Cub uniform pants - why does no one wear them?

[Rip Van Scouter]

My pet peeve is this unwritten policy that seems to pervade councils, districts and packs. That is that it is OK to wear just about any other kind of pants with the uniform shirt in Cub Scouts. BSA uniforming policy says that only "official" long pants and shorts should be worn with the "field uniform", which includes the official uniform shirt, blue for Cubs, tan for leaders (optional for Webelos). Activity shirts, like polos and T-shirts are of course a totally different matter.

 

However, when I go to our Pack meeting, and even the Blue and Gold dinner, I see such a hodgepodge of pants, from wind pants and sweats to blue jeans, with only a vague attempt to be blue, let alone matching "navy blue" in color. Even the other leaders usually wear blue jeans, khakis, or some other casual pants instead of the "official" green pants or shorts.

 

Even at our District Roundtable, I would say that about 95% of Cub Leaders in attendance wore blue jeans. After the meeting I approached the District leader (I am not sure of his position) who had conducted the Cubmaster/Committee idea/training session about this, to try to find out just what the district/council policy was. All he would says was that, yes, officially, the uniform pants are required, but even in his home pack he often wears jeans with his tan shirt. (At the time he WAS wearing official green pants)

 

Well, of course, if the LEADERS don't wear official uniforms, how can we expect the boys to do so? If wearing official pants is such a burden that no one (hardly) does it, why doesn't the BSA just go ahead and make an official policy change that at least defines acceptable alternative for boys pants (i.e. dark, not faded or "washed", blue jeans or true monocolor "navy blue" dress or causual pants with belt loops). This would give more of a true "uniform" appearance than the current situation. Similarly, leaders could wear a suitable "olive green" pants. Certainly, dockers-type khaki-style pants in the correct shades are widely available and reasonably priced as compared to the "official" pants.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have purchased, and intend to wear the "official" green pants, both long and short. But, I can see a need to at least formalize and regulate what seems to be the current status quo in Cub Scout boy and leader uniforming. Or is the BSA too dependent on the profits from uniform pants and shorts that are quicly outgrown to even broker some kind of compromise?

 

In the meantime, I will be trying to organize a "uniform closet" for our pack to at least encourage correct uniforming by making uniform parts available for free to those who would not otherwise purchase them for their boys. The sad thing is that even my own wife objected to buying long pants for our two boys as a "waste of money" since they would quickly outgrow them and "no one else" wore them anyway! (I did buy them official shorts, which they love, but winter time requires something warmer!)

 

I am cross-posting this to the "Cub Scouts" forum.

[pitkin]

Touchy subject...

My 2 cents worth:

As a former Cubmaster and Scoutmaster, I understand what you are saying. In my area, we always agreed that getting a boy into the Cub Scout program was the priority. We did ask that they show up in a Class A uniform shirt to all events unless class B was specified for a particular event. I think the issues are cost, durability, boy's growth and honestly will they stay in the program?

Uniforming at the troop level was such that no scout above second class could request a scoutmaster's conference unless he was in complete class A uniform. That gave the parents time to get the pants and gave the boy time to figure out if scouting is really what he wanted.

I have to mention that the complete uniforming issue for every scout at every meeting did cause a huge blow-up between the existing leaders of what was the best troop in the district and some parents of new scouts. The parents (committee members) insisted all scouts should have all of the uniform for every meeting totally disregarding existing and very successful troop policy. They left and started their own troop. That rift started almost 10 years ago and is still existing today between the troops.

I am telling you this story because I don't want you or your boys to suffer the aftermath of such a rift. The boys are the ones who actually loose in such a conflict.

Worry about the complete uniform for the boys later.

I believe adult leaders should always wear the correct uniform when they are around boys. My pet peeve is cammo pants! I actually saw a leader not to long ago wearing military cammo bloused up around military boots at roundtable. I was really glad I didn't have to deal with him.

[Bob White]

Excuses given:

cost

duability

comfort

 

Actual Reasons:

Lack of training.

They do not understand the prpose of the uniform.

They do not know how to encourage and promote the uniform.

They do not know any way to get the uniform other than brand new off the rack.

They don't care.

[dsteele]

Not trying to start a uniform debate here.

 

I wonder how many more Cub Scouts would wear the official pants if the pants were built like tuxedo pants. Most of the men here will know what I'm taking about.

 

Tuxedo pants have a waist band with a buckle on each side. The waist can have a range of 2 inches or so just by sliding the buckle.

 

There's a lot of fabric at the end of the Cub Scout pant. Don't cut it off -- move the hem up. Then, if the pants were built like tuxedo pants, it would be easy to lenghten the pant and increase the waist size with the growth of the kid.

 

Hmmm. Two or three years worth of use vs. 6 months.

 

Unc

[FScouter]

Great idea Unc, but it won't work. Those that don't wear uniform pants (or any other part) aren't going to start simply because one of the myriad excuses has been eliminated. There are more excuses than there are solutions. If they don't care, no design change will fix that.

[cajuncody]

I can tell you that the reason we don't require scout pants is cost, cost, and cost. Most of my kids have problems finding pants that zip. The BSA Pants are just too expensive. Then again, so are new jeans or blue pants so my boys come in the best they have. Sometimes that is sweats. When I get donated uniform pants in I hand them out just as fast and then the boys wear them to every meeting.

Kristi

 

Uniform Closet

C/O Kristi Cantor

PO BOX 1111

Kodak Tn 37764

[fotoscout]

I think it starts at the beginning!

 

From the Get-Go new leaders are allowed to not wear the pants. The kids (parents) just follow suit. So it really becomes a leadership issue. Start them off properly and they will continue in Scouting with the proper uniform. Start them off poorly, and they will continue in Scouting without the proper uniform.

 

Cost aside, its that simple.

 

[ScoutMomAng]

In our case it is cost compared to growth rate. My children grow way too fast for the cost of the pants to be effective. I, also, do not think the "tuxedo" type pant would work either. I can tell you, from experience, that once you hem a pant, and it stays that way for a while, then let it out, the pant will have a line where the old hem was. I don't see a major problem for cub scouts wearing jeans with their class A uniform shirt. Most people, not in scouting say, "The boys look great in their uniforms" when they see them. At least it isn't girl scouts where some councils say, "the Girl Scout uniform is Optional to show diversity"!

 

 

[Rip Van Scouter]

You all have made good points. However, judging in part by my wife's own reaction, I have to agree with Kristi and "ScoutMomAng" that cost is an overriding issue for many.

 

When the short-sleeve shirt cost $22 (almost $26 for long-sleeve), a hat (which may be optional but all the kids want them) is $11.50 (AND MUST CHANGE EVERY YEAR NOW! That I DON'T get at all!), the belt is either over $6 or over $8, depending on size, insignia adds up to around $10 or so, socks are another $4.40 (which many do not get, but some do, and the inspection sheet says they ARE required, like the hat), $7 for neckerchief and slide, you are looking at a bill of over $60, before you add the $25 shorts and/or the $30 long pants, even more for "husky" sizes. And let's face it, kids DO NOT like wearing long pants in the warmer months, but must wear them in the winter, making it practically mandatory to get both, to be properly uniformed.

 

No wonder parents rebel at the cost of buying proper uniform bottoms, especially for new Wolves or even now for Tigers , who may or may not stay with the program. Today at Wal-mart I bought a pair of nicely made and good-looking navy blue utility (multi-pocketed) trousers for my Tiger (his older brother, a Bear, got a pair last week and loves them, but they were out of the smaller size then) at a cost of less than $10, and, get this, they have zip off legs, so they can be worn as shorts OR long pants! Why doesn't BSA come out with something like that!

 

I have heard the argument that other youth programs require expensive uniforms and equipment, but why make it that much harder for a parent to making the choice for Scouting, especially when there are so many other costs and time conflicts anyway? My boys also participate in a Youth soccer league where they recieve their shirts, shorts, and socks in team colors as part of the fee. Even with annual purchase of new soccer shoes to accomodate growing feet, the costs are about half of what annual dues and uniforming adds up to for Cubs, not to mention additional fees for just about every activity!

 

Why can't BSA make an official policy to allow reasonable alternatives, such as blue jeans and navy blue pants and shorts for Cubs? Boy Scout uniforming could remain as is, since it is not an entry-level program like Cubs. As long as the color was kept to a monocolor (no trim in other colors) dark or navy blue, and belt loops were required (for the uniform belt), I believe overall appearance of the pack would, in fact, improve.

[johndaigler]

I believe many Cub parents will buy the pants if we show that we as adult Cub Leaders value them.

 

But let's, organizationally, take a look at ourselves when it comes to Cub uniforms. . .

 

The present Cub uniform pant could be redesigned to be more practical and last longer.

 

Each year, we ask Cub families to buy a new neckerchief, handbook, hat (yes, I know it's optional but you can see my point), even the belt buckle is supposed to change.

 

We don't set these financial challenges for Boy Scout families, and they are much more likely to get better use out of all these pieces.

 

A staffer at the Scout Office suggested to me that the reason we don't have a Council Uniform Recovery Plan (sharing closet) is that we make money off new unis. Sure, that's just one person's comment, but . . .

 

If we're want to teach "Thrifty", then we ought to demonstrate it.

 

We could make uniforming better for Cub parents, more UNIFORM, and a better methodology and tool for use with Cubs if we rethought a few approaches.

 

The Cub Uniform is often viewed as "divisive" and de-uniforming, because it sorts our boys out into categories. I think we can use changes in the uniform to bring our boys together.

 

BTW, (and I know I should start a new thread, but...), we should stop sorting Cubs out as "Tigers, Cubs Scouts and Webelos" when we wish to talk about the entire group or program. It's fine when we're pointing out necessary differences, but that phrase, like the varying uniforms leads to separation not uniformity and team.

 

jd

 

[Showme]

Sometimes I wonder who is making money on the uniform decisions - the new hats for cubs are downright silly! Too much focus on uniform details in the scouting program is like missing the forest for the trees.

Uniform pants are extravagant and not nearly durable enough. Besides the obvious issues in cost, there is a definate dorky factor that becomes more of an issue in boy scouts as the boys get older. The button-up shirts can be purchased big for maximum use; not reasonably done with pants. The shirts can also be put on and taken off over the activity shirt rather quickly and easily as appropriate for meeting activities and ceremonies. Again, this is not so easily done with pants. Since the program is about the boys, SOME effort should be made to accomodate what works for them (and at a reasonable cost.)

I do think that if the habit of wearing 'scout' pants was established early on in the cub scout program, there would be less resistance to wearing a complete uniform later on when the boys are older. I just don't see that this will ever happen with the existing scout "regulation" uniform design.

I guess it comes down to what is more important. Scouts is not the military; is the 'regulation' uniform detail really more important than an attempt to conform to a standard (in most cases, Class A shirts and blue jeans) and involvment in the program?

[FScouter]

"In our case it is cost compared to growth rate. My children grow way too fast for the cost of the pants to be effective." Your kids don't grow out of civilian pants, only Scout pants? Durability of Scout pants must be pretty good then.

 

"...the pant will have a line where the old hem was." Seems like a minor detail considering the extra life one can get out of the pants.

 

"Why can't BSA make an official policy to allow reasonable alternatives, such as blue jeans and navy blue pants and shorts for Cubs?" Do you mean an official policy to abandon the uniform? You're not fooling me, blue pants is not a uniform.

 

"As long as the color was kept to a monocolor (no trim in other colors) dark or navy blue, ..., I believe overall appearance of the pack would, in fact, improve." Maybe. How would the pack look if all the boys wore the uniform?

 

... is the 'regulation' uniform detail really more important than an attempt to conform to a standard...? Whatever the standard is, there will be those that dont like it. And we already have a standard.

 

I guess Id have to say that those that dont like the uniform dont have to wear it (and wont anyway). Wear your street clothes with pride. But lets not dumb down the program to assuage those that are feeling guilty about rebelling.

[acco40]

Touche!

[Backpacker]

I think there have been good arguments made on both sides. My pet peeve is not cost but the poor quality of the uniform parts made by the suppliers BSA uses. Case in point I needed to get an "official" Venture uniform for the training committee I am on, I have a BSA National Supply store near me so in I went. They had the shirt, insignia, belt and socks and thats all. The head of the store told me they do not stock the pants and shorts anymore because of all the complaints and returns they had to do with them. I could special order them in 6-8 weeks at $66 for the pants and $48 for the shorts. Well I found both of them on EBay for $25 each, official BSA issue and all, but the poorest quality material, flimsy and badly made. I wear them to official functions only because one outing would do them in for sure. It is sad that the BSA uniform standards have slipped so dramatically. If BSA demands full uniforms then I think the parents also have a right to demand better quality for the price.

[Rip Van Scouter]

"Your kids don't grow out of civilian pants, only Scout pants? Durability of Scout pants must be pretty good then." I don't think durability is the issue. Cost effectiveness is. If $10 pants last for one year and they grow out of them after that time, it might still be cost effective, but $25 pants cannot be used for 2.5 years, because they grow out. Therefore the "official" uniform pants are not as cost effective.

 

"Seems like a minor detail considering the extra life one can get out of the pants." Yes, I agree. My Mom did that (leave extra material inside above the hem to let out later) with all our Scout pants and I do not remember having any problems.

 

"Do you mean an official policy to abandon the uniform? You're not fooling me, blue pants is not a uniform." No, not abandoning the uniform, just increasing the options. As someone pointed out, this is NOT the military. Even in the military, some compromises are made to allow civilian clothing to be part of the uniform. As a medic on USAF AirEvac flights, my uniform included a civilian "hospital white" shirt instead of the usual light blue. A better example is the uniforms worn in some restaurants, where an official logo shirt is provided, but pants are specificed as simply "long black slacks". Already there is the option of long or short pants. Webelos may be blue or tan, even within the same Den!

 

"How would the pack look if all the boys wore the uniform?" There is no doubt the pack would look great if all were in full uniform, in an ideal world. However, we must deal with the real world, and in the real world, unfortunately, the pants seem to be problematic for many parents and leaders.

 

"Whatever the standard is, there will be those that dont like it. And we already have a standard." Yes, but standards can, and do, change, despite the resistance of those who cling to the old standard, because "that's the way it was, and we LIKED IT!"

 

"I guess Id have to say that those that dont like the uniform dont have to wear it (and wont anyway). Wear your street clothes with pride. But lets not dumb down the program to assuage those that are feeling guilty about rebelling."

 

Wow, that was a mouthful! "Wear your street clothes with pride" indeed! Sarcasm does not really lead to intelligent discussion. Is it really "dumbing down" the program to make a minor change in uniforming? I thought "the program" was about values and experiences not always obtained in the normal school or home "program". I thought "the program" was about building unity in the den, pack, district, etc., not divisiveness. I don't think people feel guilty about "rebelling" by not buying the uniform pants. It just is not important to them. How did we get this way? I do not know. I was out of Scouting for many years. We all wore uniform pants when I was a kid, and we LIKED IT! But times change. We live in a more casual society. As long as changes do not compromise the core of the BSA program, then change can be good.

 

I am all for complete uniforming, but at this point I don't believe that training, education, leadership, etc., will make the problem go away. Lacking any move by the BSA to alleviate the problem (lower costs, convertible pants, optional wear, etc.) all we can do is work on getting a uniform closet/exchange going and, personally, to lead by example, encouraging others to do the same. I would hate to see anything happen like was described by others when their unit made complete uniforming a requirement. Uniforming should bring the members together, not divide them!