Hall, Scott D. (shall@ISC901.JSC.NASA.GOV)
Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:08:00 CDT
I, too, do not require my Cubs (nor my scouts, back when I was SM), to wear
uniform pants. My biggest issue is the expense. When I am out with scouts,
they don't sit like dainty little grandmothers taking their afternoon tea.
They're in the trees, pulling each other out across the grass, being boys,
you get the idea. I encourage this, as it seems to be enjoyable for them
and keeps them interested through the "dull" parts of the program. BSA
pants are way, WAY too expensive to be used for that type of activity. It
doesn't take long and they are torn, stained or faded just like the jeans
that several seem to find so abhorrent. I guess I wouldn't feel this way if
BSA pants (and shirts too, for that matter) were more reasonably priced. I
mean, after all, I can pop down to Walmart or Kmart and pick up a pair of
Dickies or Wranglers for me for around $12. And at my size, they use a
*lot* of cloth. So why do scouts have to pay upwards of $30 pair? If they
were closer to $10, scouts could afford a "dress" pair and a "junk" pair.
But at $30, a lot of families have trouble justifying the expense for a
pair of pants that will be outgrown/destroyed within a year. I guess my
wish would be, if anybody from National is listening, that BSA move away
from the designer crap and get back to a basic, inexpensive uniform. Let's
cut the cost by about 70% and bring the full uniform more into the reach of
the boys. Then we can push them to wear them.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City