Pants crusade?

[Backpacker 11]

I think there is a big difference between discussing and complaining about an issue. Part of human nature is wanting things we have no control over to be better such as politics or religion or even the BSA uniform. I think Bob just likes to stir things up to get a reaction, in fact I wonder if he and Merlyn are alter egos or maybe related, they both like to push buttons and see what happens. I am amazed how controversal this thread has become for some over a pair of pants.

[Eagledad 2779]

You're right, Fair is Fair

 

Note to National. If you haven't already read it, I love the choices you give us in socks, especially the Thorlo hiking socks. They feel like a thousand little fingers massaging my feet.

 

OK, this is embarrassing, but last I heard, the Irving address is not the correct address to the BSA Supply division. The Supply Division is east, Tennessee or Kentucky? That was the address for which I was told to send my ideas and suggestions. Does anyone have that address close by?

 

Alright lets huddle up and gather some ideas here. I will start with shorts. I want two pairs, one for wearing to meetings, nothing fancy. And a pair for camping, hiking and just looking cool around all the female rangers at Philmont. OK, the one suggestion is from my son.

 

BW, any suggestions to shorts? This is your chance because supply folks might be looking.

 

Barry

 

[Bob White 20]

If showing how to have a successful scouting program for youth by actually following the scouting program, and if steering leaders to scouting resources rather than personal oppions is gounds for being considered an instigator than I accept the title.

 

The forum administration can verify that I have never posted under other names, unlike other participants.

 

I think if you go back to the early part of the thread the topic was abandoned when a number of misreprentions were attributed to the Uniform Method. That was the beginning of the course that has lead us here.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[evmori 11]

Here you go!

 

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

SUPPLY DIVISION

NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER

P.O. Box 7143

Charlotte, NC 28241-7143

1-800-323-0732

 

Diversion is a great offensive tatic!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[scoutldr 732]

OK, BSA. I just went to the SCOUTSTUFF.ORG web site.

 

If you are serious about wanting my opinion, put a "CONTACT US" link on your web site and start reading our ideas and complaints.

 

Putting a "survey" on the web site, with pre-determined answers (choose only one) is not a very scientific way to conduct a poll. (How about an "all of the above" choice, or an "add additional comments" box?)

 

And if you are really considering adding "yolks" to the shirt, please don't. That yellow stuff is really hard to wash out.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

"For those who have been unable to find the address for the National office, even though it has appeared here several times, even though you can get it from your local professionals, even though it appears in a number of scouting materials, even though it is available on-line, even though it is listed in the phone books for Irving TX.

 

It is:

 

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

NATIONAL OFFICE

P.O. BOX 152079

1325 Walnut Hill Lane

IRVING, TX 75015-2079" Bob

 

"Here you go!

 

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

SUPPLY DIVISION

NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER

P.O. Box 7143

Charlotte, NC 28241-7143

1-800-323-0732 " Ed

 

 

 

[Hunt 11]

"I think if you go back to the early part of the thread the topic was abandoned when a number of misreprentions were attributed to the Uniform Method. That was the beginning of the course that has lead us here."

 

Tut, tut. The only thing that could remotely be called a "misrepresentation" in the post to which you first objected was a claim that the pants and shirt each cost $50. The other statements you didn't like were opinions about the quality of the uniform. There was nothing about the uniform method until you introduced it, and it was off-topic when you did. This thread was, and is, about whether BSA should change the current pants. (And with tax, the adult pants are near enough $50.)

[Torveaux 10]

On cost:

 

Bob: "Could we quit with arguments over high priced. Facts have proven over and over that the current uniform is one of the lowest priced and cost effective uniforms in any youth program."

 

No we cannot. Let's look at a little real-world example.

 

The 100% Cotton BSA Trouser is currently listed at $56.60 for regular size 36. It has no cargo pockets or similar 'outdoors' design.

 

In comparison, Cabela's (an Outfitter) currently has a "2-in-1" 100% cargo pant available with zip-off pant legs (shorts and pants in one). It has big cargo pockets and is generally suited to outdoor wear. The cost? $34.95! That is almost $22 is savings PLUS you don't have to buy a pair of shorts (BSA $49.20). That is about $71 in savings per set of pants/shorts.

 

If you prefer the BDU style pant, they have those for $24.95. The 7 pocket shorts are $19.95. That's right, for the same (actually the Cabela's stuff is more suitable to Scouting wear) articles you pay about 1/2 the price. That's without negotiating a better deal as an official BSA supplier. Given the large volume and captive audience, the BSA could negiotiate a very good deal with a supplier such as Cabelas or Land's End, or LL Bean, etc. to provide the 'official' pants.

 

Those are the pertinent 'facts'. I would love to be able to afford 2 or 3 pair of official pants to wear to meetings and outings. If those pants were authorized for 'civilian' wear, I could get more use out of them rather than have them be redundant. It is one thing to pay an extra $5 a pair as a contribution to Scouting. It is quite another to pay twice as much for an inferior product.

[Bob White 20]

"The 100% Cotton BSA Trouser is currently listed at $56.60 for regular size 36. It has no cargo pockets or similar 'outdoors' design."

 

If your argument is that the BSA doesn't make good 100% cotton camping pants all I can say is "nobody does". I am not sure how much outdoor training you have but 100% cotton is a lousy material for camping clothing.

 

Those are dress slacks you are looking at and they will out live just about any pair of dress slacks in your closet and come with a lifetime warranty.

 

 

 

[Torveaux 10]

So is your argument that the Cotton/Poly multi-pocketed BSA pants are better for outdoor wear?

 

The polyester helps keep wrinkles out but it does little else for warmth, dryness, or durability.

 

If you compare the Cotton Trousers to 'civilian' wear items in the same class, the price difference is even greater. I can get 100% cotton dress slacks for $22 or less (JCPenny) and they will last as long as the BSA pants given the same usage.

 

If you look for hiking pants, they are almost all 100% cotton. Most blue jeans are 100% cotton as well. BSA doesn't even offer a better solution (like a nylon blend or some newer synthetic fabrics).

 

What I am getting at is that the pants available on the open market are every bit as good or better than the BSA pants for much less.

 

If your argument is that the pants available are not good for outdoor wear, I would agree. The goal, in part, is to get BSA to select a pant that suits the mission. Dress pants are not much good for a large portion of the program. There are plenty of good options that will fill the role of 'meeting' pants as well as that of outdoor pants. BSA already has a 'dress' uniform and it is gray trouser that runs for $71.80. To upgrade the pants to something better than the cotton, you can get a 55% nylon 45% cotton pant from REI (hardly a discount retailer) for $49.50. Sure, that is $4.10 more than the BSA poly/cotton, but it is a much higher quality item AND serves as both shorts and pants (making the net difference about $36 less).

 

Most of us simply do not have the budget to buy multiple pairs of pants that we wear once a week.

 

At the end of the day, the root point here is that the pants are not "one of the lowest priced" at all.

 

I love the idea of wearing a uniform and having my son wear one as well. (I come from a military family where uniform wear is quite normal and appreciated) I just want a uniform that suits the mission and does not seek to needlessly soak the membership for hidden dues.

[bgeipel 10]

You can't compare the prices of a limited production run of US Made clothing to that of a mass run of foreign made cloths. The pants you are referring to from Cabelas are not US made.

 

On the survey at scoutstuff.com, there are repeated questions about off-shoring the production of uniforms. That may be where all of this is headed.

 

Another problem with Uniforming is keeping the same style in stock for an extended period of time. Off shore manufactures probably would not want to re-tool to make another limited production run after the current supplies run out. I am not sure you would see the cost of the uniform go dowm much.

 

Barry Geipel

ASM Troop 112 Carmel, IN

 

 

[evmori 11]

I think what we are saying is the uniform pants are expensive. And they are. And I would still like a definition of "built bad". That one puzzles me!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

What I am saying torveaux is that you need to understand what the uniform is for and what it isn't for.

 

I do lots of different types of outdoor activities in lots of different weather conditions. I do not have a single piece of clothing or outer wear that suits every activity or contion. So I do what my training yeaches me to do. I dress for the activity and the weather. I do not expect my scout uniform to work in every occassion any more than my columbia zip-offs will.

 

My scout uniform works great for meetings, parades, ceremonies, public speaking. It shows the public my mebership in and dedication to the ideals of the scouting program. That is what the uniform is for.

 

My wife always gets a kick out of the fact that nearly every time we camp we have had people stop in and ask for help. They usually say, "you looked like you knew what you were doing are you a Boy Scout?" I bet that has happened a couple dozen times or more over the years.

 

You don't need to dress like a scout when you are camping...you just need to camp like a scout.

 

 

[Backpacker 11]

Bob

 

You have obviously missed the point of this whole discussion, not unusual by any means, there is no good reason that with the high prices for the uniform pants that members have to accept poorer quality goods. They should be of the quality for rugged outdoor use, since that is one main focus of the program. P.S.- you sure could use spellcheck in replies Bob, typos.

[Torveaux 10]

Bob,

 

If the pants are only for ceremonial occasions, such as "meetings, parades, ceremonies, public speaking" then we can save huge amounts of money. Each of us would only need one pair of uniform pants and we can get equal or better quality for less than half of the price.

 

Also, our camps require the use of the field uniform. Therefore, whether or not we 'know better', camping in the uniform is, um, required. (we are not authorized to make changes).

 

Personally, I think there are plenty of acceptable design options that would make a great multi-purpose uniform. They may not be as dressy as a formal dress uniform or as hearty as a $300 set of camping togs, but they would be more things to more people than the current mess.

 

bgeipel,

 

There are many reasons why your concerns are unfounded. First and likely foremost, Scouting is an international organization, not merely a national organization. The US products are often of inferior quality compared to the imported garments (contrary to popular myth). Our well-meaning unions and legislators have made textile production in the US a losing endeavour. More to the point, if the BSA adopts a uniform that closely matches a production garment, they can take advantage of economies of scale whether that is a domestic or foreign producer. Most similar garments are purchased individually and must compete in the open market as individuals. That drives up the cost of advertising and marketing for the various brands. The ability to have a huge account, such as BSA, enables manufacturers or distributors to shave a huge portion off of their cost. You vastly underestimate the buying power of so large a group. Manufacturers do not make huge runs of existing designs/colors/fabrics because they go in and out of fashion. A 5-year BSA contract would be a huge boost to most manufacturers. Better yet, if we went with an independent distributor, they could bid out the items (like BSA Supply does now) and do it for a great deal less.

 

Do you suppose that Scouts in other parts of the world limit themselves to uniforms that are domestically produced?