What color is your Class B ?

[desertrat77]

28 minutes ago, mrkstvns said:

Of course not. 

And many of y'all are missing the point of the whole discussion.

There is absolutely NOTHING inherently wrong with any particular color. A color is just a color.

The point is that all of us can stand to better understand all 7 of the Leave No Trace principles and to think about how our outdoor manners affect the environment around us.  Usually that means respecting life: the flora and fauna we find outdoors. Point 7 is a bit different. It says "Be considerate of other visitors"

That means we're talking about people. Two parties: you and whoever you encounter.

Being "considerate" can mean different things to each of you, and it depends greatly on the circumstances.

We all know that some people are more easily offended than others. If we are aware of what factors *MIGHT* offend somebody else we are likely to encounter, then we can show courtesy by avoiding that person, or trying to respect them to minimize whatever behavior it is that offends them.

Today, I mentioned that loud colors offend some serious outdoorsmen, such as naturalists, bird watchers, backcountry adventurers etc.  Tomorrow I might share with you the fact that playing loud rap music on your boomboxes might also offend those people. And circling your jet ski around their kayak as they fish might offend some others. Next week I will share a thought about how stargazers would appreciate the courtesy of dimming your flashlights as you approach them instead of waving your new super duper Maglight in their eyes.

Obviously a few of you will say, "Screw 'em if they can't take a joke. It's their problem, not mine."

A few of you might actually ponder how many behaviors you and your scouts take for granted that might be perceived differently by others. One or two of you might even understand that the simple principle to "Be considerate of other visitors" is not an attack on your fashion sense or love of pop culture. It's not even about saving the planet. In fact, it's the last (and arguably least important) of the 7 LNT principles.  And it's just courtesy. (Which is already one of the points of our Scout Law.)

It's fascinating how this simple principle can so easily be misunderstood and argued over with such passion.

Imagine what could happen if we start talking about the first 6 principles!  Now I understand why it takes a full week to get through the LNT Master class... 😉

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.  With all due respect, this color issue is an artificial construct.  We shouldn't wear certain colors because they might offend someone?  What does that have to do with flora and fauna?  Nothing. 

Equating a loud shirt with loud music and such is truly apples/oranges, and ultimately detracts from what LNT is trying to achieve.  It just comes across as judgmental and another rule to follow. 

"Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints."  Congratulations, print a certificate of your choice, put your 200 dollars back in your pocket, plant an tree and pick up some litter.  When we meet on the trail, I will offer the hand of scouting friendship and fellowship.    ☮️

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by desertrat77

[mrkstvns]

Since we evidently won't all agree on a perfect mode of outdoor dress, here's a rather, errr, immodest proposal.

Everyone should always be buck naked whenever they're outdoors!   

That way NOBODY can complain about what color your shirt might be...problem solved!

[walk in the woods]

13 minutes ago, mrkstvns said:

We all know that some people are more easily offended than others. If we are aware of what factors *MIGHT* offend somebody else we are likely to encounter, then we can show courtesy by avoiding that person, or trying to respect them to minimize whatever behavior it is that offends them.

Today, I mentioned that loud colors offend some serious outdoorsmen, such as naturalists, bird watchers, backcountry adventurers etc.  Tomorrow I might share with you the fact that playing loud rap music on your boomboxes might also offend those people. And circling your jet ski around their kayak as they fish might offend some others. Next week I will share a thought about how stargazers would appreciate the courtesy of dimming your flashlights as you approach them instead of waving your new super duper Maglight in their eyes.

Your first statement is an impossible standard to meet.  I'm an old straight white guy.  Some significant portion of the population will be offended by my breathing.  

Your second series of examples are a non-sequitor.  All the actions you mentioned show intention by one person to interrupt/disrupt the second person's experience.  Intention is the key.  Using a yellow tent has no intention to disturb.  

Beyond that, you started this discussion with an indirect ad hominem attack on anybody who might disagree by using words like clowns, garish, and serious.  If you were serious about inquiry you'd have started with a question, not a statement of opinion.

[desertrat77]

1 minute ago, mrkstvns said:

Since we evidently won't all agree on a perfect mode of outdoor dress, here's a rather, errr, immodest proposal.

Everyone should always be buck naked whenever they're outdoors!   

That way NOBODY can complain about what color your shirt might be...problem solved!

Believe it or not, your proposal was indeed a "thing" in the '70s.   It wasn't common but it did happen.  I didn't see it myself but I know of others who witnessed it.   There were times I saw clothing choices of that era that were, shall we say, minimal and revealing....

[FireStone]

I'm really not a fan of the drab colors of the BSA uniforms (Cub blue is ok but the SBSA olive/green is just dull), so when I had the chance to design Class B t-shirts for my Pack, I picked a bright "electric blue" shirt with bright yellow ink. 😁

I get the LNT idea here with regard to color, but that's also mostly focused on the concept of lessening your impact on natural surroundings. Natural surroundings. Being that we spend most of our time in Scout camps (especially at the Cub level), our surroundings include a lot of visual impact. Signs, flags, buildings, noise, cars, and lots of other unnatural things.

Edited May 1, 2019 by FireStone

[qwazse]

This is such a strange discussion to have from a scouter perspective. My boys are intrusive in so many other ways, that their colors are the least of my worries. One dropped wrapper or abandoned bottle is far more heartbreaking than eight bright shirts.

Regarding bright tents (or any tarp, really), mitigate their impact by choosing a campsite sufficiently off trail. When I'm with my scouts in an area that allows canines, I blame it on my dog. I want him to have a spot where he can enjoy their patrol's company and not be riled by passing hikers. Even in a meadow, a bright tent 100 yards off does not stand out among tall grass and wildflowers. Furthermore, when scouts randomly disperse their patrol sites, and their tents within those sites, it takes some effort to get an idea of how many scouts are really there. One laurel thicket, and you will wonder where the boys are.

Those tents might ruin someone's drone flyover video, but among patrons of wilderness recreation areas, those oversized mosquitoes are a hotly debated issue themselves.

Generally in WPa, outdoors-men hang red flags over their occupied campsites and deer stands. Some properties require them to. It spares hikers like my crew from stumbling in. Once scouts master topo-maps, they know where the good campsites are. That bit of color helps everyone divert from someone's claimed sweet spot so that all may enjoy a peaceful day in the woods.

Edited May 1, 2019 by qwazse

[MikeS72]

8 minutes ago, qwazse said:

This is such a strange discussion to have from a scouter perspective. My boys are intrusive in so many other ways, that their colors are the least of my worries. One dropped wrapper or abandoned bottle is far more heartbreaking than eight bright shirts

I have been reading this thread with a mixture of amusement and skepticism.  I fully agree that LNT is something we should all be aware of and every scout should do their best to adhere to, however, the color of a scouts t-shirt leaves does not adversely affect the natural environment.    Our troop can choose forest green or grey for shirts, so that is not generally an issue when we are on the trail, but if the color of a scouts shirt offends someones sensibilities, that would definitely be at the bottom of my list of concerns.

[Eagle94-A1]

Just went to REI's website. here are some of the shirts for men.

 

      

 

Womens  

 

  and I can go on.

 

So I think the idea that bright clothing in the outdoors is acceptable to true outdoorsman.

 

That being said, a lot of my gear of OD, coyote brown, or camoflaged as it is USGI surplus. Joke in my troop growing up was "Government surplus, if it is designed to survive combat, it may survive Boy Scouts." I am still using my A.L.I.C.E. pack I got used in 1988.

[RememberSchiff]

2 hours ago, desertrat77 said:

Believe it or not, your proposal was indeed a "thing" in the '70s.   It wasn't common but it did happen.  I didn't see it myself but I know of others who witnessed it.   There were times I saw clothing choices of that era that were, shall we say, minimal and revealing....

Right. I remember a camporee like that in the late 60's in New York; it was called Woodstock. Like the Moon, we may never go back.  

[SSScout]

Pish posh.   The last time I went shopping for rain gear, about 8 years ago now,  (I wanted an over the pack poncho), all I could find were dark green, black, dark blue.  I reasoned, in the rain, cloudy day gloom, I wanted bright , cheery colors, if only so folks could see me coming ! Even if I couldn't see them (because of their dark, gloomy colors).   Nope. None to be had.

I kept looking.  I found a bright yellow rain coat, over the hips length, and bought that, AND a dark blue extra large poncho.  

When I was a motorcycle rider, I went to a boating shop and bought a full rain suit, bright yellow.  Helly Hansen. I wanted to be SEEN on my cycle.   Some years ago, our local county police changed their uniforms from a nice light brown to BLACK.  Even their raincoats are BLACK.   When they are on traffic duty, they have to put on a reflective vest.  They used to have BRIGHT orange rain coats, easily visible, with reflective stripes on them. I asked my cop friend , why the change?  And he said the higher ups gave various reasons:  They didn't want the police to be confused with the State Troopers (also light brown) , they didn't like the comparison with the Nazi Brown Shirts (??),  they saw the black as more "authoritative",  they thought it was more "Tac" as in "tactical".  More invisible at night when they are chasing the bad guys....   Few officers I spoke to liked the black at first.   I do not know the present opinion.

Scouts can blend in, be less ostentatious, sure, but the necker needs to stand out so one can find his buds in the crowd.    

 

[chief027]

Our troop has a nice khaki color that is very similar to the Field Uniform/ Class A color, however, I think a nice bright color would help our scouts stand out from the crowd. Our Council Camp uses that method to help troops identify the staff, the t-shirts are a blue which stands out but isn't too in your face, it's better than the old highlighter green color they used.

[HelpfulTracks]

I can live with someone wanting to revoke my “real outdoorsman” card because I prefer my Scouts be in bright colors in the woods for their safety.

I can live with them being offended by it too.

 

[Thunderbird]

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I can live with someone wanting to revoke my “real outdoorsman” card because I prefer my Scouts be in bright colors in the woods for their safety.

I can live with them being offended by it too.

 

Use that bright orange color, and I don't see how they can revoke your "real outdoorsman" card! 

 

[mashmaster]

Can I guess that you just finished with LNT training?   I noticed you recently changed your profile pic.

Bright colors are not offensive in the outdoors, weather or not you are a true outdoorsman or not.   Scouts are not hunting and dressed in camo, they are youth that most likely offended the true outdoorsman by talking and laughing.  And when you say naturlists, I believe that is a term used for nudists, which is probably more distracting to true outdoorsman.

My point is, most people don't agree with you and no matter how much you berate everyone.  Just dress the way you want and let the youth design and chose their shirts so they like them.   It is their program.

[qwazse]

15 hours ago, mrkstvns said:

Since we evidently won't all agree on a perfect mode of outdoor dress, here's a rather, errr, immodest proposal.

Everyone should always be buck naked whenever they're outdoors!   

That way NOBODY can complain about what color your shirt might be...problem solved!

Considering the number of Yeti hunters out there ... If I'm going through the woods naked, I'm dyeing the hair on my Mediterranean back blaze orange!