What was the Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case about. How did the Pennsylvania Superior Court rule on this workmen’s compensation case. What legal principles were established regarding injuries on employer premises.
The Incident at Pocono Highland Camp
In 1960, a tragic incident occurred at Pocono Highland Camp in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, leading to a pivotal legal case in workmen’s compensation law. The case, known as Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp, revolved around the death of a maintenance worker at the boys’ summer camp.
On September 13, 1960, a fire broke out in the camp’s administration building around 2:00 AM, resulting in the death of the worker from asphyxiation. This incident occurred after the regular camp season had ended, during a period when employees were engaged in clean-up work.
Key Facts of the Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp Case
- The incident occurred on September 13, 1960, after the regular camp season (July-August) had ended
- The deceased was a maintenance worker at the camp
- Employees were engaged in clean-up work post-season
- The fire broke out at approximately 2:00 AM in the administration building
- The worker died from asphyxiation
Employment Conditions at Pocono Highland Camp
Understanding the employment conditions at Pocono Highland Camp is crucial to the case. During the regular season, employees received a weekly wage along with food and board. However, after the season ended:
- Employees continued to receive the same wage
- They were responsible for purchasing their own food from local stores
- Workers were housed in the administration building
- The nature of work shifted to post-season clean-up tasks
Is it common for seasonal camps to retain workers for post-season duties? This practice is indeed common in the camping industry, as there is often significant work to be done after campers leave, including maintenance, repairs, and preparations for the next season.
The Legal Dispute: Was the Employee Required to be On-Premises?
The crux of the legal dispute in Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp centered on whether the deceased employee was required to be on the camp premises at the time of the fire. This question was critical in determining whether the incident fell under the purview of workmen’s compensation.
Conflicting testimony was presented regarding this issue:
- Alex Washeleski, a fellow employee, initially stated that workers were required to remain on premises and were subject to call at any time
- However, Washeleski later testified that after clocking out, employees were free to go where they pleased until the next workday
- Andrew Dippre, the foreman, testified that the deceased was not required to stay at the camp at night but might have worked after hours if needed
- Earl Weinberg, the camp owner, stated that employees were not required to live at the camp and were not on call
How does the requirement to be on-premises affect workmen’s compensation claims? Generally, if an employee is required to be on the employer’s premises, injuries sustained there are more likely to be covered by workmen’s compensation, even if they occur outside of regular working hours.
The Legal Process: From Referee to Superior Court
The case went through several stages of legal review:
- The referee initially made an award in favor of the claimant
- The case was then appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Board
- The Board vacated the award and dismissed the claim
- The case was further appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court
Why did the Workmen’s Compensation Board overturn the referee’s decision? The Board, as the ultimate fact-finding body, has the authority to review and revise decisions made by referees. In this case, they added additional findings of fact and came to a different conclusion based on their interpretation of the evidence.
Legal Principles Established in Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp
The Superior Court’s review of this case established or reinforced several important legal principles:
- The Workmen’s Compensation Board is the ultimate arbiter of facts in these cases
- The Board’s findings are binding on appeal if supported by competent evidence
- Appellate courts can review questions of law, including whether the law was properly applied to the facts
- If facts permit only one legitimate inference, the question becomes one of law
How do these principles impact future workmen’s compensation cases? These principles provide a framework for how similar cases should be handled, emphasizing the importance of fact-finding at the Board level and clarifying the scope of appellate review.
The Role of Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act
A key element in the legal analysis of this case was Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, as amended. This section states:
“The term ‘injury by an accident in the course of his employment,’ as used in this article . . . shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises . . . sustained by the employe, who . . . is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer . . ., the employe’s presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.”
How does this section of the Act apply to the Barrick case? The application of this section hinges on whether the employee’s presence on the premises was required by the nature of his employment at the time of the incident. This was the central question that the court had to consider in light of the conflicting testimony.
Interpreting “Required by the Nature of His Employment”
The phrase “required by the nature of his employment” is crucial in determining whether an injury falls under workmen’s compensation. In the context of the Barrick case, several factors were considered:
- Whether the employee was on call
- The timing of the incident in relation to work hours
- The employee’s freedom to leave the premises
- The employer’s expectations regarding employee presence
How do courts typically interpret this phrase in similar cases? Courts often look at the totality of circumstances, considering factors such as the employee’s job responsibilities, the employer’s policies, and any explicit or implicit requirements for the employee to be present on the premises.
The Significance of Conflicting Testimony in Workmen’s Compensation Cases
The Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case highlights the importance of witness testimony in workmen’s compensation cases. The conflicting accounts provided by various witnesses created a complex factual backdrop for the legal decision-making process.
Key points of conflicting testimony included:
- Whether employees were required to stay on premises
- The extent of on-call duties
- The level of employee freedom after regular work hours
- The employer’s expectations regarding employee whereabouts
How do courts and compensation boards handle conflicting testimony? In such cases, the fact-finding body (in this case, the Workmen’s Compensation Board) must weigh the credibility of witnesses and determine which testimony is most convincing and consistent with other evidence.
The Impact of Witness Credibility
Witness credibility plays a crucial role in cases with conflicting testimony. Factors that may influence credibility assessments include:
- Consistency of a witness’s statements
- Potential biases or interests of witnesses
- Corroboration from other evidence or witnesses
- The witness’s demeanor and manner of testifying
How does the assessment of witness credibility affect the outcome of workmen’s compensation cases? The credibility determinations made by the fact-finding body can significantly impact the final decision, as they form the basis for establishing the facts upon which legal conclusions are drawn.
Legal Standards for Reviewing Workmen’s Compensation Decisions
The Barrick case also sheds light on the legal standards used when reviewing workmen’s compensation decisions. The Superior Court emphasized several key principles:
- When compensation authorities refuse to find facts in favor of the party with the burden of proof, the review question is not whether evidence would sustain such a finding
- Instead, the review focuses on whether the board’s findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law
- The findings must be sustainable without a capricious disregard of competent evidence
What constitutes a “capricious disregard of competent evidence”? This standard refers to instances where the fact-finding body ignores or dismisses relevant, credible evidence without a reasonable explanation. It’s a high bar to meet and is not the same as merely disagreeing with the weight given to certain evidence.
The Scope of Appellate Review
The case clarifies the scope of appellate review in workmen’s compensation cases:
- Appellate courts can review questions of law
- This includes examining whether the law was properly applied to the established facts
- If facts allow only one legitimate inference, the question becomes one of law
How does this scope of review balance the roles of fact-finders and appellate courts? This approach respects the fact-finding authority of compensation boards while allowing appellate courts to ensure that legal principles are correctly applied to the established facts.
The Broader Implications of Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp
The Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case has several broader implications for workmen’s compensation law and employer-employee relationships:
- It underscores the importance of clear policies regarding employee presence on work premises outside of regular hours
- The case highlights the need for employers to be explicit about on-call expectations and requirements
- It emphasizes the critical role of accurate record-keeping and clear communication in employment relationships
- The decision reinforces the complex nature of determining what constitutes “in the course of employment” for compensation purposes
How might this case influence future employer policies and practices? Employers may be motivated to create more explicit policies regarding employee presence on work premises and to clearly communicate expectations about on-call duties to avoid ambiguity in potential compensation cases.
Impact on Seasonal and Temporary Employment
The case also has particular relevance for seasonal and temporary employment situations:
- It raises questions about the responsibilities of employers during transitional periods (e.g., post-season clean-up)
- The case highlights the need for clear delineation of employment terms during non-standard work periods
- It underscores the importance of defining the extent of employment-related duties and obligations in seasonal work contexts
How might seasonal employers adapt their practices in light of this case? Seasonal employers may need to review and clarify their policies regarding post-season work, on-premises housing, and the extent of employee obligations during these periods to minimize legal ambiguities.
The Evolution of Workmen’s Compensation Law Since Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp
Since the Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case in 1966, workmen’s compensation law has continued to evolve. Some key developments include:
- Expansion of coverage to include more types of work-related injuries and illnesses
- Increased focus on workplace safety and prevention of accidents
- Changes in how “course of employment” is interpreted in various contexts
- Adaptation of laws to address new forms of employment and work arrangements
How has the interpretation of “in the course of employment” changed over time? Courts and legislators have generally broadened the interpretation to include a wider range of scenarios, recognizing the diverse and often complex nature of modern work environments and employment relationships.
Modern Challenges in Workmen’s Compensation
Today’s workmen’s compensation landscape faces new challenges:
- Remote work arrangements blurring the lines between work and personal time
- Gig economy and freelance work complicating traditional employer-employee relationships
- Increased awareness of mental health issues and their relation to workplace injuries
- Technological advancements creating new types of workplace hazards and injuries
How are these modern challenges being addressed in workmen’s compensation law? Legislators and courts are continuously adapting laws and interpretations to address these new realities, often looking to cases like Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp for foundational principles while applying them to contemporary contexts.
Lessons for Employers and Employees from Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp
The Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case offers valuable lessons for both employers and employees:
For Employers:
- Clearly define and communicate employment terms, especially for non-standard work arrangements
- Maintain accurate records of work hours, duties, and on-call expectations
- Regularly review and update policies regarding employee presence on work premises
- Be explicit about post-season or transitional period work expectations
For Employees:
- Seek clarity on employment terms, particularly regarding on-call duties and required presence on work premises
- Keep personal records of work hours and duties, especially in non-standard work situations
- Understand your rights and responsibilities under workmen’s compensation laws
- Report any ambiguities or concerns about work expectations to employers promptly
How can both parties use these lessons to prevent future disputes? Open communication, clear documentation, and a mutual understanding of rights and responsibilities can help prevent misunderstandings and reduce the likelihood of complex legal disputes like the Barrick case.
: 1966 :: Pennsylvania Superior Court Decisions :: Pennsylvania Case Law :: Pennsylvania Law :: US Law :: Justia
208 Pa. Superior Ct. 72 (1966)
Barrick, Appellant,
v.
Pocono Highland Camp.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 14, 1966.
June 17, 1966.
Before ERVIN, P.J., WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, and SPAULDING, JJ.
*73 Harry B. Goldberg, with him Ronald M. Katzman, and Goldberg, Evans & Katzman, for appellant.
Christian S. Erb, Jr., with him Metzger, Wickersham & Knauss, for appellee.
OPINION BY ERVIN, P.J., June 17, 1966:
This is a workmen’s compensation case. The facts as stated in the opinion of Judge SHELLEY of the court below are as follows: “It appears that the decedent was a maintenance worker at Pocono Highland Camp in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. This was a boys’ camp that operated during the months of July and August of 1960. During the season, employees were paid a weekly wage, together with food and board.
At the time of the accident on September 13, 1960, the camp season had ended. The employees were living in the administration building and purchased their food at a local grocery store. They continued at the same wage and did clean up work. The employees, including the decedent, quit work on September 12, 1960 at about 10:00 a.m. because of inclement weather. The decedent left the camp, went to town on personal business and, although there is not a complete accounting of his time, it is conceded that he did not work again for his employer. He returned to his room in the administration building about midnight. A fire broke out about 2:00 a.m., which resulted in the decedent’s death from asphyxiation.”
There was a conflict of evidence as to whether or not the decedent was required to be on the premises at the time of the fire. On the one hand, Alex Washeleski, a fellow-employe, testified on direct examination that they are required to remain on the premises and were *74 subject to call “at any time of the day.
” On cross-examination, however, he testified that after punching out the time clock Barrick was not due back to work until 8 a.m. the next morning and that he was free to go where he pleased. Andrew Dippre, the foreman, testified that the decedent slept at the camp but that he was not required to be there at night, could go wherever he wanted and was not on call at night. On the other hand, he testified that if there was a need for cleaning up or maintenance after 4:30 p.m., the decedent would have worked at those hours.
Earl Weinberg, the owner of the camp, testified that the decedent was not required to live at the camp, could live where he desired and was not on call at any time. Raymond Jacobs, another fellow-employe, stated that they were not required to be back at the camp again until the following morning at 8 a.m. and testified to the decedent’s movements subsequent to his leaving camp until about midnight.
With this conflicting testimony the referee made an award in favor of the claimant.
He made six findings of fact and two conclusions of law but made no specific finding as to whether or not the decedent was required to be on the premises of his employer at the time of his death. Upon appeal, the board, which is the ultimate fact finding body, vacated the award and dismissed the claim. It did not disturb the six findings of fact but added two additional findings[1] and substituted a different conclusion of law.[2]
*75 Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, reads: “The term `injury by an accident in the course of his employment,’ as used in this article . . . shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises . . . sustained by the employe, who . . . is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer . . ., the employe’s presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.”
It is well established that where the compensation authorities refuse to find facts in favor of the party having the burden of proof, the question on review is not whether the evidence would sustain such a finding but whether the board’s findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence: Newman v.
Congregation of Mercy and Truth, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 350, 175 A.2d 160; Dandy v. Glaze, 197 Pa. Superior Ct 218. 177 A.2d 157.
It is also well established that “While the board is the ultimate arbiter of the facts and its findings are binding on appeal if supported by competent evidence, the appellate court may review questions of law, including whether the law has been properly applied to the facts: Ede v. Ruhe Motor Corp., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 603, 136 A.2d 151. If the facts permit of but one legitimate inference, the question becomes one of law [citing cases].”: Adams v. Dunn, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 319, at 323, 162 A.2d 42.
In the present case it is undenied that the decedent was upon the premises of the employer at the time of his death. However, whether his presence was “required by the nature of his employment” was a controverted question. The board decided that question in favor of the defendant and, since it can be sustained *76 without a capricious disregard of competent evidence, we are bound by it.
The claimant cites the cases of Delbene v. Pine, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 353, 19 A.2d 533; Werner v. Allegheny County, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 10, 33 A.2d 451; Wolsko v. American Bridge Co., 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 339, 44 A.2d 873; Weiss v. Friedman’s Hotel, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 98, 106 A.2d 867; and Dupree v. Barney, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 331, 163 A.2d 901, in all of which the present question was involved and in all of which the claimant recovered an award. However, in all of them except the Wolsko case there was a definite finding that the employe was required to live on the premises or was on call at all times. In the Wolsko case the deceased’s employment was to commence at 5 p.m. and the accident occurred at 4:45 p.m. We said: “Deceased was injured about 15 minutes before his day’s work was to begin. It was entirely proper for deceased to be on the premises of his employer a reasonable length of time before the hour fixed for him to commence his duties.”
On the other hand, the appellee relies on the case of Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co.
v. Fidelity Trust Co., 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 27 A.2d 445. In that case the deceased was the janitor for an apartment house. He was paid $50.00 a month less $10.00 rent for his living quarters, which were over the garage sixty feet in the rear of the main apartment building. When the furnace was not operating he was free to leave from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. During the evening of September 10, 1937 he entertained friends in his apartment and then went for an automobile ride with them. They returned at 1:30 a.m. to his quarters. The party broke up at about 2:15 a.m. A fire occurred at 4 a.m. and he was burned to death. The referee disallowed compensation, holding that he was not in the course of his employment. The board substituted findings and held *77 he was in the course of employment because he was subject to call at any time. The court of common pleas sustained the board. However, we reversed, holding that there was no evidence to support the board’s finding that he was on 24-hour duty.
We said, at page 447: “Whether deceased met death in the course of his employment is a question of law for the courts: Lewis v. Capital Bakers, Inc. et al., 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 171, 18 A.2d 883; Strunk v. E.D. Huffman & Sons, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 429, 19 A.2d 539. Even if we assume, as the appellee contends, that the deceased’s apartment was a part of the employer’s premises within the meaning of that term used in our compensation act [compare Brown v. Elks’ Club No. 123, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 226, 172 A. 408; Dunphy v. Augustinian College of Villanova et al., 129 Pa. Superior Ct. 262, 195 A. 782; and Tappato et al. v. Teplick & Eisenberg Co. et al., 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 231, 2 A.2d 545] there is no evidence to support the board’s finding that deceased was on 24 hour duty subject to call at any time when he died thus warranting the conclusion that he was in the course of his employment at the time of his death. The proof is directly to the contrary. When the furnace was not in operation Ormes’ hours of employment in no instance extended beyond 9:00 P.
M. Furthermore, on the evening and early morning in question he undoubtedly removed himself from the course of his employment in acting as host to a drinking party which had nothing whatever to do with his usual employment, being wholly foreign thereto. The fact that he was found fatally burned by a fire, probably of accidental origin, in his home located on his employer’s premises did not warrant the conclusion that he met his death in the course of his employment. This is not a case where an employee after performing his usual duties was found dead on his employer’s premises under unexplained circumstances.”
*78 We agree that the facts in the present case are so similar that a similar result must follow.
Order affirmed.
NOTES
[1] “Seventh: That the deceased, William L. Barrick, was not required to be on the premises of his employer at the time of his death.
“Eighth: That the deceased, William L. Barrick, was not engaged in the course of his employment at the time of his death.
“
[2] “Second: Since the death of the decedent was not a direct result of an injury which occurred in the course of his employment with the defendant the claimant is not entitled to recover compensation as provided by the Act.”
Summer Camps Fear Season—If It Starts—Will Be Slow
Summer Camps Fear Season—If It Starts—Will Be Slow
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/29/archives/summer-camps-fear-season-if-it-starts-will-be-slow.html
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
By Laurie Johnston
Credit…The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
May 29, 1972, Page 19Buy Reprints
View on timesmachine
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
“Are camps in trouble?” the director of a coed summer camp in the Berkshires asked rhetorically. “We’re all in trouble: our schools, our universities, our cities, our institutions. Why should the camps be different?”
As it prepares for the new season, the “sleep‐away” camp industry has run against economic recession, urbanized land‐use and taxation, changing vacation styles and a drop in the child population.
Many camps need only adapt to survive and many camp directors in the Northeast say they expect a better season than last, which is widely described as a “neardisaster.” Indeed, some camps are thriving. But there have been casualties.
Jug Hill, a successful summer camp in Dutchess County, will not be opened this season by the couple who ran it for 24 years. Their son is an earth scientist and the family hopes to turn the 92 acres into a yearround nature center.
Camp High Point in Ulster County will not open either because last summer was not sufficiently profitable for the lessees who operated it for the widowed owner.
Many Have Been Sold
And it is no secret among directors that again this year the registration has been slower than normal and that the next week or so can still make or break the season, or even the future, for camps in “marginal” straits.
“A rich family may still not balk at $1,200 to $1,500 for a season,” said a consultant on schools and camps. “But these days middle‐income parents may start figuring that the whole family could do something together for their $800 or $900 a child.”
One immediate result of this is a wider welcome for half‐season campers.
“In the last five years very few new private camps have made it and a lot of old ones have been sold for real‐estate subdivisions or shopping centers,” said Louis Weinberg, co‐director of Pocono Highland in Pennsylvania. “And right now, many directors, with maybe 60 or 70 kids signed up and a break‐even point of 80, must decide whether to have a season at all or to combine with somebody else.
”
The most fateful votes will be cast by young teen‐agers on the borderline of “dropping out” of camping—or by their parents relying on good old Camp Wah‐Wah‐Tse‐Tse for one more summer’s peace of mind.
Some of these on‐the‐fence teen‐agers may react like Victoria Londin, a ballet‐minded 14‐year‐old from Manhattan who explained why she switched to Indian Hill, an arts‐workshop camp in Massachusetts. from a more traditional camp for girls that she “got tired of.”
“All they did there,” she said, “was keep handing out awards, and all we did was play and row boats.”
Or an experienced camper may be wooed back, as was the case with Amy Paff of Westchester, also 14, who will spend her seventh season at Camp Colang in Pennsylvania.
“I thought I might go on a ‘teen tour’ instead,” she said, referring to the growing business of escorting groups of boys and girls around this country or Europe by stationwagon or bus. “But now we’re going to have a teen‐tour of our own for one month of camp.
”
Newer than the specialized weight watching, “finishing school” and sports ‐clinic camps —and sometimes a backlash from them—are the “counter‐culture” and “ecology” and “community action” camps.
Two couples who grow organic vegetables and make maple syrup and pottery, on a 100‐acre farm in Schoharie County, are looking for 20 boys and girls 13 to 16 years old to join them. They have signed up nine at $600 for July and August, although Mountain Thyme, as they have named their venture, is not scheduled for its state health inspection until June 15.
“The kids would be part of our community and help make the decisions,” said David Moskowitz, a 28‐year‐old former irrigation surveyor with the Peace Corps. “Nobody will be forced to work, but we hope the vibrations here will engender the right spirit. Some parents reject us instantly as a hippie commune but we’re not.”
Self‐discipline, yoga, vegetation cooking and make‐it yourself oven wholewheat bread and Granola‐type cereal are also big at some camps.
One is the work camp of the Putney School in Vermont, revived as a summer program in 1970 after a hiatus of nine years.
Bruce Hirsch of Riverdale, 16 years old, said he liked it because “my life had been completely divorced from physical labor.”
Demands for “camper power” are regarded as only a very low‐grade infection at most camps. But “flexibility” is the new keyword, with less fuss about uniforms, routine and regimentation.
No licensed camp can afford to be relaxed about illegal drugs, but some directors acknowledge fighting a marijuana “infiltration,” especially from young counselors.
Meaningful statistics on camps are hard to sort out. Day, two‐week or full‐season camps, profit and nonprofit, are often lumped together in records of camping associations as well as government agencies.
Howard Gates, speaking for the state Health Department, estimates there are 1,000 “sleep‐away” camps in New York, divided equally among private and organizational;, With computerization still incomplete, he believes this represents an increase of 200 to 300 camps above 10 years ago, but a decrease in.
the last few years. They could average 200 campers or many more, depending on the pattern of operation..
Robert A. Saphir, president of the New York State Camp Directors Association, said that—out of its membership of 100 private camps—three have been sold this year, and five “are just not opening.” He cited four other camps closed in Ulster County in the last four years and two in Rockland County that became real‐estate developments. Mr. Saphir is director of Camp Woodcliff in Woodstock.
Buyer’s Market
In a Western Massachusetts association of 33 camps, “Eleven have folded in two years,” according to Mordecai Bauman, director of Indian Hill in Stockbridge.
Of other Northeastern states, the statistics for Maine are both the most complete and the most startling. A total of 249 children’s camps were licensed last year, compared with 288 in 1962 and a peak of 531 in 1952. Donald Hoxie, assistant director of health engineering, said the “fade‐out of smaller operations” was caused partly by “the premium land‐value of lakefront property.
”
The New Hampshire report of 1971 licenses, though showing a slight increase to 212, added: “The private camp no longer holds a sound position for financial investment.”
A whole generation of camp directors who date from the nineteen‐thirties and forties have outlasted many who started after World War II. Now ready to retire, they face “a buyer’s market in camps,” according to M. Otto Berg of Berg & Hornbeck, specialists in camp real estate.
Some private campsites have been bought by nonprofit organization camps. Some of these have “easier going,” private directors say, because of tax exemptions, government‐surplus foods and other “subsidization,” as well as partly volunteer staffs.
“But we’ve got our own ‘crunch,’ “ said an agency camp director. “It’s fundraising And don’t blame everything on the economy —our enrollments are down, too, even with nominal or sliding fees. It’s something sociological and still a bit of a mystery.”
“Pious Smiles” – Summer at St.
Seraphim’s Camp
I decided to come out of my hiding place because I thought the last thing these poor girls needed was to run into a strange man with a camera who was filming them from behind bushes. We greeted each other with mutual curiosity, wondering what each of us was doing in this lost place. I explained to them that I was one of the diocesan photographers and asked if I could take some pictures for an article I was writing about the camp. I asked them to mind their own business while pretending I wasn’t there. They gladly agreed and continued walking towards the river. What happened next, I did not expect at all.
My first thought was that these girls went down to the river for one last time to socialize and enjoy nature before returning home the next day. What else would a group of teenagers at summer camp be doing on a beautiful Saturday afternoon? When I was looking for the right place to take the best photo, I noticed that they were not going to waste time talking and relaxing.
They came here to pray. They stood in front of God’s creation the way they stand in front of an icon when they read prayers before communion, each time stopping, passing the prayer book to another so that everyone could read the prayers.
After taking a few photographs, I stood in silence for a while, and all I could only think about was a small passage that I had recently read in a book by my ever-memorable grandfather, Protopresbyter Valery Lukyanov. These words remained in my mind for several weeks, but, being in this deserted place, I repeated them to myself, as if revealing the picture that stood before my eyes.
“Nature, like the whole of God’s world, is an open book of innumerable miracles of world-building, a book of inspiration and compunction in front of these miracles, it gives the deepest revelations in the light of uninterrupted renewal and rebirth, as, indeed, the book of the Wisdom of God, who did all ‘(Ps 103:24) Nature is the book of life: every blade of grass and grass, every creature in its breath ‘praise the Lord’.
0003
And if nature, as a Divine world order, reveals the wondrous and wonderful manifestations of this Wisdom, then every sensitive person, placed by the Providence of God on the dominion of the created world, in the beauty of nature should feel a special tenderness and irresistible desire for prayerful relationship with your Creator and Provider. Away from worldly vanities that devastate the soul, from human vanity, closer to the inspiring and pacifying nature of God!” (“Joy in the Lord, p. 30).
This is exactly what St. Seraphim’s camp gives our children – an opportunity to get away from “spiritually devastating worldliness and the pursuit of human vanity.” This gives our clergy and children the opportunity to spend time together in the spirit of brotherly love, surrounded by the majesty and beauty of God’s world. Seeing how these three girls connect with God through nature and prayer, I became convinced that the camp of St. Seraphim is not only growing physically, but also spiritually .
***
Mountain camp: hiking with accommodation at the camp site
Mountain camp: hiking with accommodation in a camp site | Prices and routes for active recreation
Summer has come! It’s time to go to the mountain camp! Now everyone can visit the heart of real mountains ! With any level of physical fitness!
But this does not mean that the mountain camp is easy! This is also a GO! A hike in which we live at the camp site and every day we walk lightly through the picturesque surroundings: we climb the peaks, make our way along mountain paths to waterfalls, admire canyons and gorges.
We have easier and really physically difficult programs in the mountains of the Caucasus, Crimea, Montenegro and in the Khibiny .
Mountain camp is:
- comfortable accommodation in a hotel or camp site;
- going light to the mountains, to waterfalls, caves and other most remarkable places;
- clean air and always amazing views;
- a company of people of different ages, but the same in spirit, here it is always fun and friendly ;
- awesome photos! You can even take a dress with you for a photo shoot;
- not a resort! This is the REAL HIKING! Only more comfortable.
Our mountain camps are the perfect getaway for friends! For more fun, take a friend with you! Sign up soon, the adventure is ahead!
Expand
↓
- Timing
- Photo / Video
- Question / Answer
- Reviews
Found 75 trips
Travel | Calendar of dates
Caucasus
8 days
The gray-haired old man Dombai and children
- + 3 more terms
More details
Caucasus
7 daysMountain camp in Mezmai [Caucasus]
- + 4 more terms
More details
Kola
7 daysMountain camp in Khibiny
- + 7 more terms
More details
Caucasus
7 daysMountain camp in the Chegem Gorge (Kabardino-Balkaria)
- Difficulty:
- Cost: dated 40 200 ₽
9000-July 22 July 22
+ 4 more termsMore details
Altai
13 daysTourist camp in Altai for children and their parents (reconnaissance)
- Difficulty:
- Cost: from 54 600 ₽
July 17 – 29
+ 1 more termRead more
Siberia
7 daysPearl of the Sayan: mountain camp in Ergaki
- + 2 more terms
More details
Serbia
8 daysGreat mountain region: nature of western Serbia (comfort tour to Tara National Park)
- Difficulty:
- Cost: from 630 €
July 23 – 30
+ 6 more termsRead more
North Ossetia
7 daysMountain camp in Digoria (North Ossetia)
- + 9 more terms
Read more
Caucasus
8 daysBezengi mountain paths with children
- Difficulty:
- Price: from 34 300 ₽
July 30 – August 6
More details
Kabardino-Balkaria
7 daysChegem High Mountain National Reserve
- + 8 more terms
More details
Caucasus
7 daysMountain camp in Dombai [Caucasus]
- Difficulty:
- Cost: from 34 900 ₽
August 6 – 12
+ 9 more termsRead more
Caucasus
6 daysMountain Camp in the Elbrus region (active program with hotel accommodation)
- Difficulty:
- Cost: from 37 200 ₽
August 6 – 11
+ 19 more termsMore details
Show more 002 This site uses cookies to give you the best experience.
- + 7 more terms
- + 4 more terms
