on that particular aspect. I wrote on the other camps thread that the camps were right to shut because just 1 or 2 kids out of a few hundred could infect dozens and lead to a nightmare of a shutdown a couple of weeks in. As a former Scout leader, I would never expose kids in my care to that kind of situation. I think the religious camp leaders are probably nuts to do this, but I really don't have enough info to be sure.

Dan
My theory on the airlines being open and continuing business as usual, is like Major has said in other posts...they are of the status of the “anointed ones” just like demonstrators, statue topplers and the big box stores, etc.
God forbid the government let any of these “essential” business die while killing thousands of others that didn’t make the anointed list.