Boonie Cap

[chiles]

The serious argument for the boonie cap is one of safety - to protect against sunburn?  Seriously?!  Give me a break...  

Anyone ever hear of sunscreen?   Limit exposure time.

The boonie cap idea is a silly one.  As mentioned it's simply the result of "want to look cool" mentality.  Nontheless, it is approved and wear should be extremely limited.  

If there is so much concern over the well-being of our members that we're worrying about the long term potential threat of skin cancer, then perhaps we should take a significantly more urgent approach to the physical condition of our members, particularly our senior members.   Based on my first hand observations, many are unfit are almost certainly high risk for heart attack, stroke, etc. as a result of their poor physical condition.  Yet, no PT program exists or is encouraged for senior members and, what's more, we continue to serve donuts (aka fat pills) at virtually every SAR/SAREX.  To me this certainly is a greater concern than sunburn - with is completely preventable without wearing a boonie cap.   Just sayin...

I'm all about a senior member PT program (and have written on and awaiting Wing Commander review and, hopefully, forwarding to the Board). There is a difference between someone walking through the door with a condition and putting them in place to develop one. Senior members being overweight and out of shape didn't happen because of the donuts and coffee they consumed on missions over the years. Granted, we could provide better choices but in reality, if they turn down the donut, it's not going to effect the mission. We put people out in the woods and fields and swamps as a required part of the operation. If we withhold a simple countermeasure, medical studies show it's only a matter of time before someone has a skin related issue. If we force people to wear hats in the field that leave the ears exposed when an alternative is available, then we are, in some part, to blame for that issue. Granted, it's likely that someone got much more exposure when they weren't searching while on vacation in Florida, but the point is that it's a simple change that can do a lot of good.

I do see the point of it becoming a fad. And there is no reason why anyone would need to wear it to a mostly in door meeting. I think prudence on the part of squadron and wing commanders will help mitigate this issue. Perhaps even guidance from National that it's a piece of field gear, much in the same way as a ruck sack or whistle.

[Ned]

My issue with Boonies is the Trojan Horse problem.

I accept the fact that brimmed headgear is helpful in preventing sunburn in certain situations, and that preventing sunburn is an important health and safety concern that should be part of the ORM for every CAP activity.

But my concern is that a lot of folks who are urging the adoption of the boonie for "safety" reasons really, really just want to look cool in their BDUs and BBDUs.

While estimates will vary, I suspect that bona-fide "sunburn prevention" situations will occur during a very, very small percentage of a members time in uniform.  My WAG is that even considering a member that does a lot of flightline time for SAR or airshows would be in the single digits -- less than 10% of their time in uniform when you consider unit meetings, schools, etc.

And yet, I'll bet a fair amount of adult beverages that boonies will quickly grab the lion's share of uniform headtime regardless of the position of the sun.

The best example of the phenomena I can point to is the California Medical Marijuana initiative.  The proponents of the measure correctly pointed out that some folks with serious illnesses benefit from the "compassionate" use of marijuana to reduce pain and/or the effects of chemotherapy.

The voters of California adopted the law, and soon medical marijuana "clinics" sprang up all over the state, dispensing "medical marijuana" to "sick" people on a cash and carry basis.  Some folks have noted that there are apparently a whole lot more "sick" people than we thought.  You can literally go to the Student Health Services of any major university in the Bay Area and get a Medical Marijuana card based on a diagnosis of "anxiety."  

Very helpful around finals time.  

The bottom line is that "the exception ate the rule" in California.  While "non-medical" possession and use of marijuana is still prohibited by law in California, for all practical purposes there is little if any enforcement.


Similarly, I'm concerned that allowing the appropriate use of brimmed headgear like a boonie in situations involving harsh sun will quickly morph into having to allow it anytime the sun is somewhere in the neighborhood, thus making the boonie the de facto standard for BDU/BBDU wear.

The challenge is creating appropriate regulations and command climate to limit the use to those situations that truly require their use for legitimate ORM purposes.

But I fear that will soon be a lost cause.

[mikeylikey]

But my concern is that a lot of folks who are urging the adoption of the boonie for "safety" reasons really, really just want to look cool in their BDUs and Buds.

And yet, I'll bet a fair amount of adult beverages that boonies will quickly grab the lion's share of uniform headtime regardless of the position of the sun.

I can't agree with you more!

The best example of the phenomena I can point to is the California Medical Marijuana initiative.  The proponents of the measure correctly pointed out that some folks with serious illnesses benefit from the "compassionate" use of marijuana to reduce pain and/or the effects of chemotherapy.

I never understood how that passed.  Everyone else going through Chemo in the US seem to get along fine without marijuana, just by taking anti-nausea and pain pills.  I hate to say it but California is SO much different than the rest of the US. 

[Eclipse]

You don't make something adopted for safety reasons "optional".

The safety discussion is the false-premise argument used to sneak gardening hats into the mix so our cadets can look "kewl like those dudes in Vietnam..."

The logic went like this - buy boonie, told you can't wear it, yell "safety!".

As a piece of tactical gear, I might even buy one myself, but the reg should be written clearly that they are not allowed for anything but field use, as dictated by the activity or unit commander, and are prohibited for unit meetings, formations, and other inappropriate wear.

We've got enough problems with those black pancakes, we don't need this added to the mix as well.

[chiles]

Agreed, but at least this thing has a use. I don't really care if it's one of those small umbrella hats. My point is that it's valid. I haven't worked in the field for a few years and unless I get back out there, I won't be purchasing one. I have one from my Katrina response with MD-TF2. It's say on top of a bookshelf since I got back. It's up to National to provide a clear regulation but it's up to the local commander to enforce it. But safety is a valid reason and my support for its implementation (fully recognizing that my support is worth less than nothing in this case) has always been because of its protective value to our people in the field.

[lordmonar]

You don't make something adopted for safety reasons "optional".

I got to call the BS Flag on this one. 

You allow options to be used at the best judgment of the onscene leader.

There are a lot of people who say we need this for safety reasons...but we can't because it is not authorised.  So it is not even an option to make it manditory if we want to.

Once it is authorised...then our GTLs and FLS can start mandating it as part of their team's gear.  We leave it optional so that if someone does not have one....they can still participate based on the safety needs at the time.

The safety discussion is the false-premise argument used to sneak gardening hats into the mix so our cadets can look "kewl like those dudes in Vietnam..."

If you don't like them....don't allow them....you may not need them in Illinois...but other places have other needs...and it is just as bad to say no to a possible safety tool because some people may think they are "kewl" to wear. 

As a piece of tactical gear, I might even buy one myself, but the reg should be written clearly that they are not allowed for anything but field use, as dictated by the activity or unit commander, and are prohibited for unit meetings, formations, and other inappropriate wear.

If you have been following the NB report...that is exactly how the regulation is being written.

We've got enough problems with those black pancakes, we don't need this added to the mix as well.

What problem is that?  As a unit commander you can still dictate what head gear YOUR squadron members can wear.  If you don't like your NBB cadet wearing his beret.....make him take it off.  The change in the regulation did not change that authorty at all.

You may pefer on set of tools..because the work for you...but don't take tools out of my bag because you don't like what some people think of the tool.

[O-Rex]

It's simple:

If you are in a "field environment" you wear boonies, with the CC's blessing.

If you are at your Squadron meeting in Downtown Podunk, and it's 'BDU-Day,' you wear the BDU cap.

No?

[lordmonar]

It's simple:

If you are in a "field environment" you wear boonies, with the CC's blessing.

If you are at your Squadron meeting in Downtown Podunk, and it's 'BDU-Day,' you wear the BDU cap.

No?

My thoughts exactly!

[DC]

There are concerns that wont be enforcd. I think it's crap. It is an insult to unit leaders to say a hat shouldn't be approved for ES use because you don't think they have a good enough handle on their unit to ensure it is only worn when appropriate.

[arajca]

What I think will in some areas is some members will 'forget' their bdu cap, but remember their boonie cap is in their field gear in their car. They will then use that to justify wearing the boonie at the meetings.

[chiles]

What I think will in some areas is some members will 'forget' their bdu cap, but remember their boonie cap is in their field gear in their car. They will then use that to justify wearing the boonie at the meetings.

I don't know about you guys, but if my cadets rolled in with that excuse, there would be certain consequences and restrictions of privileges. Making sure you have all your gear is a part of attention to detail. I'd have serious concerns if a cadet (or senior) continuously forgot a piece of their uniform. Makes me wonder what they might forget when they're packing for a mission in a hurry...

[RiverAux]

A Boonie hat on a flightline while marshalling?  Nope.  Neither they nor the standard CAP BDU patrol cap ever fit well enough to stay securly on your head in windy conditions. 

I wear a standard baseball-type cap on CG Auxiliary boat patrols where it is plenty windy and have never lost one.   Why, because you can adjust them to fit your head.  These are what most of the guys at the FBO wear, and I wouldn't have a  problem with CAP finding some appropriate version for us to wear (the current woodland camo baseball cap does look horrible though).

But, back to boonies in field situations.  Most of the CAP ground team work I've been involved in has been in fairly well-forested situations where you aren't in direct sunlight all that much.  I probably wouldn't authorize boonie caps for those activities.

Now, if we had some sort of activity where they were going to be out in direct sunlight a lot, such as working public affairs at a big airshow on the ramp, and where we weren't involved in aircraft marshalling, then I could go for that. 

[lordmonar]

What I think will in some areas is some members will 'forget' their bdu cap, but remember their boonie cap is in their field gear in their car. They will then use that to justify wearing the boonie at the meetings.

So...tell them to take it off...and remember their proper hat next time.

Again....if the problem is dealing with people who don't follow the rules....nothing we do to ban things is going to help....look at the ranger stuff in PAWG for example.

[mikeylikey]

^ So true!

[A.Member]

There are concerns that wont be enforcd. I think it's crap. It is an insult to unit leaders to say a hat shouldn't be approved for ES use because you don't think they have a good enough handle on their unit to ensure it is only worn when appropriate.

Perhaps it's in an insult to some but more likely it's just an accurate assessment of the situation.  I'd agree with you 100% if our track record as an organization showed better accountability and stonger commitment to following regulations.  However, that is not the case.  Rules seem to vary from unit to unit.  Until we do a better job of consistently meeting standards, training our members, setting expectations, and holding people accountable the concern about enforcement is more than valid.  Far too many people take the position that because CAP is a volunteer organization regulations/rules are, at best, suggestions that don't really need to be followed. 

[DC]

Say however you want, it is still punishing all for the actions of a few.

[A.Member]

Say however you want, it is still punishing all for the actions of a few.

Hmmmm, only a few huh?  You'd have to show me some real quantitative evidence to support that claim.  I'm admittedly only a small sample but that's not reflective of my experience.

[DC]

I have seen my fair share of uniform discrepancies, but nothing that is a direct contradiction of a regulation in the sense of wearing something when it is obviosly not authorized (we'll leave PAWG out of this).

It would be impossible to determine how strictly uniforms are enforced throughout CAP, so that is not valid.

I think it is rediculous to try to prevent something that will enhance the safety and comfort of personnel because you are afraid that they might wear it to a meeting. It's like not authorizing gloves for wear in cold weather because there is a possibility someone might wear them in the summer.

[A.Member]

It would be impossible to determine how strictly uniforms are enforced throughout CAP, so that is not valid.

Actually, it wouldn't.   Uniform wear and enforcement for cadets is rather consistent.  However, to do so for senior members is just not a priority.

Either way, the cap is coming so it's a moot point.  We'll see how it plays out soon enough besides my passion isn't really in arguing uniform items. 

[nesagsar]

It is an enforcement issue. Note the following pics.




Picture #1 is me in 2004 at Camp Atturbury. I put the thing on long enough to take the picture then stuffed it in my thigh pocket. Picture #2 is me at home in 2003. I used windows paint to make the flash and put the GT badge on it. Both are cool pictures and both are unauthorized headgear. The point is that I only did them for fun and nobody ever saw me while I had them on. Every other time I was in uniform I was squared away perfectly to the regs. If the boonies are going to be used I would suggest that it be an ES related item only. If a cadet wears it to regular unit meeting they should be reprimanded the same way they would for any other uniform infraction.