New Class A/"Field" Uniforms?

[VentureScoutNY]

 

scoutldr, it is to my understanding that the only uniforms parts you can mix and match are hats, neckerchiefs, and socks.

 

[BSA_Bugler]

scoutldr:

 

According to the website www.mninter.net/~blkeagle/uniform.htm it appears it's okay to mix old official hats, neckerchiefs, and socks, but not other uniform items.

 

Qoute: "BSA uniform policies does NOT allow for "mixing and matching" of new and previous versions of uniform parts, except for hats, neckerchiefs and socks. Old pants cannot be worn with the current khakitan uniform shirts; the older shirts cannot be worn with the current olive pants or shorts. [and]

The reference to all of this is found in several places, to start out, the BSA's Administration Manaul that your Council's Scout Executive and every District Executive has. It's also found in three different editions of _Scouting_ magazine, published in 1976, again in 1987 and once again in 1993 in the "News Briefs" column. It's also found in the BSA publications dealing with the Improved Scouting program; and finally, the Supply Division Director has sent five memos to the field in the past seventeen years reminding Scout Executives of the BSA's current policy dealing with uniforms and uniformity among its youth and adult members."

 

[scoutldr]

Being a mere volunteer, I don't have access to the BSA Administrative Manual, nor to the alleged memos from Irving. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. If Blackeagle says it, it must be true.

[Eamonn]

I have just read the page that the link led me to. I see that some of the things that are posted on it are just plain out and out wrong.

You would do much better to go to the BSA web sites. Or buy the book.

Eamonn

[Fat Old Guy]

Eamonn, the BSA web sites and books don't address things like wearing the beret or old uniforms.

 

Mike Walton, if asked, can provide you with chapter and verse to support his position. His sources include not just the rules and regulations that we mere mortals can't easily see but also memos from various and sundry folks at National to Scout Execs.

 

Mike has been playing this game since childhood and has been everything from a Scout to a Professional Scouter to Scoutmaster and Commissioner.

 

Now you might be taking exception because Mr. Walton hasn't updated his website to reflect the current condition of Tiger Cubs and the existence of Venturing. Give the man a break. He has a real job and spent a good bit of the past year in Kuwait trying to keep people like you and me safe. Heck, most BSA publications lag behind the times and BSA gets paid to keep them up to date.

 

 

[FScouter]

Everyone knows that just because it was found on the internet doesn't automatically mean the information is correct. How is one to decide what information found on the internet is correct and current, which is out of date, which is a personal interpretation or opinion, and which is plain wrong?

 

Mr. Walton is certainly quite knowledgeable, and has been around the block a few times. But he has been known to take some positions that simply cannot be supported by any Scouting publication. One example is his contention that there are several "classes" of uniforms: Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D, etc. He describes exactly how each "class" is defined.

 

If it's not written in the BSA publications available to all, take it with a grain of salt. There could be good reasons why the contents of a 20 year old memo aren't found in the current publications.

[Eamonn]

Cub Scouts wear the blue shirt they do not have the option of wearing the tan shirt with blue loops as is posted on that page.

Mr Walton /Black Eagle could have severed in any and many positions, this doesn't make him right. The mention of some memo that could have been wrong to start with doesn't make him right.

Even if this was ever true, which I'm sure it never was. It it not the case today.

If you want the facts about the BSA there can be no better source then the publications and web site of the BSA.

In the past I have found the people who work in the National Office very helpful when I have phoned and asked questions. They have at times not known all the answers immediately, but have never failed to get back to me.

Eamonn.(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[Fat Old Guy]

" The mention of some memo that could have been wrong to start with doesn't make him right."

 

How could a memo from the program head for Cub Scouts be wrong?

 

"Even if this was ever true, which I'm sure it never was. It it not the case today."

 

So you're calling Mr. Walton a liar? How do you know that it's not the case? Have you found a memo rescinding the old memo?

 

You say that we need to go by BSA publications (are you channelling the spirit of the late Bob White) but BSA publications have big holes in them. For example, the insignia guide says nothing about the legality of old uniforms and neither does the inspection sheet.

 

"In the past I have found the people who work in the National Office very helpful when I have phoned and asked questions. "

 

I've never tried calling National, I've always tried working through my council and the folks there rarely return calls.

 

 

 

[mdutch]

At the risk of sounding stupid, who is Bob White?

[FScouter]

I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a respected veteran scouter make a statement in direct conflict with written BSA publications.

[BSA_Bugler]

I am relatively new to this forum so I want to clarify my post. I wrote "According to the website" qualifying the "regulations" about uniforms. I believe Mike Walton after reviewing his homepage and extensive Scout history. He doesn't seem to have a hidden agenda, as a matter of fact, it's rather overt: promote scouting! He is rather conservative which I'm sure many find offensive.

 

A Scout is "Trustworthy". However Mike Walton has now been accused of lying about a memo. Should I now challenge Eamonn to a word duel, or send Mr. Walton an e-mail and let him do it?

 

Mike Walton does content that there are several "classes" of uniforms: Class A, Class B, etc. BSA may not acknowledge that to distance itself from military jargon. However, the fact is that here in the real world the "lay" uniform class definition is alive and well, without any help from Mike Walton. Almost every scouting function that I have attended over the last 26 years has been advertised with statements like: "Arrive at camp in Class A Uniform for opening ceremony, Class B uniform for daily activities, " etc. You start telling scouts to show up in their field uniforms and they'd have to run get a manual and look that up! Does acknowledging the simple "lay" uniform class system make us bad Scouts?

 

Let's just throw out the baby with bath water. I am glad others like Mr. Walton care enough to share information conducive to supporting Scouting.

 

As to the original question about a New Class A/"Field" Uniform, if "it's yellow" and "it looks gay", like TI_Lifeguard posted, my son and I will be scrounging all old uniform parts not just hats, neckerchiefs, and socks! We OFFICIALLY won't be wearing it while we protest!

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

meamemg,

 

Bob White was a long time poster, one of the most knowledgable people on this forum and was a stickler for doing Scouting by the book. The people who don't care for the "book" version of Scouting liked to harrass him. He finally got his fill and left recently. Hopefully it is just a break and he will return. Fat Old Guy never misses a chance to take his name in vain.....even after he is gone. We call that an obsession or fixation in my part of the world. We also call it unsportsman like conduct. You can go to the "Search Forums" section of the forums and do a search on Bob White's name and gain a wealth of Scouting information. You can do a search on Fat Old Guy and find plenty of one liners.

[Fat Old Guy]

meamemg,

 

Who was Bob White? No one realy knows. Bob White was a Scouter with many years experience but he was much more than that.

 

Unless Bob White had a library of BSA publications second to few. However, if someone referenced a document that was contrary to Bob's knowledge, he reufsed to accept it's existence.

 

Bob thought that all Scouting wisdom is contained within the current set of BSA publication. Anyone who used old handbooks to compare today's program to that of yesteryear was a Bad Scouter in his opinion.

 

People that came on this board and expressed opinions contrary to BSA's official line were branded bad Scouters by Bob White and told that they should get more training.

 

Bob White rarely expressed an opinion about how he thought things should be done because he marched in lockstep with BSA.

 

Bob White thought that the current handbook is the best handbook ever. Bob White thought that the current uniform is the best ever. In his mind, those who expressed dislike for either are bad Scouters who dislike Scouting.

 

Bob White believed that mere mortals at the unit level are not wise enough to have ideas about how things could be done differently. Only those who have been blessed to serve at the national level are qualified to express thoughts on how the how the program can be improved.

 

Bob White has passed from this vale of tears but he is with us in spirit (lurking) and I'm sure that he has found another forum where he can hold court.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

And of course FOG has a right to his opinion,such as he has expresed about Bob White. That does not make what FOG said about Bob White accurate, though it might be in FOG's mind.

 

You may have noticed that FOG likes to stoke people up with Non Sequiturs regarding their personal life or make some other comment that is off topic and on the border of acceptance.

 

Oh, and thats the last time you will see FOG post about Bob White

[FScouter]

There has been no accusation within this thread of anyone being a "liar". I see this term tossed out quite frequently in our society today, and frankly I find the accusation to be offensive. Questioning the validity of a statement is not a accusation of lying. A lie is an intentional misstatement of facts for the purpose of deceiving others.