# Cadpat and Personal Info in the Surplus



## Pikache (26 Oct 2004)

[  Article    ]

Jim Farrell	
The Edmonton Journal

Tuesday, October 26, 2004
MORINVILLE - A military surplus dealer wonders how he will recoup his investment in what could be the civilian world's biggest collection of state-of-the-art camouflage clothing.
In August, the army threatened to arrest Scott Collacutt if he sold his 3,500 cadpat "Canadian Disruptive Pattern" uniforms.
Collacutt, owner of Morinville's CEL Army Surplus, purchased the uniforms sight-unseen from Edmonton Garrison as scrap textiles.
The uniforms were buried within shipments of assorted cast-off military clothing that Collacutt buys on spec. After buying the clothing, Collacutt and his employees rummage through the boxes to find things to sell. Anything that can't be sold is trashed.

The factory-second or damaged uniforms began appearing in his boxes in the summer of 2002, within months of first being supplied to Canadian soldiers, Collacutt said. This was about the time the military declared them "controlled goods" that must be mutilated or burned rather than sold when worn out or damaged.
"I wasn't told about this until I got a phone call on July 27 of this year," said Collacutt, who has already sold some of the uniforms to a movie supply company in Vancouver. Other uniforms have been sold to soldiers whose own needed replacing.
"Ninety per cent of my business is with the regular force or the cadets," he said.
To broaden his market, Collacutt gave 50 uniforms to a colleague who took them to Las Vegas, where he distributed them at a convention of military surplus dealers.

On Sept. 2, 37 days after the military informed him in a letter he would have to return the uniforms or face charges, Collacutt got his first indication he'd hit pay dirt.
"I'm looking for 500 pair of the Canadian camouflage uniforms in assorted sizes as soon as possible," a co-owner of Mad Dog Wholesale in Chico, Calif., informed him in a fax.
"I will need this amount approximately every 60 days," Dutch Padgett wrote.
American hunters would love to own one of the Canadian uniforms, Padgett told The Journal on Monday.
"Any kind of (camouflage) is good," said Padgett. "Cadpat is special because it's the newest thing out there."
American hunters would pay plenty for the newest thing in camouflage, Collacutt said.
"The uniforms I have could retail (for) $150 and up. I could probably get $90 wholesale."

Researchers first began working on
the Canadian design in 1988, looking for a "disruptive" pattern that would trick the human eye.
Eventually, they came up with a computer-generated design of small rectangles, called "pixelation," which had to be reproduced on fabric with exacting accuracy.
At one time the U.S. Marines considered adopting the design for its new pattern but the Canadian government owns the copyright.
To assist the Marines, the Canadians supplied information to help them develop their own computer-generated pixelated uniform.
To date, American military surplus dealers have been unable to get their hands on any new marine uniforms, Padgett said.
"They want to control it."

So does the Canadian army.
"We would prefer if this not be walking out there," said Maj. Scott Lundy, public affairs officer for the Edmonton-based Land Force Western Area.
Collacutt can understand why the Canadian army changed its mind about the uniforms.
Following the destruction of the World Trade Center, militaries everywhere clamped down on sales of equipment, fearing terrorists or others might disguise themselves as bona fide soldiers, he said.

The commanding officer of Edmonton Garrison's 1 General Support Battalion denies there's a security risk. Because of illicit sales, plenty of uniforms have made it on to the civilian market, Lt.-Col. John MacKay said.
Nevertheless, these uniforms shouldn't have been put up for sale.
"It was a bad error," MacKay said. "We have fixed the process."
In exchange for returning 30 large boxes of uniforms, the military is offering 30 boxes of "scrap textile" plus an extra 15 boxes "in compensation for your time and effort," Collacutt said.

When he originally bought the boxes of mixed cast-off clothing, Collacutt paid approximately $2 a pound.
To return the uniforms scavenged from those loads, he now wants $159,000, plus $5,000 in legal fees, $3,600 in lost wages and a one-year extension on his contracts with the military.
If a deal is struck, the military will haul away the uniforms and burn or shred them.

jfarrell@thejournal.canwest.com

***

Oops?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Oct 2004)

Yeah Oops.   IMHO that stuff should never have ended up being sold for surplus.   It should have all been burned or shredded...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2004)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> To return the uniforms scavenged from those loads, he now wants $159,000, plus $5,000 in legal fees, $3,600 in lost wages and a one-year extension on his contracts with the military.



He's letting them off waaayy to cheap. Stupidity should not be rewarded.


----------



## scm77 (26 Oct 2004)

It said the US Marines wanted to use it but Canada had the copyright for it.  Couldn't we have made quite a large amount of money by liscencing it to the USMC?


----------



## Scratch_043 (27 Oct 2004)

I'll bet that DND makes alot off the 'information' that they supplied the US at any rate.

The Marines have released their own 'MARPAT' that looks alot the same, save for the fact that the colours are different, and other subtle differences.

There is another thread on the forums discussing the new MARPAT, but, as of now, I am too tired to look for it right now.


----------



## bossi (27 Oct 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> It said the US Marines wanted to use it but Canada had the copyright for it.   Couldn't we have made quite a large amount of money by liscencing it to the USMC?



I could have sworn I remember reading/hearing that the USMC paid Canada for the software license ...


----------



## Scratch_043 (27 Oct 2004)

That's what I meant, guess I have to work on my illiteration.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2005)

NEWS Mon, February 21, 2005  

Surplus a privacy issue
AJAY BHARDWAJ, EDMONTON SUN

Alberta's privacy commissioner is calling for a federal investigation into how soldiers' personal information was left on laptops turned over to an army surplus store. "Oh yeah," said Frank Work yesterday. "It would appear the military may have breached the federal Privacy Act, and so the federal commissioner would be interested in that." 
Morinville-based CEL Surplus owner Scott Collacutt said he's received restricted military goods - including night vision goggles, Starlite Scopes, chemical-testing equipment and laptops containing personal information on soldiers - in his shipments over the past two years. 

Collacutt said he's returned about $2.5-million worth of military goods he's mistakenly received. 
The military was fortunate Collacutt didn't sell the computers to a buyer, Work said. 
"They got lucky. It sounds like this guy is a pretty decent chap." 
Had Collacutt not returned the computers, Work said he would have bought them himself to protect the soldiers' personal information. 
"Protecting these people's privacy is the most important thing," he said. 
"It's not very encouraging, but it does happen. You know, you send 200 laptops down to have the discs wiped and someone misses some. It's not much comfort to the folks whose information is on there, but it does happen." 

Work said he plans to alert the federal privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddard. 
Lt.-Col. John Mckay said the military has tightened the loopholes that allowed some sensitive equipment to be sent to Collacutt. He also added some of Collacutt's claims are "sensational." 

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie said he was surprised to hear of the foul-up. 
"It's not as if they take a front-end loader and fill it up and drop them into cardboard boxes," he said. "It's not that much stuff. 
"In actual fact, it's very surprising that it wasn't noticed as part of the process ... This sounds like it was incompetence." 

But MacKenzie said the Canadian public needn't be alarmed to hear of some of the equipment Collacutt had received and returned. Given the Canadian Forces are chronically short of up-to-date equipment, he said, the material sent off to surplus operations would have to be completely obsolete. 
"I can go and buy stuff that was every bit as good as I was using 12 years ago," he said. "Night vision devices, there's lots of those around ... there's all sorts of sophisticated stuff around." 

MacKenzie said he figured the night vision goggles, in particular, must be "extremely old, because we don't have enough of them already. But I am a little out of date."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2005)

..and does not seem to be the first time that things went somewhere that they should'nt have....

http://army.ca/forums/threads/16339.90.html           {Scroll down to Bossi's post}


...of course, this guy could just be looking for free advertising also.....


----------



## Slim (21 Feb 2005)

Attention! shoppers

ARMY SURPLUS STORE GETS CLASSIFIED EQUIPMENT

By AJAY BHARDWAJ, SUN MEDIA Mon, February 21, 2005

A MILITARY supply store operator says he's returned more than $2.5-million worth of sensitive and restricted equipment to Edmonton Garrison over two years. Scott Collacutt, owner and president of CEL Surplus, said he's received laptop computers containing secret data on soldiers' pay, personnel social insurance numbers, service evaluations and troop movements. 

He said he's also gotten shipments containing military equipment he's forbidden by the federal government to sell -- such as night vision goggles, radio sets and military global positioning devices. 
"Had this gotten into the wrong hands, this is stuff that could have been used not only against our country but against our soldiers," said Collacutt. 
Collacutt has a contract with the Canadian Forces to sell surplus and disposed clothing and textiles, though it expires next month. The deal also forces him to return any sensitive materials he might receive. 

The 43-year-old ex-soldier ran into problems last year when he was mistakenly sent military camouflage uniforms called CADPAT, or "Canadian Disruptive Pattern." 
The military threatened to jail or fine him if he continued selling the camouflage. 
Later they cleared him to sell the gear, but now he says his business has been "crippled" by the blow to his firm's reputation. 
Collacutt is asking $41,000 from the armed forces to cover his losses. 

Lt.-Col. John Mckay, commanding officer of 1 General Support Battalion, said the base investigated and found Collacutt mistakenly received CADPATs. 
Since then, he said, the security loopholes have been closed. 
But he added military records of what was sent to Collacutt are difficult to obtain because personnel come and go, leaving gaps in the information. 
"Did he return some things? Yes," said Mckay. "He was good enough to return some things, but to the extent that he's claiming, with the sensationalism that he's claiming, we don't have facts of that. 
"Some items he obviously got in the past that he shouldn't have received." 

Mckay allowed there's a possibility Collacutt could have received computers that contained personal information about soldiers. 
"If he got information like that, it would have been an error. But I find it hard to believe he got sensitive information like that." 

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/02/21/937620-sun.html


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2005)

NEWS Sun, February 20, 2005   

Return to sender

AJAY BHARDWAJ, EDMONTON SUN


A Morinville military supply store operator says he's returned more than $2.5-million worth of sensitive and restricted equipment to Edmonton Garrison over two years. Scott Collacutt, owner and president of CEL Surplus, said he's received laptop computers containing secret data on soldiers' pay, personnel social insurance numbers, service evaluations and troop movements. 

He said he also got shipments containing military equipment he's forbidden by the feds to sell - such as night vision goggles, radio sets and military GPS devices. 
"Had this gotten into the wrong hands, this is stuff that could have been used not only against our country but against our soldiers," said Collacutt. 
One shipment contained aerial photos and maps of the 2002 G-8 summit site at Kananaskis, several months after the summit of world leaders ended, he said. 

Collacutt has a contract with the Canadian Forces to sell surplus and disposed clothing and textiles. The deal also forces him to return any sensitive materials he might receive. 
The 43-year-old ex-soldier ran into problems last year when he was mistakenly sent military camouflage uniforms called CADPAT, or "Canadian Disruptive Pattern." 
The forces threatened to jail or fine him if he continued selling the camouflage. Later they cleared him to sell the gear, but now he says his business has been "crippled" by the blow to his firm's reputation. 
He's asking the military for $41,000 to recoup his losses. 

Lt.-Col. John Mckay, commanding officer of 1 General Support Battalion, said the base investigated and found Collacutt mistakenly received CADPATs. Since then, he said, the security loopholes have been closed. 
But he added military records of what was sent to Collacutt are difficult to obtain because personnel come and go, leaving gaps in the information. 
"Did he return some things? Yes," said Mckay. 
"He was good enough to return some things, but to the extent that he's claiming with the sensationalism that he's claiming ... we don't have facts of that. 
"Some items he obviously got in the past that he shouldn't have received. It's a big business, getting rid of this stuff, and some things slip through. 

"We don't have records of a lot of the stuff going to him. If he says he got it, OK. We don't have proof of that on our end." 
Mckay admitted Collacutt could have received computers that contained personal information about soldiers. 
"If he got information like that, it would have been an error. But I find it hard to believe he got sensitive information like that. Nothing should be going out the door like that." 
But Collacutt worries that his contract, which expires next month, might lead the military to sell obsolete equipment straight to individuals. 

"The average Joe buys a box of military clothing to get a uniform out of it," he said. "He opens it up, finds a set of night vision goggles that work. How fast will he return them? 
"I think the military was very fortunate that we were a filter for them and we sent back all this stuff. We could have outfitted a small army with what we had." 

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/02/20/936859-sun.html

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_uniforms2001029

Let me get this straight . . . this guy is ex-CF and knew enough to return NVG's and GPS units -   but thought he was good to go in selling CADPAT?


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Feb 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight . . . this guy is ex-CF and knew enough to return NVG's and GPS units -   but thought he was good to go in selling CADPAT?



Yeah so, maybe he got out of the CF a while ago and did not know the uniforms would be considered restricted.  Equipment like NVGs, GPS etc, are little bit more sensitive than you know some cloth with a digital print.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Yeah so, maybe he got out of the CF a while ago and did not know the uniforms would be considered restricted. Equipment like NVGs, GPS etc, are little bit more sensitive than you know some cloth with a digital print.



He hasn't been out that long; his store has only been open for a few years.   Anyway, I am fairly certain that dealers are given a concise list of what they can and can not sell, and our brand new CADPAT certainly falls into that catergory.

Of course, he may have sold it in error. IMO, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt as he has already proved his integrity by returning more sensitive pieces of kit.

At the end of the day, I'm sure this guy has got a family to feed like the rest of us. I hope the CF doesn't cancel his contracts for surplus buying rights.


----------



## rw4th (22 Feb 2005)

> He said he also got shipments containing military equipment he's forbidden by the feds to sell - such as night vision goggles, radio sets and military GPS devices.



Oh no! he can't sell shitty nvg's (which you can buy in sporting good stores), radios you can get on ebay, and GPS units which are inferior to most civilian models   :

The dumb f**ks in supply need to get their act together. If they ship it to him, they can't hold him responsible for selling it. In fact, ther person who gets punished should be the dumbass who sent the stuff in the first place. 

Oh, and no records my ass; somebody is covering their 6 for sending out the stuff.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (22 Feb 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> radios you can get on ebay,



MIlitary radios? Really? Well, so much for that class on what to do when you're being overrun: take off manpack and shoot the shit out of it.


----------



## chrisf (22 Feb 2005)

Go to e-bay... type in "PRC"... you'll probably find mostly 77 and 104 accessories, what's not is still vietnam era stuff...


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (22 Feb 2005)

Ah...seen.

Makes sense.


----------



## chrisf (22 Feb 2005)

Are either the 77 or 104 sets capable of encrypted transmissions? I've never actually used a 104, and I've only ever used a 77 a couple of times, not entirely familiar with it... that being said, as far as I can see, there's no reason why that equipment couldn't be sold as surplus... and at the same time, I can see many reasons why a civillian would want to get their hands on either.

The new radios on the other hand, I can see some reasons why they should be sold as surplus, as well as why a PLGR shouldn't be sold, but I can't see any reason why N/S night vision couldn't be sold.


----------



## LF(CMO) (1 Mar 2005)

[b]"The dumb f**ks in supply need to get their act together. If they ship it to him, they can't hold him responsible for selling it. In fact, ther person who gets punished should be the dumbass who sent the stuff in the first place."[/b]

 I'm well acquainted with Scott C from CEL Surplus.  He has always been great to do business with.  He is honest and always willing to 'make a deal'!  As stated above, it wasn't Scott who screwed up.  Now to cover their own ****'s, they are going to harass him out of business when his only offence was to capitalize on their mistakes as any good free enterpriser has to be able to do in order to survive.

 I advised Scott to get political and get some pressure on these deadbeats that are attempting to crucify him out of business.  It's going to be interesting where this thing goes.    To Scott C of CEL Surplus and all freedom loving people!!


----------



## RV (1 Mar 2005)

As far as selling of old military equipment goes you also have to be aware of what is classified under the ITAR agreement (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) as equipment that must be destroyed rather than sold off.   If anything classified under ITAR that is supposed to be destroyed is sold off, in theory, a big stick should reach out and whack you.

   I remember not too long ago some old parts from Cougars being demilitarized (i.e. destroyed beyond repair), at the unit level and scrapped at work.   It was only a few metal rings, not good for much, BUT...   the supply people did not like it that 'we' destroyed it instead of turning it in for Supply to destroy it.   This item was classified under ITAR as a part that must be demilitarized and not sold even as scrap despite its age, lack of functioning, and "good-for-nothingness".

   I am pretty sure night vision and radios come under the ITAR agreement.   Whether or not a superior version exists "downtown" or not is not the point nor is how much of a "nice guy" the mil surplus guy is.   Other governments who do business with us get very testy about where their military hardware ends up.   If the guy is ex-military he should know well enough to just give the stuff back and not give into to the "dollars over patriotism" gang.   I think the military should compensate him by giving him back what he spent, NOT what he could potentially earn by selling this stuff; that is holding the country hostage for profit.

------Any item not disposed of properly has the potential to be used by those who would do us harm------

~~~Imagine this~~~ 

You are manning an OP in some crappy out of the way hole and some one shows up in a complete set of CADPAT, that he bought 42nd hand in some geopolitical hotspot that started out at the store of the 'nice guy trying to earn a living by selling surplus CADPAT and other military equipment', speaking fluent english and French looking for all the world like he just had his truck shot out from under him and is on his last legs.   You are concerned for his welfare as he drags himself towards you and you dispatch your subordinate to go outside the wire and help a fellow Canadian soldier.   You subordinate arrives just in time to help this stranger before he succumbs to his wounds and brings him back to the OP.   Then the ungrateful swine blows your OP up because he is a terrorist and you did not recognize him because of his clothing..... could happen, especially at night.   Think about it, how often do you see people go through an OP without being challenged just because they were 'dressed right'.

Well, enough of this ranting have to go eat....

Cheers,

DR-V.



>>>The new radios on the other hand, I can see some reasons why they should be sold as surplus, as well as why a PLGR shouldn't be sold, but I can't see any reason why N/S night vision couldn't be sold.


----------



## rw4th (2 Mar 2005)

> If anything classified under ITAR that is supposed to be destroyed is sold off, in theory, a big stick should reach out and whack you.



RV, you're not getting my point. If someone deemed that that stuff should NOT be sold, then how did it make its way to a surplus store in the first place? The problem here isn't the store; it's the CF. The people who should be punished and whacked with the big stick are the supply fucks who didn't keep track of the stuff in the first place. 

CEL Surplus didn't steal the stuff from the CF, nor did they defraud the CF to obtain the equipment: it was freely purchased from the CF supply system. To then turn around and want to punish CEL Surplus is asinine.

Your safety here is not being compromised by the private entrepreneur doing what a private entrepreneur does to stay alive, it's being compromised by the incompetent supply people who didn't keep track of the equipment. They are the ones you need to direct your anger at.



> You are manning an OP in some crappy out of the way hole and some one shows up in a complete set of CADPAT, that he bought 42nd hand in some geopolitical hotspot that started out at the store of the 'nice guy trying to earn a living by selling surplus CADPAT and other military equipment', speaking fluent english and French looking for all the world like he just had his truck shot out from under him and is on his last legs.   You are concerned for his welfare as he drags himself towards you and you dispatch your subordinate to go outside the wire and help a fellow Canadian soldier.   You subordinate arrives just in time to help this stranger before he succumbs to his wounds and brings him back to the OP.   Then the ungrateful swine blows your OP up because he is a terrorist and you did not recognize him because of his clothing..... could happen, especially at night.   Think about it, how often do you see people go through an OP without being challenged just because they were 'dressed right'.



The argument doesn't quite stand up. CADPAT "like" uniforms are widelly available anyways, and what if it was a US Woodland of British DPM uniform? Or a even a civilian for that matter ...


----------



## Infanteer (2 Mar 2005)

I'm still trying to figure out why the CF hides the CADPAT design in Area 51....


----------



## RV (3 Mar 2005)

Hey there rw4th,

   Unfortunately mistakes like this do indeed happen.   I recall quite a few years ago a destroyer (can't remember which but I believe it was a Mackenzie or a Restigouche class boat - Navy guys help me out here..) was paid off and sold while it still contained apparently 'sensitive' parts on it.   The guy who bought was in the States I believe and would not give the stuff back.   I can't remember how it turned out but the mistake was a bit embarrassing for the West coast fleet.

   I do agree with the point you are making in that it is not the store operator that made the initial mistake and in no way do I infer that he stole the equipment.   Were I in the COC of the person who authorized the shipment I would certainly root out who it was since everything is signed off by someone,   and have a quiet off to the side 'chat' with them about not embarrassing the CF through incompetance.

   I stand by my point that the guy (who by the sounds of it knew what he had and knew he should not have had it) should have returned the stuff or at least asked questions as to why they got rid of what they did before trying to flog it.   If he had returned it to the military asking only in return what he purchased it for rather than trying to get 'fair market value' for it, he would not be in trouble.   By the sounds of the article he was being offered compensation for it quite generously by receiving way more than he started with only in older material rather than the shiny high tech stuff that 'everyone' wants.

   I believe he is a victim of his own greed more than a government conspiracy to put him out of business.   Lastly, while I don't blame him for trying, there comes a time to take your feet out of the sand and take the offer given to you before you hold out too long and get nothing or less in return.


My question to you is, what argument I am trying to make "doesn't stand up"?   You allude that is doesn't but you offer no rebuttal that convinces me because I beleive that private citizens have a stake in national defence, most of them just don't see it.   If the person that owns this surplus store is ex-military, as someone previously stated, then he knows better.

While I certainly believe that anyone who approaches your OP is potentially dangerous, even your own troops, it is hard not to get caught up in the moment seeing someone is apparent distress and not wanting to help them, it is human nature.   If that someone is dressed in our uniform it can lower a persons guard just enough to not notice critical things that can get you killed.

In closing I add, trust me when I say, you won't offend me with your opinions, you are entitled to them just I am to mine, and I am certainly NOT angry no matter how passionately I feel about this subject.      ;D 

Cheers,

R-V



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> RV, you're not getting my point. If someone deemed that that stuff should NOT be sold, then how did it make its way to a surplus store in the first place? The problem here isn't the store; it's the CF. The people who should be punished and whacked with the big stick are the supply fucks who didn't keep track of the stuff in the first place.
> 
> CEL Surplus didn't steal the stuff from the CF, nor did they defraud the CF to obtain the equipment: it was freely purchased from the CF supply system. To then turn around and want to punish CEL Surplus is asinine.
> 
> ...


----------



## RV (3 Mar 2005)

I think it is in Area 41...we don't have enough budget left to afford 51.     ;D





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to figure out why the CF hides the CADPAT design in Area 51....


----------



## Ghost (4 Mar 2005)

> You are manning an OP in some crappy out of the way hole and some one shows up in a complete set of CADPAT, that he bought 42nd hand in some geopolitical hotspot that started out at the store of the 'nice guy trying to earn a living by selling surplus CADPAT and other military equipment', speaking fluent english and French looking for all the world like he just had his truck shot out from under him and is on his last legs.  You are concerned for his welfare as he drags himself towards you and you dispatch your subordinate to go outside the wire and help a fellow Canadian soldier.  You subordinate arrives just in time to help this stranger before he succumbs to his wounds and brings him back to the OP.  Then the ungrateful swine blows your OP up because he is a terrorist and you did not recognize him because of his clothing..... could happen, especially at night.  Think about it, how often do you see people go through an OP without being challenged just because they were 'dressed right'.



I think the beard and turban would give them away.


----------



## Big Foot (4 Mar 2005)

Ghost, there are Sikhs and Muslims serving in the CF. Remember that before the next time you post about something being wrong with wear combats with a turban and a beard.


----------



## Ghost (4 Mar 2005)

Fine dude you can go attend to him while I get out of the blast radius.


----------



## RV (4 Mar 2005)

Hey Ghost,

Not all terrorists come with beards and turbans.   i.e. FLQ, IRA, Shining Path, etc etc ...

That is a pretty narrow viewpoint, hopefully, (and I am presuming), you were just trying to be funny.   

and remember, 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'.   It is all a matter of perspective.

Cheers,

R-V.





			
				Ghost said:
			
		

> I think the beard and turban would give them away.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (4 Mar 2005)

Yeah and I'm not even going to say anything about the General rank in his avatar. Oh wait, I just did...


----------



## rw4th (4 Mar 2005)

Here's a comment on the CADPAT stuff by the guy himself in a similar thread in the equipment forum



			
				CEL said:
			
		

> My name is Scott Collacutt owner of CEL Surplus. I retired in May 2000, and have been running a military shop since. Over the past few years I have had the misfortune of receiving some sensitive items disposed of by the CF. Every time something was received in error it was returned without any harm to the CF or my business. For the past 2 years I have been receiving CADPAT clothing, the first time I came across it I contacted supply (R&D) and was told that it was a clothing article and that it was part of the surplus contract like the rest of the surplus I receive. CADPAT clothing is not a controlled item like so many believe, the Government of Canada agencies CTAT and the Controlled Goods Registration Program do not recognize CADPAT as an controlled item and have stated that it is a military policy only. LCol. J. MacKay of Edmonton Supply personally stated this in a letter dated November 24, 2004 written to CEL Surplus in retraction of previous comments mistakenly made by the CF to CEL Surplus. According to the CGCM (supply catalogue) CADPAT clothing does not have to be destroyed (Demil classification "A") and is classified non CTAT or Controlled (classification "N") only the CF's own CANFORGEN dated August, 2002 stated that all CADPAT clothing was to be shredded. Thank you for the chance to explain part of my side of this story. Once the smoke clears I will be glad to share more .....



According to him, and the information he has been given, CADPAT clothing are NOT controlled items.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Here's a comment on the CADPAT stuff by the guy himself in a similar thread in the equipment forum
> 
> According to him, and the information he has been given, CADPAT clothing are NOT controlled items.



You've provided a "quote" that may be taken as 'fabricated' if you don't provide a credible link to back it up.


----------



## rw4th (4 Mar 2005)

> You've provided a "quote" that may be taken as 'fabricated' if you don't provide a credible link to back it up.



Agreed, but since no one responded to it in the other thread and this one seems to have more activity, I though I would transpose it here. I don't know whether the claims made by CEL are true or false and I'm actually hoping someone here (maybe a supply type) who has access to the relevant information can actually get to the bottom of this.

From CEL's information it would seem the CF itself has conflicting directives as to what to do with CADPAT clothing upon it's decommissioning.



> Were I in the COC of the person who authorized the shipment I would certainly root out who it was since everything is signed off by someone,   and have a quiet off to the side 'chat' with them about not embarrassing the CF through incompetance.



So the guy who actually released the â Å“protectedâ ? materials should get a lesser punishment then you'd want to impose on the private entrepreneur for selling what the CF released to him? If we go after CEL with a big stick, then at the very least the CF member(s) responsible for releasing the uniforms should be looking at a court martial/club ed/discharge. If this is truly as big an offense as some here are making it out to be, then the punishment should be proportional.


----------



## RV (7 Mar 2005)

If I have nothing to do tomorrow I will check out the CGCS on CADPAT stuff and confirm the classifications but I think they are probably legit.

CANFORGENs have the power to direct the system and the people in it to do things in a certain manner and while CGCS (CGCM is outdated) may say one thing, a CANFORGEN has power in it's own right.   If the CANFORGEN states CADPAT will be shredded, then it must be so.

For rw4th:

I do not recall, and could not find in my posts, where I made any statements as to punishing the store owner, i.e. hitting him with the big stick; I believe I said this is what the person who improperly disposed of the item should receive.   I think the store owner should stop being greedy, give the stuff back and take the deal he was offered, before he loses more than he started out with.   If he has the resources to fight this then that is his call.   It is only my opinion that he should just return the stuff at cost and be done with it.   For you to assume I would punish the messenger greater than the root is absurd.

It is a bold statement that you make assuming my quiet chat off to the side would be a simple 'slap on the wrist'.   Considering you don't know me at all you have no real idea how I would deal with this situation and you seem assume a quiet chat off to the side is automatically a 'non-punishment' (this is how I view a slap on the wrist which should be used as a motivator not as a disciplinary action).   

First I would investigate what happened and then decide from there what needed to be done.   It may have been a procedural error, or it may have been incompetance.   I would address the problems I found depending on my investigation.   If charges were warranted, rest assured, they would happen, if not, then procedures would be amended as required.   

Any number of possibilities that may have created this situation, which I can only speculate about, will create an equal or greater number of outcomes.

I would like you to show me the quote(s) from my posts that leads you to believe I would punish the shop owner greater than the person or procedure that started this foul up.   I ask that you send it privately so no one else has to follow this sidebar from the real topic.   I am curious as to what I said that led you to believe this.   I try to be clear about what I say so my curiousity is peaked.




Cheers,

R-V






			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> Agreed, but since no one responded to it in the other thread and this one seems to have more activity, I though I would transpose it here. I don't know whether the claims made by CEL are true or false and I'm actually hoping someone here (maybe a supply type) who has access to the relevant information can actually get to the bottom of this.
> 
> From CEL's information it would seem the CF itself has conflicting directives as to what to do with CADPAT clothing upon it's decommissioning.
> 
> So the guy who actually released the â Å“protectedâ ? materials should get a lesser punishment then you'd want to impose on the private entrepreneur for selling what the CF released to him? If we go after CEL with a big stick, then at the very least the CF member(s) responsible for releasing the uniforms should be looking at a court martial/club ed/discharge. If this is truly as big an offense as some here are making it out to be, then the punishment should be proportional.


----------



## rw4th (8 Mar 2005)

RV: Fair enought. My comments were not all directed at you, but at the tone of some other posts in the thread.  Anyway, I guess we more or less agree so it's all good.

If the classification of the CADPAT goods pans out as described, then does a CANFORGEN ordering their destruction have any legal bearing over a civilian?


----------



## RV (8 Mar 2005)

My apologies to you rw4th I must have misunderstood what direction your argument was heading.  You did use some of what 
I said as a quote and I reacted to it.   

The CANFORGEN does exist and is explicit in regards to CADPAT:

CANFORGEN 120/02 DSSPM 0089 300845Z OCT 02

"SERVICEABLE CADPAT RPT CADPAT ITEMS WILL BE RETAINED AND RE-ISSUED WHILE ITEMS BEYOND ECONOMICAL REPAIR SHALL BE DESTROYED LOCALLY IAW REF B."  

This excerpt is part of the CANFORGEN.  Ref B is referring to the Canadian Forces Supply Manual, specifically the disposal of unserviceable items.

If you search on the DIN you will find this in the CANFORGEN website.

If you go onto the DMMD website you can find a reference to the disposal of CADPAT which states that:

DMMD 048 - DISPOSAL OF CANADIAN DISRUPTIVE PATTERN(CADPAT) UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT:

Excerpt:
"AS PER REF B SUPPLY OFFICERS MUST DIRECT THEIR DISPOSAL SECTIONS AND ALL RESERVE UNITS UNDER THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND THAT CADPAT UNIFORMS MUST BE REDUCED TO RAGS PRIOR TO BEING DECLARED TO CROWN ASSETS. REDUCING TO RAGS MEANS TEARING OR SHREDDING THE UNIFORM TO ENSURE IT CAN NEVER BE RETURNED TO ITS WHOLE STATE."
"SHOULD YOU REQUIRE FURTHER INFORMATION YOU MAY CONTACT DMMD 3-2-2"

It is quite clear that CADPAT is not for sale to the public.  The CANFORGEN is dated from Oct 02 and the DMMD webiste is Sep 04.

As per anything in the military the latest instruction is the one that carries the most weight.

I am not sure how CANFORGENs affect the civilian public directly but I would imagine that if the Canadian government wants these items back they will get them back legally in some fashion or another.  Whether or not buddies business survives the battle remains to be seen.  Like I said, perhaps it will be seen eventually as a case where he should have cut his losses and not succumbed to his greed.

Hope this clears at least some of the fog.


R-V


P.S. These items are security rated as  - UNCLASSIFIED

Link to CANFORGEN site: http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/intro_e.asp





			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> RV: Fair enought. My comments were not all directed at you, but at the tone of some other posts in the thread.   Anyway, I guess we more or less agree so it's all good.
> 
> If the classification of the CADPAT goods pans out as described, then does a CANFORGEN ordering their destruction have any legal bearing over a civilian?


----------



## LF(CMO) (8 Mar 2005)

Here's a comment on the CADPAT stuff by the guy himself in a similar thread in the equipment forum


Quote from: CEL on March 01, 2005, 00:14:53
My name is Scott Collacutt owner of CEL Surplus. I retired in May 2000, and have been running a military shop since. Over the past few years I have had the misfortune of receiving some sensitive items disposed of by the CF. Every time something was received in error it was returned without any harm to the CF or my business. For the past 2 years I have been receiving CADPAT clothing, the first time I came across it I contacted supply (R&D) and was told that it was a clothing article and that it was part of the surplus contract like the rest of the surplus I receive. CADPAT clothing is not a controlled item like so many believe, the Government of Canada agencies CTAT and the Controlled Goods Registration Program do not recognize CADPAT as an controlled item and have stated that it is a military policy only. LCol. J. MacKay of Edmonton Supply personally stated this in a letter dated November 24, 2004 written to CEL Surplus in retraction of previous comments mistakenly made by the CF to CEL Surplus. According to the CGCM (supply catalogue) CADPAT clothing does not have to be destroyed (Demil classification "A") and is classified non CTAT or Controlled (classification "N") only the CF's own CANFORGEN dated August, 2002 stated that all CADPAT clothing was to be shredded. Thank you for the chance to explain part of my side of this story. Once the smoke clears I will be glad to share more 

 As I'm well acquainted with Scotty, the above is genuine.  He is now embroiled in a struggle to survive as they are attempting to ruin him and put him out of business.  The last four shipments that he has received have all been deliberately destroyed by slicing.  Plainclothes RCMP were called in to witness and document.  He has retained legal counsel.

 I will provide more info as it becomes available.  His odds, in my opinion, are about 50/50 at best!


----------



## fsdamo (19 Mar 2005)

firstly, - you all may have to excuse my ignorance on the subject and im definately not trying to insult anyone here, just trying to get a little information.

just writing in reply to the person that commented on how he sees how plgrs should not be sold as surplus, - how do you justify this? they are not all that accurate anyway. what is your reasoning for this? have they previously been sold as surplus? could someone please expand on this a bit. 

any comments would be much appreciated.

cheers,
damo


----------

